WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:03.200 What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the 2 00:00:03.240 --> 00:00:07.240 Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to start taking 3 00:00:07.240 --> 00:00:12.039 a look at the letter sent by Congress to Leon Black, 4 00:00:12.400 --> 00:00:15.519 and this letter was dated August eighteenth, twenty twenty six. 5 00:00:16.359 --> 00:00:19.879 Dear mister Cutler, the Committee on Oversight in Government Reform 6 00:00:20.120 --> 00:00:23.199 has received your July twenty fourth, twenty twenty sixth letter 7 00:00:23.519 --> 00:00:26.679 outlining arguments for why your client, Leon Black, should not 8 00:00:26.719 --> 00:00:29.640 be required to fully comply with the subpoena issue to 9 00:00:29.719 --> 00:00:33.399 him on June twenty sixth, twenty twenty six for non 10 00:00:33.439 --> 00:00:38.439 disclosure agreements in his possession, custody, or control. In response 11 00:00:38.479 --> 00:00:42.520 to this subpoena, your client produced a single non disclosure agreement, 12 00:00:42.799 --> 00:00:45.479 while claiming it's the only one within the scope of 13 00:00:45.520 --> 00:00:49.640 the Committee's goals. The Committee rejects your assertion and reiterates 14 00:00:49.679 --> 00:00:52.759 that full compliance with the subpoena issue to your client 15 00:00:53.240 --> 00:00:57.280 requires the production of all non disclosure agreements to which 16 00:00:57.280 --> 00:01:01.439 he is a party. On March third, the Committee sent 17 00:01:01.439 --> 00:01:04.280 a letter to mister Black to request his appearance at 18 00:01:04.319 --> 00:01:08.920 a voluntary transcribed interview before the Committee. To accommodate mister 19 00:01:08.959 --> 00:01:13.079 Black's schedule, the Committee scheduled is transcribed interview for June 20 00:01:13.120 --> 00:01:17.480 twenty six. On April sixteenth, you confirmed by email that 21 00:01:17.519 --> 00:01:20.599 your client would appear before the Committee on this scheduled date. 22 00:01:21.159 --> 00:01:24.680 The Committee's letter and request from mister Black to testify 23 00:01:24.799 --> 00:01:28.239 was based on public reporting documents released by the Department 24 00:01:28.280 --> 00:01:32.040 of Justice, and documents obtained by the Committee showing mister 25 00:01:32.120 --> 00:01:36.599 Black had information that will assist the Committee's investigation. One 26 00:01:37.239 --> 00:01:42.000 scope of transcribed interview was clear and never subject to limitation. 27 00:01:43.480 --> 00:01:46.519 Your insistence that the Committee exceeded the stated scope of 28 00:01:46.560 --> 00:01:49.359 the transcribed interview of mister Black on June twenty six 29 00:01:49.719 --> 00:01:53.799 is unfounded and without merit. The Committee's March third letter 30 00:01:54.079 --> 00:01:58.640 clearly articulated its investigative scope and intent, including the alleged 31 00:01:58.640 --> 00:02:03.359 mismanagement of the feleral Government's investigation into mister Jeffrey Epstein 32 00:02:03.599 --> 00:02:08.960 and Glenn Maxwell, to the circumstances and subsequent investigations of 33 00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:13.879 mister Epstein's death. Three, the operation of trafficking rings and 34 00:02:13.919 --> 00:02:17.319 the way the federal government to effectively combat them. Four 35 00:02:17.639 --> 00:02:20.680 ways in which mister Epstein and miss Maxwell sought to 36 00:02:20.719 --> 00:02:24.400 curry favor and exercised influence to protect their illegal activities 37 00:02:24.840 --> 00:02:29.800 and five potential violations of ethic rules related to elected officials. 38 00:02:30.639 --> 00:02:34.240 The questions posed to mister Black and the subpoena documents 39 00:02:34.240 --> 00:02:38.680 at issue fall within this scope. Your July twenty fourth 40 00:02:38.759 --> 00:02:42.240 letter claims that during an April eighth meeting with the Committee, 41 00:02:42.280 --> 00:02:45.879 mister Black's council expressed an interest in engaging in a 42 00:02:45.960 --> 00:02:50.800 dialogue regarding the scope of mister Black's transcribed interview. However, 43 00:02:51.199 --> 00:02:56.039 no such dialogue ever occurred. To be clear, the Committee 44 00:02:56.280 --> 00:02:59.599 never agreed to any limitations on the scope of mister 45 00:02:59.639 --> 00:03:03.400 Black's interview that were not already articulated in the committee's 46 00:03:03.400 --> 00:03:07.800 March third letter. Furthermore, you were informed that the Committee 47 00:03:08.199 --> 00:03:11.360 would cover any topic and use any document relevant to 48 00:03:11.400 --> 00:03:15.479 its investigation during the transcribed interview, as has been the 49 00:03:15.479 --> 00:03:19.599 practice during the totality of this investigation. The mere fact 50 00:03:19.599 --> 00:03:22.599 that a topic was not identified during good faith discussions 51 00:03:22.759 --> 00:03:25.960 among council does not mean it falls outside the scope 52 00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:30.479 of the interview. Because such discussions are inherently not exhaustive, 53 00:03:31.560 --> 00:03:34.719 the Committee is not required to articulate in advance every 54 00:03:34.759 --> 00:03:38.560 item that is potentially pertinent to or within the scope 55 00:03:39.000 --> 00:03:44.759 of its investigation. Two documents used by the Committee. Your 56 00:03:44.840 --> 00:03:48.479 letter asserts that mister Black's council understood the Majority staff 57 00:03:48.520 --> 00:03:51.479 to explain that they intended to focus the interview on 58 00:03:51.520 --> 00:03:55.479 information and documents in the public domain. He then cited 59 00:03:55.520 --> 00:03:59.879 specifically to the Chairman's statement regarding DA's and bank records 60 00:04:00.240 --> 00:04:05.360 reflecting certain alleged financial violations. This framing can only be 61 00:04:05.439 --> 00:04:09.080 understood by the Committee as an intentional misrepresentation by you 62 00:04:09.719 --> 00:04:14.080 of the pre interviewed discussions with the Committee. During the 63 00:04:14.159 --> 00:04:17.040 April twenty eighth in person meeting, the Committee informed you 64 00:04:17.360 --> 00:04:20.279 that if it were to enter documents into the record 65 00:04:20.399 --> 00:04:24.000 as exhibits during the interview, most of the documents already 66 00:04:24.040 --> 00:04:28.240 existed in the public domain. It appears mister Black's council 67 00:04:28.560 --> 00:04:31.600 misinterpreted this statement to mean that all documents to be 68 00:04:31.759 --> 00:04:34.639 entered into the record, and, based on your letter, that 69 00:04:34.680 --> 00:04:38.800 all questions posed by the Committee would exist in or 70 00:04:38.920 --> 00:04:43.600 come from the public domain. That was never the case. Indeed, 71 00:04:43.839 --> 00:04:48.079 the expectation that questioners would likely focus on publicly available 72 00:04:48.120 --> 00:04:51.759 documents does not equate to an assurance or promise that 73 00:04:51.800 --> 00:04:55.040 the Committee would only enter into the record or refer 74 00:04:55.120 --> 00:04:58.639 to public documents. The Committee was well within its rights 75 00:04:58.680 --> 00:05:01.680 to enter into the record to question the witness about 76 00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:05.879 any document, whether publicly disclosed or not, that pertained to 77 00:05:05.920 --> 00:05:09.959 its investigation, as it has done through investigations not only 78 00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:14.319 in this current Congress but also in past congresses. Additionally, 79 00:05:14.360 --> 00:05:17.199 the discussion about the use of documents in the transcribed 80 00:05:17.240 --> 00:05:20.600 interview did not center around the totality of the documents 81 00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:23.759 to be used and their origins, but rather around the 82 00:05:23.800 --> 00:05:26.839 fact that you requested that the Committee share exhibits in 83 00:05:26.879 --> 00:05:30.360 advance of the interview. The Committee was very clear in 84 00:05:30.399 --> 00:05:34.639 its response it would not share exhibits in advance, consistent 85 00:05:34.680 --> 00:05:39.160 with its practice during this investigation. Further, your statement that 86 00:05:39.160 --> 00:05:42.800 the committee's emphasis on non disclosure agreements and records regarding 87 00:05:42.839 --> 00:05:47.120 alleged bank violations are directly at odds with representations made 88 00:05:47.160 --> 00:05:51.439 by the Majority staff is erroneous. In addition to making 89 00:05:51.519 --> 00:05:55.800 no such representation related to non disclosure agreements and bank records, 90 00:05:55.839 --> 00:05:58.800 the likelihood that the Committee would inquire about non disclosure 91 00:05:58.800 --> 00:06:01.639 agreements and bank records should have been apparent to you 92 00:06:02.279 --> 00:06:07.000 and your client considering the Committee's extensively transparent coverage of 93 00:06:07.040 --> 00:06:11.279 these topics throughout the investigation Prior to mister Black's interview, 94 00:06:11.399 --> 00:06:13.759 the Committee made a public letter it sent to the 95 00:06:13.879 --> 00:06:17.360 US Department of the Treasury on August thirty first, twenty 96 00:06:17.399 --> 00:06:21.560 twenty five, requesting bank records pertaining to mister Epstein and 97 00:06:21.600 --> 00:06:25.199 miss Maxwell. The Committee made public two more letters that 98 00:06:25.279 --> 00:06:28.439 had sent November eighteenth, twenty twenty five, to both JP 99 00:06:28.600 --> 00:06:33.879 Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, requesting certain financial records related 100 00:06:34.079 --> 00:06:37.040 to mister Epstein and Miss Maxwell as former clients of 101 00:06:37.079 --> 00:06:42.120 these institutions. The Committee also inquired about non disclosure agreements 102 00:06:42.160 --> 00:06:46.360 related to Jeffrey Epstein, client Maxwell, and their associations in 103 00:06:46.399 --> 00:06:50.120 the transcribed interviews of another witness, the transcript of which 104 00:06:50.199 --> 00:06:55.079 was made public prior to mister Black's transcribed interview. Your 105 00:06:55.079 --> 00:06:57.879 claim that your client did not anticipate the Committee's use 106 00:06:58.480 --> 00:07:01.560 of such documents or the qui questions posed is simply 107 00:07:01.639 --> 00:07:05.120 not plausible, and even if it were, a true misapprehension 108 00:07:05.120 --> 00:07:08.120 on your part would not result from the fault of 109 00:07:08.160 --> 00:07:12.879 the Committee or its staff. Three questions about payment to Epstein. 110 00:07:14.360 --> 00:07:16.680 You are also concerned that the Committee did not ask 111 00:07:16.720 --> 00:07:20.639 your client any questions during the June twenty sixth transcribed 112 00:07:20.680 --> 00:07:24.120 interview about payments to mister Epstein, This argument lacks both 113 00:07:24.120 --> 00:07:27.000 context and merit. The committee was less than an hour 114 00:07:27.040 --> 00:07:30.720 into its interview when your client began refusing to answer 115 00:07:30.959 --> 00:07:34.959 important questions. Had your client not refused to answer questions 116 00:07:35.120 --> 00:07:38.079 and not chosen to terminate the interview after being served 117 00:07:38.079 --> 00:07:41.680 the document and deposition subpoenas, the Committee would have continued 118 00:07:41.959 --> 00:07:45.959 with its questioning for multiple rounds. Rest assured the topic 119 00:07:46.000 --> 00:07:48.680 of mister Black's payments to mister Epstein would have been 120 00:07:48.720 --> 00:07:53.279 thoroughly covered, notwithstanding your client's refusal to answer the committee's 121 00:07:53.319 --> 00:07:57.040 other pertinent questions. To take issue with questions the committee 122 00:07:57.160 --> 00:07:59.759 did or did not address, training a single round of 123 00:07:59.759 --> 00:08:03.920 trains sanscribed interview, which was replete with legal arguments before 124 00:08:03.959 --> 00:08:10.439 mister Black ended the interview, is incredibly disingenuous for refusal 125 00:08:10.519 --> 00:08:14.680 to answer questions about personal matters. On June twenty second, 126 00:08:14.759 --> 00:08:19.279 mister Black's council communicated on another call to the Committee 127 00:08:19.279 --> 00:08:22.360 that mister Black would respectfully decline to answer questions that 128 00:08:22.480 --> 00:08:27.000 related solely to his personal life. Not only was this 129 00:08:27.040 --> 00:08:29.759 new information conveyed to the committee just four days prior 130 00:08:29.839 --> 00:08:33.080 to this transcribed interview, but it was also the first 131 00:08:33.080 --> 00:08:36.799 time the Committee had been informed of any limitations about 132 00:08:36.840 --> 00:08:39.919 what your client was willing to discuss in a voluntary setting. 133 00:08:40.799 --> 00:08:44.200 This limitation did not arise from any agreement with the committee, 134 00:08:44.480 --> 00:08:46.679 nor was it a result of any waiver of the 135 00:08:46.720 --> 00:08:51.240 scope of the committee's investigation. Your own July twenty fourth 136 00:08:51.320 --> 00:08:55.039 letter characterized the committee's response by saying, the majority staff 137 00:08:55.080 --> 00:08:58.840 represented that your client's refusal to answer questions would be 138 00:08:58.840 --> 00:09:01.879 problematic in so far as it would seem to exclude 139 00:09:01.960 --> 00:09:06.120 responding to questions regarding whether mister Black had a sexual 140 00:09:06.159 --> 00:09:09.399 relationship with a woman that the Committee might believe be 141 00:09:09.480 --> 00:09:13.679 tied to Epstein. Your letter then failed to dispute that response, 142 00:09:13.840 --> 00:09:17.799 and instead argued that mister Black was not asked such 143 00:09:17.840 --> 00:09:21.519 a specific question during the transcribed interview. Not only does 144 00:09:21.559 --> 00:09:24.279 your argument fail to negate the committee's position, but are 145 00:09:24.320 --> 00:09:28.159 relies on a categorically false assertion, and yet again it's 146 00:09:28.200 --> 00:09:32.519 missing context. During the interview of your client, the committee 147 00:09:32.519 --> 00:09:35.960 asked the following questions pertaining to mister Black's sexual relationship 148 00:09:36.240 --> 00:09:40.679 with a woman associated with mister Epstein. Question, have you 149 00:09:40.720 --> 00:09:45.519 ever engaged in sexual conduct of any kind with miss Ganieva? Answer? 150 00:09:45.720 --> 00:09:47.840 I had an affair with her on and off for 151 00:09:47.879 --> 00:09:51.159 six years, an extra marital, consensual adult affair with her. 152 00:09:51.600 --> 00:09:57.639 Question was mister Epstein involved in the negotiations on these terms? Answer? 153 00:09:57.840 --> 00:10:00.279 He was not involved in the negotiation, Thank you with 154 00:10:00.320 --> 00:10:03.360 somebody that I told I was being blackmailed and extorted 155 00:10:03.360 --> 00:10:06.399 to as well as to my lawyer, Paul Weiss. When 156 00:10:06.440 --> 00:10:09.679 the committee made additional inquiries about this woman and the 157 00:10:09.720 --> 00:10:13.159 existence of a non disclosure agreement between her and your client, 158 00:10:13.600 --> 00:10:17.519 refused to answer the committee's questions. All right, folks, we're 159 00:10:17.519 --> 00:10:19.440 going to wrap up episode one right here, and in 160 00:10:19.519 --> 00:10:21.919 the next episode we'll pick up where we left off. 161 00:10:22.240 --> 00:10:25.440 And that's with Part five. Non disclosure agreements are within 162 00:10:25.519 --> 00:10:29.240 the scope of investigation. All the information that goes with 163 00:10:29.320 --> 00:10:32.120 this episode can be found in the description box.