Mega Edition: Howard Lutnick And His Trip To Congress (Part 4-7) (7/11/26)

Summary

The Epstein Chronicles – Mega Edition: Howard Lutnick And His Trip To Congress (Parts 4-7) [7/11/2026]

Episode Overview

In this extended episode, host Bobby Capucci continues the deep dive into Howard Lutnick’s congressional deposition regarding his relationship, communications, and any potential involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. The episode consists of readouts and commentary from Lutnick’s recent testimony before Congress, with detailed questioning by both majority and minority committee members. The key focus is the nature of Lutnick’s interactions with Epstein, whether those accounts have evolved over time, and how his previous public statements (notably a high-profile podcast and a New York Post interview) align with the recently surfaced congressional documentation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Lutnick–Epstein Communication and Business Ties

• Admin Email Chain (00:30–03:00): Lutnick is questioned about an email exchange with Epstein in which Epstein inquires about the prospects for “Admin,” a company seeking to become an ad exchange. Lutnick explains Admin’s business model and clarifies Epstein’s interest was not unusual, given the company’s outreach to many contacts.

  • Lutnick (01:00): “I was not... It wouldn’t have been unusual. It was out there trying to get attention.”

• Property Connections & Clarifications (03:00–05:00): Lutnick denies Epstein had any involvement in his townhouse acquisition, despite allegations that an Epstein-affiliated trust once owned the property. He maintains he bought it from Charles de Gunsberg.

  • Quote (03:50): “Epstein did not own the house… I bought the house from Charles.”

2. Nature and Context of Personal Interactions

• Email and Scheduling Records (05:00–07:00):

  • Discussion of a call return to Epstein in April 2011, scheduled through Lutnick’s assistant Matthew Gilbert. Lutnick testifies he rarely interacted with Epstein directly; most email traffic went through assistants.

• Scaffolding Encounter (06:39–10:00):

  • Lutnick recounts a conversation with Epstein—described as trivial—regarding construction scaffolding and its potential inconvenience for neighbors. He emphasizes this interaction was “inconsequential and meaningless.”
  • Lutnick (06:59): “It was a mundane conversation... that would be normal between neighbors of any sort.”

3. Denials of Involvement With Epstein’s Crimes

• Direct Testimony on Abuse (13:30–15:00):
  • Lutnick is directly questioned whether he ever witnessed or participated in any sexual misconduct, massages, or interactions with girls or young women at Epstein’s properties or at Epstein’s behest. He categorically denies any such involvement.
  • Lutnick (14:45):
    • “Did you ever witness Mr. Epstein have sexual contact of any kind with any young woman or girl?”
    • “No.”
    • “Did you ever receive a massage from any young woman brought to you by or introduced to you by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell?”
    • “No.”

4. Dissection of Prior Public Statements

a. Podcast & Interview Discrepancies (16:00–40:00)

• Literal vs. Intended Meaning:

  • Lutnick is repeatedly pressed on his podcast claim that “I was never in the room with them [Epstein] socially for business or even philanthropy”—a statement now challenged by evidence of two subsequent encounters (an island lunch with his family in 2012 and the scaffolding discussion).
  • Lutnick distinguishes between being “alone” with Epstein and being “in the room” when accompanied by family, arguing his avoidance referred to meaningful and unaccompanied situations.
    • Lutnick (29:30): “I would not establish a personal or professional relationship with him, and I would avoid him.”
    • Lutnick (32:30): “I, as a man, would not put myself...in a situation with him and I would avoid him. So I did.”

• Literalism vs. Storytelling:

  • Under repeated questioning, Lutnick maintains his podcast wording was not intended as a precise legal record but as informal storytelling expressing his distaste and avoidance.
    • Lutnick (31:30): “It was a podcast and I said in the next words, that’s my story. It was informal. It wasn’t trying to be literal.”

• Confrontation with Committee on Clarity:

  • Congressional interlocutors challenge whether this semantic distinction is misleading, given public perception and later document revelations.
    • Question (39:29): “Could you understand how folks…have felt misled by that remark?”
    • Lutnick (40:10): “It was not misleading… I was accurate.”

b. Blackmail & Speculation (44:00–48:00)

• Lutnick is confronted with previous comments speculating that Epstein was a blackmailer, to which he now replies those were only speculative comments for a podcast, lacking any direct evidence or insider knowledge.
  • Lutnick (47:10): “That was just me speculating for a podcast.”
  • Lutnick (47:55): “Is it still your belief [Epstein was a blackmailer]? No. Now I believe he didn’t engage in blackmail.”

5. The “One and Done” Narrative & Public Communication

• Repeated Interrogation (49:29–53:00):
  • Lutnick’s phrase “one and done” (used to describe his contact with Epstein) is dissected. Committee members suggest this was misleading given evidence of at least two more interactions.
  • Lutnick stands by the broader meaning—that he never formed a relationship or placed himself in a compromising proximity to Epstein after the initial incident.
    • Lutnick (51:30): “I was never with him. And the point I was making was that I was never with them and that the people listening to the podcast should understand.”
  • Committee members continue to press whether, in hindsight, he should have been more explicit about these later contacts. Lutnick maintains he was reasonable and that the contacts were insignificant.

6. Additional Notable Moments

a. Island Visit Motivation (53:32–55:30)

• Lutnick cannot recall why he later attended an event at Epstein’s island in 2012, despite previously characterizing Epstein as “gross” and inappropriate. He describes the decision as inexplicable and unsettling, offering no clear motivation in retrospect.
  • Lutnick (55:20): “I don’t know…I don’t remember and I don’t know.”

b. Closing Testimony and Limits

• Denies any discussions with Trump, Attorney General Bondi, or others about the Epstein files (53:00–54:00).
• No recollection of his living next door to Epstein coming up during his own vetting for government roles.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Epstein, the “Disgusting” Neighbor:

  • “I did not have a personal or professional relationship with him and I avoided him.” — Howard Lutnick (32:30)

• Podcast Literalism:

  • “It was a podcast and I said in the next words, that’s my story. So it was a podcast. I was…not trying to be literal.” — Lutnick (31:30)

• Blackmail Clarification:

  • “That was just me speculating for a podcast.” — Lutnick (47:10)
  • “Now I believe he didn’t engage in blackmail.” — Lutnick (47:55)

• Congressional Frustration:

  • “How can you say that you are not with them subsequently? That’s what I’m trying to understand.” — Committee Member (52:30)

• Island Visit Motivation:

  • “I don’t know…I don’t remember and I don’t know.” — Lutnick (55:20)

• Semantic Defense:

  • “So I believe what I said was accurate. I believe what I said was accurate when I said it, and I believe it now.” — Lutnick (35:00)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:30: Email chains, business connections, property ownership
• 06:39: Scaffolding conversation—nature of neighborly encounters
• 13:30: Direct denials of witnessing/participating in abuse
• 16:04: Dissection of New York Post interview and podcast remarks
• 29:30: Clarifications around “never in the room” and “I vs. we”
• 44:00: Blackmail speculation and shift in viewpoint
• 49:29: The “one and done” semantics and congressional challenge
• 53:32: The island visit and lack of recollection for motivation

---

Episode Tone & Language

The tone is rigorous, legalistic, and sometimes combative as congressional interviewers attempt to pin Lutnick down on discrepancies or semantic evasions. Lutnick remains firm, frequently stressing the informal and subjective nature of his podcast storytelling while defending the factual basis of his answers under oath. The session is marked by persistent efforts to clarify meaning and public perception versus literal truth.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides an unusually granular window into how high-profile Epstein associates defend and contextualize their contact—and how congressional investigators try to disentangle language, intention, and public accountability. Lutnick repeatedly distinguishes between social, business, or philanthropic engagement and “incidental” or “accompanied” presence, asserting consistently that he avoided any real relationship with Epstein after finding him inappropriate. The hearings reveal both the importance of precise public statements—and the difficulty of reconciling them years later under oath.

---

For further details and documentary links, listeners are directed to the episode description.

Transcript

[Uncle Lazer]

Hi, Uncle Lazer here. America's built on fast cars, fast food, and even faster women. Moto Casino's built in America. You know what they're fast at? Fast cash prize redemption. You see, only Moto is US owned and operated. Moto, it's American made. Cause that's who we are and that's who we care about. Play for free at Moto Us.

[Moto Casino Announcer]

Moto Casino is the social casino board. We're prohibited. No purchase necessary. Visit Moto US for more details. Must be 21/ Moto Casino America.

[Uncle Lazer]

Social casino.

[Interviewer / Congressional Questioner]

What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right back to the Howard Lutnick deposition that he gave to Congress. Mr. Emmer, we discussed your emails earlier. Sir, is this HWL email yours? Answer. Yeah. Question. And the email chain begins with Mr. Epstein asking you what do you think the prospects for admin are? Why would Mr. Epstein be emailing you directly about prospects for admin? Answer. I don't know. Admin was a company that's objective was to become an exchange for Internet ads. So it was pursuing companies that put out ads like banks do, a lot of ads, you know, big advertisers and websites. So it was marketing to everyone it could possibly find to use their services to buy their ads cheaper. You know, for the advertiser to not use an ad agency and get the money directly and you know, the advertisers are more efficient. And so it would have been out talking to everybody. So I wouldn't be surprised or it wouldn't surprise me that people knew about it. I was not. It wouldn't have been unusual. It was not. It was out there trying to make to get attention. Question. And given your previous testimony as it relates to the emails that you sent, is it safe to assume that this response was you personally? This was. This was me. Because it says hwo Question. And for the record, can you please read the email that you sent back? Yeah, but this stemmed on another note, so it must have stemmed from something else. But it says you just want me to read it. Producing revenue finally. This is their year. Next 12 months. They need to become economically self sufficient. Question. And Mr. Epstein replied to your email and said thanks. How long until Sherry's ready and can I buy my guest house? To which he responded, probably four years in parentheses. Pierre. What is Pierre? So he made a joke that he would buy my house as his guest house because I had bought the top of the Pierre Hotel. It was an apartment. It still is. A large, again, unfinished, unfinished apartment. So he just got the hotel. Wrong question. It wasn't a serious offer by Epstein to purchase your townhome. It was sort of a snarky joke or a joke question. The committee understands though public reporting and records that an Epstein affiliated trust had owned that townhome that you moved into. Prior to you. Did Epstein, during your acquisition of the property, did Epstein have any role in the sale of that property to you? Answer. No. I bought my townhouse from someone named Charles de Gunsberg who owned it. So Epstein did not own the house. So I don't know what that's referenced to. Charles de Gunsberg owned the house and I bought the house from Charles. Now Mr. Spectre jumps in. You testified earlier about having one distinct four part email exchange with Jeffrey Epstein ever. Is this that email chain, Lutnik? This is two of it. It may have been like disconnected. Sorry, I can't. I'm holding my hand separate now. Terwalger, the Lawyer jumps in. Mr. Emmer, on that point, I do think for the sake of completeness, I would just proffer to the committee that if we were to look at document EFT Alpha 0150718, you'll see that there was a prior communication between Secretary Lutnick and Jeffrey Epstein around the building of the Frick expansion. And that's how we go from the subject to another note initiated by Mr. Epstein. Mr. Emmer. Thank you. Mr. Emmer, at this time I'd like to introduce what will be marked as majority exhibit number five. And for the record, it appears that you are not a recipient of this email. And this is an email from Jeffrey Epstein to redacted, dated October 19, 2009. And it's Bates marked EFTA 243886. And it appears to be a message passed along to Mr. Epstein from Rich Barnett about you wanting to speak to Mr. Epstein, Secretary Lutnick. Who is Rich Barnett? He was someone that worked for me at Canter Fitzgerald. So on my staff question, and we're reviewing an email from October of 2009. Do you have any recollection of why you would have been trying to get in touch with Epstein? Answer. I don't have any recollection, but Rich Barnett was responsible for my sort of construction and things associated with that. So it may have been that I was doing something at my house, but I shouldn't speculate. I don't know and I did not speak to him. Question. Thank you. At this time I'd like to introduce what will be marked as Majority Exhibit 6 and 7. Majority Exhibit 6 is an email dated Monday, April 4, 2011, from Leslie Groff, Jeffrey Epstein's secretary, sent to Mr. Epstein saying Howard Lutnick returns your call and the Bates number, EFTA 654552. Majority Exhibit 7 is a calendar reminder dated the very next day, April 5, which appears to show a scheduled callback between you and Mr. Epstein. The reminder states, Je to call Howard Lutnick today. Call Matthew to organize, and that is Bates marked EFTA 02191245. For the record, it appears as though you are not a recipient of either one of these exhibits. Secretary Lutnick, do you know who Ms. Leslie Grof is? I do not. Question. According to the email, you returned Epstein's call. We are early April 2011. Do you have any recollection of why you'd be returning a call from Mr. Epstein? As I think I said my opening statement, he had something to tell me, or so I was told, is the best of my recollection from 15 years ago. So I must. My office must have suggested that I call him back to hear what he had to say.

[Moto Casino User / Promoter]

And.

[Interviewer / Congressional Questioner]

And we were unable to connect by phone. And that led to my second encounter with him, with my best recollection being I rang his bell, walked into his foyer with my dog. My wife waited outside with my other dog, the one that one wouldn't be good to bring into someone's house. I waited for him to come down. He told me what he had to say. And I remember, this is a long time ago, but my best recollection was it had to do with scaffolding. Mr. Spector, question. When you say scaffolding, are you talking about the construction on your property or his answer, yes, question. So it was discussion between neighbors about work that might affect one another. I think my best recollection is he was planning on doing scaffolding, which would sort of be annoying to my property. So he was sort of telling me he was something. This is my best recollection of. Of an inconsequential and meaningless conversation 15 years ago. So I'm not. I'm just saying that's my best recollection. Was it the topic of scaffolding? I can't give you more. Something else I'll tell you, would just be speculating as to what it was about. So generally when you say inconsequential and meaningless, in this case, you mean it was just kind of a mundane conversation that would be normal between neighbors of any sort of answer. Right. And then he had some sort of plan that he in his house and he was letting me know that it would be annoying. Question. Thank you, Mr. Emmer. And this meeting that you referenced during your hearing with the Senate Appropriations Committee last year, you discussed your interaction with Jeffrey Epstein and mentioned an hour long meeting at Epstein's home in 2011. Is this the same interaction that you just described related to Scaffolding Lutnik? Yeah, his documents, the documents in these files had set aside an hour, which is what I was referring to. The only interaction I recall was the one I just articulated. I didn't have another interaction. His schedule said other things. That was wrong. The only interaction that I've ever had, I'm here describing to you accurately what my best recollection, literally to my recollection could be. Specter, did the topic of massages ever come up again besides that first interaction that you had with Epstein by Lutnick? No. Mr. Emmer, at this time I would like to introduce what will be marked as Majority Exhibit 8. While we're waiting, I understand another member has joined. Can you please identify yourself for the record? Mr. James Walkinshaw, Virginia 11. Enro Khanna, California 17. Emmer. This is weightsmarked efta475742. This is an email chain from May of 2018. Mr. Lutnick or Secretary Lutnick, do you recall sending this email? Secretary Lutnick knows, I've told you. If it says Howard Lutnick, it was sent by Matthew Gilbert. And he's the one who sees them. Meaning I don't, I don't see them. They're not literally on my computer screen, they're on his Spectre. I'm sorry if you said this earlier, but just for the record, who is Gilbert to you? Answer by Lutnick. Mr. Gilbert is my longtime assistant in my office. He's worked for me for like 20 years. Spectre. So this would be the normal way that he would handle emails from all sorts of people, not just Jeffrey Epstein. Lutnick. Correct. The point was, if you email that email, it was to Matthew Gilbert. Everyone learned that he would respond to them. Sometimes he would do it on his own, sometimes he would do it in mine, but it was always just him. I didn't even read them. I didn't see them. Spectre. Thank you. Emmer. Question. And this relates to the blocking of the views of the park from your town home, is that right? Answer. Yeah, the Frick is an architecturally important structure built around the turn of the century or something. Like that. And it was beautiful. And they. The museum had wanted to knock down parts of it and build a high rise, which we found unusual and bothersome. And you may have discussed this in your opening statement, but why did you reach out to Epstein related to the Frick? So the way the block works is there is a multi unit co op that is the first building inside the number one or number three. And then there is Jeffrey Epstein's townhouse and then mine on the other side. And on the other side there was a group of owners, tenants, people who lived in that building who were fighting the Frick building it. They contacted me after a while and then at some point they asked me if I could contact Epstein to have him be involved. But it was just neighbor. They contacted me, asked me to contact them, but by asking me, they asked effectively Matthew Gilbert, who then contacted him. Question. Secretary Lutnick. The majority's hour is coming to an end. I. I want to ask you some general questions as it relates to Mr. Epstein's crimes. For the record, did you ever witness Mr. Epstein have sexual contact of any kind with any young woman or girl? No. Question. Did you ever witness Mr. Epstein receive a massage from a young woman or girl? No. Question. During your interaction with Mr. Epstein, did Mr. Epstein ever discuss sexual acts of any kind with you? No. No. Other than which he said the right kind of massage. Question. Did you ever see or meet any young woman or girl at Mr. Epstein's office or residence? No. Question. Did you ever have any sexual contact with any young woman or girl in the presence of Epstein? No. Question. Did you ever receive a massage from any young woman brought to you by or introduced to you by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell? And answer no, Mr. Emmer, we will go off the record. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here. And in the next episode, we'll pick up where we left off. All 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 getting right back to the Howard Lutnick transcript from his meeting with Congress. All right, we can go back on the record. Good afternoon, Secretary Lutnick. My name is redacted. I'll be conducting most of the questioning for the minority today. Before we begin questioning, I'd like to know for the record that this transcribed interview is not being videotaped. The majority has decided that the American people don't deserve to watch the testimony that you will provide today. They've Decided instead that that the American people can find and read the transcript of your testimony if it's released at some date in the future. Today's transcribed interview, originally announced on March 3, appears designed to preempt a motion to subpoena Secretary Lutnick's testimony by Congresswoman Nancy Mace. But that does not justify keeping these proceedings off of camera. Committee Republicans have claimed that the investigations being conducted the interest of transparency for the public and for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. To that end, the committee has videotaped multiple prominent witnesses who have appeared for testimony in the Epstein investigation, and the majority has released those videos. Shortly after the testimony was complete, the committee was videoed and released the testimony of Ghislaine Maxwell, Darren Indyk, Richard Kahn, and Les Wexner. Oversight Republicans videotaped the testimony of President Bill Clinton and former Secretary Hillary Clinton, and those videos were released to the public three days after the conclusion of their depositions. The American people and the survivors of Epstein's crimes deserve the same of today's testimony. The fact that Secretary Lutnick is present for a transcribed interview rather than a deposition does not change our obligation to to transparency. Earlier this Congress, Oversight Republicans investigated the now depunct theory that the previous administration used an auto pen to take action without President Biden's knowledge. As part of that investigation, oversight Republicans interviewed 14 former Democratic White House officials. The overwhelming majority, 11 of the 14 were conducted as transcribed interviews. Yet every single interview, including the transcribed interviews, was videotaped, and every single video was released to the public. Committee Republicans have set one standard for officials in a Democratic administration and a separate and less transparent standard for officials in the Republican administration. That is a political distinction, not a principled one. To be clear, the minority welcomes Secretary Lutnick's appearance and and testimony. But we believe the American people should be able to watch today's interview and reach their own conclusions about today's testimony. And with that, I will move on to substantive questions you ain't heard about.

[Howard Lutnick]

Moto Casino. Moto has real Vegas slots. Any game you can find on the floor in Vegas, you can play it on Moto. I like my slots hot Moto's free to play like food stamps in line at the grocery store at a funeral in traffic Keep your eyes on the road Hop on Moto Casino Moto Casino got jackpots that are bigger than my belly Moto America's hottest, free to play

[Uncle Lazer]

social casino Download the Moto Casino app

[Moto Casino Announcer]

today Moto Casino's the social casino We're Prohibited to purchase necessary. Visit Moto US for more details.

[Interviewer / Congressional Questioner]

Good afternoon, Secretary Lutnick. As I said, my name is redacted. And as you know, today's conversation is going to focus on your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I would like to start with the interview that you gave to the New York Post in October of last year. I know you've discussed it a little bit in the previous round. Some of these questions might be repetitive to some degree. I'll try to minimize that to the extent possible, but there's going to be some overlap. In that interview last year, you describe your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in detail. Substantial parts of that interview have since been called into question. So we will go over the interview one piece at a time and establish which parts are accurate. So I'll introduce as minority Exhibit A, a written transcript of the portion of the interview that related to Mr. Epstein. I'll give you a moment to look it over, if you'd like to. Secretary Lutnick, can I have a copy of that for my lawyer? Redacted. Yeah, there were. I think there were three in there. Redacted. Yeah. And I'll always hand you three or four of the council to look at. Mr. Mehran, who prepared the transcript? It was prepared by us. We can confirm to you the accuracy of it if you have some specific reason to believe that part of it's not accurate. Of course, we're happy to discuss that. Mehran. The first line says I would be remised. Is that what was said, redacted? Yeah, that was our best interpretation. I think you could reasonably interpret it as likely being remiss. We're going to go over it one by one as well. Lutnick. That's all right. I'm just going to read it quickly, of course. Okay. I'm going to break it up in pieces. The only thing I will do is skip the parts where the interviewer interrupted you. You with the words like right or interesting. Just starting at the outset, you were asked how well you knew Jeffrey Epstein, and you started by saying, quote, all right, so we are in number 11 and he lives in number nine. So is it correct that you did, and maybe still do, I'm not sure, live at 11 E. 71st St. In New York City? Answer, yeah, I have a townhouse at 11 East 71st Street. Question and is that what you are referring to here? You said number 11? Answer. Yeah. Question. And as far as you know, is it correct that Mr. Epstein lived at 9 East 71st Street? Yeah, that was his residence. Question and Is that what you were referring to when you said number nine? Answer yeah. Is it correct that those two homes are adjacent to each other? Yes. They share a wall. Yes. And then you said, so we renovate, we buy our house, and our house is pigeons and mice. Okay, that's it. It was derelict, right? So we build, we rebuild our house, we move in 2005. And I'll stop there. So I heard you say in a previous round you bought your home, I think, in 1997. Is that correct? That's correct. And did you know at the time you purchased the home that you the home had been previously owned by both Jeffrey and and Les Wexner? Answer I don't know. I know I bought it from Charles de Gunsberg, so that I remember. I don't know if I knew anything else. Question Is it that you were not sure whether that you knew at the time that the home had previously owned by Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner? Answer When I bought the house, I didn't know. I don't recall knowing. Question you don't recall whether or not you knew at the time, Is that right? Answer Right. Question okay, is it possible that you knew? Is it possible that you did not know? Am I interpreting that correctly? Answer no, I don't recall knowing. I recall what I did know was I bought the house from Charles de Gunsberg. That I know. I don't know if I knew who owned it previously. I can't say as I sit here today from whatever almost 30 years ago, what I knew or didn't know, but I certainly didn't know when I bought it. Question I'm sorry, there is just a little contradiction between those two parts. You're not sure today whether or not you know at the time that the home was owned by Jeffrey Epstein. Is that fair? Answer no. I bought my house from Charles de Gunsberg and I do not recall knowing when I bought the house who owned it previously. Question so sitting here today, you cannot be certain as to whether you know or not or knew at the time who the previous owners were? Is that what I hear you saying? Answer well, I'm trying to be clear. I remember clearly. I bought the house from Charles de Gunsberg. He was the owner of the house. I can't remember as I sit here today, almost 30 years later, whether I ever knew subsequently that I learned who owned the house previously. I just don't remember as I sit here. Question but the narrow question is just at the time you bought the home, did you know whether the home was previously owned by Jeffrey Epstein. And I think, I think you're saying you're just not sure either way, it was a long time ago. I don't think so. I'm sorry. No, I don't think so. Is unclear for us. For me, no. You don't think you knew or you're just not sure whether you knew or not? I knew I bought the house from Charles de Gunsberg that I knew. I'm crystal clear on that part. No doubt about it. The narrow question is just at the time of purchase and did you know that the home had previously been owned by Jeffrey Epstein? Answer. Before Charles de Gunsberg owned it. I don't remember whether I ever learned that at the time. Meaning at the time I purchased it. I didn't learn that. I don't know. I don't recall. I don't know. Question. You don't recall whether or not you knew at the time you purchased it? Right. When I agreed to buy the house, I surely didn't know. How is that, Is that helpful? Question. Well, it is, but it's not quite the same thing as the earlier statement. I'm not suggesting that you did or did not know. It's just I think you said. Heard you say it was 30 years ago. I don't recall whether or not I knew. But there have been a few statements that suggest, no, I did not know that it was previously owned by Epstein. So I just want to pin that down and which one of those it is. Answer. I don't know and I don't think I ever knew that Jeffrey Epstein owned the house that I bought. Is that helpful? Yeah. Is that new information for you here today? Answer that. What? Question. That Jeffrey Epstein previously owned your house? Yes. Okay, I don't know that to be true. Has it ever been suggested to you or have you ever heard that Epstein previously owned your home? I don't think that's true. So I guess as I sit here today, I don't think that's true. I got that. But that's not quite the question I asked. Has it ever been suggested to you or have you ever heard somebody say that Epstein previously owned your home? Answer. I can't recall. As I sit here today. Question. Is it correct that you did some kind of large scale renovation project on the home? Answer. In my home, yes, of course. Question and is it correct? I think I heard you say in the previous round that you moved in in 2005. Answer. Yeah, question. Okay, so the next part is, quote, okay, Jeffrey Epstein's arrested in like, oh, wait, I Think. Or something like that. So knock on the door, his assistant on like a Saturday, says, Mr. Epstein's your neighbor and he'd like to invite you over for some coffee. So I can come over. The first part of that, which is that Mr. Epstein was arrested in 06, but he did not plead guilty to solicitation of a minor in 2008. A question for you is, and I think you described it in some detail previously, is it correct that Mr. Epstein's assistant did knock on your door on a Saturday morning because Mr. Epstein wanted to invite you over for coffee? Answer. Say that again. Question. Is it correct that, as far as you can recall, Mr. Epstein's assistant knocked on your door, to the best of your recollection, on a Saturday morning because Epstein wanted to invite you over for coffee? I don't know if it was Saturday or not, but I do recall that someone who worked for him knocked on our door and invited us for coffee. Was it framed as Mr. Epstein would like to invite you over for coffee? I wasn't. The person didn't tell me. They told me someone who worked for me. It was an assistant, someone who worked for Epstein, knocked on the door and spoke to someone who worked for me and said, your neighbor would like to invite you over for coffee. But it's not a conversation I participated in, so I'm trying to just give you the context. I understand you are not directly a party to that conversation. I was not. The next part is, so my wife and I go next door. You know, we walk the seven steps right to the next door, next house for coffee. We share a wall, right? So it's New York City. So he invites us in, we have coffee and this. And he says, do you want a tour? We said, great, I'll stop there. So is it correct that you and your wife did go over to Epstein's house that day? Answer. I don't know if it was that day. Question. It might have been a later date. Answer. Correct. Question. Is it correct that Mr. Epstein did offer you a tour? Answer yeah. Question and is it correct that you and your wife did agree to that tour? Answer yeah. Question. Prior to this interaction, did. Did you have any knowledge of who Jeffrey Epstein was? Answer not that I can think of now. No. Question. I think in the interview, you then said that he, meaning Epstein, has got a really big house. I think we all, at this point, understand that that is an accurate statement. And then you were asked whether you visited every room of Epstein's house, and you said, quote, he's got, well, I'll tell you. So his house is, like, super big, really wide. And so he gives me a tour of the living room. Big living room, and then across from it, double doors. I assume it's a dining room. And he opens the doors, and there's a massage table in the middle of the room and candles all around and stuff. And I'll stop there. So is it correct that he did give you a tour and that you recall the tour as you described it here? Yes. We were in the living room for coffee. And my recollection is we went across the hall to the next room, which. Which he opened the door. I assumed it was a dining room. And that's the massage table as I described there. Is the part about the candles accurate to your recollection? Yes. Were the candles lit? I don't recall.

[Moto Casino Announcer]

Here's golf legend John Daly.

[Howard Lutnick]

Hell, yeah. These wins are piling up faster than my divorces. I only spent on Moto, America's social casino. You know, I've won a couple of majors, and on Moto, I've won majors, grants, and n epic jackpots on their classic Vegas slots with huge, huge bonus rounds. Moto Casino adds new games and awards players free coins every single day. Grip it and spin it on Moto Casino.

[Uncle Lazer]

Download the Moto Casino app Today.

[Moto Casino Announcer]

Moto Casino is the social casino board. We're prohibited. No purchase necessary. Visit moto us for more details.

[Uncle Lazer]

America Social Casino.

[Interviewer / Congressional Questioner]

All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode, dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All 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 gonna pick up where we left off with the Howard Lutnick deposition question. Okay. And then you said, quote. So I asked very insightful, cutting questions. I say to him, massage table in the middle of your house. How often do you have a massage? And he says, every day. And then he gets, like, really close, like, weirdly close to me, and he says, and the right kind of massage. I'll stop there. Is that statement accurate to the best of your recollection? Answer. Well, I'm being sarcastic when I say I asked very insightful, cutting questions. I'm just kidding. And it's generally right. I'm not saying it's exact precisely right, but generally, yeah, that's what I recall. As far as you remember, are any of these details sort of embellishments, like, do you recall him actually getting weirdly close to you? Answer I think that's right. I think that's right what I said. Question all right. And then you said, now my wife is standing there, so she looks at me and I look at her and we say, I'm sorry, we have to go, and we left. I'll stop right there. Do you recall that happening? Answer well, I don't. I recall a sense of that. I don't recall exactly saying those words, but I certainly recall a sense of that that we decided we had to go. Question do you recall a verbal exchange to the effect or more of a general sense? I don't recall the precise nature of the words. A general sense that we excused ourselves. Question and that's what I was going to ask. Is that the sort of cutoff the tore early as far as you can remember? Yes. Did Mr. Epstein have any particular reaction to you sort of abruptly excusing yourself? Answer not that I recall. Question did you give a particular reason for needing to excuse yourself? Answer I don't remember anything other than we decided to excuse ourselves. Question and you said, quote, and in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I'll never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. I'll stop right there. Is it true that before you got back to your home, you and your wife decided that you would never be in the same room as Mr. Epstein again? Answer I think the meaning of that is right, which is what we discussed, that I would not put myself in a situation with him again, that I would not have a personal or professional relationship with him, and I would avoid him. That was the point of the discussion. It was an informal conversation that I'm recalling 20 years later. But the point of it was right. Question and so that is what I'd like to do is separate the theme or the idea from the literal accuracy of the specific words. So when you say my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person again, is it. It's not necessarily a literal decision that you will never allow yourself to be in the room with them again. It's just you don't want to build a relationship with them, Is that it? Answer I would not establish a personal and professional relationship with him, and I would avoid him. So it was basically a conversation with me and my wife that says avoid. We came to the discussion to have avoid, which I did. Question Was it, as far as you can remember, a decision that as you described it, if I see him in a room in the future, I will not be in that room. Was it that level or was that an embellishment or. Or some sort of extra language Answer. Remember, It's a podcast 20 years later, that I'm trying to make a point that I. And I didn't, by the way. I avoided having a personal and professional relationship with him. I avoided him. So I think I was right. I think the point of the podcast is right. What I'd said was right. I avoided him and I never put myself in a situation with him again. Personally, me as a man, he had no boundaries. I avoided them. Question. Yeah. So the question of what the interactions were later, in the future, after the tour, we'll walk through those. You've done some of that. I was just trying to get a really clear sense of what you recall the discussion being on the day of the tour. It sounds like. But please, you tell me, was it. It's not that it was a literal decision to never be in the same physical room again, because that's what the words say, but I think you're saying it's not literally accurate. Answer. It was a podcast and I said in the next words, that's my story. So it was a podcast. I was describing, 20 years later, a conversation I had with my wife. It was informal. It wasn't trying to be literal. It was trying to tell a story and be descriptive, which I thought was an accurate description. Which was what? I would avoid establishing a professional and personal relationship with him. I would avoid him. And I did. So it says, I will never. I wasn't. I wouldn't say it was literal, meaning I was. He did tell me something in the foyer while I had my dog. But the point of it, I think, was accurate, actually, and literally the way I live, which was that I did not establish a personal or professional relationship with him. I avoided him and I saw him two other times in the whole. In my whole life. Two other times. That's it. So the next part says. So I was never in the room with him socially for business or even philanthropy. Is that statement true? Yes. So is it your testimony that you were never physically in a room with Jeffrey Epstein after the day of that tour? Answer. Again, this was differentiating me so that I would not put myself, Howard Lutnick, in a position with him, to be alone with him. So I was with my wife, with him, as I described earlier today, a lunch on the island seven years later. And I did listen to him. Tell me about scaffolding in his foyer, but I was not those were not social engagements with them by me, business engagements with them by me, or philanthropic engagements with them and me as a person. I think that is accurate. Question. So I'm focused on the single sentence and I'll read it back. Quote, so I was never in the room with them socially for business or even philanthropy. So is it your testimony that that sentence is, in a literal sense, accurate? Answer. It's accurate as to what I meant, which is I, Howard Lutnick, as a man, would not be in a room or a situation with him because I felt them gross and inappropriate and not having boundaries that I would not put myself in a room with them socially, which I did not, professionally in business, which I did not, and philanthropy, which I did not. I have described in detail the only two times I saw him. And they were not social, they were not business, and they were not philanthropic for me. I had lunch with them, with my wife and family, which I have described in detail, but that was not me putting myself with them, which is what I said and which is the point that I tried to make. Question and so is it that you agree you were in the room with them, full stop, but you don't believe either of those instances you've described qualify as being social or for business or for. For philanthropy. And that's how the sentence ends up being accurate for you. Answer. This is me talking. The point I made was that as a man, I would not put myself and that's the discussion with my wife, right? It's an informal discussion with my wife as we walked away from his home where he said something inappropriate and we discussed that I would put myself or not put myself in a circumstance with him and I would avoid him. And so I did. I avoided him. I was never Howard Lutnick. I was never in the room with him socially for business or philanthropy alone, in a situation where I could be at all with a person who I found inappropriate. So that's correct. It's not literally that I did not say that. I was not intending to say that. I was literally never singularly in the room with them, including with other people like my wife and my children. That's not what I was saying. I was saying that I would never put myself in a position that would be with him alone. Why would I do that? And I said wouldn't and didn't. So I thought that was accurate. Question. So from your point of view, just as a reader of a very simple, straightforward sentence, I think we can agree that you were in the room with Jeffrey Epstein subsequent to the tour of his home, Is that right? I, without my wife, was not in the room with him socially for business or philanthropy. I was with him with my wife and family for lunch on the island in 2012, which I have gone through. But I was never in social situations with him. Howard Lutnick. I was never in a business situation with him, and I was never in a philanthropic situation with him, ever. Yeah, it's just you drifted a bit from the question. Is it correct that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein subsequent to the day of the tour? I'm going to stick to my answer. I thought it was descriptive and accurate. But if I could just get an answer to the question itself, which is, is it correct that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein in a literal sense, subsequent to the day of the tour of his home? Answer. Again, I have described it correctly and I'm going to stick to my answer. Question and you interpreted, if I'm hearing it correctly, you interpreted the word I in this statement to mean you alone. Is that right? Answer it's more than interpreted. I'm the one who said it. I'm telling you what I meant. I'm telling you what I meant. And that's what I said, which is that. And I've already described it. Question. But is it right that you intended to convey, as far as you can recall from the interview last year, you intended to convey the word I that you were speaking only about yourself individually, not in the context of anybody other than you and Epstein being in the room. When you said I, you just meant I, Secretary Lutnick alone was never in the room with Epstein. Answer I think that's generally right. I'm talking to my wife informally as we leave. And we were discussing me, and that's the only person we were discussing is me. And that I would avoid. And I did. Question. Do you, and you may have touched on this. Apologies. If you did the island visit, I think you characterize that as not social. Did I hear that correctly? No. Question. Would you characterize the island visit as social? I would describe a lunch with my wife and my family and the other couple in their family. Yeah, I would describe that as a social lunch. Meaningless and inconsequential social lunch. I agree. Question. Okay, so then is it correct to say that you were in a room with Jeffrey Epstein socially, but from what I hear you testifying because there were other people present, this statement from the interview was still accurate? Answer the statement was accurate because as the person who said it. In describing the conversation, an informal conversation I had with my wife, I was describing the. That I would not be in the room with them socially, and I would not put myself in a position which I never was. You are describing something entirely different than what I was expressing, which is a conversation with my wife where she and I discussed that I would not put myself in there. That's why I said. I didn't say we. It would have been easy for me to say we. I said, as I was discussing with my wife, I would not. So that's the difference. I think I am. I was accurate. I think I described it accurately. I don't want it to be modified in any way. It was. I would not be in the room with him socially, which I was not. For business, which I was not, or philanthropic, which I was not. So I believe what I said was accurate. I believe what I said was accurate when I said it, and I believe it now. So I didn't say we would never. I said I would never. Question. Thank you.

[Uncle Lazer]

Hi, Uncle Laser here. America's built on fast cars, fast food, and even faster women. Photo. Casinos built in America. You know what they're fast at? F. Fast gas price. Redemption. You see, only Moto is US Owned and operated. Moto. It's American made because that's who we are and that's who we care about. Play for free at Moto Us Moto casinos.

[Moto Casino Announcer]

The social casino board. We're prohibited. No purchase necessary. Visit Moto US for more details.

[Uncle Lazer]

Must be 21/ Moto Casino America Social casino.

[Interviewer / Congressional Questioner]

All right, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up, we where we left off. All 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 getting right back to Howard Lutnick and his deposition with congress. Question. Thank you. Sorry. So the last few questions, they've been focused on the sentence in which you described not what you and your wife were talking about or what you were envisioning. It was the sentence where you described the nature of your interaction with Epstein or lack thereof. So you said, quote, I was never in the room with them socially for business or even philanthropy. I think we agreed the island visit was social in nature. But I've heard you testify that this sentence is accurate. As it reads, they're on the paper. And I think the way that you arrive at that conclusion Is, if I'm interpreting your testimony correctly, is that you've said that you've never been in the room with Epstein. You meant alone, not in the company of other people. Is that right? No, it's not. It's that I, Howard Lutnick. Not me, not we. Me and my wife. So when my wife and I are talking as we leave the residence, we discussed that I would not put myself in this situation. So I didn't say we would not. So we were with him for lunch on the island. I did not go alone. Whether we were there with other people there or not is not the point I'm making. I'm saying I am not accompanied by my wife, would not put myself in that situation that could possibly be with this person, even if he was with other people. It's not alone alone. It's me unaccompanied, because we found him to be disgusting. Question. And I'll just clarify. I have moved on past the conversation between you and. And your wife. That's not what I'm asking about. What I'm asking about is the sentence from an interview in which you described your past interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, not what you intended in 2005, what actually happened. And your description of that was that you had been in the room with them socially for business or even philanthropy. We all understand that you were in the room with them in a social setting. But you have insisted that this sentence is accurate. So I just. That does not make sense on its face. And I just want to understand how that could be. Answer. I refers to Howard Lutnick. We refers to my wife and myself together. I didn't say. We didn't discuss that we would never be with him. We discussed that. I, as a man, would not. And I, as a man, was never. So I think this is entirely accurate. Howard Lutnick was never with him socially, philanthropically. Right. Or in a business setting. I was never. I was with my wife on two meaningless and inconsequential interactions, but I was never with him. So that was the point. He was an inappropriate person, which we all learned in 2019. Wildly inappropriate or horrible person. And I was never with him. I was never with him. I was with him with my wife on two meaningless occasions, but I was never with him. Therefore, I could never be anything remotely and inappropriate because I wouldn't put myself in that situation. And that's the discussion I had with my wife. Question. And so really, what it sounds like is that you intended to convey you would have read. So I was never in the room with him alone, socially, for business or philanthropy. Does that accurately characterize what you intended by that sentence? Answer. It would have, but then you would have been asking me, well, did you mean other human beings in the room? I was saying I wouldn't have been there unaccompanied by, in this particular example, my wife. So I would not go unaccompanied. I didn't mean that there couldn't be other people in the room. I'm not saying alone. I'm saying I wouldn't go and put myself in a situation where I was unaccompanied with him because he's disgusting. So you never know with someone without boundaries what might occur. I had no interest in being there with them. That's why I use the word I. I didn't use the word we. Question. And so it sounds like specifically, even narrower than that, you intended to convey I was never in a room with them unaccompanied by my wife socially, for business or philanthropy. Is that the nature of the intention? Answer. Yeah. Question. Okay. I think that statement, as it reads, is a very simple grammatical sentence and has been interpreted by just about anybody who has heard it as reading exactly how it says, quote, I was never in the room with Epstein socially. Could you understand how folks, I think, have felt misled by that remark? Mr. Tellwinger, I would object. I think you're just asking him to speculate what other people thought. Redacted question. Yeah, I mean, it's not a legal sense. You surely are familiar at this point with the fact that that remark, when it was made, was heard to mean what it says, which is that you are not in the room with Epstein socially for business or. Or philanthropy. It turns out you were at the island socially. Folks have viewed that, I think, as a willful misrepresentation. I've heard your testimony here as to what the intention was. Is there a perception on your part that the statement, as you said, was misleading? Answer. It was not misleading. No. You know what I said and you know what I meant. And it's clear from the words that I was. Accurate question. And the phrase one and done, will was used several other times. That's my story. One and absolutely done. Just from a general point of view, you describe two subsequent interactions after the tour. Once and done suggests it was one and done. Did you understand that there was more than one subsequent interaction when you use the phrase one and done? Answer. Again, the point I was making is that I wanted to be clear on a podcast that I was never with Them which I was not. As I said, I was never with him, meaning I was never in a situation with them. I was with my wife. And they were meaningless and inconsequential, but contextually so people would understand. I was never with them in any other manner. I HOWARD Lutnick One person was never in a situation, so you couldn't take it out of context. I was never with him. Question and we'll get to some other folks questions here, but what does the phrase one and done mean to you? Or what is your understanding of the meaning of that phrase? Answer I avoided him and I was never with him as a person, as a man. I was never with him. Redacted. I'm going to ask some questions from members of Congress that are here today. Mr. Khanna thank you, Mr. Secretary. You have said, quote, what happened in that massage room, I assume was on video when you were there with Epstein. How did you know it was on video? Did Mr. Epstein ever tell you that he recorded people? LUTNICK no, that was just me speculating for a podcast. Did you ever see any recordings, let Nick know? Did you have any reason to know other than speculation that there were videos taking place? LOTNICK know it was speculating for a podcast? KANNA well, what was the speculation based on? Just raw speculation. Nothing. And you said also that Epstein was the greatest blackmailer ever. That's how he made his money. What was the premise behind that? I mean, how did you know that? Lutnik I was just speculating for a podcast. But what was I mean, you speculate on a lot of things. There's a reason. You speculate. What was the reason? Why did you believe that to be true? LANNIK he seemed to have a lot of money. That's why I was speculating. I was just speculating. Do you know anyone that he blackmailed or heard anyone that he blackmailed? Lutnick know have you heard anyone say that they felt pressure with him and had to pay him? LUTNICK know did you believe that he engaged in blackmail? It was my speculation at the time. Is it still your belief? No. Now you believe he didn't engage in blackmail? Yes, I don't believe he did. QUESTION so you said that you have a different view of it than you did on the podcast now. Lutnick I do. Kana and why is that? Lutnick because there are people who have been from the administration who have all the details who have said so, and I credit what they say. Khanna first lady Melania Trump said that each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public. Then and only then will we have the truth. Do you agree with the first lady, Lutnik? I support the first lady, sure. Do you agree with the statement? I don't agree or disagree. I just support her. She also said that she supports the full investigation and the release of the remaining files. Do you support her on that? Lutnick? I'll leave that to the administration. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Well, I mean, do you support her on the fact that she's calling for an investigation and releasing the Epstein files? Lutnick again, I'll leave that to the administration itself. Kanna, you don't have an opinion on whether you support the first lady's call? Terwillinger, the other lawyer for Lutnick, jumps in. I think the question's been asked several times and answered. Kana, you said that technically you were accurate in this podcast about never wanting to be in the room with Epstein as a matter, not a legal matter, as a matter of legality. But do you have some regret that you should have been more forthcoming if you had to do it again? And I say I did have these two encounters that you say were trivial. Lnick know, this was a podcast and I think I made the point reasonably. Conor, you have no. Yeah, look, I actually believe you that you didn't go and try to do some of the other disgusting men did with Epstein. But you don't have some sense that maybe you should have been more forthcoming. I'm not saying it's sort of career ending. I'm just saying. Now, you see that sort of people are saying that you weren't fully transparent. Would you have said the same thing? Or do you have some sense of. Maybe I should have mentioned a couple more things. Lutnick. No, for the podcast, but I'm saying for the podcast, I made the point. Even if you look at it, you'd say, well, secretary Lutnick said he wasn't with the guy. And now that I have full information, he actually wasn't with the person. I mean, that's true.

[Uncle Lazer]

Hi, Uncle Laser. Here. America's built on fast cars, fast food, and even faster women. Moto casinos built in America. You know what they're fast at? Fast cash prize redemption. You see, only Moto is US Owned and operated. Moto, it's American made. That's who we are and that's who we care about. Play for free at Moto US Moto

[Moto Casino Announcer]

Casino is the social casino. Boy, we're prohibited. No Purchase necessary visit Moto us request for more details must be 21 plus.

[Interviewer / Congressional Questioner]

Mr. Kana, you acknowledge the fact that you had these things that came out in the files. Do you think that before that you should have said something at that point, whether it was just a podcast or not, you know, no one's perfect. I'm just saying in retrospect, do you think that you should have been a little bit more forthcoming on those two incidents? And maybe it wouldn't have been as big of a deal if you had said that? Lutnik I thought I described an informal conversation with my wife from 20 years ago to make the point I was trying to make. I thought I made it reasonably. I tried to make it reasonably. Kanna so you have no regret? No, I'm done. Mr. Sub Miranium thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today as well. I I appreciate your time. I'm just having struggling with this one and absolutely done. Does that mean were you trying to imply that you had only met with Epstein once when you said that? LUTNICK I was trying to let the podcast understand that I would never be with him. He was a disgusting person, which we all learned after 2019. Mr. Submarine oh, I know that. Lutnick But I was never with him. And the point I was making was that I was never with them and that the people listening to the podcast should understand. I never put myself in a situation where I was with him, where anything could have possibly happened. That's why I said that's why I described the conversation I had with my wife reasonably accurately. Informally, but reasonably accurately. Question when you're sitting down with them talking about scaffolding, aren't you with them in that room? Even if your wife is there, you're both with them, right? Lutnick yeah. Question Are you and I with each other right now? Are we in the same room? Lutnick yeah. QUESTION there's other people here, right? But you and I are both here with each other right now, so how can you say that you are not with them subsequently? That's what I'm trying to understand. Lutnick I think I reasonably described an informal conversation I had with my wife that would be understood by people who were married, that we had an encounter with someone who was inappropriate and we discussed that I would avoid them. And I think everybody who's married understands that when they have a conversation with their wife, that the wife can say, you avoid them. It's a conversation that everybody, I think, understands. And to suggest that I was being literal, that I would literally never be in the room with them. Is not what I intended. It was my words. Question I understand Lutnick and I'm telling you that is not what I said. I said it was a conversation, an informal conversation with me and my wife. And I think people who are married would understand that my wife was saying to me, avoid him. He has no boundaries. And you know for a fact that I did avoid him. I literally avoided him. QUESTION I don't know that for a fact because there's two other occasions where you didn't avoid him. You did not have to go to his island, so you didn't avoid him. In that case, you didn't have to go talk to him about scaffolding. So you didn't avoid him then either. But when you say one and done, that means one occasion in which you were with him, even with your wife. So would you say that was not an accurate statement to say one and absolutely done. And remember, this is two separate times. You're talking, you're talking once about with his wife, about the conversation with your wife, rather, and then you're separately saying, so I was never with him, never in the room with him socially. So that was separate. You are not talking about the conversation with your wife here. You said one and absolutely done. And after that you said that's my story. So you were implying that you had only been there been with them once. LUTNICK I tried to describe it in detail, so I'll stick with my description, which which I gave you in the same exact topic. QUESTION I'm going to switch gears a bit. Have you talked to the Commerce Department about your inclusion in the Epstein files or appearance here today? LUTNICK yeah. QUESTION what were those conversations about generally? LUTNICK that I would be attending and that I have a lawyer. Question have you used Commerce Department resources or staff to discuss this or talk about your defense today? Let Nick know. Question and have you had conversations with President Trump about Jeffrey Epstein or the Epstein files generally, or your involvement with any of them? LUTNICK I'm not going to discuss conversations I have with President but you shouldn't take it one way or the other. I'm just not going to have discussions on it. But please don't take from that one way or the other with respect to the conversation. QUESTION have you had conversations with Attorney General Bondi or former Attorney General Bondi or the current attorney general about the Epstein case? ANSWER no. Question did this ever come up during your vetting? You're living next door to Jeffrey Epstein or any association with him? Lutnick? Not that I can remember. Question. And the last question you mentioned that you were you found them disgusting, you found them gross, Right. And you didn't want to be involved with them. Why would you then go to his island with your family at that point? What was your decision making process to go to his island at that point in 2012, so many years later? I don't know. I don't know. You don't know? I don't. I don't remember and I don't know. Do you recall the decision making process with your staff as far as deciding to go to the island? Did they say this is a good idea? What was the decision making process like? Do you remember, Lutnick? I don't. As I said earlier, the fact that they that his staff knew I was going to be there and pursued us is inexplicable and unsettling. But I don't remember. Submaranium thank you. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here. And in the next episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.

[Moto Casino User / Promoter]

Every dating app swap is another loss gym bros. Fake CEOs, straight up losers. So now the only app I open is Moto Casino Know. Because at least there I'm surrounded by winners. Real winners, thousands of them. While everyone else is in the single swamp, I'm at home relaxing while stacking bonuses hit and wins and playing all my favorite Vegas style games. Moto Casino, the only app worth your time.

[Moto Casino Announcer]

Moto Casino Social Casino Prohibited and purchase necessary. Visit Moto Us for more details. Download the Moto Casino app today must

[Uncle Lazer]

be 21/moto casino American Social Casino.