← The Tara Palmeri Show
Loading summary
Transcript30 lines
- [00:01]
Mayra Amit
A Mochi moment from Mark, who writes, I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with mochi. Money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet.
- [00:18]
Lisa Rubin
You're the best.
- [00:19]
Mayra Amit
Thanks, Mark. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com
- [00:27]
Host/Anchor
Mark is a Mochi member, compensated for his story. The release of the depositions of both Jeffrey Epstein's accountant, Richard Kahn, and his lawyer, Darren Indyke, is leading to more questions about the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein case. Here's what they told the House Oversight Committee.
- [00:46]
Interviewer
We've been talking about the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein that were conducted in Florida. As you know, Mr. Epstein was subsequently investigated and executed in the Southern District of New York. Were you ever contacted by the Department of Justice or the FBI in connection with that investigation?
- [01:06]
Darren Indyke
No.
- [01:08]
Interviewer
Were you ever contacted by the Department of Justice or the FBI in connection with the investigation or prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York?
- [01:19]
Darren Indyke
I was not personally contacted.
- [01:22]
Interviewer
Have you ever been formally questioned by any government authority in connection with Mr. Epstein? I've never been questioned by any government authority.
- [01:31]
Host/Anchor
Absolutely wild. Neither Khan nor Indyke have been accused of wrongdoing, but they are two men who worked with the deceased sex offender for years. It's hard to believe the DOJ would not have interest in talking to either of them. As NBC News points out, their testimony directly undercuts the government's review of the case, which, quote, the Justice Department and the FBI called exhaustive in an unsigned joint memo in July announcing that the government would not disclose additional materials on the disgraced financier. I want to bring in our senior legal reporter, Lisa Rubin. And Tara Palmeri is with us. She writes the Red Letter on Substack and has hosted two podcast series on the Epstein case. It is good to see you both. That is really startling to me. Explain to me how it is even possible, the doj, that SDNY wouldn't have reached out to them.
- [02:17]
Lisa Rubin
I have no idea why SDNY would not have reached out to them. I can explain why they might not have reached out prior to Epstein's death for two reasons. Why? One, both of them were still in his employ. And to the extent that you don't want to tip off the subject of an investigation, you don't want to get to the people closest to him, who are likely to be loyal to him and help perhaps with the subversion of evidence that was something that was accused with respect to Jeffrey Epstein in the earlier Florida investigation, that they destroyed things that were at the Palm beach house, that they disposed of computer equipment and other evidence. If you thought that was likely to happen again, you might not ask Darren Endyke or Rich Kahn to come in. But the other reason is something that Michael Feinberg touched on with you yesterday, which is Darren Endyke, as a lawyer, is not typically the kind of person you bring in to talk to. Usually when the FBI wants to talk to someone like that, they have to establish that there is, like sort of a higher threshold for talking to someone who behaves as a lawyer. That having been said, why they didn't talk to either of them after Epstein was found dead is stunning to me. They had lots of information that they could have provided that would have been helpful in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. And of course, some of their answers yesterday, Alicia, I believe, inculpate them and why they weren't investigated with respect to potential crimes they may have committed or at least were potentially aiding and abetting.
- [03:40]
Host/Anchor
Which sound are you thinking of?
- [03:42]
Lisa Rubin
I am thinking about a number of things, but in particular, I'm thinking about immigration related crimes. So there are a number of pieces of sound where each of them were asked about instances in which they helped Epstein victims arrange for documents that would be helpful in immigration related proceedings. In Mr. Khan's case, he was asked, for example, about a letter that he wrote on behalf of two known Epstein victims, one an American citizen, the other a foreign born person, where he attested to the strength of their relations and their passion for each other. He admitted on his congressional testimony that that was an embellished letter. I'd like to go further than that. One of the people in that relationship was Jeffrey Epstein's known girlfriend and his girlfriend at the time of his death, she is the largest beneficiary of his will. How a person who principally serves as his accountant and who knew each of these women, he said he knew both of them. I'm not naming them for their own safety and privacy, but he said he knew both of them were why he didn't know one of them was Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend at the time he was asked to write this letter is kind of baffling to me.
- [04:50]
Tara Palmeri
Right. Okay.
- [04:51]
Host/Anchor
I want to stick on that point. Tara, here is another moment from Darren Indyke's deposition. Let's listen and then we'll talk about It. On the other side,
- [05:00]
Darren Indyke
Mr. Endike, with the benefit of hindsight, were there things you witness or observed about Mr. Epstein that could have suggested he was trafficking and sexually abusing young women and girls? Let me at what period of time
- [05:21]
Interviewer
during the entirety of your relationship?
- [05:28]
Darren Indyke
No, I had no knowledge of any allegations before 2006 and after 2006, when he ultimately went to jail and was back, My understanding was that the issue was underage people, sex with underage people. And the understanding was that it was limited to Florida. And when I was in New York, which is where I spent my time, I never saw any underage people. I never saw any sexual activity. He was, by all gowns, a very smart man. I couldn't imagine he would do anything to put himself back in that position again. So, no, there's nothing that I saw that would lead me to believe that he was engaging in misconduct.
- [06:22]
Host/Anchor
Tara, based on the extensive reporting you have done on this case, does that seem plausible to you?
- [06:28]
Tara Palmeri
No, it's not plausible at all. It's incredibly. It's baffling, frankly, to think that. I mean, he was literally withdrawing cash at $7,500 each. He needed cash. What do you need cash for if not for trafficking? He's paying off all of these settlements. For what? What are you paying settlements for? He claims he didn't know what the settlements were about. He says that, you know, wealthy people, they pay settlements all the time to deal with lawsuits. It's shocking to me that he would say that. I think he needs to be called back in, too, to answer questions about Jane Dofour, one of the Epstein survivors who alleged that she was assaulted with Epstein and President Trump. And during the hearings, he said that he paid a settlement to this Jane Doefor, and then he retracted it. So he needs to be brought back in to answer further questions under oath. I think this entire hearing needs to be redone, frankly.
- [07:31]
Host/Anchor
All right, I have more questions about that, and no one is going anywhere. We're going to sneak in a quick break, and then we're going to be right back.
- [07:39]
Representative Thomas Massie
I'm not satisfied until the survivors are satisfied. That's my benchmark. And obviously, you know, in my floor speech here in the House of Representatives, I said, men need to be perp walked in handcuffs to the jail. And until we see that here in this country, we've seen some of that in other countries, but until we see that here in this country, we don't have a system of justice that's working.
- [08:04]
Host/Anchor
Representative Thomas Massie on the Epstein files, we Are back with Lisa and with Tara. Let's talk about the money and the money trail here. Specifically something we heard From Khan about $3 million he received in loans from Jeffrey Epstein. Take a listen.
- [08:22]
Interviewer
To be clear, you are still paying off those loans. When Epstein died, I was continuing to pay interest on those loans. And that's when advice of counsel said don't say what it said. It stopped. It stopped. Thank you. Payments stopped and based on what the trust provisions had in them.
- [08:43]
Host/Anchor
Put that in context for me.
- [08:45]
Lisa Rubin
Well, there's no doubt that working for Jeffrey Epstein was more lucrative than it seemed on its face. Based on the salary that both of these guys earned. Rich Kahn admitted in his deposition and Darren Endeck admitted in his, both of them got sizable multimillion dollar loans from him and stopped repaying on those loans after Epstein died. That means that for some period of time, minus the little amount of interest that they paid, they've gotten multimillion dollar basically awards where they've not had to pay taxes on that. But in addition to that, Alicia, he made distributions to both of these men from trusts that, that he had and both of them testified to that as well again and then multiples of millions of dollars. So you will hear from Con and Indyck's lawyers. Oh, they only made $250,000 a year. Oh, they're not being compensated for their time as co executors of the estate. That is true. But the financial picture in totality is far more complex. Working for Jeffrey Epstein was ultimately lucrative and as the beneficiaries of his will. Next to that girlfriend we were talking about, the next two people in line are Darren Endyke and Rich Kahn. They don't expect to see any money, they say based on demands on the estate. They say new claims are being filed every day. But if anybody sees money after that girlfriend, who's it going to be? The two of them.
- [10:03]
Host/Anchor
Tara, how's all of this landing with survivors?
- [10:06]
Tara Palmeri
I mean it's horrific and it's disgusting. These people represented Jeffrey Epstein for decades and like Jen said, so many of the other people that worked for Jeffrey Epstein, they were really well paid. I went to their homes, the butler, the pilot, they are long retired now and you see where they live and they live in mansions in southern Florida and these are the type of positions that don't usually lead to this sort of retirement. I think that these people knew who they were working for and for that they could charge a premium. I mean he was, he was bequeathed with these two lawyers, 12 and $10 million from the estate. It's that is not normal for executors of estates. So I think they knew exactly what they were doing to pretend that they didn't know what the settlements were for the fact that he advised some of these girls to not speak to the feds according to a survivor and to and to come to them if they needed a lawyer. And this is something that I heard from Jane Doe, one of the Crime Victims Rights act case Courtney Wilde. She said that when the when the FBI was trying to reach her that she believed they were coming for her because Jeffrey Epstein told her when she was 16 years old that she was the one who committed a crime of prostitution and that he was willing to give her a lawyer. So she went to his lawyers and she went to his lawyer. She said she felt like a prostitute. Essentially what he made this 16 year old feel like. And that that was the game. That was the manipulation and that and these men were a part of it against with children involved.
- [11:53]
Host/Anchor
So startling when you put it in those terms. Lisa Rubin, Tara Palmeri, thank you both so much for joining us and talking us through this. There is much more on the Epstein files on this week's episode of the
- [12:03]
Progressive Insurance Announcer
this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it at progressive. Com, Progressive Casualty Insurance company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.