Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
Speaker 1: left off with Bill Barr and his deposition chairman, Comber
Speaker 1: General Barr. May I jump in for a couple of questions.
Speaker 1: Were you aware of the involvement of Hillary Clinton and
Speaker 1: the Clinton campaign in the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr,
Speaker 1: to the extent it was determined by Durham, Yes, Durham
Speaker 1: was looking into that. Comer. Did you review documents that
Speaker 1: indicated the involvement of former Secretary Clinton in the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr? Did I look at documents, Comer? Yes, Barr, yes, Comer,
Speaker 1: to the best of your recollection. Did you at any
Speaker 1: point attempted to classify items in the Russia collusion investigation? Barr?
Speaker 1: Some items to classified and some I opposed to classifying.
Speaker 1: Comber Okay. Were you aware of the involvement of President
Speaker 1: Obama or his officials in the Russia collusion investigation involving
Speaker 1: President Trump? Barr. I was aware of meetings held at
Speaker 1: the end of the Obama administration. They were described Comer.
Speaker 1: And did you review any documents, Barr. I think I
Speaker 1: saw a set of notes taken by an intelligence official,
Speaker 1: perhaps comer. Okay, all right, thank you sir. Question and
Speaker 1: much like disclaimer at the beginning of the Minority Hour,
Speaker 1: I might ask some similar questions this hour. But we're
Speaker 1: going to start back with mister Epstein's death and some
Speaker 1: of the irregularities within the jail. We talked about the
Speaker 1: missed institutional counts and observations, and the two guards two
Speaker 1: corrections officers Tovin Owll and Michael Thomas were eventually indicted
Speaker 1: for falsifying those records. Were you involved in that indictment?
Speaker 1: I was. I think it was passed by me. I
Speaker 1: think I was informed as to what they were going
Speaker 1: to do. Question. I think they eventually entered a plea
Speaker 1: agreement bar yep question, and the case was otherwise dropped.
Speaker 1: Were you involved in that at all, Bar, I think
Speaker 1: people described it to me, I think before it happened. Yeah. Question,
Speaker 1: But much like some of the Epstein investigation, you're not
Speaker 1: involved in the prosecutorial decisions on whether or not Bar
Speaker 1: cuts them off. Right question to take the case on
Speaker 1: the institutional counts. My understanding of these is that at
Speaker 1: set intervals corrections. Officers need to go through their area
Speaker 1: of responsibility and just do account of the inmates to
Speaker 1: make sure that everyone is accounted for. Is that a
Speaker 1: fair summary of that answer? The count process. Yes, and
Speaker 1: they report the counts, I think, is it? I forgot
Speaker 1: how frequently they report the counts, but they call in
Speaker 1: the counts. Question from the indictment, at least they were
Speaker 1: responsible for counts at four pm, ten pm, twelve am,
Speaker 1: three am, and five am. Does that sound right? Answer?
Speaker 1: Sounds right? Question? And then, to the best of your recollection,
Speaker 1: were these institutional accounts done by those officers? Answer? I
Speaker 1: can't remember if one of them was done, but they
Speaker 1: generally were not done. Question and then you testified earlier,
Speaker 1: but the officers falsified the records. Is that correct answer? Yes?
Speaker 1: Question Moving to the thirty minute rounds again, my understanding
Speaker 1: of the rounds or that they were directed by the
Speaker 1: psyche department and the medical department because mister Epstein was
Speaker 1: coming off suicide watch and coming off kind of the
Speaker 1: more enhanced observation. Is that correct answer? Yes, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if it was. I think that's part of and
Speaker 1: parcel of this level of scrutiny question like the step
Speaker 1: down from suicide watch. Answer yes, question, and my understanding
Speaker 1: again is that they would have conducted this twice an hour,
Speaker 1: once the first thirty minutes, once in the second, at
Speaker 1: irregular intervals, and at least forty minutes apart. Does that
Speaker 1: sound right? Answer? Yes, question to your recollection and to
Speaker 1: my knowledge, yes, question, to the best of your recollection,
Speaker 1: were these thirty minute rounds done? Answer? I believe that's
Speaker 1: why they were prosecuted for not doing them and lying
Speaker 1: about it. Question and then to your recall the officers
Speaker 1: falsified the records. Answer yes, question, I believe you said it,
Speaker 1: and I know I have. But I want to ask directly,
Speaker 1: were those thirty minute rounds specific to mister Epstein? Answer?
Speaker 1: I believe they were specific to anyone who warrants that
Speaker 1: kind of level of watch. I don't know who else
Speaker 1: did in that shoe question, so that was my next question.
Speaker 1: Do you recall if anyone on L block required thirty
Speaker 1: minute observation or even in nine South? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Question there was I can introduce if you need me to.
Speaker 1: But there was a sign on the SACHU officer's desk
Speaker 1: that read mandatory rounds must be conducted every thirty minutes
Speaker 1: on Epstein, as per God and as per God, I'm
Speaker 1: assuming it was a joke for the warden or something.
Speaker 1: Answer right, question hearing about that sign? Answer after the fact?
Speaker 1: Question prior to your departure as attorney General? Answer I
Speaker 1: can't remember. Question and what do you recall any discussion
Speaker 1: regarding that sign? Answer? It may have been part of
Speaker 1: the case, in other words, that it was clear to
Speaker 1: them that it was a priority to conduct those rounds
Speaker 1: as to Epstein. Question part of the case against Noel
Speaker 1: and Thomas. Answer yes, question we've gone through all of
Speaker 1: the kind of major irregularities. After you learned of these,
Speaker 1: did you take any disciplinary action against anyone involved? Answer?
Speaker 1: It could be referred to as disciplinary. I think on
Speaker 1: the very day I was informed of his death, I
Speaker 1: started reaching out to find the old management of BOP
Speaker 1: that I was familiar with and had always considered to be,
Speaker 1: you know, fantastic managers of BOP. So I started lining
Speaker 1: them up because I intended to see if I could
Speaker 1: bring them in. And then within days, I think, maybe
Speaker 1: very quickly, I reassigned the warden and I replaced I
Speaker 1: think the following had the people come in to interview
Speaker 1: within a few days with the job, and then I
Speaker 1: think within a week I moved out the head of
Speaker 1: GOOP and put in new people. Question and to point
Speaker 1: in a new deputy BOP a director. Answer yes, both
Speaker 1: the top and the deputy. And that was all done
Speaker 1: within a week, and I left the other discipline up
Speaker 1: to them to meet out. Question they would be the
Speaker 1: ones that placed the two guards on leave? Answer I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think they were probably put on leave
Speaker 1: right away. Answer okay, but further discipline in figuring out
Speaker 1: you know, who was responsible for what oversight? But I
Speaker 1: think there was no question they admitted it right up
Speaker 1: front that they screwed up, as they said, question that
Speaker 1: they were asleep at the desk? Answer yeah, Question was
Speaker 1: there to your knowledge? Was there a larger investigation into
Speaker 1: whether or not these issues were systemic at MCC or
Speaker 1: if they were isolated to Epstein? Answer, I actually can't
Speaker 1: answer that authoritatively. I think BOP does a lot of
Speaker 1: investigations of the BOP and I think maybe their report
Speaker 1: on this incident says this was not new news. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a problem. Question uh huh. Answer I think BOP,
Speaker 1: you know, has gone downhill in terms of its professional
Speaker 1: you know, its management structure and professionalism. Part of that
Speaker 1: is the nature of the job and especially in big cities,
Speaker 1: the pay rate and so forth, it's hard to get
Speaker 1: good people. Question mcc I believe is now closed. Answer.
Speaker 1: I think it was closed after I left. Yeah, question
Speaker 1: it was after you left. Answer Well, I stopped new
Speaker 1: prisoners from going in. I believe that's what I did,
Speaker 1: and I think I redirected them to Brooklyn, MDC. Question.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I'm going to ask a few questions about
Speaker 1: the individual cases, similar to what my colleagues asked, and
Speaker 1: I might have some follow ups based off those questions.
Speaker 1: You testified a little bit, you know, I want to
Speaker 1: quote it as as as possible that you wanted to
Speaker 1: let investigators let the chips fall where they may, in
Speaker 1: other words, not involve yourself too heavily. In the twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen prosecution answer investigation question investigation in general. And then
Speaker 1: you said that I want to get it right, that
Speaker 1: it's DOJ policy to bring to the Attorney General's attention
Speaker 1: if a prominent person was going to be the subject
Speaker 1: of an investigation. Is that a fair summary of what
Speaker 1: the policy is. Answer, Yes, it's called urgent reports. I
Speaker 1: think they have to file an urgent report. Question did
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York ever file an urgent
Speaker 1: report regarding the Epstein case? Answer? I can't remember. I
Speaker 1: don't remember what they did, but you know, certainly I
Speaker 1: was never informed by them that they were focused. You
Speaker 1: know that they believed they had a predicate to actually
Speaker 1: investigate the individual. Question and pardon me, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Answer other than Maxwell and Epstein. Question, I don't know
Speaker 1: the actual like formal desseigs nations, But they wouldn't have to.
Speaker 1: Would they have to issue a formal report if they
Speaker 1: wanted to interview someone as a witness that was a
Speaker 1: prominent individual, or just if that prominent individual was going
Speaker 1: to become a suspect or a target in the investigation? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't think it was that refined. I think they
Speaker 1: had to use their rule of common sense as to
Speaker 1: what would the national leadership of the department want to
Speaker 1: know about? And just interject real quick, you see what
Speaker 1: he's saying right here, right that the bosses have to know.
Speaker 1: So taking that and bringing it over to what happened
Speaker 1: with a Costa, what does it tell you question? Uh
Speaker 1: huh answer. And you know, if they decided, you know,
Speaker 1: had some predicate to actually pursue an individual, you know,
Speaker 1: moving into the potential area of a target, they would
Speaker 1: have to do an urgent report. Yeah. Question and to
Speaker 1: the best, like out of this list that the minority
Speaker 1: read to you, the one that you were called elevating witness,
Speaker 1: suspect or target was Prince Andrew. Answer, I don't know
Speaker 1: if he was a target, and you know, I guess,
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, he was at least a witness question
Speaker 1: Uh huh answer. I don't know if it went beyond that,
Speaker 1: but you know that's somebody who in real time I
Speaker 1: understood they were trying to get in the door to
Speaker 1: question question understanding again what you said you don't recall
Speaker 1: specific urgent reports being filed with you. Would that have
Speaker 1: been someone that met the criteria of a prominent person? Answer?
Speaker 1: In my mind? Question and I'll ask specifically to him,
Speaker 1: do you recall whether or not you got an urgent report?
Speaker 1: They're cut off by bar and it could affect foreign
Speaker 1: relations and so forth. It's a sensible rule. Now, is
Speaker 1: it always followed by US attorneys? No? There are many
Speaker 1: that's it. Not many, but there's sometimes the case where
Speaker 1: you don't get a report for something that you should
Speaker 1: have been and the SDNY is relatively well known for
Speaker 1: playing its cards very close to the vest. Question and again,
Speaker 1: to the best of your recollection, you never got an
Speaker 1: urgent report regarding Prince Andrew. Answer. I don't recall quite possibly,
Speaker 1: but I don't recall that. All right, folks, we're gonna
Speaker 1: wrap up right here, and in the next episode we're
Speaker 1: gonna pick up where we left off. All of the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
Speaker 1: episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna
Speaker 1: get right back to that Bill Barr deposition that he
Speaker 1: gave to Congress. Question and again, to the best of
Speaker 1: your recollection, you never got an urgent report regarding Prince Andrew. Answer.
Speaker 1: I don't recall, quite possibly, but I don't recall that.
Speaker 1: You know, an urgent report could also be done. I
Speaker 1: mean it's a judgment call. A US attorney can want
Speaker 1: to question somebody as sensitive as a member of the
Speaker 1: royal family, you know, at our closest ally, and they
Speaker 1: might file an urgent report saying I want to you
Speaker 1: know that we're going to be pursuing this guy as
Speaker 1: a witness, and it's going to make the papers. Question,
Speaker 1: so that's definitely someone that there should have been an
Speaker 1: urgent report filed. Answer. Yeah, question now, whether it made
Speaker 1: it to your bar cuts her off or him off? Well, no,
Speaker 1: I mean they can say he is just a witness.
Speaker 1: But the fact, I think one of the reasons when
Speaker 1: you go and hold a press conference and you attack
Speaker 1: him in front of the mansion and so forth, that
Speaker 1: is actually something that the US Attorney should have run
Speaker 1: by me. Not that I would have opposed it, but
Speaker 1: I would like to know about it. And again, red
Speaker 1: flags for everybody out there. So you mean to tell
Speaker 1: me the Attorney General wants to know if you want
Speaker 1: to speak to a royal as a witness. But they
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with the deal that Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: received from the Justice Department. Yeah, okay, sure, who is
Speaker 1: buying that answer? I don't think he told me, but
Speaker 1: I wasn't mad at him for the substance question. This
Speaker 1: is potentially a poorly worded question, but so based off
Speaker 1: that your recollection, is it possible that they just didn't
Speaker 1: inform you that there were other prominent people under investigation
Speaker 1: or as witnesses. Answer. I think it's possible that the
Speaker 1: SDNY did not inform me, you know, how deep they
Speaker 1: were in the investigation of particular individuals, that would not
Speaker 1: surprise me. By the same token, I feel that my
Speaker 1: view of that office and the people involved would be
Speaker 1: that if they had any evidence establishing a crime, they
Speaker 1: would pursue it as such. And I also feel, you know,
Speaker 1: it's sort of amazing after all these years, you know,
Speaker 1: going back to the nineties, when you had people reporting
Speaker 1: and the victims and a lot of speculation and people
Speaker 1: finding connections, I still have not heard no evidence has
Speaker 1: come out that would establish criminality for most of those individuals.
Speaker 1: Question uh huh, answer that have been named, And I
Speaker 1: think it would come out if there was any feeling
Speaker 1: that within the government on either side that someone was
Speaker 1: covering it up, I think it would get out. I mean,
Speaker 1: SDNY and New York is well known as being home
Speaker 1: of many many a leak on investigation. So question, So,
Speaker 1: in your experience, you have no doubt if SDNY prosecutors
Speaker 1: saw evidence of a crime, they would have followed that
Speaker 1: evidence and if it led to an indictment, they would
Speaker 1: have indicted. And if it led to a conviction, they
Speaker 1: would have followed the facts where they led. Is that
Speaker 1: fair answer? Yes, for that group. I also feel you
Speaker 1: know they would have done the same for Clinton. I
Speaker 1: believe remember this stuff also went on under President Biden's administration,
Speaker 1: and they were looking for something to bring against President Trump.
Speaker 1: And this was if they had any evidence, this would
Speaker 1: have been low hanging fruit. I was never informed of
Speaker 1: the evidence, and I'm skeptical that there is any. Do
Speaker 1: you recall when I'm more the SDNY is more formal
Speaker 1: investigation and Depstein began? Answer no, I mean I may
Speaker 1: have at the time, I just don't remember. Question likely
Speaker 1: prior to you becoming attorney general? Answer not necessarily, but
Speaker 1: quite possibly. Question Okay, do you recall generally when you
Speaker 1: became aware of the ongoing investigation? Answer no, I don't.
Speaker 1: I obviously became aware of it around the time of
Speaker 1: his arrest. It could have been shortly before his arrest.
Speaker 1: I mean, usually we would be told of an arrest
Speaker 1: like that going down in Teeterborough. Question a more high
Speaker 1: profile arrest the moment someone lands in an airport. Answer yes.
Speaker 1: Question in cases like this one will stick with the
Speaker 1: high profile cases. Do any of the kind of investigatory
Speaker 1: decisions rise to the Attorney General's office, whether or not
Speaker 1: to issue a search warrant, or apply for a search warrant,
Speaker 1: or apply for a subpoena? Would any of that have
Speaker 1: arisen from your office? Answer? I wouldn't say it would
Speaker 1: be very unusual for it, but there could be unusual circumstances,
Speaker 1: like you're going to search a very sensitive area. You
Speaker 1: know that's going to cause all kinds of hubbub. Question.
Speaker 1: I believe it was a member of Congress a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago suggested that you personally approve the search
Speaker 1: warrant for Epstein's house in New York, his townhouse in
Speaker 1: New York. Do you recall answer? Did someone say that question?
Speaker 1: I believe so. Answer. I don't recall that question, But
Speaker 1: that and the questions cut off by bar that's not
Speaker 1: the kind of thing I would have thought was particularly needed.
Speaker 1: You know, you needed my approval for question kind of
Speaker 1: just run of the mill search warrant answer of somebody
Speaker 1: who's already been arrested. Question, yeah, O Callahan. Run of
Speaker 1: the mill is your term? Redacted. Yeah, like not outside
Speaker 1: the ordinary practice of an investigation. I believe would be
Speaker 1: cut off by bar I would have considered the normal
Speaker 1: question Okay, during the course of the investigation, did you
Speaker 1: receive any regular briefings from the FBI or the SDNY
Speaker 1: Answer during what? Question during the course of their investigation?
Speaker 1: Answer into question mister Epstein answer death or question No? Answer, Oh,
Speaker 1: you're talking about before you committed suicide? Question yes, sir,
Speaker 1: answer I don't recall any question. Would there normally be
Speaker 1: those kinds of briefings or updates fall to the head
Speaker 1: of the criminal division or would it be even lower
Speaker 1: than that? Answer the investigation itself. I think I'm not
Speaker 1: even sure it would get to main justice other than
Speaker 1: alerting us maybe that the investigation was going on. What
Speaker 1: particular actions wouldn't be regularly reported? Question? I don't want
Speaker 1: to get it wrong, but I believe you said that
Speaker 1: there were in regards to the non prosecution agreement out
Speaker 1: of the Southern District of Florida, that there were conversations
Speaker 1: about being careful that the twenty nineteen investigation did not
Speaker 1: run a foul of that. Did I summarize that correctly? Answer?
Speaker 1: I vaguely recall some discussion exactly when it occurred, about,
Speaker 1: you know, to the extent what charges can be brought
Speaker 1: that don't run a foul of that plea agreement. I
Speaker 1: remember some discussion. Question Do you recall any more of
Speaker 1: the content of the discussion? Answer no, question concerns that
Speaker 1: the plea agreement restricted the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: Answer no, I just think it was a question of
Speaker 1: everyone agreeing on what we had a good legal argument.
Speaker 1: Question and then answer we being the whole Department of Justice. Question.
Speaker 1: And then you were asked about the kind of specific
Speaker 1: on the seizure list that the DOJ released earlier this
Speaker 1: year from the FBI that had like picked up a laptop,
Speaker 1: but didn't say what was on the laptop. Did you
Speaker 1: recall ever reviewing any of the FBI's evidence in the
Speaker 1: Epstein criminal investigation answer before a suicide question, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: answer no question. Do you recall reviewing any of the
Speaker 1: evidence after his suicide? Answer just evidence relating to his
Speaker 1: you know, relating to his suicide. I don't recall reviewing
Speaker 1: evidence relating to charging Maxwell or anybody else. Question So
Speaker 1: no answer. I mean I was told in Maxwell's case
Speaker 1: when they got to the point that they were ready
Speaker 1: to indict. I believe I was told the substance, but
Speaker 1: I didn't review the evidence myself. Question applying to both
Speaker 1: mister Epstein and miss Maxwell. You reviewed for mister Epstein,
Speaker 1: you reviewed evidence surrounding his death. Answer, uh huh question,
Speaker 1: but not substantive criminal evidence regarding his investigation and prosecution.
Speaker 1: Is that correct? Answer? Right question? And then with miss Maxwell,
Speaker 1: you didn't review the underlying criminal evidence. You just got
Speaker 1: notified about appending indictment. Answer right question, Okay, answer, that's
Speaker 1: my best recollection question. I just wanted to make sure
Speaker 1: it was all in line. There. We've been back and
Speaker 1: forth a little bit. And on that note, I want
Speaker 1: to shift to the non prosecution agreement a little bit
Speaker 1: as in relation to both, kind of like the minority said,
Speaker 1: your experience generally with non prosecution agreements, but then a
Speaker 1: few questions about whether or not they had any impact.
Speaker 1: During your second tenure as the Attorney General, you were
Speaker 1: asked if you were aware of it at the time.
Speaker 1: I believe you said you were not aware of it
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seven. Answer. I became aware of
Speaker 1: it when it was public you know in public coverage
Speaker 1: of the matter. Question, Uh huh did you ever review
Speaker 1: the agreement as Attorney General in those discussions about its
Speaker 1: potential impacts? Answer? I don't recall going back and looking
Speaker 1: at it myself. I think other people were doing that.
Speaker 1: I mean everyone, I think understood that there would be
Speaker 1: litigation over whether or not the indictment could stand and
Speaker 1: whether it was preempted by the settlement. Everyone understood that,
Speaker 1: and I think they were Everyone was satisfying themselves that
Speaker 1: we were in a strong legal position. Question. Of course,
Speaker 1: mister Epstein never got a chance to appeal, never got convicted,
Speaker 1: and never got the chance to appeal the conviction. But
Speaker 1: miss Maxwell is appealing based on the non prosecution agreement.
Speaker 1: Is that your understanding? Answer? That's my understanding. Question. You
Speaker 1: were asked a little bit about this, specifically the co
Speaker 1: conspirator language in that agreement. You said something along the
Speaker 1: lines of the United States not prosecuting any and all
Speaker 1: co conspirators, including but not limited to, and then listed
Speaker 1: for people affiliated with Epstein. And I want to ask
Speaker 1: you again, had you seen in your experience that breadth
Speaker 1: of language in these kinds of agreements before answer, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't recall seeing that, you know, I think as
Speaker 1: a general matter, in a you know, unspectacular case, I
Speaker 1: think it may not be inappropriate to when you're trying
Speaker 1: to get a deal done with the primary suspect to
Speaker 1: agree that you won't go after peripheral people as a
Speaker 1: way of continuing the case, like I'm going to also
Speaker 1: go after you, or I won't go after your wife
Speaker 1: for you know, her role in this question uh huh answer,
Speaker 1: or I won't go after your children for their role
Speaker 1: in this and so forth. That kind of stuff is done, okay,
Speaker 1: But this case is different because of the nature of
Speaker 1: the crime and because of the span of the victims.
Speaker 1: Question and kind of the breadth of what those potential
Speaker 1: co conspirators could be. Answer yes, question in general, then
Speaker 1: I'll ask about high profile answer and you know, arguably
Speaker 1: not enough was known to make that kind of broad agreement.
Speaker 1: Question in general, do non prosecution agreements need to be
Speaker 1: approved by someone in Justice headquarters? Answer? Actually, off the
Speaker 1: top of my head, I don't know. Question what about
Speaker 1: in bar cuts them off? I think there are certain
Speaker 1: kinds of cases, definitely, but I'm not sure about this question,
Speaker 1: and would it be more likely in higher profile cases.
Speaker 1: Answer no, I mean certain kinds of the cases where
Speaker 1: the substantive law is in play and the money laundering
Speaker 1: section may have to sign off on some things, or
Speaker 1: the fraud section may have to sign off on some things. Question,
Speaker 1: So it's to the best of your recollection more akin
Speaker 1: to what's the alleged crime is versus the profile of
Speaker 1: the person being charged? Answer right, All right, folks, We're
Speaker 1: gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode
Speaker 1: dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we
Speaker 1: left off. All of 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 picking up where we left off with
Speaker 1: the Bill Barr Transcript. Question, Okay, since it's been in
Speaker 1: the news, in your experience our non prosecution agreements binding
Speaker 1: within all districts of the United States, you said you
Speaker 1: felt like you had a good legal standing to bring
Speaker 1: the twenty nineteen case against Epstein and then the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty case against Maxwell. But the current argument in the
Speaker 1: Southern District of Florida that can bind the Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York Is there any Department of Justice manual
Speaker 1: that talks about that answer, not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1: I can't recall how that issue is handled. Question on
Speaker 1: this specific agreement between the Southern District of Florida and
Speaker 1: mister Epstein, I believe it was sealed as part of
Speaker 1: the case. Is that common? Bar? I know what happens? Question?
Speaker 1: And you had said before that one of your problems
Speaker 1: with the one of the issues to you with this
Speaker 1: particular agreement was that it restricted the ability of victims
Speaker 1: to speak about the case or speak about the agreement.
Speaker 1: I believe the CVRA requires victims to be able to
Speaker 1: speak answer yes, question, potential plea agreements. Is that the case, Barr?
Speaker 1: I believe so. I think it's a statutory requirement. Question.
Speaker 1: Did you come to that view after reviewing the agreement
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen or just based off a news coverage answer?
Speaker 1: Just based off a news coverage question. Again, this this
Speaker 1: is kind of just using it as an example of
Speaker 1: what's common. He agreed to plead guilty to a couple
Speaker 1: of charges and eventually served thirteen months in Palm Beach
Speaker 1: County Jail and left for sixteen hours a day to
Speaker 1: go to work Is that common in those kinds of agreements.
Speaker 1: The broad work release, mister O'Callahan you're asking about, that's
Speaker 1: the state execution of the plea agreement in the state
Speaker 1: right redacted. Yes, it was still signed off on by
Speaker 1: gets cut off by O'Callahan, And he's never he's never been.
Speaker 1: The non prosecution agreement is with the subject of Florida
Speaker 1: US Attorney's office. The way that the state sentence is executed,
Speaker 1: that's a local Florida Palm Beach matter. And I don't
Speaker 1: think mister Barr, you know, has any information about that. Barr,
Speaker 1: that's true. Question. So the post sentencing how an inmate
Speaker 1: is or work release for an inmate is done by
Speaker 1: the local folks. The US Attorney's office wouldn't be involved.
Speaker 1: Answer Not usually, I would suspect, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: Question Okay, again, I want to get it right. So
Speaker 1: you said that in your personal view, you thought that
Speaker 1: it was wrong to not let victims have a say,
Speaker 1: and also that there was legal vulnerability. Again, the vulnerability
Speaker 1: is the potential is that the potential impact on future cases?
Speaker 1: Is that fair answer? The reason you let them have
Speaker 1: their say? Question? No, you said that you had two
Speaker 1: kind of personal concerns with the non prosecution agreement of
Speaker 1: mister Epstein, that it was wrong to not let the
Speaker 1: victims have their say, both I imagine personally and under
Speaker 1: the CVRA, but also under the legal vulnerability. And I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering. Answer by Barr Well, No, it's the same thing.
Speaker 1: Question the same the CVR answer. I thought at the
Speaker 1: time that made it legally vulnerable. Question all right? Answer?
Speaker 1: These were you know, I was not an advocate. You
Speaker 1: know here I generally am concerned about victims' rights. I
Speaker 1: looked at this, I didn't like the aspect of it,
Speaker 1: and I thought it was a legal vulnerability. But I
Speaker 1: wasn't sitting in judgment of the decision. I didn't know
Speaker 1: all the facts. Question, I'm not asking for judgment of
Speaker 1: overall decision. Just if like on your first blush read
Speaker 1: of this, it had multiple bar That's what I was
Speaker 1: concerned about. Question all right, bar or you know felt
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have done question I think it got a
Speaker 1: little jumbled in the last hour of possible recusals. You
Speaker 1: did not recuse from the SDNY investigation. Is that correct? Answer?
Speaker 1: I did not recuse from the sd I think I
Speaker 1: was considered whether I should. There was a question asked
Speaker 1: me during my confirmation. I'm not sure what that was
Speaker 1: relating to, but something about Epstein. Question. I thought it
Speaker 1: was relating to if you investigated the non prosecution agreement?
Speaker 1: Answer ah, question and I believe there were issues with
Speaker 1: Kirkland and Ellis representing mister Epstein in that case your
Speaker 1: former employment. Answer yeah, So I wasn't sure about the
Speaker 1: timing it and whether it implicated the time that I
Speaker 1: was there or you know, anything like that, and I
Speaker 1: don't think it did. I actually don't think I would
Speaker 1: have recused myself from that, but I just was never
Speaker 1: involved in that. I mean, the thing that happened under
Speaker 1: my tenure relating to Epstein was the investigation of Epstein
Speaker 1: in the Southern District, and I did not recuse myself
Speaker 1: from that. Question. Courtney Wilde, one of Epstein's victims, said
Speaker 1: that she sent a letter to you during your tenure
Speaker 1: as Attorney General. Do you recall receiving that letter? Answer
Speaker 1: no question. And then I believe you said that you
Speaker 1: were made aware of the OPR investigation into mister Acosta
Speaker 1: while he was US attorney for the Southern District of
Speaker 1: Florida kind of like at the end of the OPR
Speaker 1: investigation that you were aware of their findings but not
Speaker 1: the investigation itself. Answer no, I may have been aware
Speaker 1: that they were investigating. I was just not aware of
Speaker 1: where they stood. I didn't monitor the investigation. Question okay,
Speaker 1: answer they finished when they finish and I found out
Speaker 1: what they were thinking. Question No, that's helpful. I wanted
Speaker 1: to clarify that. Do you know, just to the best
Speaker 1: of your knowledge, how does how can the Attorney General
Speaker 1: direct OPR to conduct investigations or do they do it? No?
Speaker 1: The AG can direct them. That's how they were originally established.
Speaker 1: Question did you direct OPR to investigate the non prosecution agreement?
Speaker 1: Answer no? Question do you know who did? Answer no,
Speaker 1: But they don't have to be directed. They can also
Speaker 1: initiate their own question uh huh. Answer So no one
Speaker 1: had to direct it. If they sought newspapers and you
Speaker 1: know we're concerned about it, they can initiate it. It
Speaker 1: doesn't require being directed. I'm just saying the AG can
Speaker 1: direct it. Question again, this is more just of your
Speaker 1: experience type questioned The agreement was signed in late two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven, and then execute it in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, and then the OPR investigation came in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Is it common for kind of an internal review of
Speaker 1: us A tix or needs to happen so far after
Speaker 1: the fact of the alleged answer by OPR standards, that's
Speaker 1: speedy question, okay, And it could be she's cut off
Speaker 1: or he's cut off by bar answer in those days.
Speaker 1: Question in those days, it could have been a result
Speaker 1: of the agreement being sealed and then press reports. Answer
Speaker 1: could have answer could have been the answer is that
Speaker 1: these things investigations by OPR as OIG take a long time.
Speaker 1: Question all right, In addition to being informed of the
Speaker 1: outcomes of the OPR investigation, did you review any of
Speaker 1: the underlying materials? Answer concerning what question the OPR investigation
Speaker 1: into the non prosecution agreement of mister Epstein. Answer, I
Speaker 1: don't recall looking at it. I may have seen a
Speaker 1: summary of their reasoning or something like that, but I
Speaker 1: just don't recall. Question to you to that she's cut
Speaker 1: off again by Barr. Answer delving into it, he was
Speaker 1: no longer there. Question. The OPR said that they conducted
Speaker 1: a number of witness interviews during the investigation. To your knowledge,
Speaker 1: does OPR keep records of witness interviews? Would they have
Speaker 1: been transcribed? Answer? I don't know. Question shifting to Miss Maxwell.
Speaker 1: She was arrested during your tenure, but as it pointed out,
Speaker 1: did not go to trial until after you had left
Speaker 1: the department, And you've talked about being made aware of
Speaker 1: repending indictment. Was that when you were first made aware
Speaker 1: of potential investigation into Miss Maxwell? Answer? No, I mean well,
Speaker 1: I would say that I assumed that they were looking
Speaker 1: I don't know if I was told to, but I
Speaker 1: think anyone would have assumed that they were looking at
Speaker 1: Maxwell as a facilitator and a co conspirator, So I
Speaker 1: assume that question. Do you know if there was a
Speaker 1: more formal investigation into her that occurred after mister Epstein's
Speaker 1: death or was it running concurrently with Epstein's death? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't know exactly how they were staging things, but
Speaker 1: my assumption was that they were focusing on building their
Speaker 1: case against Epstein and also trying to develop evidence that
Speaker 1: would support a charge against her, And I think they
Speaker 1: were probably doing them in tandem, but you know how
Speaker 1: much they were pushing one over the other. I don't know. Question.
Speaker 1: Then we talked about the urgent request of high value
Speaker 1: co conspirators. Were you aware of any potential co conspirators
Speaker 1: in the Epstein or Maxwell case that have not been prosecuted? Answer?
Speaker 1: That have not been prosecuted. I mean, now we're switching
Speaker 1: to the term co conspirator. I think I laid out
Speaker 1: that I was not aware that SDNY had concluded that
Speaker 1: or had established that they had any of the names
Speaker 1: that had been bandied about were in fact engaged in
Speaker 1: a legal activity that they could charge. Question. Okay, that's helpful. Answer.
Speaker 1: When I say bandied about, I'm talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: the names that have come up here like Dershowitz and
Speaker 1: Branson and Richardson and people like that. Question the names
Speaker 1: on the flight logs? Answer? Well, being on the flight
Speaker 1: logs is not even I mean, it's not even prima
Speaker 1: fossee evidence of wrongdoing. It's just you know, the person. Question.
Speaker 1: But you don't recall ever being told that those names
Speaker 1: that were being that were on the flight log or
Speaker 1: fluttered about in the press, ever rose that this is
Speaker 1: someone that we could potentially indict. Answer, that's right. Question,
Speaker 1: Were you kept up to date on the Maxwell investigation.
Speaker 1: I don't need to reread the quote, but were you
Speaker 1: taking a similar posture of let the investigators run the
Speaker 1: course of the investigation? Answer to which investigation question? Miss Maxwell?
Speaker 1: Answer same course? Question. Do you recall any conversations regarding
Speaker 1: the non prosecution agreement impacting the potential of a charge
Speaker 1: for Miss Maxwell? Answer? I remember a discussion about an
Speaker 1: impacting the work of the SDNY, but I can't pin
Speaker 1: down you know how much it related to Epstein versus Maxwell.
Speaker 1: Question and then a few blanket questions before some more
Speaker 1: general investigative type questions. Did anyone ever instruct you to
Speaker 1: not investigate or prosecute Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no question. Did
Speaker 1: anyone instruct you not to investigate or prosecute Miss Maxwell?
Speaker 1: Answer no question. Did anyone instruct you not to investigate
Speaker 1: or prosecute any other potential co conspirator? Answer no question?
Speaker 1: And I believe you said earlier, but you're confident that
Speaker 1: if the Southern District of New York identified co conspirators
Speaker 1: that they believed they could convict, they would have brought
Speaker 1: the case. Answer I believe so. Question we've talked as
Speaker 1: as you have mentioned, the kind of broad nature of
Speaker 1: whatever the Epstein cut off by bar and also just
Speaker 1: as a practical matter, you know, I was aware of
Speaker 1: a lot of leagues of the Southern District of New York,
Speaker 1: not just the Attorney General's office, but also the FBI there,
Speaker 1: and it was in my view and this I think
Speaker 1: would be on both sides of the issue. If they
Speaker 1: felt that there was a political effort to block what
Speaker 1: they felt was a righteous case, it would leak out.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt in my mind it would leak out,
Speaker 1: and we would have heard about it long ago. Question.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
Speaker 1: right here, and in the next episode dealing with the topic,
Speaker 1: we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
Speaker 1: in the description box.