Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
Speaker 1: and finish off the letter that was sent by Congress
Speaker 1: to Leon Black, Part five non disclosure agreements or within
Speaker 1: the scope of investigation. Your letter argues that Majority Staff
Speaker 1: never indicated to mister Black Council that confidential and legally
Speaker 1: binding agreements would be a subject covered in the interview.
Speaker 1: To reiterate, the Committee did not agree to any limitations
Speaker 1: on scope for the interview and had previously inquired of
Speaker 1: several witnesses in this investigation about confidential and legally binding agreements.
Speaker 1: The Committee asked questions about what it deemed to be
Speaker 1: relevant to its investigation, which included questions about non disclosure
Speaker 1: agreements signed by your client with women the Committee as
Speaker 1: reason to believe to be connected to mister Epstein, as
Speaker 1: was done with other voluntary witnesses in this investigation whose
Speaker 1: interview transferred are publicly available. Similarly, your assertion that Majority
Speaker 1: Staff then began asking questions that fell outside what mister
Speaker 1: Black's council understood to be a reasonable interpretation of the
Speaker 1: committee stated legislative purpose is misguided. It's the committee that
Speaker 1: determines the scope of its inquiry, not the witness. Moreover,
Speaker 1: the Committee asked appropriate questions about the number of non
Speaker 1: disclosure agreements to which your client was a party, whether
Speaker 1: there were other parties to the agreements, whether mister Epstein
Speaker 1: was involved in any such agreement, and whether your client
Speaker 1: knew about other individuals that possessed similar agreements that related
Speaker 1: to mister Abstein. The reason for the committee's questions on
Speaker 1: this topic are twofold. First, mister Abstein and his associates
Speaker 1: used a variety of tools to control his victims and
Speaker 1: other individuals in his orbit. The Committee is aware that
Speaker 1: mister Abstein used non disclosure agreements to silence his associates,
Speaker 1: some of whom have since come forward as victims and
Speaker 1: survivors of his abuse. To conduct a complete and thorough investigation,
Speaker 1: the Committee will pursue all relevant avenues of inquiry. The
Speaker 1: Committee is also aware of the existence of at least
Speaker 1: one non disclosure agreement between your client and a woman
Speaker 1: who was connected to mister Epstein. The pursuit of this
Speaker 1: investigative pathway and relevant facts surrounding it is necessary to
Speaker 1: determine the nature and extent to which mister Epstein and
Speaker 1: his associates use these confidential agreements, which in turn will
Speaker 1: help determine whether legislation is necessary, and, if so, had
Speaker 1: a craft such legislation to prevent such activity from reoccurring. Second,
Speaker 1: the Committee's questions related to non disclosure agreements more broadly,
Speaker 1: are pertinent to the committee's investigative purpose because of concerns
Speaker 1: regarding potential victim association with these agreements. In a previous
Speaker 1: transcribed interview before this Committee, a witness was hesitant to
Speaker 1: answer questions about the identity of an individual with whom
Speaker 1: the witness was associated. Upon disclosure of this individual's identity,
Speaker 1: the committee immediately became aware of an existing connection between
Speaker 1: the individual and mister Epstein, of which the witness was
Speaker 1: not personally aware. Your client claims not to be aware
Speaker 1: of any further connections between mister Epstein and other parties
Speaker 1: to his agreements, but the Committee must inquire about details
Speaker 1: of such agreements to conduct a complete and thorough investigation.
Speaker 1: It's not the committee's prerogative to take a witness's personal
Speaker 1: belief or assertion as an absolute, proven fact that is
Speaker 1: merely stipulated or left otherwise unexplored. The Committee must gather
Speaker 1: relevant information to draw evidence supported conclusions to support its
Speaker 1: legislative prerogatives. Ultimately, it's the Committee, not you and your client,
Speaker 1: that will determine the value and relevance of information your
Speaker 1: client has regarding the Committee's investigation into the actions of
Speaker 1: mister Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates. You also take issue
Speaker 1: with the Committee' specific request for all non disclosure agreements
Speaker 1: to which Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell are referenced. You
Speaker 1: argue that these requests call for information beyond the scope
Speaker 1: of the committee's investigation. The Committee disagrees if either mister
Speaker 1: Epstein or miss Maxwell was associated with a party in
Speaker 1: a non disclosure agreement to which your client, mister Black,
Speaker 1: is a party, these documents would be directly relevant to
Speaker 1: the Committee's investigation into mister Epstein and miss Maxwell. Furthermore,
Speaker 1: non disclosure agreements with individuals who may have had a
Speaker 1: connection with mister Epstein or miss Maxwell, regardless of your
Speaker 1: client's knowledge of their connection, are relevant to the Committee's investigation.
Speaker 1: That stated above, your client's records may highlight a new
Speaker 1: individual of value to the Committee's inquiry or provide evidence
Speaker 1: necessary for the Committee's consideration of policy or other legislative changes.
Speaker 1: In defense of your production of a singular non disclosure agreement,
Speaker 1: you argue that no extent any more such confidentiality agreement exists.
Speaker 1: They would have been negotiated while after Epstein's death. However,
Speaker 1: the fact that mister Black may have entered into other
Speaker 1: confidentiality agreements after Epstein's death is not determinative of their
Speaker 1: relevance or lack thereof to the Committee's investigation. Agreement signed
Speaker 1: after mister Epstein's death could still involve as victims and
Speaker 1: her relate to conduct in which mister Epstein was engaged. Further,
Speaker 1: mister Black's argument is inapplicable to the involvement of Maxwell
Speaker 1: in any agreement, as she is alive and subject of
Speaker 1: this investigation. The subject of subpoena does not have the
Speaker 1: right to decide what documents are responsive to or within
Speaker 1: the scope of any any subpoena duly issued by Congress,
Speaker 1: or their relevance to a valid legislative purpose. For these reasons,
Speaker 1: the remaining documents are crucial to the investigation, and the
Speaker 1: Committee must decide the investigative value of such documents during
Speaker 1: the committee's investigation. Finally, while the Committee acknowledges your concerns
Speaker 1: about the private nature of the contracts, congress legislative prerogatives,
Speaker 1: and need for information the legislate or not limited to
Speaker 1: the confidential terms of a private non disclosure agreement. Your
Speaker 1: co council, Miss Estrich agrees with this sentiment, as she
Speaker 1: emphasized that mister Black had not received a subpoena, but
Speaker 1: that if he had, mister Black and Council would have
Speaker 1: treated this situation differently. During the transcribed interview, your client
Speaker 1: refused to answer nearly a dozen questions on the topic
Speaker 1: of non disclosure agreements, which led to the issuance of
Speaker 1: two subpoenas, one for your client's appearance at a deposition
Speaker 1: on the since scheduled date of September three, and the
Speaker 1: other that requires your client to produce the following documents.
Speaker 1: One all non disclosure agreements to which Leon Black is party.
Speaker 1: Two all non disclosure agreements to which Jeffrey Epstein or
Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell is a party. Three all non disclosure agreements
Speaker 1: to which Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell are referenced or
Speaker 1: were involved in the preparation, execution, or enforcement thereof. The
Speaker 1: Committee engaged in another call with you on August eleventh
Speaker 1: to further discuss the document and deposition sub poenis. On
Speaker 1: this call, you indicated that it's mister Black's intention to
Speaker 1: find common ground on a path forward. The Committee completely
Speaker 1: agrees to the extent that other NDAs or confidentiality agreements exist.
Speaker 1: The Committee again reiterated the requirement to provide context and
Speaker 1: clarification and for you to seek rational accommodations were appropriate. Additionally,
Speaker 1: the August eleventh meeting, you reiterated a point addressed in
Speaker 1: your July twenty fourth letter that to the extent that
Speaker 1: any more confidentiality agreements exist, they would have been negotiate
Speaker 1: well after Epstein's death. In fact, you stated that any
Speaker 1: hypothetical counterparty was abundantly clear that mister Black should not
Speaker 1: produce those agreements to the Committee because they do not
Speaker 1: wish to be part of the small sliver of the
Speaker 1: role mister Black played in Jeffrey Epstein's life, dealings and crimes.
Speaker 1: Mister Black is the subject of the subpoena, and no
Speaker 1: other party dictates what he produces to the Committee. To
Speaker 1: yet again reiterate, the Committee requires such information to decide
Speaker 1: if any of these additional parties were connected to Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 1: are connected to Glenn Maxwell, or are connected to others
Speaker 1: of their associates. Thus, its likely additional responsive documents are
Speaker 1: in the custody of your client, mister Black. You and
Speaker 1: your client, mister Black, do not possess the right to
Speaker 1: unilaterally determine which agreements will produce a response to this
Speaker 1: Committee subpoena for all non disclosure agreements. The production of
Speaker 1: a singular non disclosure agreement after the Committee agreed to
Speaker 1: extend the deadline in good faith by two weeks is
Speaker 1: insufficient to fulfill the requirements of the subpoena. Considering your
Speaker 1: letter fails to articulate that there are no further non
Speaker 1: disclosure agreements and seems to imply additional non disclosure agreements exist,
Speaker 1: the Committee demands full compliance with the subpoena and rejects
Speaker 1: any attempt at further disrupting or delaying this investigation. Of course,
Speaker 1: if your client seeks reasonable accommodations or has scoping requests,
Speaker 1: the Committee, as has always been the case, is prepared
Speaker 1: to review such requests. This is a common practice in
Speaker 1: congressional negotiations. But to this point, no requests have been made.
Speaker 1: During the August eleventh meeting, the Committee asked again for
Speaker 1: you to confirm mister Black's appearance for his deposition on
Speaker 1: September third, twenty twenty six, a date the Committee offered
Speaker 1: as an accommodation to mister Black's schedule and his need
Speaker 1: to prepare with counsel. The Committee reiterated that mister Black
Speaker 1: was required to sit for his filmed transcribed deposition in
Speaker 1: DC on September three, and you indicated that he could
Speaker 1: appear on that date. Additionally, Committee Council offered to accommodate
Speaker 1: mister Black to allow him to provide a privileged log
Speaker 1: of NDAs to which he is a party, in order
Speaker 1: to facilitate the production of response of NDAs relevant to
Speaker 1: the Committee's investigation. During the August eighteenth meeting, Co Council
Speaker 1: for mister Black stated that he would not agree to
Speaker 1: provide a privileged log. Additionally, Co Council stated that mister
Speaker 1: Black would be willing to provide one additional NDA, the
Speaker 1: existence of which is publicly known due to litigation, in
Speaker 1: exchange for an agreement that the Committee one agree not
Speaker 1: the whole Mister Black in contempt related to either subpoena. Two,
Speaker 1: change the deposition subpoena to a voluntary transcribed interview. Three
Speaker 1: limit the scope of the transcribed interview regarding confidentiality agreements
Speaker 1: to only the two NDAs mister Black was willing to provide.
Speaker 1: Four delay the transcribed interview until late September or early October,
Speaker 1: and five not video record the transcribed interview. This offer
Speaker 1: is unreasonable and if accepted, would result in responsive documents
Speaker 1: not being provided to the Committee and limits being placed
Speaker 1: on the Committee's ability to ask questions directly relevant to
Speaker 1: the Committee's investigation. The Committee's been clear it would be
Speaker 1: willing to work with mister Black should he seek reasonable accommodations.
Speaker 1: For example, the Committee is willing to limit the scope
Speaker 1: of its subpoena for NDAs to the date on which
Speaker 1: mister Black met Jeffrey Epstein to present. Additionally, the Committee
Speaker 1: is willing to review in camera a privilege log listing
Speaker 1: the parties to NDAs he is involved with to identify
Speaker 1: those relevant to the Committee's investigation. At no point as
Speaker 1: mister Black sought a reasonable accommodation from the Committee, but
Speaker 1: rather he has consistently sought to dictate the Committee's scope
Speaker 1: of its investigation. Mister Black's continued refusal to comply with
Speaker 1: the Committee's legitimate subpoenas is unacceptable. If mister Black refuses
Speaker 1: to provide the Committee with responsive documents or refuses to
Speaker 1: appear for the scheduled deposition on September third, twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: the Committee will use all tools at its disposal, including contempt.
Speaker 1: The Committee on House Oversight Government Reform is the principal
Speaker 1: oversight committee of the US House Representatives and has brought
Speaker 1: authority to investigate any matter at any time on your
Speaker 1: House Rule ten. If you have any questions, please contact
Speaker 1: Committee on Oversight Government Reform. This document was signed by
Speaker 1: James Comer. All the information that goes with this episode
Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.