← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Bill Barr And The Epstein Related Deposition Given To Congress (Part 10-12) (5/22/26)
00:35:26
Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that...
Loading summary
Transcript9 lines
- [00:01]
Host
Want to be a star?
- [00:02]
Bill Barr
No problem. Anyone can shine on TikTok.
- [00:05]
Host
Post your first video today. Real life, real story. Real you download TikTok and get started.
- [00:15]
Bill Barr
Post People show up day after day for their patience and for what comes next. At Post University, nursing programs are designed to support busy schedules so you can keep working while pursuing your education with support that stays focused on your goals. Post people do not wait. They keep moving forward one step at a time. You can start where you are and build what is next. Become a Post person. Explore nursing programs at Post Edu what's up everyone?
- [00:46]
Host
And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right back to that Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress. Question and again, to the best of your recollection, you never got an urgent report regarding Prince Andrew? Answer I don't recall quite possibly, but I don't recall that, you know, an urgent report could also be done. I mean, it's a judgment call. A U.S. attorney can want to question somebody as sensitive as a member of the Royal family, you know, our closest ally, and they might file an urgent report saying, I want to, you know, that we're going to be pursuing this guy as a witness and it's going to make the papers. Question so that's definitely someone that there should have been an urgent report filed? Answer yeah, question now, whether it made it to your bar cuts her off or him off? Well, no, I mean, they can say he's just a witness. But the fact I think one of the reasons when you go and hold a press conference and you attack him in front of the mansion and so forth, that is actually something that the U.S. attorney should have run by me. Not that I would have opposed it, but I would like to know about it. And again, red flags for everybody out there. So you mean to tell me the attorney General wants to know if you want to speak to a Royal as a witness, but they have nothing to do with the deal that Jeffrey Epstein received from the Justice Department? Yeah, okay, sure. Who is buying that? Answer I don't think he told me, but I wasn't mad at him for the substance. Question. This is potentially a poorly worded question, but so based off that, your recollection, is it possible that they just didn't inform you that there were other prominent people under investigation or as witnesses? Answer I think it's possible that the SDNY did not inform me, you know, how deep they were in the investigation of particular individuals. That would not surprise me. By the same token, I feel that my view of that office and the people involved would be that if they had any evidence establishing a crime, they would pursue it as such. And I also feel, you know, it's sort of amazing after all these years, you know, going back to the 90s when you had people reporting and the victims and a lot of speculation and people finding connections, I still have not heard no evidence has come out that would establish criminality for most of those individuals. Question huh? Answer that have been named and I think it would come out. If there was any feeling that within the government on either side that someone was covering it up, I think it would get out. I mean, SDNY and New York is well known as being home of many, many a leak on investigation. So. So in your experience, you have no doubt if SDNY prosecutors saw evidence of a crime, they would have followed that evidence and if it led to an indictment, they would have indicted. And if it led to a conviction, they would have followed the facts where they led. Is that fair? Answer yes for that group. I also feel, you know, they would have done the same for Clinton, I believe. Remember this stuff also went on under President Biden's administration and, and they were looking for something to bring against President Trump and this was, if they had any evidence, this would have been low hanging fruit. I was never informed of the evidence and I'm skeptical that there is any. Do you recall when Amore, the SDNY's more formal investigation into Epstein began? No. I mean, I may have at the time. I just don't remember. Likely prior to you becoming Attorney General? Not necessarily, but quite possibly. Okay. Do you recall generally when you became aware of the ongoing investigation? No, I don't. I obviously became aware of it around the time of his arrest. It could have been shortly before his arrest. I mean, usually we would be told of an arrest like that going down in Teterboro. A more high profile arrest the moment someone lands in an airport? Answer yes. Question in cases like this one, we'll stick with the high profile cases. Do any of the kind of investigatory decisions rise to the Attorney General's office whether or not to issue a search warrant or apply for a search warrant or apply for a subpoena. Would any of that have arisen from your office? Answer I wouldn't say it would be very unusual for it, but there could be unusual circumstances like you're going to search a very sensitive area, you know, that's going to cause all kinds of hubbub. Question. I believe it was a member of Congress a couple of years ago suggested that you personally approved the search warrant for Epstein's house in New York, his townhouse in New York. Do you recall? Answer did someone say that? Question I believe so. Answer I don't recall that question. But that and the questions cut off by Barr, that's not the kind of thing I would have thought was particularly needed. You know, you needed my approval for kind of just run of the mill search warrant of somebody who's already been arrested. Yeah. O', Callaghan, run of the mill is your term. Yeah. Like not outside the ordinary practice of an investigation I believe would be cut off by bar. I would have considered the normal. Question okay. During the course of the investigation, did you receive any regular briefings from the FBI or the sdny? Answer during what? Question during the course of their investigation. Answer into question Mr. Epstein. Answer death or question no? Answer oh, you're talking about before he committed suicide. Question yes sir. Answer I don't recall any. Question Would there normally be those kinds of briefings or updates fall to the head of the criminal division, or would it be even lower than that? Answer the investigation itself, I think I'm not even sure it would get to main justice other than alerting us maybe that the investigation was going on, but particular actions wouldn't be regularly reported. Question I don't want to get it wrong, but I believe you said that there were in regards to the non prosecution agreement out of the Southern District of Florida that there were conversations about being careful that the 2019 investigation did not run afoul of that. Did I summarize that correctly? I vaguely recall some discussion, I don't know exactly when it occurred about, you know, to the extent what charges can be brought that don't run afoul of that plea agreement? I remember some discussion Question do you recall any more of the content of the discussion? Answer no. Question Concerns that the plea agreement restricted the Southern District of New York? Answer no. I just think it was a question of everyone agreeing on what we had a good legal argument. Question and then Answer we being the whole Department of Justice. Question and then you were asked about the kind of specific on the seizure list that the DOJ released earlier this year from the FBI that had like picked up a laptop but didn't say what was on the laptop. Did you recall ever reviewing any of the FBI's evidence in the Epstein criminal investigation? Answer Before a suicide? Question yes sir. Answer no. Question do you recall reviewing any of the evidence after his suicide? Just evidence relating to his, you know, relating to his suicide? I don't recall reviewing evidence relating to charging Maxwell or anybody else. Question so no, I mean I was told in Maxwell's case, when they got to the point that they were ready to indict, I believe I was told the substance, but I didn't review the evidence myself. Question applying to both Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, you reviewed for Mr. Epstein, you reviewed evidence surrounding his death. Answer huh. Question. But not substantive criminal evidence regarding his investigation and prosecution. Is that correct? Answer Right. Question and then with Ms. Maxwell, you didn't review the underlying criminal evidence. You just got notified about a pending indictment. Answer Right. Question okay, that's my best recollection. Question I just wanted to make sure it was all in line there. We've been back and forth a little bit. And on that note, I want to shift to the non prosecution agreement a little bit as in relation to both, kind of like the minority said, your experience generally with non prosecution agreements, but then a few questions about whether or not they had any impact during your second tenure as the Attorney General. You were asked if you were aware of it at the time. I believe you said you were not aware of it in 2007. Answer I became aware of it when it was public, you know, in public coverage of the matter. Question huh, did you ever review the agreement as Attorney General in those discussions about its potential impacts? Answer I don't recall going back and looking at it myself. I think other people were doing that. I mean everyone, I think understood that there would be litigation over whether or not the indictment could stand and whether it was preempted by the settlement. Everyone understood that and I think they were. Everyone was satisfying themselves that we were in a strong legal position. Of course, Mr. Epstein never got a chance to appeal, never got convicted and never got the chance to appeal the conviction. But Ms. Maxwell is appealing based on the non prosecution agreement. Is that your understanding? That's my understanding. You were asked a little bit about this, specifically the co conspirator language in that agreement. You said something along the lines of the United States not prosecuting any and all co conspirators, including but not limited to, and then listed four people affiliated with Epstein. And I want to ask you again, had you seen in your experience that breadth of language in these kinds of agreements before? Answer. You know, I don't recall seeing that. You know, I think as a general matter in a, you know, unspectacular case, I think it may not be inappropriate to, when you're trying to get a deal done with the primary suspect to agree that you won't go after peripheral people as a way of continuing the case. Like I'm going to also go after your I won't go after your wife for, you know, her role in this question huh? Answer or I won't go after your children for their role in this and so forth. That kind of stuff is done. Okay, but this case is different because of the nature of the crime and because of the span of the victims question and kind of the breadth of what those potential co conspirators could be answer yes question in general then I'll ask about high profile and you know, arguably not enough was known to make that kind of broad agreement in general. Do non prosecution agreements need to be approved by someone in justice headquarters? Actually off the top of my head I don't know. What about in Barr cuts him off? I think there are certain kinds of cases definitely, but I'm not sure about
- [12:22]
Talkspace Advertiser
this this podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. May is Mental Health Awareness Month and Talkspace, the leading virtual therapy provider, is sharing the message that connection is crucial because good relationships are an essential and sometimes overlooked component of mental well being. If your relationships could use some strengthening, a licensed therapist from Talkspace can help. Therapy can help you communicate better with loved ones, repair conflicts and understand how to address loneliness and build community. It's easy to sign up. Just go to talkspace.com and you'll be paired with a therapist within two days. You'll meet with your therapist online on your schedule. Plus Talkspace is in network with most major insurers and most Insured members have a $0 copay. Make personal connections a priority and start today. If you're not covered by Insurance. Get $80 off your first month with Talkspace when you go to talkspace.com and enter promo code SPACE80. That's S P A C E80 to match with a licensed therapist today, go to talkspace.com and Enter promo Space80.
- [13:22]
MacKenzie (GoFundMe Storyteller)
My name is MacKenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a non verbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child, so she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this period crisis and we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.
- [14:09]
Bill Barr
GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people. Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe.
- [14:23]
Host
Question and would it be more likely in higher profile cases? Answer no. I mean, certain kinds of cases where the substantive law is in play and the money laundering section may have to sign off on some things or the fraud section may have to sign off on some things. Question so it's to the best of your recollection, more akin to what's the alleged crime is versus the profile of the person being charged? Answer Right. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the Bill Barr transcript. Question okay, since it's been in the news, in your experience, are non prosecution agreements binding within all districts of the United States? You said you felt like you had a good legal standing to bring the 2019 case against Epstein and then the 2020 case against Maxwell. But the current argument in the Southern District was of Florida that can bind the Southern District of New York. Is there any Department of Justice manual that talks about that? Not that I'm aware of. I can't recall how that issue is handled on this specific agreement between the Southern District of Florida and Mr. Epstein. I believe it was sealed as part of the case. Is that common? I know it happens. And you had said before that one of your problems with one of the issues to you with this particular agreement was that it restricted the ability of victims to speak about the case or speak about the agreement. I believe the CVRA requires victims to be able to speak. Answer yes. Question Potential plea agreements, Is that the case bar? I believe so. I think it's a statutory requirement. Question did you come to that view after reviewing the agreement in 2019 or just based off of news coverage? Just based off of news coverage. Again, this is kind of just using it as an example of what's common. He agreed to plead guilty to a couple of charges and eventually served 13 months in Palm Beach County Jail and left for 16 hours a day to go to work. Is that common in Those kinds of agreements, the broad work release Mr. O' Callaghan, you're asking about, that's the state execution of the plea agreement in the state, right? Redacted. Yes, it was. It was still signed off on by gets cut off by o' Callahan and he's never, he's never been. The non prosecution agreement is with the subject of Florida U.S. attorney's office. The way that the state sentence is executed, that's a local Florida Palm beach matter. And I don't think Mr. Barr, you know, has any information about that. Bar. That's true. Question. So the post sentencing, how an inmate is or work release for an inmate is done by the local folks. The U.S. attorney's office wouldn't be involved? Not usually I would suspect, but I don't know. Okay. Again I want to get it right. So you said that in your personal view you thought that it was wrong to not let victims have a say and also that there was legal vulnerability. Again, the vulnerability is a potential. Is that the potential impact on future cases. Is that fair? The reason you let them have their say? No. You said that you had two kind of personal concerns with the non prosecution agreement of Mr. Epstein. That it was wrong to not let the victims have their say. Both I imagine personally and under the cvra but also under the legal vulnerability. And I'm just wondering. Answer by bar well, no, it's the same thing, the same the CVRA I thought at the time that made it legally vulnerable. Question. All right, these were, you know, I was not an advocate. You know here I generally am concerned about victims rights. I looked at this, I didn't like the aspect of it and I thought it was a legal vulnerability but I wasn't sitting in judgment of the decision. I didn't know all the facts. Question. I'm not asking for judgment of overall decision. Just if like on your first blush read of this, it had multiple bar. That's what I was concerned about. Alright. Bar or you know, felt I wouldn't have done. I think it got a little jumbled in the last hour of possible recusals. You did not recuse from the SDNY investigation, is that correct? I did not recuse from the sd. I think I was considered whether I should. There was a question asked me during my confirmation. I'm not sure what that was relating to, but something about Epstein. I thought it was relating to if you investigated the non prosecution agreement. Ah, question. And I believe there were issues with Kirkland And Ellis representing Mr. Epstein in that case, your former employment. Yeah. So I Wasn't sure about the timing of things and whether it implicated the time that I was there or, you know, anything like that. And I don't think it did. I actually don't think I would have recused myself from that, but I just was never involved in that. I mean, the thing that happened under my tenure relating to Epstein was the investigation of Epstein in the Southern District. And I did not recuse myself from that question. Courtney Wild, one of Epstein's victims, said that she sent a letter to you during your tenure as Attorney General. Do you recall receiving that letter? No. Question. And then I believe you said that you were made aware of the OPR investigation into Mr. Acosta while he was US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Kind of like at the end of the OPR investigation that you are aware of their findings but not the investigation itself? Answer no, I may have been aware that they were investigating. I was just not aware of where they stood. I didn't monitor the investigation. Question okay. Answer they finish when they finish and I found out what they were thinking. Question no, that's helpful. I wanted to clarify that. Do you know, just to the best of your knowledge, how does, how can the Attorney General direct OPR to conduct investigations or do they do it? No, the AG can direct them. That's how they were originally established. Did you direct OPR to investigate the non prosecution agreement? No. Do you know who did? No, but they don't have to be directed. They can also initiate their own. Uh huh. So no one had to direct it. If they saw it in newspapers and you know, were concerned about it, they can initiate it. It doesn't require being directed. I'm just saying the AG can direct it. Again, this is more just of your experience type. Question the agreement was signed in late 2007 and then executed in 2008. And then the OPR investigation came in 2020. Is it common for kind of an internal review of US Attorneys to happen so far after the fact of the alleged? By OPR standards, that's speedy. Question okay. And it could be she's cut off or he's cut off by bar. Answer in those days. Question in those days it could have been a result of the agreement being sealed and then press reports. Answer could have. Answer could have been the answer is that these things investigations by OPR as OIG take a long time. Question all right. In addition to being informed of the outcomes of the OPR investigation, did you review any of the underlying materials? Concerning what? Question the OPR investigation into the non prosecution agreement of Mr. Epstein? I don't recall looking at it. I may have seen a summary of their reasoning or something like that, but I just don't recall. Question do you to that he's she's cut off again by bar? Answer Delving into it. He was no longer there. Question the OPR said that they conducted a number of witness interviews during the investigation. To your knowledge, does OPR keep records of witness interviews? Would they have been transcribed? Answer I don't know. Question Shifting to Ms. Maxwell. She was arrested during your tenure, but as it pointed out, did not go to trial until after you had left the department. And you've talked about being made aware of her pending indictment. Was that when you were first made aware of potential investigation into Ms. Maxwell? Answer no. I mean, well, I would say that I assumed that. That they were looking. I don't know if I was told to, but I think anyone would have assumed that they were looking at Maxwell as a facilitator and a co conspirator. So I assume that. Question do you know if there was a more formal investigation into her that occurred after Mr. Epstein's death or was it running concurrently with Epstein's death? Answer I don't know exactly how they were staging things, but my assumption was that they were focusing on building their case against Epstein and also trying to develop evidence that would support a charge against her. And I think they were probably doing them in tandem. But you know how much they were pushing one over the other. I don't know. Question Then we talked about the urgent request of high value co conspirators. Were you aware of any potential co conspirators in the Epstein or Maxwell case that have not been prosecuted? Answer that have not been prosecuted. I mean, now we're switching to the term co conspirator. I think I laid out that I was not aware that SDNY had concluded that or had established that they had any of the names that had been bandied about were in fact engaged in illegal activity that they could charge. Okay, that's helpful. When I say bandied about, I'm talking about, you know, the names that have come up here, like Dershowitz and Branson and Richardson and people like that. Question the names on the flight logs. Well, being on the flight logs is not even. I mean, it's not even prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. It's just, you know, the person. Question. But you don't recall ever being told that those names that were being. That were on the flight log or fluttered about in the press Ever rose that this is someone that we could potentially indict? Answer. That's right. Question Were you kept up to date on the Maxwell investigation? I don't need to reread the quote. But were you taking a similar posture of let the investigators run the course of the investigation? To which investigation, Ms. Maxwell? Same course. Do you recall any conversations regarding the non prosecution agreement impacting the potential of a charge for Ms. Maxwell? I remember a discussion about it impacting the work of the sdny but I can't pin down, you know, how much it related to Epstein versus Maxwell. Question. And then a few blanket questions before some more general investigative type questions. Did anyone ever instruct you to not investigate or prosecute Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no. Question. Did anyone instruct you not to investigate or prosecute Ms. Maxwell? No. Question. Did anyone instruct you not to investigate or prosecute any other potential co conspirator? No Question. And I believe you said earlier. But you're confident that if the Southern District of New York identified co conspirators the that they believed they could convict, they would have brought the case? I believe so. We've talked, as you have mentioned, the kind of broad nature of whatever the Epstein cut off by Barr and also just as a practical matter, you know, I was aware of a lot of leaks of the Southern District of New York, not just the Attorney General's office but also the FBI there. And it was in my view, and this I think would be on both sides of the issue. If they felt that there was a political effort to block what they felt was a righteous case, it would leak out. There's no doubt in my mind it would leak out and we would have heard about it long ago. Question. I appreciate that. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're picking up where we left off with the Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress. Question. I appreciate that. I want to talk about again the colloquial Epstein files and what that means. Obviously it's kind of taken a life of its own of what that could possibly mean along with the client list. I think your description of the client list is how I will if I say client list is how I will use client list. Whether or not there is a list of people that Epstein facilitated prostitution or underage prostitution to individuals. As an overarching question, what kind of documents make up a criminal investigative file? Answer Whatever documents or potential evidence in the case. Question so witness interviews? Answer yes. Question Evidence gathered during a search warrant. Answer Records of activities, whether it be comings and goings on planes or whether someone was in the same place as an allegation. So for example, on, you know, Prince Andrew, they spent at least I think I've seen reports that say this was not reported to me by the Southern District, that Virginia's allegations of, you know, something happened in London, something happened here, corresponded to where people were. So those kinds of things are the kinds of records, hotel records, things like that, and witness interviews and things like that. Question and you mentioned a little bit earlier about protecting grand jury secrecy and Federal Rule 6E. Would everything that's in a case file be presented to a grand jury? Answer no. Question and then would it be common? And I think this is what has come out of the department's efforts to unseal some grand jury transcripts in the case that the kind of underlying investigative review, you know, between the FBI agents and the witness, for purposes of the grand jury, the FBI agent would testify as to what the witness said. Is that common? Yes. In your experience, would the underlying interview transcript be prevented from disclosure or just what was presented to the grand jury? The transcript of the testimony would be protected. Question the underlying testimony. What do you mean underlying testimony? Question so the FBI interviews a witness. The FBI agent then testifies to the grand jury. Answer the material presented to the grand jury would be protected. Question but not necessarily cut off by bar. It's not the medium that it's not limited to the medium. Question okay. Answer that's my understanding. Do you know if those underlying interviews are recorded or just transcribed? I don't know. Could a case file also include FBI 302s? Yes. Question and 1023s? Any document that reflects evidence that is potentially relevant could be in the case file. So the word case file is a little ambiguous. Question yes, as in Epstein files as a whole. Answer Right. Question We've talked a lot and you saw it. The list of what the FBI seized in the case is seized evidence kept after a case concludes. So Mr. Epstein died, his case concluded would seize evidence still exist. Answer I'm not sure of the answer of that. I think people who claim to have an interest in the property have to sort to seek it back and the government has to make its case as to why it has to be kept. That's my understanding of the process, but I'm not sure a separate ongoing criminal case would possibly be a good reason to keep the evidence. Yeah. Including whether there are appeals pending. Yeah. And obviously some of the real property at least is gone. Like I think the island was purchased by someone else. I don't know the subpoena process for the U.S. attorneys and, and this is my own lack of knowledge, so excuse me, but does the U.S. attorney issue the subpoena or does the grand jury issue the subpoena? Answer. Well the grand jury does, but in practice the prosecutor determines, you know, basically determines what is going to be produced on behalf of the grand jury. Question. And so the grand jury would say would recommend a subpoena for testimony to X And then to U.S. attorney would draft. No, I think the U.S. attorney would say we're going to interview this person. Alright. And bring that person before the grand jury. And those subpoenas can be for documents and testimony. Yes. Why issue a document subpoena versus execute a search warrant? Because you know, many subpoenas are third party subpoenas like for bank records and so forth. And don't go into a bank and and search them. You impose the obligation on the bank to produce them and they will. Question and those can be cut off by bar. And even for a subject, you know, you would still frequently give that person the chance to comply. You don't go searching unless there's some reason you're concerned about the destruction of evidence. Question. And those can be executed against more than just the subject of the investigation. Right. Answer anybody? Question you mentioned banks. Answer anybody that you know, you believe could have relevant evidence? Question. So other witnesses or companies, businesses, telecom providers? Answer sure. Question all yes. Answer all yes. Question what about company data repositories, Google, Microsoft? Answer yes. Question you mentioned banks and financial institutions. What about state governments, like camera footage off of the state courthouse or anything like that? Could that, could they do that as well? Answer. Government stuff. Question yeah. Answer yes. Question so in the Epstein case and without I think you said that you didn't review the quote unquote Epstein files in their fulsomeness but it would be likely that the case would include information like I just laid out 302s, 1023s, returns from subpoenas, returns from search warrants, other witness interviews, all of that would be included potentially in a case file. Is that fair? Potentially yes. And this could potentially include information that for whatever reason should not be released. Victims personal identity and child sexual abuse material being two prominent examples in this one Those are examples. But there are multiple reasons why you wouldn't want to release the raw files. What are some others? Because it's sometimes unfair to the individual who the government does not, has not concluded based on the evidence that they've done anything wrong. Question. So, like a Hypothetical would be, FBI conducts a witness interview, produces a 302. The interview names four people. After further investigation, it's determined that those four people that the interview is not credible. And those four people likely didn't commit any crimes. Is that fair? So I mean, you could take the examples from this case. You know, some of the victims made public allegations anyway that were fabrications. Uh huh. I'm not saying this is true of all the victims, but there are some that then withdrew. So it's possible that there's material in there that the government has come to the conclusion is not credible or is, you know, conclusively refuted by other evidence. Huh. You know, in the case of Bill Clinton, as far as I was aware, there was no evidence that he visited the island. You know, the government did not obtain any such evidence. Because you didn't look stupid. Ask Mr. Scully. Ask the people that worked on the island. Asked some of the other girls who traveled to the island. Question, huh? Answer. And he denied it. But there is somebody who asserts he did. I'm just using that as an example. Uh huh. And it's fair to put that if the government has come to the conclusion that he didn't visit the island and the police has evidence to show that, why would you put that raw stuff out there? To permit all the, you know, the Internet to get heated up about this and assault the person for what you know, is not accurate. Question. And then you said earlier, and I want to ask you again, using the language, the descriptor of the client list, and we all kind of agreed on, you know, you never saw a document or anything resembling a client list. I have never seen a document resembling a client list. What about any evidence or anything suggesting Mr. Epstein was bribing individuals with salacious material? You mean bribing them? Giving them something. Question. Extorting them? No, I don't recall ever seeing such evidence. And it seems highly improbable to me that you would extort somebody by engaging in an actual yourself. That's a crime. You don't get much leverage if you go to jail too. Yeah, well, what's Fergie talking about then? Didn't her lawyer just say that Epstein threatened to ruin the family of York? Well, what do you think he was Talking about, think he was just making idle threats or do you think that he had kompromat? Look, this whole entire thing stinks. And Barr has been part of the COVID up from the very beginning. And furthermore, he lied directly to Congress here when he said he never met with anybody that was in the shoe with Epstein. He met with Stone Reyes, didn't he? He had a personal meeting with Stone Reyes who then died a few, you know, months later or whatever. But he straight up said in this deposition in these documents that he never met with anybody. Question. Yeah, same kind of, same question with the Maxwell case. All of the potential evidence and documents that we just discussed about potentially being a case file, is it possible all that exists for Ms. Maxwell as well? Answer the same kind of stuff. Question, huh? Answer possibly. Question did you ever review any of the substantive evidence in her case? Answer I think I said no. Question. Okay. And then you discussed in a little bit in relation to communication between DOJ and the White House regarding cases that it would be rare, but you had two conversations with President Trump regarding the Epstein case. I recall two conversations with Trump relating to the Epstein case. Is it common to have communications regarding cases within the Department of Justice? Within the department. Uh huh. For who to have to talk to whom? Well, I mean for SDNY to notify you, would they pick up the phone or was it an email or was it a memo? How would that if SDNY needed to get in contact with you, how would they do it? Well, it's rare for SDNY to want to get in contact with Main justice, but if they wanted to, it could be anything from a communication to a division to the deputy's office or to the ag which was. Is pretty rare. Okay. And then I'm going to phrase these two. But you know, look, every case is different. So for example, on the Maduro indictments, I was very involved in those because we were trying to coordinate an indictment. I mean a case in Florida, a case in the Southern District and national security interests and so forth. Question huh? Answer Something like that, you would have more interaction with the office, but on something like this you won't generally have that much interaction. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.