Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to begin taking
Speaker 1: a look at the Bill Gates transcript, and we're going
Speaker 1: to pick up right at the start with Bill Gates
Speaker 1: giving his opening statement after he was sworn in. Mister Gates,
Speaker 1: mister chairman, ranking member members of the Committee, thank you
Speaker 1: for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'm here
Speaker 1: to answer your questions about my interactions with Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: and to help contribute to the Committee's important work. I
Speaker 1: support the release of all the Epstein files and sincerely
Speaker 1: hope that, through your efforts and those of others advocating
Speaker 1: on their behalf, the survivors of Epstein's crimes, Epstein's crimes
Speaker 1: can get the justice that they deserve. At the outset,
Speaker 1: I want to state very clearly, I never witnessed, nor
Speaker 1: had any indication that Epstein was engaged in ongoing criminal conduct.
Speaker 1: I never went to his island or his Florida home.
Speaker 1: I have never victimized anyone. While he may have sought
Speaker 1: the foster a personal relationship, I was never interested in
Speaker 1: that and never reciprocated. I was introduced to Epstein in
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, through people I trusted in my professional and
Speaker 1: philanthropic work, Epstein claimed that he could raise billions of
Speaker 1: dollars for global health from people for whom he provided
Speaker 1: tax and estate services. I recall being aware that Epstein
Speaker 1: had faced prior to legal issues, but I did not
Speaker 1: fully understand the extent of the crimes that he committed.
Speaker 1: I accepted the introduction without applying the scrutiny I should have.
Speaker 1: For almost two decades, my full time focus has been
Speaker 1: global health and education. I've been guided by the belief
Speaker 1: that all lives have equal value, and every child should
Speaker 1: have the chance to live a healthy life, no matter
Speaker 1: where they were born. I have committed all my resources
Speaker 1: and my time to this effort, but my wealth alone
Speaker 1: cannot fill the enormous funding gap that remains. This is
Speaker 1: why trying to encourage others of significant means to invest
Speaker 1: in global health has become such an important element of
Speaker 1: my work. My interactions with Epstein began with a limited
Speaker 1: number of preliminary meetings, three in twenty eleven and two
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve, during which I talked about my goals
Speaker 1: of my work. We began more extensive conversations in twenty
Speaker 1: thirteen and twenty fourteen. The discussions focused on identifying potential
Speaker 1: giving structures such as donor advice funds and how to
Speaker 1: enroll individuals he claimed more interested in making significant contributions.
Speaker 1: I made it clear to Epstein from the outset that
Speaker 1: he would never play a role in any of the
Speaker 1: work or receive any compensation. In twenty fourteen, after Epstein
Speaker 1: brought together a group he described as potential donors, I
Speaker 1: realized that our prior discussions, which should have translated into
Speaker 1: meaningful philanthropic support, were a dead end. It was clear
Speaker 1: that no one in the group was interested enough to
Speaker 1: move forward. At that point, I concluded Epstein would never
Speaker 1: deliver on his promises. I told him we would go
Speaker 1: no further and stop communicating or meeting with them. No
Speaker 1: vehicle for charitable giving was ever created, and no funds
Speaker 1: were ever raised. Our interactions ended in December of twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: four years before new reports in the press and unsealed
Speaker 1: court documents shed additional light on the extent of his crimes.
Speaker 1: It was during the same time period that an employee
Speaker 1: was in the process of transitioning out of my private office.
Speaker 1: This employee engaged Epstein to negotiate and advise them on
Speaker 1: the terms of the separation. I did not ask, nor
Speaker 1: did I want or need Epstein to be involved in
Speaker 1: this matter. His involvement resulted in email exchanges, calls, and
Speaker 1: meetings with members of my team and me. However, the
Speaker 1: agreement we ultimately reached was not any different from what
Speaker 1: was previously agreed upon months in advance of Epstein in
Speaker 1: axserting himself. It was after this that I learned Epstein
Speaker 1: had become aware of sensitive information about my personal life,
Speaker 1: including the fact that I had been unfaithful in my marriage.
Speaker 1: These affairs had nothing to do with my interactions with Epstein,
Speaker 1: but they were painful for my family. As the public
Speaker 1: can now see based on what has been released in
Speaker 1: the files, Epstein was working to use information about my infidelities,
Speaker 1: in addition to many lives that he layered on top
Speaker 1: to pressure me to re engage with them. He was
Speaker 1: unsuccessful in this effort, but it shows some of the
Speaker 1: ways he tried to leverage his interactions with me to
Speaker 1: further his agenda. I should have never met with Epstein
Speaker 1: in the first place. Based on what I know now,
Speaker 1: I understand that even if he had delivered the donors
Speaker 1: he promised, I would not have justified associating with them.
Speaker 1: I see now that he sought to build an image
Speaker 1: of legitimacy around himself, using connections to reputable and powerful
Speaker 1: people to deflect scrutiny and attempt to rehabilitate his reputation.
Speaker 1: I was so focused on the possibility of raising funds
Speaker 1: for global health that I allowed that goal to override
Speaker 1: my better judgment. That is a sobering realization, and it
Speaker 1: has reinforced for me the importance of being more attentive
Speaker 1: to how access and reputation can be manipulated by people
Speaker 1: acting in bad faith. In the work that I do,
Speaker 1: reputation is the basis for developing partnerships that save lives.
Speaker 1: Meeting with Epstein was a grave error in judgment, and
Speaker 1: it put this work at risk. His behavior antithetical to
Speaker 1: all my efforts to contribute to a world where everyone
Speaker 1: has a chance to live a healthy and productive life.
Speaker 1: If the time I spent with Epstein lent them credibility,
Speaker 1: I am deeply sorry. I've learned a significant lesson and
Speaker 1: am now far more careful about who I engage with.
Speaker 1: Even in a limited capacity. I look forward to answering
Speaker 1: all your questions about my interaction with Epstein and the
Speaker 1: topics identified in the Chairman's invitation to appear today. The
Speaker 1: committee's work is essential. It's my sincere hope that those
Speaker 1: harm by Epstein's crimes will receive the justice that they deserve.
Speaker 1: Thank you, mister Spector. Thank you, mister Gates. We've had
Speaker 1: a couple of extra members join, starting with the majority,
Speaker 1: Can you please introduce yourself for the record, Lauren Bobert,
Speaker 1: Eric Burlison, Congressman Steve Lynch, eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: Mister Spector, thank you. The time reads ten fifteen, and
Speaker 1: the Majority's time will begin now. Mister Spector, still asking
Speaker 1: the questions, mister Gates, I want to thank you again
Speaker 1: for coming here voluntarily to answer our questions today. I
Speaker 1: want to start by very very briefly discussing your background.
Speaker 1: I know, of course, you've had a very long and
Speaker 1: very very successful career. Can you provide the committee with
Speaker 1: a brief summary of your career up until now? Answer? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was born in nineteen fifty five. I went to
Speaker 1: high school in Seattle, graduated, I attended Harvard College for
Speaker 1: a few years, but did not complete a degree. I
Speaker 1: founded Microsoft in seventy five. I stayed as CEO of
Speaker 1: Microsoft through the year two thousand. I stayed as Chief
Speaker 1: Technical Advisor through two thousand and eight, so two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, and in my full time work at Microsoft,
Speaker 1: overlapping that, I created the Gates Foundation in the year
Speaker 1: of two thousand, so I gave a substantial gift of
Speaker 1: Microsoft stock in the year of two thousand and so
Speaker 1: between two thousand and two thousand and eight, I was
Speaker 1: a full time Microsoft, part time Gates Foundation. Two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, I ceased my full time work at Microsoft
Speaker 1: and began full time as chairman of the Gates Foundation.
Speaker 1: And since two thousand and eight that's been my primary effort.
Speaker 1: I still give some advice to Microsoft. I have some
Speaker 1: energy innovation work under the term Breakthrough Energy, but my
Speaker 1: full time work is the work of the Gates Foundation,
Speaker 1: which involves areas like education, global health, agriculture, financial services,
Speaker 1: and so that's my primary work today. I turned seventy
Speaker 1: last year. Question thank you, And to be clear, do
Speaker 1: you hold any official position at any of your other
Speaker 1: Do you currently hold any positions at any of your
Speaker 1: other ventures besides the Gates Foundation. Answer. Yeah, I have
Speaker 1: some title with Breakthrough Energy. I'm not sure what that is.
Speaker 1: I have an entity called Gates Ventures that is my
Speaker 1: private office, and I have a group that manages investments
Speaker 1: on my behalf and the foundation's trust behalf called Cascade.
Speaker 1: So I think that's all of my official roles. Question.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and we'll get to more, of course, into
Speaker 1: your interactions with mister Epstein a little bit later. But
Speaker 1: just to be clear for the record, your opening statement
Speaker 1: indicated that your relationship with them, your interactions with them,
Speaker 1: occurred between twenty eleven and twenty fourteen, late twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: Is that right answer? That's right question. So for the
Speaker 1: entire day of that time, your primary role was at
Speaker 1: the Gates Foundation. Is that right answer? Yeah? I mean
Speaker 1: I was doing the whole mix of things I do,
Speaker 1: but yes, at all times since two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: that's been my primary role. Question and you were not.
Speaker 1: You didn't have a formal job at Microsoft during that
Speaker 1: time that you knew, mister Epstein. Is that right answer?
Speaker 1: No question, And at this point philanthropy is your full
Speaker 1: time endeavor? Is that right answer? That's right? For some
Speaker 1: of the energy innovation work, I use private investment vehicles,
Speaker 1: and even the foundation itself often uses investments as part
Speaker 1: of its overall strategy. But the work, the aim of
Speaker 1: the work is philanthropic. Question. Thank you, and again, we'll
Speaker 1: get deeper into this a little bit later, but I
Speaker 1: just want to do a high level lynch. We can
Speaker 1: hear the question, we can hear the answer, we can't
Speaker 1: hear the questions at all. Thank you, mister Emmer. We've
Speaker 1: had another member join. Can they please announce themselves for
Speaker 1: the record. William Timmins, South Carolina fourth Congressitional District. Question,
Speaker 1: mister Gates, when did you first meet mister Jeffrey Epstein? Answer?
Speaker 1: It was January twenty eleven that I had dinner with them.
Speaker 1: Question and was that at mister Epstein's home? Answer? His
Speaker 1: home in New York. Yes. Question, can you describe the
Speaker 1: circumstances that led you to attending that dinner? Answer? Doctor Nikolicch,
Speaker 1: who worked for me, said that since I was out
Speaker 1: in New York, I might be interested in having dinner
Speaker 1: with them, and so that got scheduled. Question He said
Speaker 1: you might be interested in it. Did he say why
Speaker 1: you might be interested in it. Answer, he probably gave
Speaker 1: me a brief description that about Epstein. Question do you
Speaker 1: recall what that description entailed? Answer? No, I don't. Question
Speaker 1: What did you discuss in your first interaction with mister Epstein? Answer?
Speaker 1: You know, it was a dinner that I would have
Speaker 1: talked about what I was doing. He would have mentioned
Speaker 1: a number of scientists and people that he spent time
Speaker 1: talking to. You know, it was kind of an introductory dinner,
Speaker 1: and I don't remember all the specific question, so he
Speaker 1: was sort of giving you an outline of the powerful
Speaker 1: people that he knew. Is that what you mean by
Speaker 1: that answer? More intellectual you know, professors or science people,
Speaker 1: as well as some business leaders. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it was that night or some other time, but he
Speaker 1: did talk about that he provided advice to lots of billionaires.
Speaker 1: Question do you recall any specific names that he mentioned
Speaker 1: to you? Answer not at the time. You know, he
Speaker 1: talked about Wall Street billionaires, he talked about Middle East billionaires.
Speaker 1: He made it sound very extensive. Question did you get
Speaker 1: the sense that he was offering you some kind of service? Answer? No.
Speaker 1: Question Why do you think he was telling you about
Speaker 1: the people that he worked with? Answer? Maybe for me
Speaker 1: to have a good impression of them. You know, at
Speaker 1: some point, I don't think that first night, the idea
Speaker 1: that some of those people might give money to Global
Speaker 1: Health came up. Question I know you said you don't
Speaker 1: recall exactly the description that doctor Nikolach gave you about
Speaker 1: mister Epstein. But do you recall, if anything, you knew
Speaker 1: about mister Epstein in general before you met him the
Speaker 1: first time? Answer? I was aware that he had a
Speaker 1: criminal conviction. Question how were you aware of that? Answer?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure either I looked it up or somebody
Speaker 1: told me. Question did doctor Nikolicche tell you that? Answer?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. Question do you recall knowing at the
Speaker 1: time what the criminal conviction was for? Answer? I knew
Speaker 1: that it had to do with the sexual nature, But no,
Speaker 1: I don't think I knew dug into the specifics, although
Speaker 1: I probably should have. Question would you normally look into
Speaker 1: people's backgrounds before you meet with them? Was this an
Speaker 1: uncommon way of handling it? Answer? I don't have a
Speaker 1: formal process for people I meet. Question did you ask
Speaker 1: mister Epstein about the conviction at any time? Answer? I
Speaker 1: did not bring it up during the dinner. Answer and
Speaker 1: he didn't bring it up either. Answer no, question, did
Speaker 1: anyone ever raise concerns to you about mister Epstein with
Speaker 1: regard to that conviction or anything else in twenty eleven?
Speaker 1: Answer well, throughout the time I spent with Epstein, the
Speaker 1: concern about his reputation was voiced by me and other people.
Speaker 1: So there was an awareness that he had a bad
Speaker 1: reputation stemming from his criminal conviction. Question, and you're saying
Speaker 1: that you were aware of these concerns early on. Were
Speaker 1: you describing conversations that occurred later in your relationship with
Speaker 1: mister Epstein. Answer I'd say both. Question, So you were
Speaker 1: aware that he had a bad reputation and he had
Speaker 1: some sort of sex related conviction at the time you
Speaker 1: first entered into contact with him. Answer that's right. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: We're going to wrap up right here, and in the
Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
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: where he left off with Bill Gates and the transcript
Speaker 1: from his interview with Congress. Question what were your first
Speaker 1: impress of mister Ebstein? Answer, Well, he talked about a
Speaker 1: lot of scientists that he would talk to, were business
Speaker 1: leaders he would talk to, and he made that sound
Speaker 1: fairly extensive, you know, across a wide range of topics,
Speaker 1: somebody who focuses time on a large number of subjects
Speaker 1: and new people who were deeply engaged in those areas. Questions,
Speaker 1: So he made a good impression. Answer, you know, he's
Speaker 1: kind of a unique person. You know, based on the
Speaker 1: limited knowledge I have had at the time, it was
Speaker 1: kind of a unique thing to have this large house
Speaker 1: in Manhattan and to mention quite a wide range of
Speaker 1: people from both business and academic areas. I would say,
Speaker 1: you know, I thought that was unusual. Question who else
Speaker 1: was with you at this first dinner you had with
Speaker 1: mister Epstein in twenty eleven? Answer for dinner itself, just
Speaker 1: doctor Nikolich? Question were other people traveling with you for that?
Speaker 1: Is that what you meant? Answer? No questions who at
Speaker 1: the dinner you were with doctor Nikolich, mister Ebstein and
Speaker 1: nobody else was at the dinner? Is that right? Answer?
Speaker 1: That's right? Question? And did you understand his job or
Speaker 1: career to be when you met with him. Answer, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure if it was at night, but over time
Speaker 1: he suggested that he provided tax advice and advice on wills,
Speaker 1: and a wide variety of people, both from Wall Street,
Speaker 1: from the Middle East. You know that he was in
Speaker 1: a position of trust with a number of wealthy people.
Speaker 1: Question and you said you didn't get the sense he
Speaker 1: was offering you any kind of service. So he wasn't
Speaker 1: offering you the tax or estate services of any kind.
Speaker 1: Answer No, There came a time later when he brought
Speaker 1: it up, you know he could help on taxes, and
Speaker 1: I rather sternly rebuff the effort. Question sure, and we
Speaker 1: can get more into that a bit later. So at
Speaker 1: this point, meeting him for the first time in twenty eleven,
Speaker 1: did you understand him to already be wealthy at that point? Answer? Well, certainly,
Speaker 1: you know, just the house alone represented a significant amount
Speaker 1: of wealth. I'd never seen. I don't think to this
Speaker 1: day I've seen a private house in Manhattan that's quite
Speaker 1: that spacious. Yes. Question did you have any idea at
Speaker 1: the time how he acquired his money? Answer? No, to
Speaker 1: this day I find it a bit confusing question. And
Speaker 1: again we'll get a bit deeper into your interactions with
Speaker 1: mister Epstein later, but just for now, could you briefly
Speaker 1: characterize the nature of the relationship that you had with
Speaker 1: mister Epstein between twenty eleven and twenty fourteen. Was he
Speaker 1: a friend? Was he a business associate? Answer? No, he
Speaker 1: certainly wasn't a friend. You know, he made an effort
Speaker 1: to extend the relationship with various invitations, but you know, eventually,
Speaker 1: you know, as I talked about my work in global
Speaker 1: health for the Gates Foundation, he suggested that he could
Speaker 1: raise substantial amounts of money from people that he knew
Speaker 1: to help with that endeavor, and he became the primary
Speaker 1: focus out in twenty thirteen, twenty eleven, we just had
Speaker 1: you know, two dinners, one where it was with Jess
Speaker 1: Daily and Larry Summers, one where he was just dropping by. So,
Speaker 1: you know, three encounters in twenty eleven, and then over
Speaker 1: a year passes, and I see him twice in late
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, and then it's I think spring twenty thirteen
Speaker 1: where this purported availability of people who then they would
Speaker 1: sit and talk about their wills, their taxes that as
Speaker 1: part of the process, they would realize they had significant
Speaker 1: amount of access money and hopefully they would want to
Speaker 1: give that philanthropically, and hopefully they would consider giving that
Speaker 1: to global health. So that became the focus in spring
Speaker 1: of twenty thirteen. Question, so you said he would give
Speaker 1: invitations for things. Were these social functions or philanthropic or otherwise? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: they weren't social. I mean, there was one time at
Speaker 1: the end of a dinner David Blaine came and so
Speaker 1: that was a lighter thing. He's a magician. But the
Speaker 1: meetings they were always about the world and you know
Speaker 1: what was going on. Obviously when somebody like Larry Summers
Speaker 1: or Jess Daley is there, they're talking about what they
Speaker 1: see in the world, what they expect. So it's a
Speaker 1: wide ranging discussion. Question So did you ever socialized with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no, I would not say I was
Speaker 1: socializing with him. I was at a dinner where a
Speaker 1: wide range of serious topics came up. When he, for example,
Speaker 1: invited me to come to his island, that would have
Speaker 1: been socializing and I didn't do that. You know, one
Speaker 1: time in Paris he asked me to go to a
Speaker 1: show and I said that would not be a good idea.
Speaker 1: I chose not to do that. Question So he did
Speaker 1: invite you to a couple of social functions and you
Speaker 1: just rejected him. Answer? He did many things to try
Speaker 1: to deepen the relationship, including various invitations. Question did you
Speaker 1: ever discuss sexual behavior of any kind with Jeffrey Epstein?
Speaker 1: Answer no. Question. Did you ever witness Jeffrey Epstein engaging
Speaker 1: in sexual contact of any kind? Answer no. Question Did
Speaker 1: you ever witness Epstein receive a massage from a young
Speaker 1: woman or a girl? Answer no. Question Whether often young
Speaker 1: women or girls at the places where you would meet
Speaker 1: with Epstein? Answer no. The only time anyone who I'd
Speaker 1: call a girl was around after that first dinner, Eva
Speaker 1: Dubin came and she had her daughter with her. Other
Speaker 1: than that, there were no young women at any other
Speaker 1: times I saw with Epstein. Questions, So none of Epstein's employees,
Speaker 1: we understand, were younger women. Did you ever meet any
Speaker 1: of those people? Answer? I was not introduced to them,
Speaker 1: but you know, like when you go to the New
Speaker 1: York thing, I think they opened the door. Jeffrey Mister
Speaker 1: Epstein had what appeared to be administrative assistants with them,
Speaker 1: and the extent of my contact with them was that,
Speaker 1: you know, they were there as I would go into
Speaker 1: the meeting. They never attended any meeting that I was in.
Speaker 1: There were several occasions where mister Ebstein asked me to
Speaker 1: be photographed with them at the end of the meeting.
Speaker 1: I was not introduced to them as part of that.
Speaker 1: That was quite brief. One of the admins stayed when
Speaker 1: David Blaine did one of his tricks, so she was
Speaker 1: standing around then. And there was also a time when
Speaker 1: I took a flight from Newark to Palm Beach and
Speaker 1: Jeffrey had two admins assistance with them who sat in
Speaker 1: the front cabin. But so I saw them as I
Speaker 1: walked onto the plane, and as I walked off the plane.
Speaker 1: So to the other admins that were around, you know,
Speaker 1: who appeared to be women, I believe they did not
Speaker 1: look to be underage. I think I fully described any
Speaker 1: contact with women around Epstein. Question thank you, did you
Speaker 1: ever engage in sexual contact of any kind in the
Speaker 1: presence of Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no, question. Did you ever
Speaker 1: engage in sexual contact with a person introduced to you
Speaker 1: by or affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no question did
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein or any of his associates ever offer you
Speaker 1: a young woman or a girl for the purpose of sex?
Speaker 1: Answer no question. Did you ever receive a massage that
Speaker 1: was arranged by Jeffrey Epstein or any of his staff
Speaker 1: or associates, answer no question. We already discussed that you
Speaker 1: were aware that he had been convicted of his sex crime.
Speaker 1: But to be clear, at the time, were you aware
Speaker 1: that he was a registered sex offender? Answer? I was not. Question.
Speaker 1: Do you recall when you first learned that he was
Speaker 1: a registered sex offender? Answer? You know it's really twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: one of Miami newspapers described the sort of extensive and
Speaker 1: horrific details of what he had done before his two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight two thousand and nine conviction. That I
Speaker 1: became aware of the extent of his crimes, and I
Speaker 1: believe that's when I first knew that he actually registered
Speaker 1: as a sex offender. Question. And so you ended your
Speaker 1: relationship with mister Epstein in late twenty fourteen, as you've
Speaker 1: mentioned today, and you just said that you learned he
Speaker 1: was a sex offender and more of the extent of
Speaker 1: his crimes in twenty eighteen. To be clear. Did you
Speaker 1: have any interaction with mister Apstein after twenty fourteen? Answer
Speaker 1: I did not. Question Did you have any communication with
Speaker 1: mister Epstein directly or through an intermediary during that time?
Speaker 1: Answer yeah, right after twenty fourteen. There was an email
Speaker 1: sent to me. After twenty fourteen, he sent me quite
Speaker 1: a bit of emails. The majority of emails that he
Speaker 1: sent to me actually were after I'd cut off all contact.
Speaker 1: Most of those I did not read, but in the
Speaker 1: early period there was some that I did read. One
Speaker 1: of those sought reimbursement for what he purported was expenses
Speaker 1: that he paid with a woman who he became aware
Speaker 1: of was a woman who I had an affair with,
Speaker 1: and I communicated to my key person, top person at
Speaker 1: Gates Ventures, Larry Cohen, that we were never going to
Speaker 1: pay anything. And so in that sense, I did have
Speaker 1: direct communication or indirect communication with them, and I think
Speaker 1: that was in the months after I cut off direct contact. Question. Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll get into that a little bit more later, but
Speaker 1: just a few questions about that. So this person that
Speaker 1: you had the affair with, is that Milla Antonova. Answer yes, question,
Speaker 1: and you said you directed your staff not to reimburse
Speaker 1: mister Epstein for payments he was requesting. They were you said,
Speaker 1: reimbursements for expenses he was covering for miss Antonova. Is
Speaker 1: that right? Answer? That's what he represent ended. Question. Why
Speaker 1: would he want you to reimburse him for that? Answer?
Speaker 1: You know, I viewed it as a tactic to re
Speaker 1: engage with me. I'd never ask him to do anything
Speaker 1: with the respect to a person worth discussing. So I
Speaker 1: was rather surprised. That was the first time I knew
Speaker 1: explicitly that he'd become aware of that affair. Question. So
Speaker 1: you did not know until I'm sorry, this was in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen that we're discussing now. Answer, yeah, late twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: maybe early twenty fifteen, where he's seeking reimbursement. Question, So
Speaker 1: you did not know until late twenty fourteen or early
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen that Jeffrey Epstein was aware of any of
Speaker 1: your affairs or just this affair. Answer in the termination
Speaker 1: or exit discussion relative to doctor Nikolch, which is as
Speaker 1: early as I think spring of twenty thirteen, mister Epstein
Speaker 1: made some Beil references that made me wonder whether he
Speaker 1: had become aware, which you know, the only way I
Speaker 1: can imagine that would have been happening was through doctor
Speaker 1: Nikolic of either one or two affairs that I'd had
Speaker 1: that doctor Nikolitch was aware of, but until the specific
Speaker 1: reimbursement requests, it was a veiled type of thing that
Speaker 1: he would say, you know, we should all want to
Speaker 1: remain friends. Question do you know what exactly the expenses
Speaker 1: he paid for for miss Antonova were? Answer? I have
Speaker 1: no idea. You know, he wasn't an honest person, so
Speaker 1: understanding did he pay those expenses or not? I have
Speaker 1: no knowledge. Question And we'll talk a little bit more
Speaker 1: about that a little bit later, so we can go
Speaker 1: ahead and move along. Mister Emmer, we've had another member join.
Speaker 1: Can you please announce yourself for the record, James Walkinshaw,
Speaker 1: eleven District, Virginia. Now mister spector asking questions. Thank you,
Speaker 1: mister Gates, and again we'll come back to some of
Speaker 1: those topics and my apologies. We're probably going to bounce
Speaker 1: around a little bit. We're going to try to have
Speaker 1: some sort of you know, semblance of chronology here. Emmer.
Speaker 1: We've had another member joined, Can he please announce himself
Speaker 1: for the record. Congressman Eric Burlison, Missouri. Question, so we've
Speaker 1: already begun talking about doctor Nikolch, but for the record,
Speaker 1: who is doctor Nikolich? Answered doctor Nikolich. He is a
Speaker 1: person who worked at the Gates Foundation on the diagnostic
Speaker 1: strategy for a period. Then he left the Gates Foundation
Speaker 1: and came to work in my private office, which was
Speaker 1: called the BGC three. It's been renamed to Gates Ventures.
Speaker 1: It's the same private office. So he worked there. I
Speaker 1: think his title was Science Advisor from something like twenty
Speaker 1: ten until one was his last day end of twenty thirteen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: until the end of twenty thirteen. Question and just very briefly,
Speaker 1: because we're going to be discussing his employment dispute, but
Speaker 1: why did he leave his employment at the end of
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen? Just briefly, did you fire him? Did he resign?
Speaker 1: What exactly occurred? Answer? Doctor Nikolch. When he worked for me,
Speaker 1: had decided that he wanted to become a venture capitalist,
Speaker 1: and so he said, hey, you know, working for you,
Speaker 1: I can just make a salary. I understand about biotech companies,
Speaker 1: which ones are going to be successful. I think both
Speaker 1: in terms of impact and making money. That's where I
Speaker 1: should go, and so more than a year before he left,
Speaker 1: we talked about that. I said, you know, why don't
Speaker 1: you stay another year. You can make some up to
Speaker 1: three investments during the time you're with me, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of practice venture capital type investment, and we'll share
Speaker 1: the profit of those investments. So doctor Nikolch, you know,
Speaker 1: had decided that he was moving on and was going
Speaker 1: to venture capital. His actual exit was somewhat accelerated by
Speaker 1: the fact that I shared with my wife at the
Speaker 1: time that he was aware of the affairs that I had,
Speaker 1: and she and I discussed that I should probably have
Speaker 1: them leave sooner rather than later. So that was a
Speaker 1: factor in terms of the timing of his exit question. So,
Speaker 1: in summary, he was already kind of had, you know,
Speaker 1: one foot out the door to some degree, but it
Speaker 1: was accelerated by the disclosure of your affairs to your
Speaker 1: then wife, Melinda French Gates. Is that right answer? That's right?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know what would have happened if
Speaker 1: I hadn't given him the opportunity to make the investments.
Speaker 1: And he was sort of saying that he didn't want
Speaker 1: to go and do that, and so I think I
Speaker 1: extended the amount of time he stayed with me by
Speaker 1: letting him make up to three investments. Question would you
Speaker 1: say doctor Nikolich was one of your closest advisors? Answer?
Speaker 1: I have a lot of advisers, but he as my
Speaker 1: science advisor at Gates Venture. He was a valuable advisor
Speaker 1: to me. Did you see him as purely professional? Was
Speaker 1: it purely a professional relationship or was he a friend
Speaker 1: of yours as well? Answer? That was a professional relationship.
Speaker 1: I mean where you draw the line there. I was
Speaker 1: friendly with doctor Nikeolch, but I didn't socialize with him.
Speaker 1: He didn't come to my house. I didn't go to
Speaker 1: his house. Question When was the last time you communicated
Speaker 1: with doctor nikolic Answer? Many years ago? Question can you
Speaker 1: give me an estimate? Was it twenty fourteen when he
Speaker 1: left employment or was it after that? Answer? There was
Speaker 1: an MIT advisory committe for some of the work the
Speaker 1: Foundation was doing with MIT, and he stayed on that
Speaker 1: committee for I think a year after he left, and
Speaker 1: that was probably the last direct communication that I had
Speaker 1: with him in those couple of years where he stayed
Speaker 1: on the advisory committee and no communication since then. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next
Speaker 1: episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
Speaker 1: we left off. All the information that goes with this
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
Speaker 1: and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off
Speaker 1: with the Bill Gates transcript from his meeting with Congress. Question,
Speaker 1: we've already discussed mister Nickolic. Doctor Nikolic of course, introduced
Speaker 1: you to mister Epstein. So in your words, can you
Speaker 1: characterize doctor nikeolch relationship with mister Epstein, or at least
Speaker 1: your understanding of their relationship? Answer? Well, during the time
Speaker 1: I knew Epstein, I thought it was just he had
Speaker 1: met him before I had, and he was kind of
Speaker 1: organizing the visits that took place. In Looking at the
Speaker 1: email documents that came out in January, to my surprise,
Speaker 1: I now see that he had quite an extensive relationship
Speaker 1: with mister Epstein. So I was not aware of all
Speaker 1: of that during the time that I met with mister
Speaker 1: Epstein in twenty eleven to twenty fourteen. Question, are you aware
Speaker 1: that doctor Nikolch was ultimately named in one of mister
Speaker 1: Epstein's final will and testaments. Answer, I've seen that in
Speaker 1: the press. Question so you learned about that much later
Speaker 1: in the press? Answer? I hope it's an accurate thing.
Speaker 1: I was a press report that mentioned it. Question but
Speaker 1: you have no first hand knowledge of that? Answer? No question.
Speaker 1: Did that surprise you when you read it? Answer A
Speaker 1: lot question by mister spector. I'd like to enter into
Speaker 1: the record majority Exhibit one, which is an email that
Speaker 1: Epstein sent to doctor Nikolic on June sixteenth, twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: The bates number on this document is E zero zero
Speaker 1: eight seven three eight seven four, And just for the record,
Speaker 1: all of the bates numbers that begin with the FTA
Speaker 1: are documents that the Department of Justice released pursuant to
Speaker 1: the Epstein Files Transparency Act. I'll give you a second
Speaker 1: to look at it, but I will note that I'll
Speaker 1: be reading much of or all of it into the record,
Speaker 1: so you don't need to read the entire thing. The
Speaker 1: first question is have you seen these emails before? Answer? Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: I mean I may have seen these when they came
Speaker 1: out in January, but not before that question, So you
Speaker 1: don't recall ever seeing these emails prior to the Epstein
Speaker 1: Files Transparency Act release by the DOJ answer, I did
Speaker 1: not question in the first email. So the email at
Speaker 1: the bottom of the page, that's an email from mister Epstein.
Speaker 1: Context clues from the rest of the document indicate that
Speaker 1: that was sent to Boris Nikolch, but of course that
Speaker 1: is redacted on the document he sent to do Boris
Speaker 1: on Sunday, June sixteenth, at twelve oo. It reads to
Speaker 1: me and then it looks like a draft of a
Speaker 1: statement or an email that says Bill. I'm in tears
Speaker 1: as I write this. I have barely slept for three days.
Speaker 1: I'm devastated, beyond words. I find myself losing my best
Speaker 1: friend in my career, all in one day, by no
Speaker 1: fault on my own. As your friend, I suggest you
Speaker 1: carefully reconsider your alternatives. If Melinda decides to file for divorce,
Speaker 1: I will of course stand by you and help any
Speaker 1: way I can. I want to see you happy. Truly
Speaker 1: difficult choices no matter what. As you know, I'm going
Speaker 1: in for delicate surgery on my eyes on Tuesday. This
Speaker 1: timing cannot be worse. I will totally be out of
Speaker 1: it for a few days. I hope you're able to
Speaker 1: convince Melinda to allow me to continue doing my job,
Speaker 1: a job you described as I could not have done better.
Speaker 1: I hope to ask her face to face to change
Speaker 1: your mind. I have done nothing wrong. And the email continues,
Speaker 1: but just for the record, there in twenty thirteen when
Speaker 1: this email was sent, were you and your wife Melinda
Speaker 1: considering divorce? Answer no question. Why would mister Epstein or
Speaker 1: doctor Nikolch be under the impression that you were? Answer well,
Speaker 1: I never would have discussed anything relating to that subject
Speaker 1: with mister Epstein. I told Boris doctor Nikolich, sorry that
Speaker 1: I shared the information about the two affairs, and he
Speaker 1: may have thought, you know, that meant our marriage was
Speaker 1: at risk. It was certainly a deeply troubling thing for
Speaker 1: my wife, But at this time there was not a
Speaker 1: discussion of a divorce question. It seems in this draft
Speaker 1: that's written from doctor Nikolich's perspective that he may have
Speaker 1: believed that Melinda was the one who wanted him to
Speaker 1: leave the job. And I think you characterized it earlier
Speaker 1: as kind of a back and forth discussion with your
Speaker 1: then wife. Was it Melinda's discussion? To ask doctor Nikolitch
Speaker 1: to accelerate his departure or was it a mutual decision
Speaker 1: between the two of you. Answer? It was a mutual decision.
Speaker 1: I agreed with Melinda that having him leave pretty soon
Speaker 1: was the best thing, and so that's what I did,
Speaker 1: and that was a quicker departure than would have happened otherwise. Question.
Speaker 1: I'll continue reading the draft email it continues. However, I
Speaker 1: recognize the fact that it might not be possible at
Speaker 1: this time. I also recognize that I will need a
Speaker 1: lawyer to review any agreement we might enter into. But
Speaker 1: I don't trust any with such sensitive information. I've asked
Speaker 1: Jeffrey to oversee and negotiate for me, and have given
Speaker 1: him power of attorney to act on my behalf. He
Speaker 1: also needed to be my health proxy during my operation.
Speaker 1: I have informed them of all the details surrounding our dilemma.
Speaker 1: I trust them one hundred percent. My communication with him
Speaker 1: is privileged. No worry. He's agreed to act as my
Speaker 1: financial and legal representative. You can trust him. He's dealt
Speaker 1: with very similar problems in the past. Obviously, he hasn't
Speaker 1: given me the details. I would greatly appreciate you and
Speaker 1: he talking directly. He does not know Larry and cannot
Speaker 1: be open with him. He doesn't like or trust pr people.
Speaker 1: This is a terrible circumstance in which we find ourselves.
Speaker 1: But I'm confident of our friendship, and I know you
Speaker 1: know how devoted I am to you, and I will
Speaker 1: say I ask you if you've seen these emails before
Speaker 1: the release, but I'll be more specific. Do you have
Speaker 1: any email or any other type of message that's similar
Speaker 1: to that draft I just read to you? Did you
Speaker 1: receive something like that in twenty thirteen? Answer? Never? Never
Speaker 1: anything close question. So doctor Nikolch and mister Epstein are
Speaker 1: communicating about something that they might send to you, but
Speaker 1: it sounds like they didn't. Is that right? Answer? I
Speaker 1: never received anything like that. Question. In the second email
Speaker 1: in the middle that doctor Nikolch writes back to mister
Speaker 1: Epstein at twelve twelve on June sixteenth, twenty thirteen, doctor
Speaker 1: Nikolch seems to say, this is great. My only worry
Speaker 1: is whether I should send him now or tell him
Speaker 1: when I see him on Monday. He's still trying to
Speaker 1: make it work with Melinda. He's having next round of
Speaker 1: negotiation with her next weekend. If all fails, then it's
Speaker 1: a negotiation for a next step. If I send it
Speaker 1: right now, it reads that I accepted. It's all over. Finally,
Speaker 1: I can't put something such as divorce in an email.
Speaker 1: If she reads, she'll go the extra step to be
Speaker 1: as nasty as possible. Also, I think that my chances
Speaker 1: of convincing him to talk to you or hire if
Speaker 1: I do it in person and not over the email.
Speaker 1: So how about hold this? So? How about you hold
Speaker 1: this for eight days? Thank you? B It sounds like
Speaker 1: mister Nikolich agrees with the perspective denoted in mister Epstein's
Speaker 1: draft and that he would be more interested though, in
Speaker 1: having the conversation with you face to face. Did he
Speaker 1: have any sort of conversation with you face to face
Speaker 1: during this time? Answer? But I've never seen this email,
Speaker 1: so I mean you can ask me questions, but I
Speaker 1: add no value questions, so I guess I'll be more specific.
Speaker 1: I understand you've testified that you've not seen the email.
Speaker 1: Did doctor Nikolitch approach you and communicate these feelings in person,
Speaker 1: so not over email? Answer no question in the draft email? Again,
Speaker 1: understanding that you have not seen it until much later,
Speaker 1: Doctor Nikolitch is implying that he has entrusted Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: with sensitive information, seemingly with relation to you, and that
Speaker 1: he has given Epstein power of attorney to act on
Speaker 1: his behalf, that he will be as financial and legal representative.
Speaker 1: So were you aware that Jeffrey Epstein was going to
Speaker 1: be acting as a legal or financial representative of doctor Nikolich? Answer? Welly,
Speaker 1: he wasn't a lawyer, so I'm not sure how a
Speaker 1: non lawyer becomes someone's legal representative. Eventually, doctor Nikolich did
Speaker 1: communicate to me that he was involving Epstein in the
Speaker 1: discussion of doctor Nikolich's exit. I forgot exactly, but he
Speaker 1: sent he told me that he was involving Epstein. Question again,
Speaker 1: you didn't receive this email, but it seems that they're
Speaker 1: trying to get across to you. Is that, while you're
Speaker 1: correct that Jeffrey Epstein was not in fact a lawyer,
Speaker 1: they are representing him to have some sort of privileged
Speaker 1: communication with doctor Nicolache, seemingly in a way that would
Speaker 1: make it seem like sensitive information, the sensitive information that
Speaker 1: mister Epstein knows about is privileged. Did you ever have
Speaker 1: a conversation like that with doctor Nikolich. Answer no, how
Speaker 1: could it be privileged? Question I'm just as confused as
Speaker 1: you are. But I guess what I'm asking is, did
Speaker 1: they represent to you that it could be privileged? Answer?
Speaker 1: I told you that in terms of awareness of the
Speaker 1: affairs that I had, there were no explicit reference to that,
Speaker 1: but there was some what you could call veiled reference
Speaker 1: to it, in the form of, hey, we should all
Speaker 1: want to be friends. It's only later when Epstein is
Speaker 1: talking about his reimbursements to a specific woman that I
Speaker 1: was aware of that. I became fully aware of that.
Speaker 1: There was a point in the discussions with Boris where
Speaker 1: you know, I said, I'm not going to be influenced
Speaker 1: by what you might or might not know or say.
Speaker 1: But again, this email is complete news to me. Question Okay,
Speaker 1: the top of the email, I won't the entire one,
Speaker 1: but it seems to imply that you had already given
Speaker 1: doctor Nikolic some kind of offer, probably related to his departure.
Speaker 1: Had you already given doctor Nickolch some kind of exit
Speaker 1: package or offer in June of twenty thirteen. Answer, yeah,
Speaker 1: there was a prior agreement about He ended up making
Speaker 1: two investments on our mutual behalf. You know, I'd authorize
Speaker 1: him to make three, but he made two, so there
Speaker 1: was you know, putting into writing how we would handle
Speaker 1: his payment for his share of those, and then just
Speaker 1: the termination agreement. So that was all known before he
Speaker 1: engaged Epstein in the exit discussions. Question. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: I will now enter into the record majority exhibit two,
Speaker 1: which is an email from mister Epstein to himself on
Speaker 1: July eighteenth, twenty thirteen. This is Mark Bates number EFTA
Speaker 1: zero one nine sixty six nine eight eight. And they'll
Speaker 1: note for the record that there are a few similar
Speaker 1: versions of these emails throughout the files. I think with
Speaker 1: things being forwarded along, I'll be referencing this version and
Speaker 1: asking you questions about it. Some of the other ones
Speaker 1: are just cut off answer, I don't know what you
Speaker 1: mean forward it along question. Within the Epstein files, there
Speaker 1: are duplicates for various reasons, and I'm just referencing that.
Speaker 1: I'm using this particular EFTA number for the record, and
Speaker 1: while you're reviewing it, we've had more members and staff join.
Speaker 1: Can they please identify themselves for the record, mister Garcia,
Speaker 1: Robert Garcia, ranking member redacted. Representative Garcia, Congressman Raja Krishna
Speaker 1: Morthy from Illinois. Question, mister Gates, have you seen this
Speaker 1: email before? Answer? No, I mean I would have seen
Speaker 1: it when it was released in January as part of
Speaker 1: the Epstein files, but prior to that. No question. So
Speaker 1: this appears to be a draft email or statement that
Speaker 1: Epstein may have written he at least sent it to
Speaker 1: himself from the perspective of doctor Nikolic. Is at fair answer?
Speaker 1: I add no value to that question. Well, we can
Speaker 1: agree that this is not the perspective of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Is clearly written from the perspective of somebody else. Is
Speaker 1: that fair answer? Are you asking me to speculate on
Speaker 1: that question? So I'll read from the record. Then it
Speaker 1: is again, sent Thursday, July eighteenth, twenty thirteen, at twelve
Speaker 1: thirty nine from Jeffrey Epstein to himself. However, the email
Speaker 1: reads quote, I've decided to resign my position, effective immediately
Speaker 1: with BG three and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I
Speaker 1: have not come to this decision quickly or without great
Speaker 1: deal of thought. During the past few weeks, I've been
Speaker 1: caught up in a severe marital dispute between Melinda and Bill.
Speaker 1: I'll stop reading there for a second. But given majority
Speaker 1: Exhibit one, which we were just discussing, and the fact
Speaker 1: that mister Epstein and doctor Nikolch were clearly discussing a
Speaker 1: marital dispute of some kind between you and Melinda, is
Speaker 1: it fair to say that this email that was intended
Speaker 1: to have been sent by doctor Nikolich. Answer? I don't know.
Speaker 1: It was never sent by doctor Nicolich. That's all I
Speaker 1: can bring to this question. Sure I can continue reading.
Speaker 1: I have the greatest respect for my friend of seven years,
Speaker 1: and I wish them both well. In my role as
Speaker 1: the right hand, I've been asked on multiple occasions and
Speaker 1: in hindsight wrongly acquiesced into participating in things that have
Speaker 1: ranged from the morally inappropriate to the ethically unsound, and
Speaker 1: had been repeatedly asked to do other things that get
Speaker 1: nearer and potentially over the line into the illegal. Though
Speaker 1: it was kindly suggested that I make a transition to
Speaker 1: a new position after my six years of service, and
Speaker 1: that Bill would, in his own words, give me a
Speaker 1: generous package, I feel it would be dishonest to myself
Speaker 1: and my future from helping Bill to get drugs in
Speaker 1: order to deal with consequences of sex with Russian girls,
Speaker 1: to facilitating his illicit trysts with married women, to being
Speaker 1: asked to provide adderall for bridge tournaments. I feel I
Speaker 1: owe it to my friends and future colleagues to admit
Speaker 1: a moral failure, to ask forgiveness, and to move on
Speaker 1: with life. So again, I understand you did not receive
Speaker 1: this email. So I'll just begin to discuss the facts
Speaker 1: in that email. I've already asked you this. I asked
Speaker 1: you if you had considered a divorce with Milinda in
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. I'll ask it a different way. Were you
Speaker 1: having a marital dispute of some kind with your wife Melinda?
Speaker 1: French Gates answer, Well, certainly, the fact that I told
Speaker 1: Milinda during this timeframe about the two affairs that was
Speaker 1: very distressing to her. But at the same time, there
Speaker 1: was no explicit mention of getting divorced. It may have
Speaker 1: occurred to Melinda at that point, but it was not
Speaker 1: a subject to discussion. Question, But you were having a
Speaker 1: marild dispute at the time, Is that fair answer? I
Speaker 1: wouldn't call it a marital dispute. You could say that
Speaker 1: it was a marital crisis because she became aware of
Speaker 1: bad behavior on my part. Question sure was this dispute
Speaker 1: that is reference in this email? Or how about this
Speaker 1: the discussion you had with Melinda at the time about
Speaker 1: your infidelity. Were those ultimately relevant to your divorce in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one? Answer you would have to ask her,
Speaker 1: but I imagine that they were. Question how did doctor Nikolch
Speaker 1: know of your marital of your dispute with Melinda? Answer?
Speaker 1: I never discussed the topic with them. I did tell
Speaker 1: him she was aware of the affairs and that I
Speaker 1: shared with her that there were also other affairs. Question
Speaker 1: when did you tell Melinda about the affairs? Answer That
Speaker 1: would have been in the spring of twenty thirteen. Question
Speaker 1: and when did you tell doctor Nikolch that you told
Speaker 1: Melinda about the affairs? Answer around the same time question
Speaker 1: shortly thereafter? Answer right, and you know that was part
Speaker 1: of my telling them that his employment was not going
Speaker 1: to continue. Question So it's possible then that doctor Nickolitch,
Speaker 1: while you didn't tell him that you were that you
Speaker 1: didn't say you were considering a divorce, as you said
Speaker 1: you weren't. But it's possible that doctor Nikolich read into
Speaker 1: what you were telling him to believe that Melinda was
Speaker 1: the reason he was being let go and that he
Speaker 1: needed to fix things with you. Is that fair? Answer? Well,
Speaker 1: it's not clear to me that doctor Nikolach ever saw
Speaker 1: the emails. But you know, doctor Nikolich may have inferred
Speaker 1: from the fact that I said that I, you know,
Speaker 1: discuss the affairs, he may have speculated about what was
Speaker 1: doing in terms of my marriage. Question. Do you have
Speaker 1: any other suggestion of how Jeffrey Epstein would know about
Speaker 1: your affairs or other details in this email except through
Speaker 1: doctor Nikolich? Answer? I believe he found out about the
Speaker 1: two affairs through doctor Nikolch. Mister Moran, And just to
Speaker 1: be clear, you asked about other details Gates, Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not commenting on that. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
Speaker 1: up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
Speaker 1: the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box.