Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to start taking
Speaker 1: a look at the letter sent by Congress to Leon Black,
Speaker 1: and this letter was dated August eighteenth, twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: Dear mister Cutler, the Committee on Oversight in Government Reform
Speaker 1: has received your July twenty fourth, twenty twenty sixth letter
Speaker 1: outlining arguments for why your client, Leon Black, should not
Speaker 1: be required to fully comply with the subpoena issue to
Speaker 1: him on June twenty sixth, twenty twenty six for non
Speaker 1: disclosure agreements in his possession, custody, or control. In response
Speaker 1: to this subpoena, your client produced a single non disclosure agreement,
Speaker 1: while claiming it's the only one within the scope of
Speaker 1: the Committee's goals. The Committee rejects your assertion and reiterates
Speaker 1: that full compliance with the subpoena issue to your client
Speaker 1: requires the production of all non disclosure agreements to which
Speaker 1: he is a party. On March third, the Committee sent
Speaker 1: a letter to mister Black to request his appearance at
Speaker 1: a voluntary transcribed interview before the Committee. To accommodate mister
Speaker 1: Black's schedule, the Committee scheduled is transcribed interview for June
Speaker 1: twenty six. On April sixteenth, you confirmed by email that
Speaker 1: your client would appear before the Committee on this scheduled date.
Speaker 1: The Committee's letter and request from mister Black to testify
Speaker 1: was based on public reporting documents released by the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, and documents obtained by the Committee showing mister
Speaker 1: Black had information that will assist the Committee's investigation. One
Speaker 1: scope of transcribed interview was clear and never subject to limitation.
Speaker 1: Your insistence that the Committee exceeded the stated scope of
Speaker 1: the transcribed interview of mister Black on June twenty six
Speaker 1: is unfounded and without merit. The Committee's March third letter
Speaker 1: clearly articulated its investigative scope and intent, including the alleged
Speaker 1: mismanagement of the feleral Government's investigation into mister Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: and Glenn Maxwell, to the circumstances and subsequent investigations of
Speaker 1: mister Epstein's death. Three, the operation of trafficking rings and
Speaker 1: the way the federal government to effectively combat them. Four
Speaker 1: ways in which mister Epstein and miss Maxwell sought to
Speaker 1: curry favor and exercised influence to protect their illegal activities
Speaker 1: and five potential violations of ethic rules related to elected officials.
Speaker 1: The questions posed to mister Black and the subpoena documents
Speaker 1: at issue fall within this scope. Your July twenty fourth
Speaker 1: letter claims that during an April eighth meeting with the Committee,
Speaker 1: mister Black's council expressed an interest in engaging in a
Speaker 1: dialogue regarding the scope of mister Black's transcribed interview. However,
Speaker 1: no such dialogue ever occurred. To be clear, the Committee
Speaker 1: never agreed to any limitations on the scope of mister
Speaker 1: Black's interview that were not already articulated in the committee's
Speaker 1: March third letter. Furthermore, you were informed that the Committee
Speaker 1: would cover any topic and use any document relevant to
Speaker 1: its investigation during the transcribed interview, as has been the
Speaker 1: practice during the totality of this investigation. The mere fact
Speaker 1: that a topic was not identified during good faith discussions
Speaker 1: among council does not mean it falls outside the scope
Speaker 1: of the interview. Because such discussions are inherently not exhaustive,
Speaker 1: the Committee is not required to articulate in advance every
Speaker 1: item that is potentially pertinent to or within the scope
Speaker 1: of its investigation. Two documents used by the Committee. Your
Speaker 1: letter asserts that mister Black's council understood the Majority staff
Speaker 1: to explain that they intended to focus the interview on
Speaker 1: information and documents in the public domain. He then cited
Speaker 1: specifically to the Chairman's statement regarding DA's and bank records
Speaker 1: reflecting certain alleged financial violations. This framing can only be
Speaker 1: understood by the Committee as an intentional misrepresentation by you
Speaker 1: of the pre interviewed discussions with the Committee. During the
Speaker 1: April twenty eighth in person meeting, the Committee informed you
Speaker 1: that if it were to enter documents into the record
Speaker 1: as exhibits during the interview, most of the documents already
Speaker 1: existed in the public domain. It appears mister Black's council
Speaker 1: misinterpreted this statement to mean that all documents to be
Speaker 1: entered into the record, and, based on your letter, that
Speaker 1: all questions posed by the Committee would exist in or
Speaker 1: come from the public domain. That was never the case. Indeed,
Speaker 1: the expectation that questioners would likely focus on publicly available
Speaker 1: documents does not equate to an assurance or promise that
Speaker 1: the Committee would only enter into the record or refer
Speaker 1: to public documents. The Committee was well within its rights
Speaker 1: to enter into the record to question the witness about
Speaker 1: any document, whether publicly disclosed or not, that pertained to
Speaker 1: its investigation, as it has done through investigations not only
Speaker 1: in this current Congress but also in past congresses. Additionally,
Speaker 1: the discussion about the use of documents in the transcribed
Speaker 1: interview did not center around the totality of the documents
Speaker 1: to be used and their origins, but rather around the
Speaker 1: fact that you requested that the Committee share exhibits in
Speaker 1: advance of the interview. The Committee was very clear in
Speaker 1: its response it would not share exhibits in advance, consistent
Speaker 1: with its practice during this investigation. Further, your statement that
Speaker 1: the committee's emphasis on non disclosure agreements and records regarding
Speaker 1: alleged bank violations are directly at odds with representations made
Speaker 1: by the Majority staff is erroneous. In addition to making
Speaker 1: no such representation related to non disclosure agreements and bank records,
Speaker 1: the likelihood that the Committee would inquire about non disclosure
Speaker 1: agreements and bank records should have been apparent to you
Speaker 1: and your client considering the Committee's extensively transparent coverage of
Speaker 1: these topics throughout the investigation Prior to mister Black's interview,
Speaker 1: the Committee made a public letter it sent to the
Speaker 1: US Department of the Treasury on August thirty first, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, requesting bank records pertaining to mister Epstein and
Speaker 1: miss Maxwell. The Committee made public two more letters that
Speaker 1: had sent November eighteenth, twenty twenty five, to both JP
Speaker 1: Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, requesting certain financial records related
Speaker 1: to mister Epstein and Miss Maxwell as former clients of
Speaker 1: these institutions. The Committee also inquired about non disclosure agreements
Speaker 1: related to Jeffrey Epstein, client Maxwell, and their associations in
Speaker 1: the transcribed interviews of another witness, the transcript of which
Speaker 1: was made public prior to mister Black's transcribed interview. Your
Speaker 1: claim that your client did not anticipate the Committee's use
Speaker 1: of such documents or the qui questions posed is simply
Speaker 1: not plausible, and even if it were, a true misapprehension
Speaker 1: on your part would not result from the fault of
Speaker 1: the Committee or its staff. Three questions about payment to Epstein.
Speaker 1: You are also concerned that the Committee did not ask
Speaker 1: your client any questions during the June twenty sixth transcribed
Speaker 1: interview about payments to mister Epstein, This argument lacks both
Speaker 1: context and merit. The committee was less than an hour
Speaker 1: into its interview when your client began refusing to answer
Speaker 1: important questions. Had your client not refused to answer questions
Speaker 1: and not chosen to terminate the interview after being served
Speaker 1: the document and deposition subpoenas, the Committee would have continued
Speaker 1: with its questioning for multiple rounds. Rest assured the topic
Speaker 1: of mister Black's payments to mister Epstein would have been
Speaker 1: thoroughly covered, notwithstanding your client's refusal to answer the committee's
Speaker 1: other pertinent questions. To take issue with questions the committee
Speaker 1: did or did not address, training a single round of
Speaker 1: trains sanscribed interview, which was replete with legal arguments before
Speaker 1: mister Black ended the interview, is incredibly disingenuous for refusal
Speaker 1: to answer questions about personal matters. On June twenty second,
Speaker 1: mister Black's council communicated on another call to the Committee
Speaker 1: that mister Black would respectfully decline to answer questions that
Speaker 1: related solely to his personal life. Not only was this
Speaker 1: new information conveyed to the committee just four days prior
Speaker 1: to this transcribed interview, but it was also the first
Speaker 1: time the Committee had been informed of any limitations about
Speaker 1: what your client was willing to discuss in a voluntary setting.
Speaker 1: This limitation did not arise from any agreement with the committee,
Speaker 1: nor was it a result of any waiver of the
Speaker 1: scope of the committee's investigation. Your own July twenty fourth
Speaker 1: letter characterized the committee's response by saying, the majority staff
Speaker 1: represented that your client's refusal to answer questions would be
Speaker 1: problematic in so far as it would seem to exclude
Speaker 1: responding to questions regarding whether mister Black had a sexual
Speaker 1: relationship with a woman that the Committee might believe be
Speaker 1: tied to Epstein. Your letter then failed to dispute that response,
Speaker 1: and instead argued that mister Black was not asked such
Speaker 1: a specific question during the transcribed interview. Not only does
Speaker 1: your argument fail to negate the committee's position, but are
Speaker 1: relies on a categorically false assertion, and yet again it's
Speaker 1: missing context. During the interview of your client, the committee
Speaker 1: asked the following questions pertaining to mister Black's sexual relationship
Speaker 1: with a woman associated with mister Epstein. Question, have you
Speaker 1: ever engaged in sexual conduct of any kind with miss Ganieva? Answer?
Speaker 1: I had an affair with her on and off for
Speaker 1: six years, an extra marital, consensual adult affair with her.
Speaker 1: Question was mister Epstein involved in the negotiations on these terms? Answer?
Speaker 1: He was not involved in the negotiation, Thank you with
Speaker 1: somebody that I told I was being blackmailed and extorted
Speaker 1: to as well as to my lawyer, Paul Weiss. When
Speaker 1: the committee made additional inquiries about this woman and the
Speaker 1: existence of a non disclosure agreement between her and your client,
Speaker 1: refused to answer the committee's questions. All right, folks, we're
Speaker 1: going to wrap up episode one right here, and in
Speaker 1: the next episode we'll pick up where we left off.
Speaker 1: And that's with Part five. Non disclosure agreements are within
Speaker 1: the scope of investigation. All the information that goes with
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.