August 22, 2025 • 32 mins
In July 2024, Delegate Stacey Plaskett filed a lawsuit under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the attorney representing six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse. Plaskett argued that the amended lawsuit against her was frivolously filed, lacked any factual or legal foundation, and was intended to harass rather than pursue a legitimate legal claim. She sought sanctions to penalize and deter what she viewed as a baseless and politically motivated suit.
However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors’ filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs’ allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.
Also....
In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein’s role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein’s financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.
Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein’s business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein’s finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan’s defense and the USVI’s allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors’ filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs’ allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.
Also....
In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein’s role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein’s financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.
Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein’s business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein’s finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan’s defense and the USVI’s allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
For the past few weeks we've been talking about the
survivor lawsuit that's been filed against the US Virgin Islands
and Stacey Plaskett. Well, the judge who was overseeing this case,
has now denied Stacy Plaskett's call for sanctions that the
(00:20):
congresswoman request did be placed against the Epstein survivors lawyers. Well,
the judge obviously didn't see it her way and ruled
in the favor of the lawyers and the Epstein survivors,
at least for now. Today's article is from the Saint
Thomas source and the headline judge denies Plasket's call for
sanctions in Dow case for now. The author of this
(00:43):
article is c and Cobb. A New York judge has
denied for now a motion by Delegates Stacy Plaskett to
sanction the attorney representing six victims of Jeffrey Epstein in
a lawsuit against the VI government and various territory officials.
And just let that sink in from me. You have
all of these people that were down in the USVII,
(01:03):
that were in positions of power that We're supposed to
be able to protect people at the very least not
let something like this happen. But instead they were all
enriching themselves. Everybody was getting a bag, and that includes
Stacy Plaskett. And not only was Stacy Plaskett getting a bag,
she got one after Jeffrey Epstein's death. So how do
you defend that? How could anyone sit here and defend
(01:24):
what Stacy Plaskett was up to and then for her
to be as condescending as she is and was about
other Americans. You would think that Stacy Plaskett has a
squeaky clean life, that she has never been caught up
in any kind of controversy, that nobody's ever had any
questions about her. But the reality is this, Stacy Plaskett
should be a lot more worried about this lawsuit than
(01:45):
she is about bashing her fellow Americans and calling people terrorists.
The crazy part is, though the legacy media is letting
her get away with it. Have you heard anybody really
talk about Stacey Plaskett being caught up in this lawsuit?
It's not something that they're talking about on the legacy media,
is it. But they're talking about the Epstein files and
how they're talking about the Steve Bannon interview with Jeffrey
(02:06):
Epstein from twenty twenty one that we've been talking about
for years. Oh, the legacy media is finally caught up. Huh.
The sad truth is the legacy media is about. Oh,
I don't know, four or five years behind when it
comes to this story, and now that it's election season,
all of a sudden they care again. Judge Aaron Submaranian
denied the motion without prejudice, meaning it may be brought again,
(02:27):
because he has yet to rule on pending motions to
dismiss the case filed by the vi Government Plasket and
other defendants, including former First Lady Cecil de Jong, who
is Epstein's office manager from two thousand to twenty nineteen,
and former Governor de Jong, her husband. The suit, brought
in the District for the Southern District of New York,
also names former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dow who
(02:50):
now heads the Viport Authority. Former Attorney General Vincent Fraser,
and former Governor Kenneth Mapp all have denied wrongdoing, and
in its latest motion to dismiss the complaint filed On
July third, the VI Justice Department said the allegations in
lawsuit have no merit. Imagine having that audacious approach. Oh,
it has no merit. This lawsuit is just completely frivolous. Well,
(03:13):
I don't think that the court is going to see
it that way. Time and time again, we've seen the
court rule in favor of these survivors, and that's because
there's a treasure trove of information that's called, you know,
evidence that has led them to this point. So I
don't know how any judge could sit here and dismiss anything.
All of this stuff should go to trial. Here's the thing.
(03:35):
Stacy Plasket, Cecil DeJong, the United States, Virgin Islands in general,
none of them want this to get to discovery. So
my guess is we're never going to see discovery here,
and instead we're going to see some kind of settlement.
The complaint filed by Jane does one through six alleges
negligence and violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and
a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, claiming
(03:59):
territory official actively conspired with Epstein to perpetrate his sex
trafficking scheme for his own gain. It also names John
Doe's one through one hundred, who it claims were employees
of the USVII, but except for nine unnamed VIPD officers
are described as working for Air Traffic Control, Customs or
the Coastguard, which are federal roles. Well, you got to
(04:21):
be sure to kick the can down the road, right,
You can't be the one responsible. So you've got to
make sure that it's the local police or it's somebody else.
And that's what the USVII is trying to do here.
They're trying to sow a little bit of a confusion. Oh,
we're not in control of this. We're not in control
of that. It can't be our fault. Meanwhile, these people
were enriching themselves hand over fist. When it comes to Epstein,
(04:43):
the amended complaint leans almost entirely on information gleaned from
the VI government's lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase, Epstein's private
bank until twenty thirteen, which was settled for seventy five
million dollars in September. The defendants were all deposed in
that case, but the PubL available records are heavily redacted
and much remain sealed under a protective order, and in
(05:05):
an earlier episode, we just went over that protective order,
and that's the order that's gumming things up here as
far as not letting information be given to the survivors.
On April twenty ninth, the Does filed a motion seeking
a court order granting them access to the full record.
The judge in that case, Jed S. Raykoff, denied the
(05:26):
request in a ruling on June twenty eighth. On July fifth,
Plasket filed notice that she will seek sanctions against Jordan K. Merson,
the Jane Does attorney, saying the claims against her amount
to outright untruth, fiction and misrepresentation. Mapp and John DeJong
sought to join the motion, which Mersen objected to over
(05:46):
procedural issues. Ultimately, the judge said the issue is moot
until he rules on the motion to dismiss. Sub Romanian
also held a hearing Friday on the VI government's motion
to withdraw as the attorney for Map and Frazer, who
were represented by the Justice Department until the second amended
complaint redefine their roles in the alleged scheme. Is acting
(06:07):
in both an official and private capacity. The other defendants
all have private attorneys, save for White and Dow, who
have cited difficulties finding council in New York but have
sought leave to join the government's motion to dismiss. Map
objected to the government's motion to withdraw as his attorney
at Friday's hearing, but after ex parte discussions included Map, Fraser,
(06:28):
and the doj Its Council from Mottley Rice Submerennium issued
in order that both Map and Fraser shall have counsel
enter in appearance on their behalf no later than July
twenty second, or submit letters indicating that they intend to
appear pro se, meaning representing themselves. Mapp did so on
Tuesday by filing a consent to electronic service in the
(06:49):
case a registered sex offender who pleaded guilty to procuring
a minor for prostitution in Florida in two thousand and eight.
Epstein died by apparent suicide in August of twenty nineteen
at age sixty six, while in detention in New York
on federal human trafficking charges. His primary residence was Little
Saint James, his private island off Saint Thomas, where for years,
(07:11):
he ran a complex web a shell companies registered in
the USVII and afforded some three hundred million dollars in
tax breaks through the territory's Economic Development Commission that enabled
his crimes. Well, all of that's true, None of that's
a falsehood. This man was given all kinds of benefits
down in the USVII. And for those benefits, what do
you think you received just to thank you little pat
(07:33):
on the back, Oh, Jeff, you're doing a great job, buddy,
Thanks a lot, or do you think there was something
else going on. A central issue in the case is
whether New York and Manhattan Federal Court are the correct
venue in jurisdiction for the complaint When the defendants are
based in the USVII, their alleged crimes took place in
the territory, and its cites only the most tenuous ties
(07:53):
Devstein's business in New York, where he had a mansion
and other properties. Moreover, the US Virgin Islands is a
sovereign entity and thus immune to the TVPA rico and
negligence claims. The government has said loopholes and technicalities. This
is what the USVII is relying on. Folks, to try
and deny the survivors what's rightfully theirs, and there's no
(08:15):
other way to put it, and your favorite Congresswoman, Stacey
Plaskett smack dab in the middle of it. Everybody wants
to talk about the Epstein files. Everybody wants to talk
about all this bullshit. Meanwhile, a sitting congress woman is
being sued by Jeffrey Epstein survivors and barely a peep.
I wonder what Ted lu has to say about his pal,
Stacey Plasket. Even if the plaintiffs could surmount these jurisdictional hurdles,
(08:39):
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the complaint fails
to state a claim for relief. The government's latest motion
to dismiss states while the Justice Department is not representing
the other defendants, it makes many of the same criticisms
raised by them. The complaint is vague, overly long at
eighty three pages, and draws unsubstantiated conclusions, which may defending
(09:00):
against it difficult, if not impossible. So we're gonna have
to dive into the new amended claim, and we're gonna
have to take a look at the eighty three page
claim now and add it right on with the other
ones we've added to the catalog, because unlike everybody else,
I'm not just gonna sit here and give you my opinion.
I'm gonna have some receipts to back that shit up.
Way too many people out here spouting off bs they
(09:21):
can't back up, and way too many people out here
in their feelings getting upset and mad because the topic
has turned to Stacy Plaskett and the Democrat's involvement with
Jeffrey Epstein. So what happens is there's a bunch of
what aboutism? Right if you bring up the topic, people
try and divert the topic by saying, well, what about
the other side? And that game of what about ism
(09:42):
is just bad news. Now there is a lot of
talk about the Epstein files and who knew what and
who did what? And I would even be having this
conversation for the most part if ted lu didn't open
this door. But if you think I'm gonna sit here
and let him try and weaponize this, you're when the
fact of the matter is you have a sitting congresswoman
(10:03):
on the other side of the aisle, in his own backyard,
who is currently being sued by the Epstein survivors that
mister Lou says he cares about not one mention of that,
not one bit of talk about any of that. Huh. Well,
I wonder why that shit's dead on arrival here on
the podcast. And at this point, I think we've weeded
out all of the lame ass, cry baby ass partisans
(10:26):
who were faking the funk like they really cared about
what happened here and with these survivors. And if you're
mad that the topic has swung to your faves in
the Democrat Party, well you might be part of the problem.
And if you're looking for an echo chamber or to
have your worldview massaged, you're in the wrong place because
we're going to continue to call out people that were
involved with Epstein, people that were enabling Epstein, and people
(10:49):
that were taking money from Epstein, especially if they're currently
members of Congress. Kind of a big deal, no, kind
of an important part of the story. Well, if you
care about justice, that is to survive emotions to dismiss
the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter except it is
true to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face. The motion state, citing case law threadbare
(11:11):
recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported
by mere conclusiony statements do not suffice. So I'm very
interested to see what the judge has to say moving forward,
and if he grants the motion for a dismissal. I
don't think he's going to, but it's possible. Look, anything's
possible with the court, especially when we're dealing with sdn Y.
I've told you a million times I'm not very confident
(11:33):
in the way they do business, and all you have
to do is just take a look at the way
they handled Epstein for all these years and you'll understand
very quickly what I'm talking about. So I'm not very
confident that things are going to swing in the correct direction.
But i will tell you this, The fact that this
isn't a bigger story tells you everything you need to
know about the Legacy media and what their motivation when
(11:54):
talking about this story is. It's not about justice. It's
to try to swing it as a political cudgel against
their opponents. But the fact is they don't have the
receipts to back that up. So they better tread very
very lightly before they blow the doors off this thing
and really end up with a problem. All right, folks,
that's going to do it for this one. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
(12:17):
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back
to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to
begin taking a look at the Stacey Plaskett deposition that
she gave as part of the lawsuit between JP Morgan
and the USVII Case number one twenty two DASH CV
DASH one zero nine zero four dash UA Government of
(12:42):
the United States of America plaintiff versus JP Morgan, Chase
the defendant, and this deposition starts on page number four.
Question what was your book going to be? Answer by Plasket.
It was going to be a historical book about earlier life,
maybe a generation or so ago in the Virgin Islands.
Question and what was the law firm you worked for initially?
(13:06):
Answer by Plaskett. I worked for Nichols Newman logan. Question
and how long were you with Nichols Newman Logan? Answer?
I was there until two thousand and seven. Question which
was how I didn't ask you actually when you first
moved down? Answer? I think I moved down in two
thousand and five, So approximately two years ago. Question okay,
(13:26):
and what kind of work were you doing at Nichols
Newman for those two years? Answer? Primarily transactional and also
in the Virgin Islands at the time, all attorneys did
court appointed work. Most of the lawyers in the firm
were not courtroom attorneys, and so I did a lot
of the court room appearances for the law firm. Question okay,
Then in two thousand and seven you moved to a
(13:47):
new job answer by Plaskett. Yes, question what was that Plasket?
I was hired as the counsel for the Virgin Islands
Economic Development Authority? Question? What is the Virgin Islands Economic
develop Answer? The Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority is a
semi autonomous agency in the Virgin Islands which handles many
(14:08):
incentives to bring as well as grow businesses in the
territory through various vehicles, a government development bank which gives
loans to businesses small businesses, predominantly, a tax incentive program
under the US Code, which allows businesses and individuals to
receive tax reductions on federal taxes for businesses and employment
(14:28):
that they bring to the territory. Question and you described
this as a semi Autonomous Agency. Plasket correct question can
you explain what you meant by that? Her answer unfortunately
is redacted here, So we move on to the next one.
Question When do you think you first met mister Epstein
in person? Answer by Plasket after leaving the Economic Development Authority?
(14:51):
Question how did that first meeting come about? As best
as you can recall? Answer, well, I was running for office.
I was an individual running for office looking for contributors donors.
Erica Keller Halls introduced me to mister Epstein as a
potential donor. Question at the time that you were introduced,
the questions withdrawn, and then she asked, and where was
(15:13):
the first meeting with mister Ebstein? Plaskett at his office
in Saint Thomas. Question do you remember how many times
you met with mister Epstein? Answer by Plaskett, I do
not recall. Question do you think it was more than
five times? Plasket answer no. Question Where else did you
meet with him other than his offices at Saint Thomas? Answer?
(15:34):
I met him in his home in New York. Question
did you ever meet him on Little Saint James? Plasket? No?
Question about how many times were you at his home
in New York? Answer, I believe one time. Question okay,
about how many times did you meet with him in
his office? Answer I would have to speculate in his
(15:55):
office in Saint Thomas. Question yes, Plaskett, I would have
to spec question more than once, do you believe? Plasket? Yes,
question but less than five times plasket yes. Question about
how many times did you speak to mister Epstein on
the phone? Plasket, I don't recall. Question more than five
(16:16):
times answer by plasket, yes, question more than ten times? Answer,
I do not recall. Question what do you recall discussing
with them when you met him in person? Answer about
my intentions the first question? Yeah, let's start with the
first time Plasket related to my campaign contributions. Question in
(16:36):
what way? Plasket? I cannot recall at that point in
time what the specifics were. Question is it fair to
say you were asking for money? Plask it correct? Question
do you remember how much you asked for? Answer? I
do not recall at that meeting if the contribution was
solely for myself? Question ah, who else might it have
(16:57):
been for? Answer the Democratic Party? Boy, that's weird. Question okay?
And when you went to work for the Keller Hall's firm,
how long did you work there? Plasket? I don't recall
the timeframe, but it would have been twenty thirteen. Question.
I know that in the past, at least Miss keller
Halls has done work for mister Epstein and his companies.
(17:17):
Did you while you were at the firm do any
work for Epstein or any Epstein related businesses? Plasket? I
don't recall. Question. What kind of work did you do
at the firm? Plasket? Predominantly transactional for companies that were
in the Virgin Islands and for a few advice related
to the economic development question? And I take it that
(17:38):
Epstein and his business remained a client of the Keller
Hall's firm during that time that you were there. Is
that fair answer? Yes? Question? Did you talk to mister
Epstein about the press release? Answer by Plasket, I don't
recall question. Just going back to the press release for
a moment, I'm sorry. You'll see in the third paragraph
there's a description of you having received four hundred dollars
(18:00):
in two separate contributions from Epstein on August second, according
to federal campaign finance records. Right Plasket, Yes, question, and
that was true? Right? You had gotten two donations from
mister Epstein personally on or about August second of twenty sixteen.
Answer Plasket, yes, totaling five four hundred. Question, okay, and
(18:23):
that was so August second, That was two weeks after
the text exchange with Erica about that building you should
be going to for a meeting with mister Epstein, right,
that's Exhibit twenty. Plasket, state the date again. Question I said,
it's about two weeks after and to this Plasket interrupts, yes,
question Epstein didn't want his name on the host committee.
(18:44):
Answer Plasket, I learned that he donated to the campaign.
Question did you learn that he didn't want his name
included on the invitation? Answer by Plasket, I don't recall
at that point, question did you want his name on
your invitation? Plasket, I don't recall express an opinion. Question, Yeah,
I am asking a slightly different question, not so much
(19:05):
whether you recall expressing an opinion. But in twenty eighteen,
did you think having Jeffrey Epstein's name on your campaign
invitations would be a good idea? Plasket answer, I don't recall,
and just interject here. Keep in mind that Epstein obviously
was already a convicted molester. But to Stacy Plaskett that
doesn't mean shit. She doesn't care, and neither does the
(19:27):
Democratic Party, So for all their weird talk, they should
probably start here. Question do you remember meeting with mister
Epstein in the fall of twenty eighteen? Answer? I don't recall.
Question do you remember you testified before that you thought
you had met with him at his home once in
New York? Plasket? Yes, question tell me about his home.
(19:47):
What do you remember about him? Plaskett? I remember it
being off of Lexington Avenue. I recall going to the address,
ringing the bell. Someone coming from outside, which I assume
to be a security person. Uh huh, huh. Plasket continues,
Someone opening the door, coming into a large foyer area,
meeting Leslie Groff, telling me that he would be with me,
(20:09):
walking through an even larger foyer stairwell area to a
room immediately there that would appear to have been a
dining room where he was sitting at a very long
table having a conversation with another gentleman, wrapping up the conversation,
that person leaving, making introductions, that person leaving, and me
sitting down and having a conversation with him. Question do
(20:30):
you remember who the other person was? Who was there
meeting mister Epstein? Answer? I don't recall the person's name.
Question were there any women present in the home when
you visited? Answer other than missus Groff? No question. Did
you ever hear that when mister Epstein traveled to the
Virgin Islands he often had young women with him? Plasket?
(20:51):
What timeframe are you asking me? Question? Ever? Answer yes,
question when do you recall? Answer? I don't recall the
exact time hearing that. Question do you think it was
before or after September of twenty eighteen? Answer I don't recall. Question,
so it could have been earlier than that, plask it
(21:11):
answer it could have. Question okay, so what happened? How
long was your meeting with mister Epstein at his home?
Answer I don't recall. Question was it more than an hour? Answer? No?
Question okay, half an hour roughly? Answer potentially. Question what
do you recall talking about with mister Epstein? Answer Virgin
(21:32):
Island politics, national politics, campaign contributions. Question okay, do you
remember what you're asked? Was? Answer? No? Question were you
trying to raise money for the DCC at the time?
Answer I think I was always trying to raise money
for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Boy, that's weird too,
isn't it. Question that's one of the jobs of being
(21:54):
a Democratic congress person right answer yes. Question, And you
had a total of two hundred and fifty thousan dollars
that you were supposed to try to raise? Answer? Members
of Congress, based upon their seniority and committee assignments, have
dues as well as raise amounts that are requested. Question
and do you recall yours being around two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars in this time period? Answer? I don't
(22:17):
recall at the time period what it was, but that
does not sound unreasonable. Answer, it does not sound unreasonable.
Plask it no question, Okay, And that's a lot of money.
Plask it. Yes. Question. So were your prospects for raising
that kind of money? Answer? Individuals who had donated before, alumni,
(22:39):
individuals who were interested in the same topics for which
committees I sat on, other Democratic donors throughout the country,
et cetera. Question was mister Epstein on the list of
people who would be a potential help in raising money
for the DCCC? Answer? Yes, question did you ask them
to contribute to that Answer yes, yes. Question was that
(23:02):
part of what was discussed at this meeting in September? Answer?
I don't recall if that's specific, but it's possible. Yes.
Question are there limits to the amount that any individual
can donate to the DCCC? Answer yes, Question what are
the limits? Plasket? At the time, I believe that an
individual could give over thirty thousand dollars. I can't remember
(23:24):
the exact amount, but it was in the range of
thirty thousand dollars. Question how much did you ask mister
Epstein to give? Answer to the maximum? Whatever the maximum was. Question, Okay,
how do you get somebody to give that much money? Plasket?
You asked them? Question Okay, did mister Epstein ever ask
for anything from you? Answer no, mister Newman. Let me
(23:47):
now mark as Plasket Exhibit forty, a one page text exchange.
Question all right, miss Plaskett, I've handed you Exhibit forty,
which is the text message between you and Jerome, your
chief of staff in September twenty eighteen. Do you see that?
Answer yes. Question what is it that mister Murray is
sending you? What is that a picture of? Can you
(24:07):
tell Plasket that is a picture of me. I think
this is me sending it to him. Question, Oh, I'm sorry,
What are you sending to him? Answer a call list? Question?
What is a call list? Answer? A list of individuals
to call to ask for money, either for myself or
for the Democratic Party? Question? Got it? And you're sending
that to him for what reason? Answer? So he can
(24:29):
be apprized of who I have called and who I
have not called, and to harass me about calling the
ones that have not been called. Question got it? And
then you're telling him in the next text down at
eleven eleven PM, that you're going to have a meeting
with mister Ebstein when you arrive in New York. Answer yes, question,
that's the meeting that we've been talking about. Answer yes. Question. Okay,
(24:52):
does the name Thorben Jagline mean anything to you? Answer No,
I don't recall a name like that. Then there's an
exchange about another exhibit. And that's where this line of
questioning now goes. Question all right, and you can see
miss Plaskett that exhibit forty one is an email from
miss Groff to mister Epstein giving a schedule for the day.
Do you see that? Answer yes, question. And the person
(25:16):
immediately before you on this schedule is this name Thorbon Jaglind.
So I was just asking if that refreshed your recollection
at all about who is that the meeting that you
were introduced to when you met with mister Epstein plasket.
It possibly could be, as I stated, they were in
the dining room when I arrived. Question. I could show
you a quick picture, mister Neeman, who's the lawyer here?
(25:39):
It's not that important. Okay, let's just take a look
at the next exhibit, which will be plasket Exhibit forty two. Now,
this is the exhibit forty two is plasket and the
Murray email exchange. Question All right, So Exhibit forty two
is an email exchange between mister Murray and you correct
answer yes question. And this is a follow up up
(26:00):
to the meeting with Jeffrey Epstein that we've just been
talking about. Fair answer, yes question. This is an email
that mister Murray is drafting for the purposes of sharing
with Erica so that she can pass it on to
mister Epstein. Answer. I don't know who the email was too. Question. Well,
you'll see that miss Plaskett writes that you right, excuse
(26:20):
me with drawn. Yeah, you'll see that you in the
top of the email page say this looks fine. Please
send the email to Erica. Do you see that? Answer? Yes. Question,
So you're instructing mister Murray to send this email that
he's drafted to Erica correct answer, yes, question, and for
her to pass this on to mister Epstein. Right answer. Yes,
(26:42):
I believe I'm instructing Jerome to send it to Erica
and to let her know about the conversation I had
with him about it. Question, with the idea that she
would then reach out to mister Epstein to arrange the
contribution plasket. Yes question. And do you recall that the
DCCC rejected mister Epstein's contribution? Answer yes, question. Tell me
(27:04):
what you remember about that answer, To the best of
my recollection, I recall that I was informed by my
chief of staff that the DCCC informed him that mister
Epstein's contribution would not be accepted by the DCCC. Question
what did you do when you heard that? Answer? I'm
not sure who, if I can recall who reached out
to at that point to inform me. Question, Okay, did
(27:27):
you have anything to try to find out why the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had rejected mister Epstein's donation. Plasket,
I don't recall if it was already expressed to me
in his letting me know that it was denied, or
if I got additional information. I don't recall. She sure
doesn't recall a whole lot of stuff. Huh. The same
lady that put people in prison for January sixth sure
(27:49):
seems to have quite an issue with her memory. Question
do you recall what you learned was the reason why
the DCC would not accept mister Epstein's contribution? Answer? Yes,
What was that? Answer? It had not passed their vetting?
Question What did you understand that to be a reference to? Answer?
I did not know the specifics of what their vetting was.
(28:10):
Hold on a minute here, So she's saying that she
didn't know what the vetting process was for the Democratic Party,
but she's out here trying to get donations on their behalf. Okay,
sure we believe that's Stacy Plaskett. The truth is, these
people think you're dumb, But it's all good, right as
long as you're brat. Question, did you assume that it
related to his status as a sex offender? Mister eckerd
(28:31):
objective form plasket, I was not sure of the totality
of the circumstances twenty eighteen. This was so if she's
not sure of the totality of the circumstances, then she
shouldn't be doing her job. Question. Did learning that the
DCCC had declined to accept mister Epstein's contribution because he
had not passed their vetting cause you to second guess?
(28:52):
And then the next part is cut off? Moving on
to the next question. Question, All right, congresswoman, this won't
take much longer. I'm going to hand you a document
that's marked is plasket hanswer the document, and it is
exhibit fifty four. Mister Ecard Council. This one doesn't have
a BAITS number. Was it produced, mister Nieman? Yes, this
(29:14):
was produced as a native question. So, Congresswoman, you were
asked some questions about the number of donors and the
like by mister Ackerman, and I just want to show
you your actual list that you produced of your donors
at least from the twenty fourteen cycle through the twenty
twenty cycle. Okay, do you see that plasket? Yes? Question,
(29:35):
And what we've done is we've highlighted the particular individuals
on this list who are either Epstein or Epstein affiliated
persons who made contributions to your campaign in those cycles. Okay,
answer by plasket, I'm looking through it. Question. Yes, let
me know when you're ready. Answer okay, yes, question, And
you can see on page three that mister Epstein appears
(29:57):
as a donor and that his lifetime to total to
your campaign for the twenty fourteen through twenty twenty campaign
cycles was eighty one hundred dollars personally correct answer. I
see that number. Yes, question, and then if you look
at the next page, you can see that Leslie Groff,
who you correspond with in connection with mister Epstein, also
donated to your campaign. Answer yes, question and she donated
(30:21):
twenty six hundred Do you see that? Answer by plasket. Yes,
I see that question. And then if you look at
the next page after that, you can see that Darren Endyke,
who we saw was the person who presented on behalf
of FTC seeking a tax extension of tax breaks from
the Development Authority while you were there, gave ten thousand,
seven hundred dollars to your campaign. Do you see that answer? Yes, question,
(30:46):
and that mister Kahn, who was also associated with mister Epstein,
gave ten thousand, seven hundred dollars to your campaign as well.
Do you see that answer? Okay, I see that question,
and that Bella. Kline, who has described in this document
as Darren Endykes administer of assistant, also donated twenty six
hundred dollars to your campaign. Answer. I see that question.
(31:06):
So across the five people there's total donations in excess
of thirty thousand dollars. Correct answer. I'm adding that up.
That sounds correct. Question. Did you have any other contributor
who donated, either directly themselves or by themselves and with
a group of people associated with them, more than thirty
thousand dollars? Mister Ackerman objection to form. And unfortunately that's
(31:28):
where it cuts off. But as you can see, the
ty stacy Plaskett has to Jeffrey Epstein run much much
deeper than the legacy media's reporting. And again it just
goes to the heart of the issue here that nobody
wants to talk about, and that is that the Democratic
Party itself is culpable here. They were taking money from
Epstein for years and years and years, and there is
(31:49):
no accountability still to this day, even after a sitting
congresswoman is being sued by Epstein's survivors, and to add
insult to injury, not only is she being sued, but
she took money from other people who are being sued
by Epstein's survivors for being part of the criminal enterprise.
Isn't that weird. All of the information that goes with
(32:12):
this episode can be found in the description box.
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
For the past few weeks we've been talking about the
survivor lawsuit that's been filed against the US Virgin Islands
and Stacey Plaskett. Well, the judge who was overseeing this case,
has now denied Stacy Plaskett's call for sanctions that the
(00:20):
congresswoman request did be placed against the Epstein survivors lawyers. Well,
the judge obviously didn't see it her way and ruled
in the favor of the lawyers and the Epstein survivors,
at least for now. Today's article is from the Saint
Thomas source and the headline judge denies Plasket's call for
sanctions in Dow case for now. The author of this
(00:43):
article is c and Cobb. A New York judge has
denied for now a motion by Delegates Stacy Plaskett to
sanction the attorney representing six victims of Jeffrey Epstein in
a lawsuit against the VI government and various territory officials.
And just let that sink in from me. You have
all of these people that were down in the USVII,
(01:03):
that were in positions of power that We're supposed to
be able to protect people at the very least not
let something like this happen. But instead they were all
enriching themselves. Everybody was getting a bag, and that includes
Stacy Plaskett. And not only was Stacy Plaskett getting a bag,
she got one after Jeffrey Epstein's death. So how do
you defend that? How could anyone sit here and defend
(01:24):
what Stacy Plaskett was up to and then for her
to be as condescending as she is and was about
other Americans. You would think that Stacy Plaskett has a
squeaky clean life, that she has never been caught up
in any kind of controversy, that nobody's ever had any
questions about her. But the reality is this, Stacy Plaskett
should be a lot more worried about this lawsuit than
(01:45):
she is about bashing her fellow Americans and calling people terrorists.
The crazy part is, though the legacy media is letting
her get away with it. Have you heard anybody really
talk about Stacey Plaskett being caught up in this lawsuit?
It's not something that they're talking about on the legacy media,
is it. But they're talking about the Epstein files and
how they're talking about the Steve Bannon interview with Jeffrey
(02:06):
Epstein from twenty twenty one that we've been talking about
for years. Oh, the legacy media is finally caught up. Huh.
The sad truth is the legacy media is about. Oh,
I don't know, four or five years behind when it
comes to this story, and now that it's election season,
all of a sudden they care again. Judge Aaron Submaranian
denied the motion without prejudice, meaning it may be brought again,
(02:27):
because he has yet to rule on pending motions to
dismiss the case filed by the vi Government Plasket and
other defendants, including former First Lady Cecil de Jong, who
is Epstein's office manager from two thousand to twenty nineteen,
and former Governor de Jong, her husband. The suit, brought
in the District for the Southern District of New York,
also names former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dow who
(02:50):
now heads the Viport Authority. Former Attorney General Vincent Fraser,
and former Governor Kenneth Mapp all have denied wrongdoing, and
in its latest motion to dismiss the complaint filed On
July third, the VI Justice Department said the allegations in
lawsuit have no merit. Imagine having that audacious approach. Oh,
it has no merit. This lawsuit is just completely frivolous. Well,
(03:13):
I don't think that the court is going to see
it that way. Time and time again, we've seen the
court rule in favor of these survivors, and that's because
there's a treasure trove of information that's called, you know,
evidence that has led them to this point. So I
don't know how any judge could sit here and dismiss anything.
All of this stuff should go to trial. Here's the thing.
(03:35):
Stacy Plasket, Cecil DeJong, the United States, Virgin Islands in general,
none of them want this to get to discovery. So
my guess is we're never going to see discovery here,
and instead we're going to see some kind of settlement.
The complaint filed by Jane does one through six alleges
negligence and violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and
a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, claiming
(03:59):
territory official actively conspired with Epstein to perpetrate his sex
trafficking scheme for his own gain. It also names John
Doe's one through one hundred, who it claims were employees
of the USVII, but except for nine unnamed VIPD officers
are described as working for Air Traffic Control, Customs or
the Coastguard, which are federal roles. Well, you got to
(04:21):
be sure to kick the can down the road, right,
You can't be the one responsible. So you've got to
make sure that it's the local police or it's somebody else.
And that's what the USVII is trying to do here.
They're trying to sow a little bit of a confusion. Oh,
we're not in control of this. We're not in control
of that. It can't be our fault. Meanwhile, these people
were enriching themselves hand over fist. When it comes to Epstein,
(04:43):
the amended complaint leans almost entirely on information gleaned from
the VI government's lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase, Epstein's private
bank until twenty thirteen, which was settled for seventy five
million dollars in September. The defendants were all deposed in
that case, but the PubL available records are heavily redacted
and much remain sealed under a protective order, and in
(05:05):
an earlier episode, we just went over that protective order,
and that's the order that's gumming things up here as
far as not letting information be given to the survivors.
On April twenty ninth, the Does filed a motion seeking
a court order granting them access to the full record.
The judge in that case, Jed S. Raykoff, denied the
(05:26):
request in a ruling on June twenty eighth. On July fifth,
Plasket filed notice that she will seek sanctions against Jordan K. Merson,
the Jane Does attorney, saying the claims against her amount
to outright untruth, fiction and misrepresentation. Mapp and John DeJong
sought to join the motion, which Mersen objected to over
(05:46):
procedural issues. Ultimately, the judge said the issue is moot
until he rules on the motion to dismiss. Sub Romanian
also held a hearing Friday on the VI government's motion
to withdraw as the attorney for Map and Frazer, who
were represented by the Justice Department until the second amended
complaint redefine their roles in the alleged scheme. Is acting
(06:07):
in both an official and private capacity. The other defendants
all have private attorneys, save for White and Dow, who
have cited difficulties finding council in New York but have
sought leave to join the government's motion to dismiss. Map
objected to the government's motion to withdraw as his attorney
at Friday's hearing, but after ex parte discussions included Map, Fraser,
(06:28):
and the doj Its Council from Mottley Rice Submerennium issued
in order that both Map and Fraser shall have counsel
enter in appearance on their behalf no later than July
twenty second, or submit letters indicating that they intend to
appear pro se, meaning representing themselves. Mapp did so on
Tuesday by filing a consent to electronic service in the
(06:49):
case a registered sex offender who pleaded guilty to procuring
a minor for prostitution in Florida in two thousand and eight.
Epstein died by apparent suicide in August of twenty nineteen
at age sixty six, while in detention in New York
on federal human trafficking charges. His primary residence was Little
Saint James, his private island off Saint Thomas, where for years,
(07:11):
he ran a complex web a shell companies registered in
the USVII and afforded some three hundred million dollars in
tax breaks through the territory's Economic Development Commission that enabled
his crimes. Well, all of that's true, None of that's
a falsehood. This man was given all kinds of benefits
down in the USVII. And for those benefits, what do
you think you received just to thank you little pat
(07:33):
on the back, Oh, Jeff, you're doing a great job, buddy,
Thanks a lot, or do you think there was something
else going on. A central issue in the case is
whether New York and Manhattan Federal Court are the correct
venue in jurisdiction for the complaint When the defendants are
based in the USVII, their alleged crimes took place in
the territory, and its cites only the most tenuous ties
(07:53):
Devstein's business in New York, where he had a mansion
and other properties. Moreover, the US Virgin Islands is a
sovereign entity and thus immune to the TVPA rico and
negligence claims. The government has said loopholes and technicalities. This
is what the USVII is relying on. Folks, to try
and deny the survivors what's rightfully theirs, and there's no
(08:15):
other way to put it, and your favorite Congresswoman, Stacey
Plaskett smack dab in the middle of it. Everybody wants
to talk about the Epstein files. Everybody wants to talk
about all this bullshit. Meanwhile, a sitting congress woman is
being sued by Jeffrey Epstein survivors and barely a peep.
I wonder what Ted lu has to say about his pal,
Stacey Plasket. Even if the plaintiffs could surmount these jurisdictional hurdles,
(08:39):
the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the complaint fails
to state a claim for relief. The government's latest motion
to dismiss states while the Justice Department is not representing
the other defendants, it makes many of the same criticisms
raised by them. The complaint is vague, overly long at
eighty three pages, and draws unsubstantiated conclusions, which may defending
(09:00):
against it difficult, if not impossible. So we're gonna have
to dive into the new amended claim, and we're gonna
have to take a look at the eighty three page
claim now and add it right on with the other
ones we've added to the catalog, because unlike everybody else,
I'm not just gonna sit here and give you my opinion.
I'm gonna have some receipts to back that shit up.
Way too many people out here spouting off bs they
(09:21):
can't back up, and way too many people out here
in their feelings getting upset and mad because the topic
has turned to Stacy Plaskett and the Democrat's involvement with
Jeffrey Epstein. So what happens is there's a bunch of
what aboutism? Right if you bring up the topic, people
try and divert the topic by saying, well, what about
the other side? And that game of what about ism
(09:42):
is just bad news. Now there is a lot of
talk about the Epstein files and who knew what and
who did what? And I would even be having this
conversation for the most part if ted lu didn't open
this door. But if you think I'm gonna sit here
and let him try and weaponize this, you're when the
fact of the matter is you have a sitting congresswoman
(10:03):
on the other side of the aisle, in his own backyard,
who is currently being sued by the Epstein survivors that
mister Lou says he cares about not one mention of that,
not one bit of talk about any of that. Huh. Well,
I wonder why that shit's dead on arrival here on
the podcast. And at this point, I think we've weeded
out all of the lame ass, cry baby ass partisans
(10:26):
who were faking the funk like they really cared about
what happened here and with these survivors. And if you're
mad that the topic has swung to your faves in
the Democrat Party, well you might be part of the problem.
And if you're looking for an echo chamber or to
have your worldview massaged, you're in the wrong place because
we're going to continue to call out people that were
involved with Epstein, people that were enabling Epstein, and people
(10:49):
that were taking money from Epstein, especially if they're currently
members of Congress. Kind of a big deal, no, kind
of an important part of the story. Well, if you
care about justice, that is to survive emotions to dismiss
the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter except it is
true to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face. The motion state, citing case law threadbare
(11:11):
recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported
by mere conclusiony statements do not suffice. So I'm very
interested to see what the judge has to say moving forward,
and if he grants the motion for a dismissal. I
don't think he's going to, but it's possible. Look, anything's
possible with the court, especially when we're dealing with sdn Y.
I've told you a million times I'm not very confident
(11:33):
in the way they do business, and all you have
to do is just take a look at the way
they handled Epstein for all these years and you'll understand
very quickly what I'm talking about. So I'm not very
confident that things are going to swing in the correct direction.
But i will tell you this, The fact that this
isn't a bigger story tells you everything you need to
know about the Legacy media and what their motivation when
(11:54):
talking about this story is. It's not about justice. It's
to try to swing it as a political cudgel against
their opponents. But the fact is they don't have the
receipts to back that up. So they better tread very
very lightly before they blow the doors off this thing
and really end up with a problem. All right, folks,
that's going to do it for this one. All of
the information that goes with this episode can be found
(12:17):
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back
to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to
begin taking a look at the Stacey Plaskett deposition that
she gave as part of the lawsuit between JP Morgan
and the USVII Case number one twenty two DASH CV
DASH one zero nine zero four dash UA Government of
(12:42):
the United States of America plaintiff versus JP Morgan, Chase
the defendant, and this deposition starts on page number four.
Question what was your book going to be? Answer by Plasket.
It was going to be a historical book about earlier life,
maybe a generation or so ago in the Virgin Islands.
Question and what was the law firm you worked for initially?
(13:06):
Answer by Plaskett. I worked for Nichols Newman logan. Question
and how long were you with Nichols Newman Logan? Answer?
I was there until two thousand and seven. Question which
was how I didn't ask you actually when you first
moved down? Answer? I think I moved down in two
thousand and five, So approximately two years ago. Question okay,
(13:26):
and what kind of work were you doing at Nichols
Newman for those two years? Answer? Primarily transactional and also
in the Virgin Islands at the time, all attorneys did
court appointed work. Most of the lawyers in the firm
were not courtroom attorneys, and so I did a lot
of the court room appearances for the law firm. Question okay,
Then in two thousand and seven you moved to a
(13:47):
new job answer by Plaskett. Yes, question what was that Plasket?
I was hired as the counsel for the Virgin Islands
Economic Development Authority? Question? What is the Virgin Islands Economic
develop Answer? The Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority is a
semi autonomous agency in the Virgin Islands which handles many
(14:08):
incentives to bring as well as grow businesses in the
territory through various vehicles, a government development bank which gives
loans to businesses small businesses, predominantly, a tax incentive program
under the US Code, which allows businesses and individuals to
receive tax reductions on federal taxes for businesses and employment
(14:28):
that they bring to the territory. Question and you described
this as a semi Autonomous Agency. Plasket correct question can
you explain what you meant by that? Her answer unfortunately
is redacted here, So we move on to the next one.
Question When do you think you first met mister Epstein
in person? Answer by Plasket after leaving the Economic Development Authority?
(14:51):
Question how did that first meeting come about? As best
as you can recall? Answer, well, I was running for office.
I was an individual running for office looking for contributors donors.
Erica Keller Halls introduced me to mister Epstein as a
potential donor. Question at the time that you were introduced,
the questions withdrawn, and then she asked, and where was
(15:13):
the first meeting with mister Ebstein? Plaskett at his office
in Saint Thomas. Question do you remember how many times
you met with mister Epstein? Answer by Plaskett, I do
not recall. Question do you think it was more than
five times? Plasket answer no. Question Where else did you
meet with him other than his offices at Saint Thomas? Answer?
(15:34):
I met him in his home in New York. Question
did you ever meet him on Little Saint James? Plasket? No?
Question about how many times were you at his home
in New York? Answer, I believe one time. Question okay,
about how many times did you meet with him in
his office? Answer I would have to speculate in his
(15:55):
office in Saint Thomas. Question yes, Plaskett, I would have
to spec question more than once, do you believe? Plasket? Yes,
question but less than five times plasket yes. Question about
how many times did you speak to mister Epstein on
the phone? Plasket, I don't recall. Question more than five
(16:16):
times answer by plasket, yes, question more than ten times? Answer,
I do not recall. Question what do you recall discussing
with them when you met him in person? Answer about
my intentions the first question? Yeah, let's start with the
first time Plasket related to my campaign contributions. Question in
(16:36):
what way? Plasket? I cannot recall at that point in
time what the specifics were. Question is it fair to
say you were asking for money? Plask it correct? Question
do you remember how much you asked for? Answer? I
do not recall at that meeting if the contribution was
solely for myself? Question ah, who else might it have
(16:57):
been for? Answer the Democratic Party? Boy, that's weird. Question okay?
And when you went to work for the Keller Hall's firm,
how long did you work there? Plasket? I don't recall
the timeframe, but it would have been twenty thirteen. Question.
I know that in the past, at least Miss keller
Halls has done work for mister Epstein and his companies.
(17:17):
Did you while you were at the firm do any
work for Epstein or any Epstein related businesses? Plasket? I
don't recall. Question. What kind of work did you do
at the firm? Plasket? Predominantly transactional for companies that were
in the Virgin Islands and for a few advice related
to the economic development question? And I take it that
(17:38):
Epstein and his business remained a client of the Keller
Hall's firm during that time that you were there. Is
that fair answer? Yes? Question? Did you talk to mister
Epstein about the press release? Answer by Plasket, I don't
recall question. Just going back to the press release for
a moment, I'm sorry. You'll see in the third paragraph
there's a description of you having received four hundred dollars
(18:00):
in two separate contributions from Epstein on August second, according
to federal campaign finance records. Right Plasket, Yes, question, and
that was true? Right? You had gotten two donations from
mister Epstein personally on or about August second of twenty sixteen.
Answer Plasket, yes, totaling five four hundred. Question, okay, and
(18:23):
that was so August second, That was two weeks after
the text exchange with Erica about that building you should
be going to for a meeting with mister Epstein, right,
that's Exhibit twenty. Plasket, state the date again. Question I said,
it's about two weeks after and to this Plasket interrupts, yes,
question Epstein didn't want his name on the host committee.
(18:44):
Answer Plasket, I learned that he donated to the campaign.
Question did you learn that he didn't want his name
included on the invitation? Answer by Plasket, I don't recall
at that point, question did you want his name on
your invitation? Plasket, I don't recall express an opinion. Question, Yeah,
I am asking a slightly different question, not so much
(19:05):
whether you recall expressing an opinion. But in twenty eighteen,
did you think having Jeffrey Epstein's name on your campaign
invitations would be a good idea? Plasket answer, I don't recall,
and just interject here. Keep in mind that Epstein obviously
was already a convicted molester. But to Stacy Plaskett that
doesn't mean shit. She doesn't care, and neither does the
(19:27):
Democratic Party, So for all their weird talk, they should
probably start here. Question do you remember meeting with mister
Epstein in the fall of twenty eighteen? Answer? I don't recall.
Question do you remember you testified before that you thought
you had met with him at his home once in
New York? Plasket? Yes, question tell me about his home.
(19:47):
What do you remember about him? Plaskett? I remember it
being off of Lexington Avenue. I recall going to the address,
ringing the bell. Someone coming from outside, which I assume
to be a security person. Uh huh, huh. Plasket continues,
Someone opening the door, coming into a large foyer area,
meeting Leslie Groff, telling me that he would be with me,
(20:09):
walking through an even larger foyer stairwell area to a
room immediately there that would appear to have been a
dining room where he was sitting at a very long
table having a conversation with another gentleman, wrapping up the conversation,
that person leaving, making introductions, that person leaving, and me
sitting down and having a conversation with him. Question do
(20:30):
you remember who the other person was? Who was there
meeting mister Epstein? Answer? I don't recall the person's name.
Question were there any women present in the home when
you visited? Answer other than missus Groff? No question. Did
you ever hear that when mister Epstein traveled to the
Virgin Islands he often had young women with him? Plasket?
(20:51):
What timeframe are you asking me? Question? Ever? Answer yes,
question when do you recall? Answer? I don't recall the
exact time hearing that. Question do you think it was
before or after September of twenty eighteen? Answer I don't recall. Question,
so it could have been earlier than that, plask it
(21:11):
answer it could have. Question okay, so what happened? How
long was your meeting with mister Epstein at his home?
Answer I don't recall. Question was it more than an hour? Answer? No?
Question okay, half an hour roughly? Answer potentially. Question what
do you recall talking about with mister Epstein? Answer Virgin
(21:32):
Island politics, national politics, campaign contributions. Question okay, do you
remember what you're asked? Was? Answer? No? Question were you
trying to raise money for the DCC at the time?
Answer I think I was always trying to raise money
for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Boy, that's weird too,
isn't it. Question that's one of the jobs of being
(21:54):
a Democratic congress person right answer yes. Question, And you
had a total of two hundred and fifty thousan dollars
that you were supposed to try to raise? Answer? Members
of Congress, based upon their seniority and committee assignments, have
dues as well as raise amounts that are requested. Question
and do you recall yours being around two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars in this time period? Answer? I don't
(22:17):
recall at the time period what it was, but that
does not sound unreasonable. Answer, it does not sound unreasonable.
Plask it no question, Okay, And that's a lot of money.
Plask it. Yes. Question. So were your prospects for raising
that kind of money? Answer? Individuals who had donated before, alumni,
(22:39):
individuals who were interested in the same topics for which
committees I sat on, other Democratic donors throughout the country,
et cetera. Question was mister Epstein on the list of
people who would be a potential help in raising money
for the DCCC? Answer? Yes, question did you ask them
to contribute to that Answer yes, yes. Question was that
(23:02):
part of what was discussed at this meeting in September? Answer?
I don't recall if that's specific, but it's possible. Yes.
Question are there limits to the amount that any individual
can donate to the DCCC? Answer yes, Question what are
the limits? Plasket? At the time, I believe that an
individual could give over thirty thousand dollars. I can't remember
(23:24):
the exact amount, but it was in the range of
thirty thousand dollars. Question how much did you ask mister
Epstein to give? Answer to the maximum? Whatever the maximum was. Question, Okay,
how do you get somebody to give that much money? Plasket?
You asked them? Question Okay, did mister Epstein ever ask
for anything from you? Answer no, mister Newman. Let me
(23:47):
now mark as Plasket Exhibit forty, a one page text exchange.
Question all right, miss Plaskett, I've handed you Exhibit forty,
which is the text message between you and Jerome, your
chief of staff in September twenty eighteen. Do you see that?
Answer yes. Question what is it that mister Murray is
sending you? What is that a picture of? Can you
(24:07):
tell Plasket that is a picture of me. I think
this is me sending it to him. Question, Oh, I'm sorry,
What are you sending to him? Answer a call list? Question?
What is a call list? Answer? A list of individuals
to call to ask for money, either for myself or
for the Democratic Party? Question? Got it? And you're sending
that to him for what reason? Answer? So he can
(24:29):
be apprized of who I have called and who I
have not called, and to harass me about calling the
ones that have not been called. Question got it? And
then you're telling him in the next text down at
eleven eleven PM, that you're going to have a meeting
with mister Ebstein when you arrive in New York. Answer yes, question,
that's the meeting that we've been talking about. Answer yes. Question. Okay,
(24:52):
does the name Thorben Jagline mean anything to you? Answer No,
I don't recall a name like that. Then there's an
exchange about another exhibit. And that's where this line of
questioning now goes. Question all right, and you can see
miss Plaskett that exhibit forty one is an email from
miss Groff to mister Epstein giving a schedule for the day.
Do you see that? Answer yes, question. And the person
(25:16):
immediately before you on this schedule is this name Thorbon Jaglind.
So I was just asking if that refreshed your recollection
at all about who is that the meeting that you
were introduced to when you met with mister Epstein plasket.
It possibly could be, as I stated, they were in
the dining room when I arrived. Question. I could show
you a quick picture, mister Neeman, who's the lawyer here?
(25:39):
It's not that important. Okay, let's just take a look
at the next exhibit, which will be plasket Exhibit forty two. Now,
this is the exhibit forty two is plasket and the
Murray email exchange. Question All right, So Exhibit forty two
is an email exchange between mister Murray and you correct
answer yes question. And this is a follow up up
(26:00):
to the meeting with Jeffrey Epstein that we've just been
talking about. Fair answer, yes question. This is an email
that mister Murray is drafting for the purposes of sharing
with Erica so that she can pass it on to
mister Epstein. Answer. I don't know who the email was too. Question. Well,
you'll see that miss Plaskett writes that you right, excuse
(26:20):
me with drawn. Yeah, you'll see that you in the
top of the email page say this looks fine. Please
send the email to Erica. Do you see that? Answer? Yes. Question,
So you're instructing mister Murray to send this email that
he's drafted to Erica correct answer, yes, question, and for
her to pass this on to mister Epstein. Right answer. Yes,
(26:42):
I believe I'm instructing Jerome to send it to Erica
and to let her know about the conversation I had
with him about it. Question, with the idea that she
would then reach out to mister Epstein to arrange the
contribution plasket. Yes question. And do you recall that the
DCCC rejected mister Epstein's contribution? Answer yes, question. Tell me
(27:04):
what you remember about that answer, To the best of
my recollection, I recall that I was informed by my
chief of staff that the DCCC informed him that mister
Epstein's contribution would not be accepted by the DCCC. Question
what did you do when you heard that? Answer? I'm
not sure who, if I can recall who reached out
to at that point to inform me. Question, Okay, did
(27:27):
you have anything to try to find out why the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had rejected mister Epstein's donation. Plasket,
I don't recall if it was already expressed to me
in his letting me know that it was denied, or
if I got additional information. I don't recall. She sure
doesn't recall a whole lot of stuff. Huh. The same
lady that put people in prison for January sixth sure
(27:49):
seems to have quite an issue with her memory. Question
do you recall what you learned was the reason why
the DCC would not accept mister Epstein's contribution? Answer? Yes,
What was that? Answer? It had not passed their vetting?
Question What did you understand that to be a reference to? Answer?
I did not know the specifics of what their vetting was.
(28:10):
Hold on a minute here, So she's saying that she
didn't know what the vetting process was for the Democratic Party,
but she's out here trying to get donations on their behalf. Okay,
sure we believe that's Stacy Plaskett. The truth is, these
people think you're dumb, But it's all good, right as
long as you're brat. Question, did you assume that it
related to his status as a sex offender? Mister eckerd
(28:31):
objective form plasket, I was not sure of the totality
of the circumstances twenty eighteen. This was so if she's
not sure of the totality of the circumstances, then she
shouldn't be doing her job. Question. Did learning that the
DCCC had declined to accept mister Epstein's contribution because he
had not passed their vetting cause you to second guess?
(28:52):
And then the next part is cut off? Moving on
to the next question. Question, All right, congresswoman, this won't
take much longer. I'm going to hand you a document
that's marked is plasket hanswer the document, and it is
exhibit fifty four. Mister Ecard Council. This one doesn't have
a BAITS number. Was it produced, mister Nieman? Yes, this
(29:14):
was produced as a native question. So, Congresswoman, you were
asked some questions about the number of donors and the
like by mister Ackerman, and I just want to show
you your actual list that you produced of your donors
at least from the twenty fourteen cycle through the twenty
twenty cycle. Okay, do you see that plasket? Yes? Question,
(29:35):
And what we've done is we've highlighted the particular individuals
on this list who are either Epstein or Epstein affiliated
persons who made contributions to your campaign in those cycles. Okay,
answer by plasket, I'm looking through it. Question. Yes, let
me know when you're ready. Answer okay, yes, question, And
you can see on page three that mister Epstein appears
(29:57):
as a donor and that his lifetime to total to
your campaign for the twenty fourteen through twenty twenty campaign
cycles was eighty one hundred dollars personally correct answer. I
see that number. Yes, question, and then if you look
at the next page, you can see that Leslie Groff,
who you correspond with in connection with mister Epstein, also
donated to your campaign. Answer yes, question and she donated
(30:21):
twenty six hundred Do you see that? Answer by plasket. Yes,
I see that question. And then if you look at
the next page after that, you can see that Darren Endyke,
who we saw was the person who presented on behalf
of FTC seeking a tax extension of tax breaks from
the Development Authority while you were there, gave ten thousand,
seven hundred dollars to your campaign. Do you see that answer? Yes, question,
(30:46):
and that mister Kahn, who was also associated with mister Epstein,
gave ten thousand, seven hundred dollars to your campaign as well.
Do you see that answer? Okay, I see that question,
and that Bella. Kline, who has described in this document
as Darren Endykes administer of assistant, also donated twenty six
hundred dollars to your campaign. Answer. I see that question.
(31:06):
So across the five people there's total donations in excess
of thirty thousand dollars. Correct answer. I'm adding that up.
That sounds correct. Question. Did you have any other contributor
who donated, either directly themselves or by themselves and with
a group of people associated with them, more than thirty
thousand dollars? Mister Ackerman objection to form. And unfortunately that's
(31:28):
where it cuts off. But as you can see, the
ty stacy Plaskett has to Jeffrey Epstein run much much
deeper than the legacy media's reporting. And again it just
goes to the heart of the issue here that nobody
wants to talk about, and that is that the Democratic
Party itself is culpable here. They were taking money from
Epstein for years and years and years, and there is
(31:49):
no accountability still to this day, even after a sitting
congresswoman is being sued by Epstein's survivors, and to add
insult to injury, not only is she being sued, but
she took money from other people who are being sued
by Epstein's survivors for being part of the criminal enterprise.
Isn't that weird. All of the information that goes with
(32:12):
this episode can be found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.