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 the Bill Gates interview with
Speaker 1: Congress Mister Garcia. What about employees of Epstein? So not
Speaker 1: necessarily you know men or individuals that were in the
Speaker 1: public limelight or that had broad reputations, But what about
Speaker 1: employees or people around Epstein that worked for him or
Speaker 1: there was a perception that they worked for him. That
Speaker 1: wouldn't be that if you had to make a judgment,
Speaker 1: would be important for us to speak with? Who would
Speaker 1: you recommend us to speak with? Gates? Yeah, I was
Speaker 1: never introduced any employee of Epstein. As I've said, they
Speaker 1: were there to open the door. One of the people
Speaker 1: stayed for the David Blaine magic trick. There were two
Speaker 1: admin assistants who were on the plane flight, and almost
Speaker 1: every time I saw Epstein, he had either one or
Speaker 1: two what appeared to be ADMIN assistants with him that
Speaker 1: were all women. They appeared to be adult women. We
Speaker 1: can go through the various times he had me take
Speaker 1: photos with these people, but I was never introduced to them,
Speaker 1: so I wouldn't have a lot of insight to which
Speaker 1: ones might help the committee. Garcia, thank you, And mister Gates,
Speaker 1: I know that you've said, and I just want a
Speaker 1: quote to be clear. I never spent any time with
Speaker 1: victims with women around them. I know that you have
Speaker 1: said that, have been quoted as saying that, But are
Speaker 1: you aware that many of Epstein's assistants who are around
Speaker 1: were actually victimized? Gates, Yeah, that's a very good point.
Speaker 1: I never spent time with any woman who I was
Speaker 1: aware were victims, and so that's why I have enumerated
Speaker 1: very carefully when I've ever saw any of those admin assistants,
Speaker 1: because tragically, as you say, it appears in the press
Speaker 1: now that some of those women were indeed victims. Oh
Speaker 1: please now stop. We knew this, and if I knew it,
Speaker 1: Bill Gates knew it. Garcia, Okay, now, I appreciate the clarification.
Speaker 1: I think that's important one to make. And then just lastly,
Speaker 1: I know that you said earlier that you felt your
Speaker 1: association with Epstein was a huge mistake. Just to expand
Speaker 1: on that for the record, can you expand on what
Speaker 1: you mean exactly by that? What was the mistake? Kates? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I hope I capture all the ways that it was
Speaker 1: a mistake. It was a mistake to spend time with them,
Speaker 1: because in the end it led to nothing. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm still not sure to this day if he sincerely
Speaker 1: thought that, in fact, billions would appear that would be
Speaker 1: dedicated to global health. I think so, because you know,
Speaker 1: there were meetings talking about literally the structure of donor
Speaker 1: advised funds and what might be attractive to donors. But
Speaker 1: it was a mistake because it was a dead end.
Speaker 1: It was a mistake because of his prior conviction. It's
Speaker 1: even more of a mistake when I read in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen that basically he had not served an appropriate penalty
Speaker 1: for those things that he had done. And then even
Speaker 1: more so as I read that even after two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, perhaps even during the time twenty eleven to
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen when I was meeting with them, that there
Speaker 1: were ongoing crimes. And so you can say it's easy
Speaker 1: to say now, but let me tell you this is
Speaker 1: one of the larger mistakes I've made. Was a risk
Speaker 1: to my reputation and the reputation of the foundation by
Speaker 1: engaging in these meetings. Mister Garcia, mister conna Ro, Conna,
Speaker 1: thank you, Thank you, mister Gates for being here. Did
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein use doctor Melanie Walker to get access to you, Gates?
Speaker 1: No question. Did Epstein use Walker to reach her foundation
Speaker 1: advisors or other powerful people around you? Gates? I'm sorry
Speaker 1: say again, Conna. Did Epstein use doctor Walker to reach
Speaker 1: her foundation advisors or other people around you? Gates? Well,
Speaker 1: doctor Walker was an employee of the Gates Foundation, doing
Speaker 1: work there for I think something like three years, and
Speaker 1: then she went to work at the World Bank, and
Speaker 1: then she did some consulting from my private office. But
Speaker 1: you know that's what I knew that she was engaged in, Conna.
Speaker 1: Did Epstein ever receive information about you through her, Gates?
Speaker 1: It appears reading the emails. The answer to that is yes,
Speaker 1: But I had no awareness of it at the time. Conna.
Speaker 1: Doctor Walker told you that Epstein was very discreet and
Speaker 1: the world's most gorgeous people hang around Epstein. He was
Speaker 1: already a convicted sex offender at the time. Why did
Speaker 1: you continue to maintain a relationship with him, Gates? Well,
Speaker 1: as I've said, I felt that working with Epstein in
Speaker 1: the limited role which I was clear to him. That
Speaker 1: is simply being referring me to people who would give,
Speaker 1: never contemplating and being explicit that he would have no
Speaker 1: role and that he would not be compensated. I made
Speaker 1: the mistake in judgment that continuing to spend time with
Speaker 1: him to try to raise that money for global health
Speaker 1: was a valuable use of my time. Conna, Well, where
Speaker 1: would you have gotten the money from him directly or Gates? No, No,
Speaker 1: not from him directly. Rather when somebody is, you know,
Speaker 1: thinking about their will and their taxes, you know, that's
Speaker 1: when they really think, Okay, I have, particularly people of
Speaker 1: great wealth, that I have money that's left over that
Speaker 1: perhaps I should give philanthropically. And so I believed, and
Speaker 1: he represented that with a number ofillionaires, including Wall Street
Speaker 1: billionaires and Middle East billionaires. He had the type of
Speaker 1: relationships where there was somebody staking out their overall estate plan.
Speaker 1: And I believe that was the case. We're literally billions,
Speaker 1: and he specifically said this to me, which of course
Speaker 1: ended up not happening. But he said that we could
Speaker 1: raise billions. Conna, two more quick questions, because my time
Speaker 1: is about out. Given what we've seen the behavior of
Speaker 1: what I call the Epstein class and all these billionaires.
Speaker 1: Would you at least be four or five percent tax
Speaker 1: on these billionaires to deal with wealth in inequality? Could
Speaker 1: you at least say you're open to something like that. See,
Speaker 1: this is what I mean. There's no place for that
Speaker 1: in this hearing. Why does Rocanna have to bring that up? Now? Look,
Speaker 1: it's a valid argument, not the right forum. That question
Speaker 1: should have been used to get us further to the
Speaker 1: truth when it comes to Epstein. Mister Gates, well, I
Speaker 1: certainly believe that the US has to find a way
Speaker 1: of taxing very rich people at a far higher level
Speaker 1: than they do today. You know, I probably paid more
Speaker 1: in taxes than anyone I paid, over fourteen billion. I
Speaker 1: think it's unfortunate that the current taxation vehicles don't raise
Speaker 1: money from people of great wealth, including people like myself. Conna,
Speaker 1: my last question is, did mister Epstein ever introduce you
Speaker 1: to any young women or girls? Gates never, Conna, thank you, Garcia.
Speaker 1: Congressman Lynch, mister Lynch, thank you, mister Gates. Earlier Democratic
Speaker 1: Council asked you if you recalled an email that you
Speaker 1: received that was sent to you by Melanie Walker that
Speaker 1: warned you about mister Epstein. You did not recall that,
Speaker 1: and you asked if there might be a specific date.
Speaker 1: I looked it up and it's August fourteenth. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: August of twenty fourteen Walker sent you appeared to be
Speaker 1: a warning, and it said that you should maintain a
Speaker 1: quote healthy distance from anything of a personal nature when
Speaker 1: dealing with Epstein. Do you recall that now, Gates, No,
Speaker 1: If you have a copy of the email, I'd be
Speaker 1: glad to see it. Lynch, Yeah, okay, all right, no, Gates.
Speaker 1: But let me comment on that I did maintain some
Speaker 1: distance from Epstein. It was a mistake to meet him,
Speaker 1: and by August twenty fourteen, you know, this is a
Speaker 1: month before he finally does name specific people who we
Speaker 1: meet with in September, and none of those appear to
Speaker 1: be prospects. Then there's one further meeting in December, and
Speaker 1: then I cut off all ties with Epstein at that point,
Speaker 1: mister Lynch, I understand that. But from the very beginning
Speaker 1: of your relationship he was a registered sex offender, Gates,
Speaker 1: I didn't know he was a registered sex offender. I
Speaker 1: didn't know that he had been guilty of sexually related crimes. Lynch, Well,
Speaker 1: let me just go back to Melanie Walker. Melanie Walker
Speaker 1: really worked your staff pretty hard in terms of pushing
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, and in one email to you she described
Speaker 1: him as her best friend. Also, Melanie Walker really pumped
Speaker 1: Epstein with doctor Nikolic and also Larry Cohen. She went
Speaker 1: to Alex Friedman pushing Jeffrey Epstein also established a relationship
Speaker 1: with Prince Andrew as well, you know, sort of following
Speaker 1: up with mister Connor's questions. I saw her as someone
Speaker 1: who pushed Epstein into your orbit and actually made those connections.
Speaker 1: And you know, when you were asked who you thought
Speaker 1: might have shared information about your infidelity, I thought of her.
Speaker 1: I didn't think of doctor Nikolic because it was consistent.
Speaker 1: She was an accolade of Epstein from the very beginning,
Speaker 1: giving him credit for suggesting she owed a medical school.
Speaker 1: Could you talk a little bit about your relationship with
Speaker 1: miss Walker, because I think in response to the ranking
Speaker 1: members question, and I think she might be someone that
Speaker 1: this committee might want to talk to. Gates. Yeah, during
Speaker 1: the time I knew Epstein between twenty eleven and twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: the only time her name came up with Epstein was
Speaker 1: at the first dinner he mentioned that he knew her,
Speaker 1: and subsequently all meetings over the rest of the years,
Speaker 1: her name did not come up in terms of her
Speaker 1: She did send me an email after the first dinner
Speaker 1: asking about my impressions, which I responded to Lynch. Did
Speaker 1: she ever tell you that she was his science advisor
Speaker 1: or that she had lived in his building gates? I
Speaker 1: wasn't aware of that, but I do believe that's now
Speaker 1: publicly known. Lynch. Yeah, I'm just curious about Okay, all right,
Speaker 1: that's all I've got. Thank you. Next up, Miss Stansbury.
Speaker 1: All right, good morning. Hi Melanie Stansbury. I represent New
Speaker 1: Mexico's first congressional district, and I appreciate you being here today.
Speaker 1: What I'd like to focus on during my time this
Speaker 1: morning is really to understand a little bit more about
Speaker 1: mister Epstein's world as you understood it, because I think
Speaker 1: it'll help us cut through some of the noise, especially
Speaker 1: a truth commission that we're conducting in New Mexico to
Speaker 1: understand what he was doing there and what his interests
Speaker 1: were and how that allowed him to access and abuse women.
Speaker 1: So you're one of the few people we've been able
Speaker 1: to talk to about what Epstein was scientifically through your
Speaker 1: conversations with them, through these meetings that you had during
Speaker 1: that time. What was Epstein interested in in the science world? Gates.
Speaker 1: We never got into any depth on that, but he
Speaker 1: mentioned a number of people, you know, professors at universities
Speaker 1: that he would talk to about varying scientific things. You
Speaker 1: know some of those names are and I knew them.
Speaker 1: He appeared to be someone who knew who would talk
Speaker 1: to lots of people in different fields. You know, that's
Speaker 1: different than my own approach, which is depict software and
Speaker 1: be very focused and now global health. Stansbury, let me
Speaker 1: reframe the question a little bit. You met with him
Speaker 1: on multiple times to discuss the opportunities for philanthropy and
Speaker 1: investment in scientific endeavors as well as global health. Gates,
Speaker 1: no question, Stansbury, That's not what you said. Answer all.
Speaker 1: The entire focus was raising money for global health. Now,
Speaker 1: work for global health can include creating new vaccines or
Speaker 1: things that the scientific component to them. Stansbury. Okay, so
Speaker 1: excuse me for using more playing language as opposed to
Speaker 1: focus language. What was the nature of those conversations. What
Speaker 1: were the topics that he was interested in? Gates? You know,
Speaker 1: he had thoughts about economics, he had thoughts about psychology,
Speaker 1: you know, various macro economic things. Stansbury. Were specific investment
Speaker 1: opportunities discussed Gates. No, never, I was never a co
Speaker 1: investor with Epstein. The focus was philanthropic money Stansbury. Okay,
Speaker 1: I think we're talking around the same thing. So philanthropic
Speaker 1: money to invest in what Gates? Global health Stansbury. But
Speaker 1: what's specifically in Gates. Epstein wasn't knowledgeable about global health.
Speaker 1: So the Gates Foundation, which is deeply involved in global health,
Speaker 1: you know, when there's additional money coming from philanthropists, were
Speaker 1: able to provide advice and make sure that the money
Speaker 1: was very high impact. But none of that specifically was discussed.
Speaker 1: The idea of where it would go wasn't discussed with Epstein. Stansbury. Oh, okay,
Speaker 1: So the nature of those conversations was more pitching them
Speaker 1: and his associates on getting wealthy donors to invest in
Speaker 1: your adventures, Gates. If money had been forthcoming, it would
Speaker 1: have gone to things like the Global Alliance for Vaccines,
Speaker 1: which by vaccines for children, or the Global Fund. Stansbury
Speaker 1: cuts him off. You are essentially pitching him to invest Gates.
Speaker 1: I didn't pitch him. He told me that he had
Speaker 1: close professional relationships with people who, at the time they
Speaker 1: were deciding what to do with their wealth, was a
Speaker 1: context where he could suggest to them that the money
Speaker 1: could have a very powerful effect if it was dedicated
Speaker 1: to global health. Stansbury. Okay, So your motivation in attending
Speaker 1: these meetings is he saw an opportunity to potentially bring
Speaker 1: other donors into the bringing their wealth to invest in
Speaker 1: your ventures. Is that a fair assessment. Gates not invest
Speaker 1: to give money away, and they're not my ventures. Gavey
Speaker 1: is an independent organization. Global Fund is an independent organization. Stansbury,
Speaker 1: I'm using the word invest gets cut off by Bill Gates. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to be picky. Stansbury to philanthropic givers. Gates.
Speaker 1: Good point, Stansbury, to be donors to your philanthropic endeavors. Okay,
Speaker 1: well again, this may be picky, but they're not mine.
Speaker 1: You know, the Gates Foundation gets cut off by Sansbury.
Speaker 1: I got you, I got you. Okay. This is why
Speaker 1: you're a tech person. You're very precise. I'm using imprecise
Speaker 1: and non technical language. So you've already established this morning
Speaker 1: that you were familiar with the fact that he had
Speaker 1: been convicted of his sexual crime. You've already established this
Speaker 1: morning that you were familiar with mister Epstein and that
Speaker 1: he had a reputation, and you were concerned about it
Speaker 1: because you've already said you didn't want to be seen
Speaker 1: with them in a place that might affect your reputation.
Speaker 1: So I think that what many of us don't understand
Speaker 1: why did people like you continue to associate with them,
Speaker 1: Like why did your interest in accessing donors that he
Speaker 1: might have known override your own moral compass of like
Speaker 1: maybe I shouldn't associate with this convicted sex offender. I
Speaker 1: know you feel bad about it, but tell us, like
Speaker 1: what went through your head where you're like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll go have six meetings with them over the years. Gates, Well, certainly,
Speaker 1: you know, I'd met with people who had been convicted
Speaker 1: of crimes and served their time, and my understanding, I
Speaker 1: did not understand that justice had not been done. It
Speaker 1: was a mistake to meet with them. I did feel
Speaker 1: at the time that by narrowly defining his role as
Speaker 1: simply referring us to people who would give philanthropically to
Speaker 1: global health, that he would have no role in those
Speaker 1: things and he would receive no compensation. I justified that
Speaker 1: getting billions of dollars for global health was worth spending
Speaker 1: time with them, and that was a complete dead end Stansbury,
Speaker 1: And so on your mind, the end justified the means gates. No,
Speaker 1: I think that goes too strongly. But during the whole
Speaker 1: time twenty eleven to twenty fourteen, there was you know,
Speaker 1: constant consideration of okay, let's make sure it's a narrow role,
Speaker 1: and the people would discuss, you know that if this
Speaker 1: is going to come through or not, should we still
Speaker 1: engage or not. That was a consideration, and I made
Speaker 1: the final judgment to keep meeting with them, which was
Speaker 1: a mistake. Stansbury. Let me just say, as we close
Speaker 1: things out, and I know that there's other questions. You
Speaker 1: keep referring to the women that you did it interact
Speaker 1: with in his orbit as being adult women. We've interviewed
Speaker 1: a number of his assistants, including one of his assistants
Speaker 1: who worked for Epstein as an adult woman who was
Speaker 1: raped and sexually assaulted during her time. And so Epstein
Speaker 1: didn't just commit crimes against children. He was committing active
Speaker 1: crimes against these admin assistants that you met. And so
Speaker 1: when you said multiple times this morning you did not
Speaker 1: meet victims, you did not see women that he may have,
Speaker 1: we do not believe that is so. We believe that
Speaker 1: this was completely normalized in his world as he was
Speaker 1: interacting with rich and powerful people. And so I hope
Speaker 1: that you can refrain that you may have actually witnessed
Speaker 1: abuse by these women being in his world, even if
Speaker 1: you did not witness the acts of abuse, Gates, So
Speaker 1: you're saying I didn't I never witnessed any abuse Stansbury. Okay, sir,
Speaker 1: we know that his assistants were being abused actively by him, Gates.
Speaker 1: I'm very sorry to hear that, Stansbury. Yes, so thank
Speaker 1: you Crockett for purpose of the record. Jasmine Crockett, Texas Garcia. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we're probably out of talent time now, so
Speaker 1: we can wrap it up. We'll go off the record,
Speaker 1: all right, folks. We're gonna wrap up right here too,
Speaker 1: and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
Speaker 1: gonna pick up where we left off. All the information
Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
Speaker 1: description box. What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode
Speaker 1: of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick
Speaker 1: up where we left off with the Bill Gates interview
Speaker 1: with Congress Specter. We can go on the record, mister Gates.
Speaker 1: During the Majority's first hour, we discussed one draft email
Speaker 1: that was sent by mister Epstein himself. There is a second,
Speaker 1: somewhat similar email. I'll enter that into the record as
Speaker 1: Majority Exhibit three. It's an email, also from July eighteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen, this time at one thirty three pm. It's
Speaker 1: Bates marked as the FTA zero one nine six seven
Speaker 1: five two eight. I'll give you a second to look
Speaker 1: at it. Have you seen this email before? Answer only
Speaker 1: as part of the release of the Epstein Files. Question,
Speaker 1: So you had not seen this email until it was
Speaker 1: released publicly by the Department of Justice. Is that right? Answer?
Speaker 1: That's right. Question. Had you seen any email that was
Speaker 1: similar to it or close to it or you'd seen
Speaker 1: nothing like this before? Answer? Nothing like this question. What
Speaker 1: was your reaction when you saw this in the Epstein Files?
Speaker 1: Answer it looked like it looks like Epstein is suggesting. Well,
Speaker 1: it's an email to himself, so who knows if he
Speaker 1: ever sent it? To doctor Nikolic, But it looks like
Speaker 1: he's musing on using a mixture of facts and falsities
Speaker 1: as an effort, almost like a blackmail to advance some
Speaker 1: goal in an improving doctor Nicolch negotiating position as part
Speaker 1: of his exit from my employ Question. I'll read parts
Speaker 1: of the email into the records, starting with near the top.
Speaker 1: It's at the third sentence, you've decided to discharge me
Speaker 1: from my job. Had Larry, you're a PR person tell
Speaker 1: me that I engaged in morally inappropriate behavior and then
Speaker 1: asked me to be a major actor in a cover
Speaker 1: up so that you can maintain the reputation that you've
Speaker 1: worked so hard to achieve. End quote for the record,
Speaker 1: is it fair to say that the person being referenced
Speaker 1: here Larry you're a PR person, is Larry Cohen? Answer? Well,
Speaker 1: Larry was not my PR person. But in a word,
Speaker 1: speculating on who a person who, particularly in the email
Speaker 1: to himself, you know, generated literally dozens of false things.
Speaker 1: That sentence may refer to Larry Cohen, but he was
Speaker 1: not my PR person. Question fair enough, but was mister
Speaker 1: Cohen involved in any way in the discussions about mister Nikolch?
Speaker 1: Doctor Nikolch departure. Answer yes, question thank you. Did you
Speaker 1: direct Larry Cohen to tell mister Nickolch that he had
Speaker 1: engaged in morally inappropriate behavior? Answer no. Question. Did Larry Cohen,
Speaker 1: to your knowledge, ever tell doctor Nikolch that he had
Speaker 1: engaged in morally inappropriate behavior? Answer? I don't believe so.
Speaker 1: Question have you talked to mister Cohen about that? Answer no. Question.
Speaker 1: Have you ever had any discussion with mister Cohen about
Speaker 1: this email since seeing it in the Epstein files? Answer no. Question.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that doctor Nikolicch had engaged in a
Speaker 1: morally inappropriate behavior? Answer will depending on how you characterize
Speaker 1: his not telling my wife about affairs I'd had, that's
Speaker 1: the extent of it. Question Did you ever tell doctor
Speaker 1: Nikolch explicitly to keep these affairs his knowledge of these
Speaker 1: affairs private? Answer no, I did not. In fact, you'll
Speaker 1: see an email from me where I say during the
Speaker 1: exit negotiations that if they're trying to change the terms
Speaker 1: away from what was agreed upon before Epstein's involvement, that
Speaker 1: we won't reach agreement, and that involves I mean you
Speaker 1: can pull all the exact email, but I say, if
Speaker 1: that involves things being disclosed about me. I'll just bear
Speaker 1: the pain, but I'm not going to change my offer
Speaker 1: to doctor Nikolch as part of the exit agreement. Question
Speaker 1: I understand. Let's go back a little bit further though,
Speaker 1: when doctor Nikolch first became aware of these two affairs.
Speaker 1: At that point in time, I think I asked you
Speaker 1: earlier if you had ever discussed the affairs with doctor Nikeolich.
Speaker 1: But did you ever initially tell doctor Nikolich that you
Speaker 1: expected him to keep this as a secret for you? Answer?
Speaker 1: I did not, question, So you just assumed that he
Speaker 1: wouldn't share it. Answer, we never discussed it. Question how
Speaker 1: long from the start of the first affair to when
Speaker 1: you told Melinda? How long was that? Answer? Probably several years?
Speaker 1: Question several years or seven? Sorry? Answer, I said several years.
Speaker 1: Question several years. So over the course of those several years,
Speaker 1: you never had a conversation with doctor Nikolitch asking him
Speaker 1: to kind of keep this a secret. Answer I did
Speaker 1: not question. I'll continue reading. It's a little bit further down,
Speaker 1: still near the top. It says Larry has now asked
Speaker 1: me to recommit to a confidentiality agreement and have categorically
Speaker 1: told me that you were of firm mind that we
Speaker 1: should no longer have any direct, ongoing business relationship with
Speaker 1: a total disregard for its impact on the public perception
Speaker 1: of my reputation. You have requested that I diligently avoid
Speaker 1: the truth, tell people that Bill will not invest with me,
Speaker 1: and craft answers that suits yours and Melinda's needs. I
Speaker 1: think you've already answered part of my questions about this,
Speaker 1: but I guess I'll ask in a different way. Did
Speaker 1: you have any as part of his position or otherwise
Speaker 1: did you have any confidentiality agreement with doctor Nikolich about anything? Answer?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. Question you're not aware of whether you
Speaker 1: had any legal non disclosure agreement or anything of the
Speaker 1: sort with doctor Nikolch. Answer I'm not question, And let
Speaker 1: me just be clear. You with him, or the Gates
Speaker 1: Foundation or any of the other ventures, do you know
Speaker 1: if those entities had non disclosure agreements with doctor Nikolich?
Speaker 1: Answer you know, doctor Nikolich. I assume when he worked
Speaker 1: for the Foundation, which had ended, you know, a long
Speaker 1: time before this, there may be a standard non disclosure
Speaker 1: as part of that. I don't know. Likewise, when he
Speaker 1: Joins Gates Ventures. There may be some standard non disclosure,
Speaker 1: but I was never part of any discussion about that
Speaker 1: with anyone, including doctor Nicholach. Question and if there was
Speaker 1: a non disclosure agreement with doctor Nikeolich that you were
Speaker 1: not aware of, that wouldn't have anything to do with
Speaker 1: the affairs, Is that fair to say? Answer no. As
Speaker 1: I told you, I sent an email that if they
Speaker 1: were trying to ask for a change in the exit package,
Speaker 1: then I said I would just bear the pain of
Speaker 1: whatever disclosures resulted. Thereafter, question by mister Grant. Question, and,
Speaker 1: since the topic of non disclosure agreements have been brought up,
Speaker 1: at any point did you or any of your representatives
Speaker 1: or agents ask anyone to sign a non disclosure agreement
Speaker 1: or other agreement in connection to Jeffrey Epstein, Glay Maxwell,
Speaker 1: or any of their crimes? Answer no question. And have
Speaker 1: you or any of your representatives or agents had conversations
Speaker 1: about non disclosure agreements with victims or their lawyers related
Speaker 1: to Jeffrey Epstein or gwayn Maxwell? Answer no question. And
Speaker 1: at any point did you or any of your representatives
Speaker 1: secure a settlement in connection to Jeffrey Epstein Glen Maxwell
Speaker 1: or any of their victims. Answer no question. Thank you,
Speaker 1: mister spector doing the questioning again. Now question, I'll continue reading.
Speaker 1: I'll read just a portion in this one. It starts
Speaker 1: with I can assure you that if the shoe was
Speaker 1: on the other foot, I would have said, Boris, this
Speaker 1: is not your fault. Mister Gates. Can you point out
Speaker 1: where he is? Mister morn yep Gates, Okay, there you
Speaker 1: are question. I can assure you that if the shoe
Speaker 1: was on the other foot, I would have said, Boris,
Speaker 1: this is not your fault. I confess to Melinda you didn't.
Speaker 1: It was in a moment of weakness, and I promise
Speaker 1: that we'll do anything within my power to make it
Speaker 1: right for you. I have more money than anyone needs,
Speaker 1: and I do my utmost to structure something that you
Speaker 1: will not be penalized for my error. I'll end reading
Speaker 1: the quote there, but he goes on to kind of
Speaker 1: describe what it is that you should have done for
Speaker 1: doctor Nicolch. Again. I think I asked you about this
Speaker 1: a little bit earlier, but it seems to be characterizing
Speaker 1: the nature of doctor Nikolich's departure as being about, you know,
Speaker 1: your confession to your ex wife to your then wife,
Speaker 1: Did your wife ever meet with doctor nikolicch directly to
Speaker 1: discuss this answer? Not to my knowledge. Question the next
Speaker 1: portion that I'll read. It's a little bit further down
Speaker 1: near the bottom. What I did receive, however, question Okay,
Speaker 1: let's track that. Okay, here we are. Question. What I
Speaker 1: did receive, however, was an unfriendly, strongly worded email telling
Speaker 1: me how employable I am and that I should not
Speaker 1: look for you for any significant financial help in the future.
Speaker 1: Ted insulted the injury. You then subsequently, with tears in
Speaker 1: your eyes, implore me to please delete the emails regarding
Speaker 1: your STD, your requests that I provide you antibiotics that
Speaker 1: you can surreptitiously give to Melinda, and the description of
Speaker 1: your penis. You also made clear to me that I'm
Speaker 1: not to refer to redacted, as that is another topic
Speaker 1: that must remain between the two of us. In return
Speaker 1: for all these requests, which I would have done without
Speaker 1: a second thought, I am not to attend meetings with Melinda.
Speaker 1: I should continue to provide the same level of service
Speaker 1: and dedication that I have so diligently until you are
Speaker 1: ready to discard me and our friendship sometime after the
Speaker 1: first of the year. So there's a lot going on here,
Speaker 1: just initially doctor Nikolich. Or again, mister Epstein seems to
Speaker 1: be referring to a strongly worded email, and it seems
Speaker 1: you may have sent that to doctor Nickeolitch. Do you
Speaker 1: recall what that might have been? Answer no, I mean
Speaker 1: at some point I told him that would he have
Speaker 1: talked to me about leaving and go do venture capital
Speaker 1: That would have to happen fairly quickly, because Milinda and
Speaker 1: I agreed that he should leave my employee. Question your
Speaker 1: discussion in person or over email with doctor Nikolich about
Speaker 1: his departure, were they, in your view, generally cordial or
Speaker 1: was it a contentious interaction? Answer? Well, there's two times.
Speaker 1: There is the time before he involves Epstein, where I
Speaker 1: would say there were cordial, then he sort of seeds
Speaker 1: to Epstein and Epstein. You know, none of the stuff
Speaker 1: of this came up an email, but at most he
Speaker 1: made vel threats like we should have remained friends. But
Speaker 1: I chose not to change the exit offer that I made,
Speaker 1: and I made it clear that I would bear whatever
Speaker 1: disclosures came out of our failure to reach a fair
Speaker 1: exit agreement. Question. So, over the course of you not
Speaker 1: being willing to change your position, things may have gotten
Speaker 1: a little bit more contentious between gets caught off by
Speaker 1: Bill Gates, not with doctor Nikolicch. But you know, Epstein
Speaker 1: actually came out to Seattle one time during these discussions,
Speaker 1: and you know, it was weird because I said, you know,
Speaker 1: I got an offer that treats him fairly, and if
Speaker 1: you heard asked for more than that, I'm not changing it.
Speaker 1: And in fact, I did not change it. We reached
Speaker 1: the agreement and Nikolitch left my employee question. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that meeting in Seattle in a little while. However,
Speaker 1: I'll note for you now that it seems to have
Speaker 1: occurred on August twenty thirteen. This email is from July eighteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen, So this email seems to predate whatever that
Speaker 1: meeting was. I'm just trying to understand, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: it was strongly worded email, maybe it was something in person.
Speaker 1: But when did the contentious nature of the interactions with
Speaker 1: doctor Nikolch or mister Epstein arise? Answer? There was never
Speaker 1: any contentious nature with doctor Nikolch and It's hard to
Speaker 1: characterize the Epstein stuff because there was never a direct
Speaker 1: threat of any kind. There was always this veld language
Speaker 1: like we should have remained friends, you know, which made
Speaker 1: me wonder what doctor Nickolitch had shared with them. But
Speaker 1: as I said, I responded to all of that with
Speaker 1: a great deal of clarity. You can introduce that email
Speaker 1: or not. Question. So the portion that I just read
Speaker 1: it also makes reference to the fact that you The
Speaker 1: email says that you implored me to please delete the
Speaker 1: emails regarding your STED and your request that I provide
Speaker 1: you antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give Melinda, and the
Speaker 1: description of your penis. Did you ever tell doctor Nikolch
Speaker 1: to delete emails in general? Answer? I did not. Question
Speaker 1: did you ever send doctor Nikolic an email that included
Speaker 1: the three things I just described? Answer? I never had
Speaker 1: an STD. I'd never described my penis to doctor Nikolch.
Speaker 1: What's the other one I've said? I may have indicated
Speaker 1: some concern about whether I had an STD. I don't
Speaker 1: recall that, but I never had an STD. I never
Speaker 1: gave medicine to anyone covertly. Question, and just for the record,
Speaker 1: during the time you were concerned that you might have
Speaker 1: an infection. Did you ever discuss or consider surreptitiously giving
Speaker 1: antibiotics to your then wife? Answer? I did not. 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 we left off with the Bill Gates interview with Congress. Question.
Speaker 1: So this redaction was made by the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: in the release of the Epstein files. Members of the
Speaker 1: committee have had the opportunity to look underneath of redactions
Speaker 1: at the Department of Justice. So I'll stipulate to you
Speaker 1: that the redacted words are a name. It's Alice Jacobs,
Speaker 1: and we understand that her full name to be Alice
Speaker 1: Jacobs nessel Rod. Do you know who that is? Answer?
Speaker 1: I do? Question who is she? Answer? She's a doctor
Speaker 1: who does consulting relating health services. I believe. Question have
Speaker 1: you ever met her? Answer? I have question? How did
Speaker 1: you meet her? Answer? She was at a conference that
Speaker 1: I went to. Question do you recall approximately what year?
Speaker 1: Answer before twenty ten question. According to the DOJ files,
Speaker 1: miss Nesselrod appears to have initially made contact with Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein over email in October of two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: and it seems she was ultimately the one who introduced
Speaker 1: Epstein to Nicolch. Did you know that? Answer No, I
Speaker 1: thought it was. I mean, what I've read in the
Speaker 1: press is it was doctor Walker. I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think even recently press things said it was doctor Walker.
Speaker 1: I have no knowledge of who did that introduction? Question.
Speaker 1: In one email, she referred to Boris as her quote
Speaker 1: best friend. Did you know that she and doctor Nikolich
Speaker 1: were friends at all? Answer who? Question? In one email,
Speaker 1: miss Nesselrod referred to Boris as her best friend. Did
Speaker 1: you know that miss Nesselrod and doctor Nikeolch were friends? Answer?
Speaker 1: I knew that they knew each other in a professional context.
Speaker 1: Question Did you know whether doctor Nesselrod knew mister Epstein?
Speaker 1: Answered no, I have no awareness of that question, so
Speaker 1: it says I'll read it for you again. You also
Speaker 1: made it clear to me that I'm not to refer
Speaker 1: to Alice Jacobs, as that is another topic that must
Speaker 1: remain between the two of us. What do you make
Speaker 1: of that? What do you think that they're talking about? Answer?
Speaker 1: They this is email from one man to himself that
Speaker 1: I've never seen before. So what does it mean when
Speaker 1: a man sends an email to himself? I'm not sure?
Speaker 1: Question sure? As it chose in majority Exhibit one, doctor
Speaker 1: Nikolch and mister Epstein were coordinating on how to deal
Speaker 1: with you. I appreciate that you are. We cannot say
Speaker 1: for certain what the context of this email is, given
Speaker 1: that it was sent from mister Epstein to himself, but
Speaker 1: it's written from the perspective of doctor Nicolch. And so
Speaker 1: I'll just ask you the question this way. Do you
Speaker 1: have any reason to believe that anyone would think that
Speaker 1: there is something about Alice Jacobs that you needed to
Speaker 1: keep between yourself and doctor Nicholch. Answer, well, there was
Speaker 1: a time when I had an affair with doctor Jacobs,
Speaker 1: so that may fit the category. Question. Okay, what year
Speaker 1: did that begin? Answer before twenty ten? Question? And this
Speaker 1: is why I was asking earlier about your other affairs,
Speaker 1: which you know. I can appreciate your perspective that you
Speaker 1: don't believe any of these people to be connected with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, but it seems he was connected to a
Speaker 1: lot of people, including doctor Nessilrod. Question as we sit
Speaker 1: here today, I'm not aware of any connection between doctor
Speaker 1: Jacobs and mister Epstein. Question did you ever have a
Speaker 1: conversation with doctor Nikolich about your affair with doctor Jacobs?
Speaker 1: Doctor Nesselrod answer no, no. Question. How do you believe
Speaker 1: that he knew that doctor Nikolich knew about your affair? Question?
Speaker 1: He was friends, you know, a consultant tour, so I'm
Speaker 1: not completely surprised that he might have been aware of it.
Speaker 1: Question is it possible that mister Epstein heard it directly
Speaker 1: from doctor Nesselrod? Answer? I doubt that very much. As
Speaker 1: I said, I'm not aware of any connection between doctor
Speaker 1: Epstein or doctor Jacobs and Epstein. Question should we call
Speaker 1: her doctor Jacobs or doctor Nesseilrod? Answer? Let's call her
Speaker 1: doctor Jacobs. Question did doctor Jacobs did her name come
Speaker 1: up in any of the discussion with regard to doctor
Speaker 1: Nikolich's departure from his employment? Answer? Never. Question was your
Speaker 1: affair with doctor Jacobs? Did you disclose your affair with
Speaker 1: doctor Jacobs to Malinda at the same time you disclose
Speaker 1: the two we've already talked about. Answer that would have
Speaker 1: been earlier. Question Sir, your wife Melinda was aware of
Speaker 1: the affair with doctor Jacobs earlier, and then you told
Speaker 1: her of two additional affairs at a later date. Answer
Speaker 1: that's right. Question do you recall when approximately you inform
Speaker 1: your wife about your affair with doctor Jacobs? Answer no.
Speaker 1: Question did doctor Nikolch know that Milinda was aware of
Speaker 1: this affair? Answer? I don't know. Question, Thank you. And so,
Speaker 1: just looking at this email in its entirety, I think
Speaker 1: you've already used the word blackmail. I was going to
Speaker 1: ask you, and reading it it strikes me as sort
Speaker 1: of a shakedown of you. I didn't read the whole
Speaker 1: thing to you, but there's a long part where the
Speaker 1: email describes what it wishes that you would have done
Speaker 1: for Boris, including you know, thirty to forty percent of
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollar partnership for thirty million in today's dollars.
Speaker 1: Answer where are you reading? Yeah, there you are. Question above.
Speaker 1: It also says I suggest I'd buy you the house
Speaker 1: that you had your heart set on. Did discussions of
Speaker 1: you purchasing a house for doctor Nikolicch ever come up
Speaker 1: during negotiations with them. Answer not in negotiations with them,
Speaker 1: But while he was in my employ I was aware
Speaker 1: that there was a place in New York he was
Speaker 1: looking to buy, and he asked me if I would
Speaker 1: loan him the money for that, and I turned him down.
Speaker 1: Question do you know the approximate value of that? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: it could have been it was above ten million. Answer
Speaker 1: above ten million. Apologies for going out of border here,
Speaker 1: but again just above that to thirty to forty percent
Speaker 1: line and above just above that, it says in addition
Speaker 1: to five years of severance, was there ever a discussion
Speaker 1: of providing doctor Nikolch five years of his pay as
Speaker 1: part of his severance? Answer? No. Question do you know
Speaker 1: what doctor nikolch annual compensation was approximately? Answer? I would
Speaker 1: be guessing, you know, above one hundred thousand, probably below
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand. Question so five years would be between
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand and one million. Is that what your
Speaker 1: email is describing in terms of severance payment? Answer? Well,
Speaker 1: independent of the email, I can multiply five by one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand and two hundred thousand very quickly. So it
Speaker 1: would be between five hundred thousand and one million. Question
Speaker 1: and were there any discussions with doctor Nikolic about a
Speaker 1: severance payment between five hundred thousand and one million? Answer?
Speaker 1: No question. I know you've already described it a little bit,
Speaker 1: but can you explain what the ultimate dollar value of
Speaker 1: mister nikolch severance package was? Answer? Well, the biggest economic
Speaker 1: thing between doctor Nikolich and Gate's ventures was the sharing
Speaker 1: of the profit from the two investments that he made.
Speaker 1: And you know, we had agreed to share the profits
Speaker 1: on those investments before he left. That was part of
Speaker 1: his saying he was going to go to a venture
Speaker 1: capital and my saying, okay, why don't you stay for
Speaker 1: a little longer and almost do like, you know, almost
Speaker 1: venture capital type things, which was, you know, very unusual.
Speaker 1: I didn't do that with employees questions. So, you know,
Speaker 1: his portion of those investments was substantial, because I had
Speaker 1: quite a bit of profit from the investments that were made.
Speaker 1: And so there's that part which is not due to
Speaker 1: his leaving. That was because of a prior verbal agreement
Speaker 1: between doctor Nikolich and I. Beyond that, I think he
Speaker 1: got fairly standard exit package, which would have been on
Speaker 1: the order of six to nine months of compensation. Questions,
Speaker 1: so fair to say under one million? Answer for the
Speaker 1: extra compensation, yes, but the value of stocks was you know, substantial,
Speaker 1: over five million, mister spector, Miss Bolbert. Do you have
Speaker 1: any questions, Miss Bolbert? Thank you, Thank you, mister Gates
Speaker 1: for being here today. I have a couple of questions
Speaker 1: about your involvement with mister Epstein in relation to the
Speaker 1: scientific studies that you were both that you work on
Speaker 1: and that he is intrigued by. Mister Gates. Epstein was
Speaker 1: deeply involved in eugenics, transhumanism, and plans to to get
Speaker 1: his own DNA through genetic engineering. During your multiple meetings,
Speaker 1: did he ever discuss his genetic ambitions, population engineering ideas,
Speaker 1: or try to tie them to your foundation vaccine and
Speaker 1: global health initiatives? Answer mister Gates, He did not, Bobert.
Speaker 1: None of that ever came up. The talk of vaccines,
Speaker 1: Gates never came up. Bobert. Okay, And then so, given
Speaker 1: Epstein's Harvard Genome project involvement with Crisper around the same
Speaker 1: time as your meetings, did he ever pitch any ideas
Speaker 1: with that program to your DNA research? Gates? No, question,
Speaker 1: were there any other meetings with anyone in his circle
Speaker 1: that talked about any kind of scientific DNA research that
Speaker 1: was taking place or a vaccine with your Global Health initiative,
Speaker 1: mister Gates. No, Bobert, when you first started interacting with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, you are notably one of the most powerful
Speaker 1: men in the world, and I would say that you
Speaker 1: have a vast amount of resources. How was there not
Speaker 1: a vetting process for his relationship to begin and were
Speaker 1: the red flags that you had ignored completely or were
Speaker 1: you just completely unaware of it? Gates? Well, I was
Speaker 1: aware that he had a criminal conviction, as I've discussed. Bolbert, correct,
Speaker 1: Because it's true that you began a moral formal relationship
Speaker 1: after Epstein had that conviction. Answer. Yeah, I think that
Speaker 1: his conviction was two thousand and eight or two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, and I first met him in twenty eleven
Speaker 1: Bolbert correct. And so with that criminal conviction, it was
Speaker 1: enough for him to say that this was a lie
Speaker 1: or that you would believe that he was innocent in
Speaker 1: some manner and continue having these meetings with them. Answer.
Speaker 1: We didn't discuss his criminal conviction, Bobert, And it didn't
Speaker 1: bother you that you were doing business, philanthropy work with
Speaker 1: a man that had these convictions. Gates. It was a
Speaker 1: concern and part of the reason that I defined his
Speaker 1: potential role quite narrowly and eventually bought it, brought it
Speaker 1: to an end. But I have to regret that I
Speaker 1: didn't factor that in into a greater degree. Bobert. So
Speaker 1: you discussed his criminal convictions whatsoever with them? Or never
Speaker 1: discussed his criminal convictions whatsoever with them? Gates? No, Bobert,
Speaker 1: What were the discussions during your meetings? Gates? Which meeting Bobert? Well, okay,
Speaker 1: let's take it back. How many meetings overall do you
Speaker 1: think you had in person with Jeffrey Epstein Gates. Let's see,
Speaker 1: there were three in twenty eleven and two in twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: There's like five or six, although some of those are
Speaker 1: skype calls in twenty eleven, and five or six in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. Bobert. Thank you for the detailed response, and
Speaker 1: I know that you've mentioned that earlier, at least in part,
Speaker 1: were the topics generally the same during all those meetings.
Speaker 1: I'm aware that you said that sometimes it would have
Speaker 1: been a year or so you were kind of recapping
Speaker 1: what you had been doing for the previous year. But generally,
Speaker 1: what were the topics of these meetings Gates? Well, I
Speaker 1: would differentiate, you know, clearly there were meetings that had
Speaker 1: to do with nikeolic leaving Gates ventures employ they were
Speaker 1: mostly meetings that talked to about the potential for billions
Speaker 1: of philanthropic donations. Then a number of those meetings there
Speaker 1: were other people. So like when Larry Summers is there,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the economy and what's going on with that.
Speaker 1: Likewise jess Daley at the same dinner, when the two
Speaker 1: Norwegians were there, we're talking about what's gone on with
Speaker 1: the United Nations and what's going on on world affairs generally.
Speaker 1: You know. So there was a variety of topics, including
Speaker 1: me talking about my global health goals. Bobert. So you
Speaker 1: were talking about your goals in global health. And was
Speaker 1: Epstein ever intrigued in inquiring more about this and did
Speaker 1: he ever offer up his own information that he'd been
Speaker 1: studying Gates To my awareness, he wasn't somebody who knew
Speaker 1: much about global health, you know. When he would talk
Speaker 1: about the various topics that he was into global health
Speaker 1: was never one of those, Bobert. I guess global health
Speaker 1: that could be broad. So your meetings with Epstein overlapped
Speaker 1: your heavy push on the global vaccines and population related initiative,
Speaker 1: and so you're saying that never had any discussion with
Speaker 1: you or influence in those areas, even indirectly through his network. Gates. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's be clear. What initiatives are you referring to, Bobert, Well,
Speaker 1: your global health initiatives, your massive push for vaccines and
Speaker 1: population related initiatives. Mister Gates, what's the connection. There's no connection,
Speaker 1: So I'm not understanding what you're referring to. There are vaccines,
Speaker 1: and we're a funder of Gabby that buys vaccines for children,
Speaker 1: you know, which is the primary reason childhood death has
Speaker 1: gone from ten million a year down below five million
Speaker 1: a year. That has nothing to do with population. Bobert. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: commas between those topics. So, okay, were you ever talking
Speaker 1: with him about those vaccines and did he ever have
Speaker 1: any influence in those areas? Gates? No, Bobert, Okay. It's
Speaker 1: just a little difficult because we have powerful people like
Speaker 1: yourself that are claiming they didn't know anything about Epstein's
Speaker 1: activities that were happening. Even if aware of conviction, it
Speaker 1: wasn't enough of an issue to separate business or personal
Speaker 1: or have meetings whatsoever. Despite you know, these years of association,
Speaker 1: people in these powerful positions are saying they absolutely knew nothing.
Speaker 1: And as someone who prides themselves, Gates cuts her off.
Speaker 1: I can only speak for myself. Bobert jumps in correct, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: and to someone who prides himself on data and evidence,
Speaker 1: I don't know how you explain missing that the victim
Speaker 1: and court records show that this was going on for
Speaker 1: so long, Gates. What was going on for so long? Bobert?
Speaker 1: All of Epstein's sex crimes? Gates, I was not aware
Speaker 1: of any ongoing crimes. Bobert. Okay. I think that's all
Speaker 1: the questions I have for now, Thank you, mister Gates,
Speaker 1: mister moron. And before we go, mister Gates referred to
Speaker 1: an email exchange where he conveyed to Jeffrey Epstein that,
Speaker 1: you know, regardless of what Boris was going to say,
Speaker 1: he wasn't going to change the terms of the deal.
Speaker 1: We track down Bates' number for that. That's EFTA zero
Speaker 1: one nine six y four zero five to three Specter.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up right here,
Speaker 1: and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
Speaker 1: gonna pick up where we left off. All the information
Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
Speaker 1: description box.