January 4, 2026 • 41 mins
Bill Barr’s deposition before Congress on Jeffrey Epstein was a masterclass in calculated deflection. While Barr insisted that Epstein’s death was “absolutely” suicide, he conceded that the prison surveillance system had “blind spots”—a detail that conveniently leaves just enough room for speculation without providing definitive answers. His reliance on flawed or incomplete camera footage, combined with his dismissal of alternative forensic perspectives, came off less like transparency and more like institutional damage control. Instead of holding the Bureau of Prisons accountable, Barr’s narrative positioned the failures as unfortunate but inconsequential, a stance that fails to satisfy the public demand for clarity.
Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Barr-Transcript.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Just as troubling was Barr’s evasiveness when pressed about Donald Trump’s knowledge of Epstein. He admitted to having spoken with Trump about Epstein’s death but couldn’t recall when one of those conversations occurred—an astonishing lapse considering the gravity of the matter. His reasoning that “if there were more to it, it would have leaked” was not only flippant but dismissive of the very real history of suppression, obstruction, and selective disclosure that has defined the Epstein saga. By leaning on institutional trust in a case defined by betrayal of that very trust, Barr’s testimony did little more than reinforce suspicions that the Department of Justice has long been more concerned with containment than accountability.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Barr-Transcript.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
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 to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking right back up
where we left off with the Bill Barr deposition transcript.
Question and do you know how long the FBI's investigation continued? Answer?
I think it continued throughout my tenure. Question. I'd like
to shift the focus on the evidence that the FBI
(00:21):
obtained during the course of the investigation, and I'm going
to that she's cut off by Bar. I think it
was an investigation directed by the Southern District, so it
involved their prosecutorial team. It wasn't the FBI in the
initial stages of the investigation, but they were essentially cut off. Yes,
answered by Bar again, working with the prosecutors. Question understood.
(00:46):
I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark Exhibit
A as an ABC News article titled what the Government Evidence
List tells us about the unreleased Epstein Files, dated July seventeenth,
twenty twenty five, as Exhibit B, a three page cap
a log of evidence that was reportedly prepared by the FBI. Barr.
Should I read the whole thing or redacted? No, I
(01:08):
can point to you. You're certainly welcome to I can
also point you to the portions that I plan to
ask you about Barr. Well, why don't we try that? Redacted? Sure? Question.
So the article describes Attorney General Bondie making available, quote
unquote the first phase of the classified Epstein files. Mister
Barr were you previously aware of Miss Bondi making these
(01:31):
materials public? Answer? Just what I read in the press.
Question do you have any understanding as to why Attorney
General Bondi did so? Answer I've never discussed the matter
with or I don't know. Question And do you have
an understanding of what the Epstein files contained? As the
phrase is used in this piece? Okallahan, the lawyer for
(01:52):
barr answers, as you mean in the ABC piece witness
where it was used redacted. I'm looking at the first
sentence of the article that refers to Attorney General Bondi
releasing the first phase of the the classified Epstein files.
It's the very first sentence of the article. Answer, yeah,
(02:12):
I see that. Yeah. Question do you have an understanding
as to what those files are comprised of? Answer? No question.
And then Exhibit B is a catalog, which, according to
the ABC piece, is the only document in the first
phase of the declassified files that hadn't previously been made public.
Answer by Barr, this is what you've given to me. Question,
(02:35):
So it's what the ABC piece describes as the only
documents in the first phase of the declassified materials that
Attorney General paum Bondi released that have not previously been
made public. Answer, okay. Question, and my question is have
you seen this catalog before? Answer? I don't recall seeing
it before. Question Are you familiar with any of the
(02:57):
items that it describes? Answer you want me to go
through each item. I'm not generally I'll just say this,
I'm not generally familiar or even specifically familiar with the
evidence amassed by the Southern District to prosecute ether Epstein
before he committed suicide, obviously, and then what they may
have collected that affected other potential defendants. In other words,
(03:18):
I wasn't monitoring the case that closely to know what
the evidence was. Question you mentioned that, Bar. I think
while I was there they reached the conclusion that they
had a case against Maxwell, and I don't have specific
recollections of it, but I'm sure I was briefed on
what the charges were and what the evidence supported. It question. Okay, answer,
(03:39):
but I have no way of liking or linking any
of this. This is gibberish to me because I have
no way of linking the content to the case. Question. Okay,
Okallahan redacted? Are you sure Exhibit B is what the
article refers to, because the article refers to a three
page index, and this is much longer than three pages redacted? Yep,
(03:59):
so ed. That is an enhanced version of the catalog,
which if you printed out from the publicly available source,
contains typeface that is far smaller. So we blew it
up so that your client would be able to read
it at the witness table. Mister Callahan, okay, the witness
bar Okay, thank you, mister o Callahan, Me too, bar.
(04:19):
I wouldn't know this stuff. I mean, I may have
been aware of some of it, but it has to
be better identified for me, you know. But as I say,
generally speaking, the way I understood what was going on
in the Southern District, other than looking at the issue
of suicide, which I carefully monitored, was doing what a
US attorney office normally does. And my understanding is that
(04:39):
at that point after the suicide, they were looking to
make to see if there was evidence to charge someone
for participating in the trafficking, and I didn't monitor their investigation,
as I wouldn't generally monitor an investigation unless there was
a particular reason to do so. Redacted. Question you mentioned earlier,
as I understood that your knowledge the FBI's investigation continued
(05:03):
throughout your tenure as Attorney General. Answer yes, question to
your understanding, did it continue after you left? EJ Answer,
I don't recall. I think I don't recall. Well. My
impression is that this was a very motivated group of prosecutors,
and this was a high priority for the office and
for the Department, and they were moving forward. My belief
(05:26):
and understanding was if they came across evidence that would
establish either that someone helped them in recruiting these young
girls or was involved in sexual activity with them, that
they would have proceeded on that case. That was my view,
and I didn't think that this group of prosecutors would
stop until they were satisfied that they had gone through
the evidence. So from my standpoint, both for reasons of
(05:48):
Justice Department protocol which required them to alert me if
they actually started going down that trail. As to any
prominent person. And also just from the practicality that I
think that kind of information, if someone is trying to
sit on it, would have bled out eventually. I was
not aware of that evidence that they had that they
would do that. I was never given reason to believe
(06:10):
that they had evidence to make a case. Jasmin Crockett,
Can I jump in really quickly on this point, just
to follow up, It's been widely reported that the President
was informed by the current Attorney General of Pound Bondi
that he appears in the Department of Justice files on
Jeffrey Epstein. I'm curious to know in those conversations that
(06:30):
you recall with president, do you recall ever informing them
that he was in the Epstein files Number one, I'll
ask that, so I don't have a compound question the witness. Yeah, well,
I'm not sure what Epstein files referred to these days,
but no, I didn't have that kind of conversation with them.
I think at some point logs were made available or
(06:50):
republic that he was on Epstein's plane making commutes from
or flying between Miami and New York, or Miami in
New Jersey or stuff like that, and I think that
that got out publicly. I don't recall discussing that with them,
miss Crockett, okay. Barr And I can't even remember when
it came out, Crockett, okay. So to be clear, you
(07:11):
had no direct knowledge of the president himself being named
in the Epstein investigation, is what you're telling us, Barr. No,
I'm saying that in the year many years up to
the case, there had been news coverage reporting on essentially
two kinds of people, people who were either in business
or social networks and had connections with them, which to
(07:32):
me doesn't mean that is a crime. And there are
many names thrown around, like then, there were names that
were specific credible evidence or a specific serious evidence by,
for example, a victim, a specific victim that were exploited
by a particular person. So there were those sort of people,
and my understanding was that the New York Office was
(07:52):
trying to see if there was in fact any evidence
to support that any of these people actually violated the law.
Jasmin Crockett, and you have no direct knowledge of any
of the now young women or women that claimed that
they had encounters with the president through Epstein. Correct, Barr.
I was never told by the Southern District that they
had evidence to support any claim like that. Crockett, thank you,
(08:15):
witness as to who as to Trump? Crockett, Yes, Witness, Yeah, Crockett, Sorry,
President Trump. Witness. I was never told that there was
evidence to support that claim, Jasmin Crockett, I'm done. Sorry.
Question just shifting back to the evidence that the FBI gathered.
There have been reports of hidden cameras and recording systems
at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence. Are you aware of
(08:38):
the existence of any such cameras and a recording system? Answer?
I think when the search I was aware. I can't
even remember if it was after I left or while
I was there, but I remember that there were cameras
uncovered during the searches that were made of the Manhattan Building,
and I think also the island maybe even wasn't there
a place in New Mexico as well? I heard that
(08:59):
there were things being on covered like that bullshit. Nobody
ever rated Zoro Ranch, Bill Barr. This guy knows a
lot more than he's telling us. Count on it. Question,
did you ever see the footage? Answer? No? Question from
the system? Answer no question? And is that footage, to
your knowledge still within the possession of the DOJ. Answer,
(09:19):
whatever information was collected, I have no reason to think
it's not in their possession. I never went and looked
at the evidence that they were collecting. Question do you
have an understanding as to why that material hasn't been
publicly released? Answer? I have no knowledge as to why,
but I think I understand the potential reasons for it.
Question which in your view are what? Answer Well, I mean,
(09:41):
in terms of conducting an investigation, you would have some
stuff that's grand jury material that was collected pursuant to
the grand jury process and through the grand jury process,
and that would normally not be made public. And I
think there are strong reasons for not making grand jury public,
including requiring the approval of a court's approval. As to
other evidence, I think there are strong policy reasons not
(10:04):
to make it available, which an attorney general at the
time has to make judgments as to what are the
reasons to make it public and what are the reasons
against making it public and among the reasons for not
making it public. Generally, just here all is is because
there are frequently, there's frequently tidbits of evidence that can
be cast publicly as incriminating when in fact, against all
(10:26):
of the evidence, it isn't, and the judgments about credibility
are made. I think we've all seen examples where three
zero two's don't necessarily could be wrong on something they say.
A witness could later say I didn't say that, and
so forth. So you have to be careful about what
you say about people. And so the general principle is
that if you have enough evidence to charge someone, you
(10:46):
put that evidence out through the process. But you don't
just open your files. So I can understand why there
is reluctance to it. And as I say, an attorney
general has to make balance question we saw a few
minutes ago when we looked at the ABC article exhibit
A Attorney General Pam Bondi did release a significant volume
of material earlier this year. Do you disagree with their
(11:09):
decision to do that? Answer? No, I don't agree or disagree.
I haven't kept up with what's in there. And as
I say, it's sort of an individual judgment based on balancing.
And I don't have transparency into all the factors that
are at play here. I mean a lot of the
information is out there because of civil cases. You know,
that's another important part of the context here, A lot
(11:32):
to the extent there are victims, I mean, which obviously
there are victims, but a lot of those victims have
neither been encouraged to bring civil suits or have brought
civil suits. And in that context, a lot of the
evidence has been released through those cases. Question and just
so we're clear on the parameters, Am I correct that
it was within the Attorney General's authority to release materials
(11:53):
like this at his or her discretion. Answer, well, there's
no law against it. I guess the way I look
at it, there's no law against it except for a
grand jury secrecy. That's my understanding of the situation. Question Okay, answer,
but there are consequences for releasing everything out there, because
that will make it harder to conduct investigations in the
(12:14):
future on anything if people say, whatever they say is
going to be out in public, even though it's not
evidence of a crime. Question, are there, in your view
certain categories of cases that rise to a level of
public interest such that the release of this kind of
information is appropriate despite the considerations that you just articulated. Answer, Well,
(12:37):
part of my direct experience was obviously the Muller Report.
Now it's not exactly the same kind of situation, but
there I did agree to put out the reports, even
though it canvassed a lot of the evidence, but we
sanitized it for the grand jury material ever, classified material,
and also material that was unfair to third parties who
we were not charging. If we weren't charging someone with
(12:58):
a crime or accusing someone of a committing our crime,
that was one of the other considerations that we used.
But we did at the end of the day, I
felt the public interest demanded putting out what we put out. Question,
do you think that a case for a public release
in the instance of the Mueller report was stronger or
weaker than the case with respect to the Epstein material. Answer?
(13:21):
You know, it had to do with the head of
state and whether he was a Russian spy. I don't
think you can get more important than that. All right, folks,
So we're going to wrap up right here, and in
the next episode, we're going to pick up where we
left off. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
(13:41):
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
off with Bill Barr and his deposition before Congress. Question
shifting back to the evidence. As you're probably aware, there's
been significant focus on the possible existence of what's been
described as an Epstein client list. Is that a term
(14:02):
that you've heard before? Answer by Barr. I've heard the term,
but I've always been confused as to what it actually
referred to. I think it needs to be clarified. Question
do you have an understanding as to what the terms
referred to? Answer? Well, I guess my view as Epstein
sort of had three lives. He was a socialite and
he had a lot of social activity that was legal,
(14:24):
and he was meeting prominent people all over the place socially. Second,
he was a business guy and had business relationships all
over the place. And third he had a perverted practice
or recruiting young girls for his own satisfaction, and there
were some allegations that he made those girls available the
contacts of his And so when I hear a client list,
are we talking about his financial clients? I doubt it.
(14:46):
Are we talking about his social phone book? I doubt it?
Are we talking about are we sort of equating this
to acting like a madman out of bordello, and that
he sort of has a list of his clients that
used the bordello. That's what I think people are referring to.
Question so answer, So that's how I take the term. Question. So,
with that understanding, are you aware of a list that
(15:08):
fits the category that you just described? Answer like a
bordello madam? Question yes? Answer No, I was never told
that there was such a list. I don't have a
reason to think that there is such a list. But
by that, we're talking about a list that's put together
by him. Okay, he's compiled something. That's not to say
that by going through the evidence, interviews, statements of the victims,
(15:30):
and so forth, you couldn't figure out who some of
those people were. Question but again, just tying all this
together to your understanding, does there exist a single document
that contains the names of individuals who had participated in
or were complicit in the crimes that Jeffrey Epstein was
charged with? Answer? I have no reason. I was never
(15:51):
told that that was the case by the SDNY or
the FBI. Question. In public statements, Attorney General Pam Bondi
had initially seemed to acknowledge that such a document existed
and was asked specifically about quote unquote the client list,
but then backtracked, as reflected in the July twenty twenty
five memorandum from the FBI that explicitly disclaims the existence
(16:14):
of any such list. Do you have any understanding as
to why Attorney General Bondi initially made that representation? Answer No,
I have no knowledge. I could see that her explanation.
I heard her explanation of it, and I think it's
potentially a good explanation. I don't discount it. Question did
it strike you as unusual that she changed your position publicly? Answer? Well,
(16:38):
I don't know if she changed your position. My understanding
is that, and I did watch the interview that she
you know, she started answering. She was basically geared up
to answer the question about how she was going to
get the material out, and the question er at the
end put in the phrase client list, and she blew
through that and just gave the answer she was going
(16:58):
to give, like it's on my desk. And her explanation,
I think is that she was referring to the file
that she intended to put out. I don't discount that,
but I have no knowledge. Question Okay, are you aware
of the document that Jeffrey Epstein kept that he referred
to in the press as quote unquote the black book? Answer?
Do I have knowledge of what question? A document that
(17:19):
the press is described as maintained by mister Epstein and
referred to as a black book. Answer. I think I've
heard I've seen that expression in the media, But as
I say, no one has ever And I sort of
took that as the client list since versus as a
phone book with his everybody in it that he socializes
or does business with. And as I've said, no one
has ever indicated to me that there is something one
(17:42):
place that compiles the people that he essentially exploited these
girls by providing them to these individuals. Question. So you
haven't seen a phone directory that mister Epstein compiled. Answer
not that I can recall. You mean a phone directory
of what question containing names of people that were associated
with mister Epstein. Answer just generally associated. I don't recall that,
(18:04):
but I wouldn't be what It wouldn't surprise me. I
wouldn't think that by itself it had evidentiary value other
than that he knew a person. Question. You mentioned earlier
that the FBI continued to investigate the existence of possible
co conspirators of mister Epstein. Could you just generally walk
us through the investigative steps that DOJ took to pursue
(18:24):
those co conspirators? Answer? I mean that was done by
the Southern District. I mean the person in charge of
the investigation was US attorney Jeff Berman, and he had
an experienced team, and they would have he would have
to the extent that there was any direction or judgments
being made that required supervision, he would have made them,
not me. Question, did you have any visibility into subpoena
(18:48):
that SDNY issued? Answer visibility in the sense of reproving
them ahead of time. I don't recall approving subpoenas in
that case. I don't recall issues coming up to me.
It's possible, I mean a lot was coming in question.
And what about knowledge after the fact that they had
been issued? Answer well, I think to the extent I
read things that may have involved like that. I assume
(19:10):
they got search warrants to collect stuff from the house
and things like that. Question, but you didn't get any
direct information from SDNY regarding the issuance of subpoenas answer,
not that I can recall. Question and what about witness interviews? Answer?
I think there was a dispute over Prince Andrew. Question okay,
and how did you he interrupts her? Not between me
(19:33):
and the office, but between Prince Andrew and the Southern District.
And I was aware of the dispute because I forgot
how I became aware, whether it was public or what? Question?
And what do you recall of the dispute? Answer? I
think they wanted to talk to him and he wouldn't
really submit to an interview. That's my recollection of what
the dispute was over. Question and did you discuss that
with the SDN why answer? No? I think after the fact,
(19:56):
I think Berman went out and gave a pretty strong statement.
I think he may have been standing in front of
the house, as I recall, something to that effect. And
it was about Andrew basically trying to say publicly that
he was cooperating and in real fact he was not cooperating.
And I think I talked to him about that question
talk to answer after it was his question, mister Berman,
(20:19):
Barr Yeah. Question. A number of prominent individuals have been
alleged to be connected to mister Epstein as his clients
or otherwise as associates. What I'd like to do is
read to you a list of names, and for each
I ask you to state whether, to your knowledge, that
individual was within the scope of DJ's investigation. If anything,
(20:39):
DOJ determined with respect to the individual? Does that make sense? Answer? Yeah,
But I mean I don't know what within the scope
of investigation means, whether they were subjects or targets. Question.
How about witnesses subjects or targets? O callahan in an
Epstein investigation that lasted for multiple decades, You're going to
ask him if any of these individuals wherever somehow part
(21:02):
of that investigation redacted? Yeah, O'Callahan, that's too broad. I
don't think it actually comports with what was stated. The
scope of this is redacted. Okay, I can come at
it in a different way. I'll just read the first name,
Alan Dershowitz. Did mister Dershowitz, to your knowledge, ever become
relevant to the Epstein investigation in any respect? The witness
(21:23):
I don't know, O'Callahan. And this is all Barr I assumed.
I did not go and ask them who you're talking to? Now,
that in itself sort of suggests they're targeting someone or
even think someone is a subject versus a witness and
so forth. But I didn't get into that. I didn't
go up to them and say, gee, are you looking
into Dershowitz? Are you looking into Governor Richardson? Are you
(21:45):
looking into George Mitchell? Are you looking at Donald Trump?
Are you looking at Branson? Or whatever? I didn't do that. Well,
maybe you should have. How about that, Darth barr I
saw names appearing in the media hyping all these so
called connections. I did not ask them whether, but I
assume that some of these people were examined redacted. So
you didn't discuss Alan Dershowitz with anyone else within DJ
(22:08):
the witness no I obviously may have mentioned, may have
discussed Dershowitz sifting around my office saying wow, O'Callahan. That's
part of the problem is that there's so much media
reporting witness, right, O'Callahan, media reporting on individuals that in
common workplace conversation, stuff like that happens. He just happens
to be the Attorney General of the United States. Barr
(22:32):
I did not delve into the investigation of Epstein redacted,
so Barr, I let the investigators let the chips fall
where they may redacted understood. So again, just for the
sake of clarity, Apart from information that came to you
through the media, what was publicly reported was, to your knowledge,
Alan Dershowitz relevant to the investigation in any way. Barr,
(22:54):
I don't know. I mean these questions are a little
bit too broad for my taste, O'Callahan. It's a very
difficult thing thing you're asking him to do. Barr. Of
course he's relevant to the investigation. You would think redacted.
Were their discussions within the DOJ about Alan Dershowitz to
your recollection? Barr, as I say, sitting around my office,
people could say, gee, Professor Dershowitz is in hot water.
(23:17):
But I did not. I was not in communication with
the SDNY about the handling of the investigation. Oh callahan,
I mean that might be an approach if SDNY ever
briefed them. You know, these people are being targets of
the investigation because SDNY, as he testified to over and
over again, was in charge of the investigation, so they
(23:37):
were going to report they would have reported an urgent
matter to them. Barr. I don't recall any discussion with
SDNY where we discussed the nature and weight of evidence
that they had against the individuals that, in my mind
had been identified publicly as people who could be involved
and in proper activities. I was told that the office
(23:59):
had evidence in its possession that established that somebody was
involved in those activities. I don't remember sitting down discussing,
you know, g here's the weight of the evidence, or
here's something that gives us leads we can pursue. I
wasn't focused on, you know, myself, looking at or hovering
over the handling of that case. Question Okay, So for
(24:19):
the rest of the names, I will couch the question
as follows. Did you ever become aware of each of
these individuals either being a witness or subject or a
target in the SDN WHY investigation? Answer? Become aware of
you had things published all the time? Question right bar
in the press. Question about their formal status in the
(24:40):
dj investigation. I don't think that would be publicly reported. Answer? Okay,
the formal status that was provided to me by the
SDN Y question yep, that's all I'm asking answer okay.
Question so the next name is David Copperfield. Answer I
don't recall that being so question, Michael Jackson. I don't
recall that being so question Prince Andrew Barr. And when
(25:03):
I say I don't recall, I mean my best recollection.
I did not get that information question. Okay, answer go ahead.
I mean just read down the list. Oh Callahan, I
think the question about Prince Andrew is pending. Barr. That's right,
I was aware of Prince Andrew's issue. You know, go
through the list. I'll tell you. Oh Callahan, So just
to clarify, you're aware of Prince Andrew being sought as
(25:23):
a witness by the Southern District Barr, Yes, and then
he dispute over him cooperating. I was aware of that question,
Bill Clinton Barr, same answer question, Bill Richardson answer, same
answer question. George Mitchell, same answer question. Glenn Dubin, same answer,
(25:44):
Bill Gates, same answer question, Leon Black, same answer question. Okay, Now,
Jasmin Crockett interrupts. Just to clarify, when you're saying, same answer,
is that the same answer as Prince Andrew or is
that the same answer as the prior because but ones
other than that, Crockett, they were different witness other than
(26:04):
Prince Andrew Crockett. Okay, just to be clear for the record,
and really really quickly, I'm going to jump in just
before we have to wrap, because we're talking about the investigations.
Maxwell was investigated during your tenure, not necessarily taken to
trial while you were still at the DOJ. She is
someone that was involved in the SDNY situation. You were
aware that she was not born in this country, correct bar. Yes, Crockett. Okay.
(26:29):
You were also aware that a jury of her peers
found her guilty of five out of six counts that
were brought against her by the SDNY, including child sex
trafficking conspiracy, correct bar. Yes, Crockett. In addition to that,
you have been made aware through public reports. Well, let
me clarify this child sex trafficking is not considered to
be a low level offense in the federal government, correct bar.
(26:52):
I'm not sure what low level means, but it's a
serious offense, Crockett. It's definitely a felony, correct bar. Oh, yes, Crockett,
and a person can face up to life imprisonment for it,
correct Barr. I haven't looked at the statute, but that
wouldn't surprise me. Crockett. Okay. And typically when someone is
classified by the time that they enter into the Bureau
(27:13):
of Prisons, their classification is usually based upon a multitude
of things, one of them being how serious of an
offensive person has been found guilty of, correct witness. That's
one of the factors, Crockett, Okay, in addition to their
criminal history and other things. But long story short, they're
looking at whether or not the person is potentially a
danger to the community, correct bar. That's another factor, Crockett.
(27:37):
When you were reading your public things, I'm assuming you've
heard that there has been a transfer approved from MS
Maxwell to a minimum security prison camp. Are you aware
of that? Oh, Callahan, you're referring to press reports, Congresswoman Crockett, Yes,
because that bar I've seen, Crockett. That would be the
only way, Barr says, I've seen those reports, Crockett during
(27:58):
your tenure as Attorney General, during either time. I'm curious
to know, are you ever is it ever within your
recollection that there was someone who had been convicted, finally convicted. Well,
I guess it's not final. She's still on appeal, convicted
of five counts of child sex trafficking, and they somehow
ended up transferred to a minimum security prison camp. Barr.
I mean, off the top of my head, I can't
(28:20):
remember a situation like that, Jasmin Crockett. In fact, you'd
agree with me that in order for someone to be
transferred under those types of circumstances, it would actually take
a higher level of approval. That is not something that
just any low level BOP person would be able to do.
Correct Barr, I wish that were correct. You never know, Crockett,
(28:42):
because mistakes happened. Bar. Yeah, sometimes you wake up and
you find that something's happened, like taking someone off suicide watch, Crockett.
But you would agree with me that the policy in
general is not to put someone who's been convicted of
those types of crimes into a minimum security camp. Barr. Actually,
I think the way the system works is the political
(29:03):
level usually allows the Bureau of Prisons broad leeway in
determining how people are handled under their structure and using
their criteria, and if they disagree, they might intervene. Crockett understood, Bar,
That's how I think the system generally operates. Crockett understood.
To the best of your knowledge, whether it's during your
(29:23):
tenure or during reports, She's never been in the type
of facility in the last four years of her incarceration
until now, correct, Barr. I gather that's the case, Crockett. Okay, thanks,
all right, we're gonna wrap up right here, and we're
gonna pick up where we left off in the next episode.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
(29:44):
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
we're picking up where we left off with Bill Barr
and his deposition chairman, Comer General Barr. May I jump
in for a couple of questions. Were you aware of
the involvement of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign in
(30:06):
the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr, to the
extent it was determined by Durham. Yes, Durham was looking
into that. Comer. Did you review documents that indicated the
involvement of former Secretary Clinton in the Russia collusion investigation
involving President Trump? Barr? Did I look at documents, Comer, yes,
(30:28):
Bar yes, Comer, to the best of your recollection. Did
you at any point attempted to classify items in the
Russia collusion investigation, Barr. Some items are classified and some
I opposed to classifying. Comber. Okay, were you aware of
the involvement of President Obama or his officials in the
Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr? I was aware
(30:52):
of meetings held at the end of the Obama administration.
They were described Comer and did you review any documents? Barr?
I think I saw a set of notes taken by
an intelligence official, perhaps Comer. Okay, all right, thank you, sir.
Question and much like disclaimer at the beginning of the
Minority Hour, I might ask some similar questions this hour,
(31:14):
but we're going to start back with mister Epstein's death
and some of the irregularities within the jail. We talked
about the missed institutional counts and observations, and the two guards,
two corrections officers, Tovin Owell and Michael Thomas were eventually
indicted for falsifying those records. Were you involved in that indictment?
(31:34):
I was. I think it was passed by me. I
think I was informed as to what they were going
to do. Question. I think they eventually entered a plea agreement.
Bar yep question, and the case was otherwise dropped. Were
you involved in that at all, Barr? I think people
described it to me, I think before it happened. Yeah. Question,
(31:54):
But much like some of the Epstein investigation, you're not
involved in the prosecutorial decision on whether or not bar
cuts them off. Right. Question to take the case on
the institutional counts. My understanding of these is that at
set intervals corrections, officers need to go through their area
of responsibility and just do account of the inmates to
(32:16):
make sure that everyone is accounted for. Is that a
fair summary of that answer? The count process. Yes, and
they report the counts, I think, is it? I forgot
how frequently they report the counts, but they call in
the counts. Question from the indictment, at least they were
responsible for counts at four pm, ten pm, twelve am,
(32:39):
three am, and five am. Does that sound right? Answer?
Sounds right? Question? And then, to the best of your recollection,
were these institutional accounts done by those officers? Answer? I
can't remember if one of them was done, but they
generally were not done. Question And then you testified earlier,
but the officers falsified the records. Is that correct? Answer? Yes? Question?
(33:02):
Moving to the thirty minute rounds. Again, my understanding of
the rounds or that they were directed by the psych
Department and the medical department because mister Epstein was coming
off Suicide Watch and coming off kind of the more
enhanced observation. Is that correct? Answer? Yes, I'm not sure
if it was. I think that's part of and parcel
(33:22):
of this level of scrutiny. Question like the step down
from Suicide Watch. Answer yes, question, and my understanding again
is that they would have conducted this twice an hour,
once the first thirty minutes, once in the second, at
irregular intervals, and at least forty minutes apart. Does that
sound right? Answer? Yes, question to your recollection? Answer to
(33:46):
my knowledge, yes, question to the best of your recollection,
were these thirty minute rounds done? Answer? I believe that's
why they were prosecuted for not doing them and lying
about it. Question and then to your call the officers
falsified the records? Answer yes, question, I believe you said it,
and I know I have, But I want to ask directly,
(34:08):
were those thirty minute rounds specific to mister Epstein? Answer?
I believe they were specific to anyone who warrants that
kind of level of watch. I don't know who else
did in that shoe question, So that was my next question.
Do you recall if anyone on L block required thirty
minute observation or even in nine South? I don't know.
Question there was I can introduce if you need me to.
(34:31):
But there was a sign on the SACHU officer's desk
that read, mandatory rounds must be conducted every thirty minutes
on Epstein, as per God and as per God. I'm
assuming it was a joke for the warden or something.
Answer right. Question do you recall hearing about that sign?
Answer after the fact question prior to your departure as
(34:52):
Attorney General. Answer I can't remember. Question and what do
you recall any discussion regarding that sign? Answer it may
have been part of the case, in other words, that
it was clear to them that it was a priority
to conduct those rounds as to Epstein. Question part of
the case against Noel and Thomas. Answer yes, question we've
(35:14):
gone through all of the kind of major irregularities. After
you learned of these, did you take any disciplinary action
against anyone involved? Answer? It could be referred to as disciplinary.
I think on the very day I was informed of
his death, I started reaching out to find the old
management of BOP that I was familiar with and had
(35:35):
always considered to be, you know, fantastic managers of BOP.
So I started lining them up because I intended to
see if I could bring them in. And then within days,
I think, maybe very quickly, I reassigned the warden and
I replaced I think the following had the people come
in to interview within a few days with the job,
and then I think within a week I moved out
(35:56):
the head of BOP and put in new people. Question
and to point in a new deputy BOP director. Answer yes,
both the top and the deputy. And that was all
done within a week, and I left the other discipline
up to them to meet out. Question they would be
the ones that placed the two guards on leave? Answer
I don't know. I think they were probably put on
(36:18):
leave right away. Answer okay, but further discipline in figuring out,
you know, who was responsible for what oversight? But I
think there was no question they admitted it right up
front that they screwed up, as they said, question that
they were asleep at the desk? Answer yeah, question was
there to your knowledge, was there a larger investigation into
(36:41):
whether or not these issues were systemic at MCC or
if they were isolated to Epstein. Answer, I actually can't
answer that authoritatively. I think BOP does a lot of
investigations of the BOP and I think maybe their report
on this incident says this was not new news. I mean,
this is a problem question. Uh huh. Answer. I think BOP,
(37:03):
you know, has gone downhill in terms of its professional
you know, its management structure and professionalism. Part of that
is the nature of the job and especially in big cities,
the pay rate and so forth, it's hard to get
good people. Question MCC I believe is now closed. Answer
I think it was closed after I left. Yeah, question
(37:23):
it was after you left. Answer well, I stopped new
prisoners from going in. I believe that's what I did,
and I think I redirected them to Brooklyn, MDC. Question.
Thank you. I'm going to ask a few questions about
the individual cases, similar to what my colleagues asked, and
I might have some follow ups based off those questions.
(37:43):
You testified a little bit, you know, I want to
quote it as best as possible that you wanted to
let investigators let the chips fall where they may, in
other words, not involve yourself too heavily in the twenty
nineteen prosecution answer investigation question investigation and general. And then
you said that I want to get it right, that
it's DOJ policy to bring to the Attorney General's attention
(38:06):
if a prominent person was going to be the subject
of an investigation. Is that a fair summary of what
the policy is. Answer? Yes, it's called urgent reports. I
think they have to file an urgent report. Question Did
the Southern District of New York ever file an urgent
report regarding the Epstein case? Answer? I can't remember. I
(38:28):
don't remember what they did, but you know, certainly I
was never informed by them that they were focused. You
know that they believed they had a predicate to actually
investigate the individual. Question and pardon me, I don't know.
Answer other than Maxwell and Epstein. Question, I don't know
the actual like formal designations, but they wouldn't have to
(38:48):
Would they have to issue a formal report if they
wanted to interview someone as a witness that was a
prominent individual, or just if that prominent individual was going
to become a suspect or a target in the investigation? Answer?
I don't think it was that refined, I think they
had to use their rule of common sense as to
what would the national leadership of the department want to
(39:10):
know about? And just interject real quick, you see what
he's saying right here right that the bosses have to know.
So taking that and bringing it over to what happened
with a costa what does it tell you question? Uh
huh answer? And you know, if they decided, you know,
had some predicate to actually pursue an individual, you know,
(39:31):
moving into the potential area of a target, they would
have to do an urgent report. Yeah. Question and to
the best, like out of this list that the minority
read to you, the one that you were called elevating witness,
suspect or target was Prince Andrew. Answer, I don't know
if he was a target, and you know, I guess
to my knowledge, he was at least a witness question
(39:52):
Uh huh answer. I don't know if it went beyond that,
but you know that's somebody who in real time I
understood they were trying to get in the door to
question question understanding again what you said, you don't recall
specific urgent reports being file with you, would that have
been someone that met the criteria of a prominent person.
Answer in my mind question, and I'll ask specifically to him.
(40:16):
Do you recall whether or not you got an urgent report?
They're cut off by bar and it could affect foreign
relations and so forth. It's a sensible rule. Now, is
it always followed by US attorneys? No, there are many,
that's it. Not many, But there's sometimes the case where
you don't get a report for something that you should
have been And the SDNY is relatively well known for
(40:37):
playing its cards very close to the vest question and again,
to the best of your recollection, you never got an
urgent report regarding Prince Andrew. Answer, I don't recall. Quite possibly,
but I don't recall that. All right, folks, we're gonna
wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
gonna pick up where we left off. All of the
(40:57):
information that goes with this episode can be found in
the description box.
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking right back up
where we left off with the Bill Barr deposition transcript.
Question and do you know how long the FBI's investigation continued? Answer?
I think it continued throughout my tenure. Question. I'd like
to shift the focus on the evidence that the FBI
(00:21):
obtained during the course of the investigation, and I'm going
to that she's cut off by Bar. I think it
was an investigation directed by the Southern District, so it
involved their prosecutorial team. It wasn't the FBI in the
initial stages of the investigation, but they were essentially cut off. Yes,
answered by Bar again, working with the prosecutors. Question understood.
(00:46):
I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark Exhibit
A as an ABC News article titled what the Government Evidence
List tells us about the unreleased Epstein Files, dated July seventeenth,
twenty twenty five, as Exhibit B, a three page cap
a log of evidence that was reportedly prepared by the FBI. Barr.
Should I read the whole thing or redacted? No, I
(01:08):
can point to you. You're certainly welcome to I can
also point you to the portions that I plan to
ask you about Barr. Well, why don't we try that? Redacted? Sure? Question.
So the article describes Attorney General Bondie making available, quote
unquote the first phase of the classified Epstein files. Mister
Barr were you previously aware of Miss Bondi making these
(01:31):
materials public? Answer? Just what I read in the press.
Question do you have any understanding as to why Attorney
General Bondi did so? Answer I've never discussed the matter
with or I don't know. Question And do you have
an understanding of what the Epstein files contained? As the
phrase is used in this piece? Okallahan, the lawyer for
(01:52):
barr answers, as you mean in the ABC piece witness
where it was used redacted. I'm looking at the first
sentence of the article that refers to Attorney General Bondi
releasing the first phase of the the classified Epstein files.
It's the very first sentence of the article. Answer, yeah,
(02:12):
I see that. Yeah. Question do you have an understanding
as to what those files are comprised of? Answer? No question.
And then Exhibit B is a catalog, which, according to
the ABC piece, is the only document in the first
phase of the declassified files that hadn't previously been made public.
Answer by Barr, this is what you've given to me. Question,
(02:35):
So it's what the ABC piece describes as the only
documents in the first phase of the declassified materials that
Attorney General paum Bondi released that have not previously been
made public. Answer, okay. Question, and my question is have
you seen this catalog before? Answer? I don't recall seeing
it before. Question Are you familiar with any of the
(02:57):
items that it describes? Answer you want me to go
through each item. I'm not generally I'll just say this,
I'm not generally familiar or even specifically familiar with the
evidence amassed by the Southern District to prosecute ether Epstein
before he committed suicide, obviously, and then what they may
have collected that affected other potential defendants. In other words,
(03:18):
I wasn't monitoring the case that closely to know what
the evidence was. Question you mentioned that, Bar. I think
while I was there they reached the conclusion that they
had a case against Maxwell, and I don't have specific
recollections of it, but I'm sure I was briefed on
what the charges were and what the evidence supported. It question. Okay, answer,
(03:39):
but I have no way of liking or linking any
of this. This is gibberish to me because I have
no way of linking the content to the case. Question. Okay,
Okallahan redacted? Are you sure Exhibit B is what the
article refers to, because the article refers to a three
page index, and this is much longer than three pages redacted? Yep,
(03:59):
so ed. That is an enhanced version of the catalog,
which if you printed out from the publicly available source,
contains typeface that is far smaller. So we blew it
up so that your client would be able to read
it at the witness table. Mister Callahan, okay, the witness
bar Okay, thank you, mister o Callahan, Me too, bar.
(04:19):
I wouldn't know this stuff. I mean, I may have
been aware of some of it, but it has to
be better identified for me, you know. But as I say,
generally speaking, the way I understood what was going on
in the Southern District, other than looking at the issue
of suicide, which I carefully monitored, was doing what a
US attorney office normally does. And my understanding is that
(04:39):
at that point after the suicide, they were looking to
make to see if there was evidence to charge someone
for participating in the trafficking, and I didn't monitor their investigation,
as I wouldn't generally monitor an investigation unless there was
a particular reason to do so. Redacted. Question you mentioned earlier,
as I understood that your knowledge the FBI's investigation continued
(05:03):
throughout your tenure as Attorney General. Answer yes, question to
your understanding, did it continue after you left? EJ Answer,
I don't recall. I think I don't recall. Well. My
impression is that this was a very motivated group of prosecutors,
and this was a high priority for the office and
for the Department, and they were moving forward. My belief
(05:26):
and understanding was if they came across evidence that would
establish either that someone helped them in recruiting these young
girls or was involved in sexual activity with them, that
they would have proceeded on that case. That was my view,
and I didn't think that this group of prosecutors would
stop until they were satisfied that they had gone through
the evidence. So from my standpoint, both for reasons of
(05:48):
Justice Department protocol which required them to alert me if
they actually started going down that trail. As to any
prominent person. And also just from the practicality that I
think that kind of information, if someone is trying to
sit on it, would have bled out eventually. I was
not aware of that evidence that they had that they
would do that. I was never given reason to believe
(06:10):
that they had evidence to make a case. Jasmin Crockett,
Can I jump in really quickly on this point, just
to follow up, It's been widely reported that the President
was informed by the current Attorney General of Pound Bondi
that he appears in the Department of Justice files on
Jeffrey Epstein. I'm curious to know in those conversations that
(06:30):
you recall with president, do you recall ever informing them
that he was in the Epstein files Number one, I'll
ask that, so I don't have a compound question the witness. Yeah, well,
I'm not sure what Epstein files referred to these days,
but no, I didn't have that kind of conversation with them.
I think at some point logs were made available or
(06:50):
republic that he was on Epstein's plane making commutes from
or flying between Miami and New York, or Miami in
New Jersey or stuff like that, and I think that
that got out publicly. I don't recall discussing that with them,
miss Crockett, okay. Barr And I can't even remember when
it came out, Crockett, okay. So to be clear, you
(07:11):
had no direct knowledge of the president himself being named
in the Epstein investigation, is what you're telling us, Barr. No,
I'm saying that in the year many years up to
the case, there had been news coverage reporting on essentially
two kinds of people, people who were either in business
or social networks and had connections with them, which to
(07:32):
me doesn't mean that is a crime. And there are
many names thrown around, like then, there were names that
were specific credible evidence or a specific serious evidence by,
for example, a victim, a specific victim that were exploited
by a particular person. So there were those sort of people,
and my understanding was that the New York Office was
(07:52):
trying to see if there was in fact any evidence
to support that any of these people actually violated the law.
Jasmin Crockett, and you have no direct knowledge of any
of the now young women or women that claimed that
they had encounters with the president through Epstein. Correct, Barr.
I was never told by the Southern District that they
had evidence to support any claim like that. Crockett, thank you,
(08:15):
witness as to who as to Trump? Crockett, Yes, Witness, Yeah, Crockett, Sorry,
President Trump. Witness. I was never told that there was
evidence to support that claim, Jasmin Crockett, I'm done. Sorry.
Question just shifting back to the evidence that the FBI gathered.
There have been reports of hidden cameras and recording systems
at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence. Are you aware of
(08:38):
the existence of any such cameras and a recording system? Answer?
I think when the search I was aware. I can't
even remember if it was after I left or while
I was there, but I remember that there were cameras
uncovered during the searches that were made of the Manhattan Building,
and I think also the island maybe even wasn't there
a place in New Mexico as well? I heard that
(08:59):
there were things being on covered like that bullshit. Nobody
ever rated Zoro Ranch, Bill Barr. This guy knows a
lot more than he's telling us. Count on it. Question,
did you ever see the footage? Answer? No? Question from
the system? Answer no question? And is that footage, to
your knowledge still within the possession of the DOJ. Answer,
(09:19):
whatever information was collected, I have no reason to think
it's not in their possession. I never went and looked
at the evidence that they were collecting. Question do you
have an understanding as to why that material hasn't been
publicly released? Answer? I have no knowledge as to why,
but I think I understand the potential reasons for it.
Question which in your view are what? Answer Well, I mean,
(09:41):
in terms of conducting an investigation, you would have some
stuff that's grand jury material that was collected pursuant to
the grand jury process and through the grand jury process,
and that would normally not be made public. And I
think there are strong reasons for not making grand jury public,
including requiring the approval of a court's approval. As to
other evidence, I think there are strong policy reasons not
(10:04):
to make it available, which an attorney general at the
time has to make judgments as to what are the
reasons to make it public and what are the reasons
against making it public and among the reasons for not
making it public. Generally, just here all is is because
there are frequently, there's frequently tidbits of evidence that can
be cast publicly as incriminating when in fact, against all
(10:26):
of the evidence, it isn't, and the judgments about credibility
are made. I think we've all seen examples where three
zero two's don't necessarily could be wrong on something they say.
A witness could later say I didn't say that, and
so forth. So you have to be careful about what
you say about people. And so the general principle is
that if you have enough evidence to charge someone, you
(10:46):
put that evidence out through the process. But you don't
just open your files. So I can understand why there
is reluctance to it. And as I say, an attorney
general has to make balance question we saw a few
minutes ago when we looked at the ABC article exhibit
A Attorney General Pam Bondi did release a significant volume
of material earlier this year. Do you disagree with their
(11:09):
decision to do that? Answer? No, I don't agree or disagree.
I haven't kept up with what's in there. And as
I say, it's sort of an individual judgment based on balancing.
And I don't have transparency into all the factors that
are at play here. I mean a lot of the
information is out there because of civil cases. You know,
that's another important part of the context here, A lot
(11:32):
to the extent there are victims, I mean, which obviously
there are victims, but a lot of those victims have
neither been encouraged to bring civil suits or have brought
civil suits. And in that context, a lot of the
evidence has been released through those cases. Question and just
so we're clear on the parameters, Am I correct that
it was within the Attorney General's authority to release materials
(11:53):
like this at his or her discretion. Answer, well, there's
no law against it. I guess the way I look
at it, there's no law against it except for a
grand jury secrecy. That's my understanding of the situation. Question Okay, answer,
but there are consequences for releasing everything out there, because
that will make it harder to conduct investigations in the
(12:14):
future on anything if people say, whatever they say is
going to be out in public, even though it's not
evidence of a crime. Question, are there, in your view
certain categories of cases that rise to a level of
public interest such that the release of this kind of
information is appropriate despite the considerations that you just articulated. Answer, Well,
(12:37):
part of my direct experience was obviously the Muller Report.
Now it's not exactly the same kind of situation, but
there I did agree to put out the reports, even
though it canvassed a lot of the evidence, but we
sanitized it for the grand jury material ever, classified material,
and also material that was unfair to third parties who
we were not charging. If we weren't charging someone with
(12:58):
a crime or accusing someone of a committing our crime,
that was one of the other considerations that we used.
But we did at the end of the day, I
felt the public interest demanded putting out what we put out. Question,
do you think that a case for a public release
in the instance of the Mueller report was stronger or
weaker than the case with respect to the Epstein material. Answer?
(13:21):
You know, it had to do with the head of
state and whether he was a Russian spy. I don't
think you can get more important than that. All right, folks,
So we're going to wrap up right here, and in
the next episode, we're going to pick up where we
left off. All of the information that goes with this
episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
(13:41):
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
off with Bill Barr and his deposition before Congress. Question
shifting back to the evidence. As you're probably aware, there's
been significant focus on the possible existence of what's been
described as an Epstein client list. Is that a term
(14:02):
that you've heard before? Answer by Barr. I've heard the term,
but I've always been confused as to what it actually
referred to. I think it needs to be clarified. Question
do you have an understanding as to what the terms
referred to? Answer? Well, I guess my view as Epstein
sort of had three lives. He was a socialite and
he had a lot of social activity that was legal,
(14:24):
and he was meeting prominent people all over the place socially. Second,
he was a business guy and had business relationships all
over the place. And third he had a perverted practice
or recruiting young girls for his own satisfaction, and there
were some allegations that he made those girls available the
contacts of his And so when I hear a client list,
are we talking about his financial clients? I doubt it.
(14:46):
Are we talking about his social phone book? I doubt it?
Are we talking about are we sort of equating this
to acting like a madman out of bordello, and that
he sort of has a list of his clients that
used the bordello. That's what I think people are referring to.
Question so answer, So that's how I take the term. Question. So,
with that understanding, are you aware of a list that
(15:08):
fits the category that you just described? Answer like a
bordello madam? Question yes? Answer No, I was never told
that there was such a list. I don't have a
reason to think that there is such a list. But
by that, we're talking about a list that's put together
by him. Okay, he's compiled something. That's not to say
that by going through the evidence, interviews, statements of the victims,
(15:30):
and so forth, you couldn't figure out who some of
those people were. Question but again, just tying all this
together to your understanding, does there exist a single document
that contains the names of individuals who had participated in
or were complicit in the crimes that Jeffrey Epstein was
charged with? Answer? I have no reason. I was never
(15:51):
told that that was the case by the SDNY or
the FBI. Question. In public statements, Attorney General Pam Bondi
had initially seemed to acknowledge that such a document existed
and was asked specifically about quote unquote the client list,
but then backtracked, as reflected in the July twenty twenty
five memorandum from the FBI that explicitly disclaims the existence
(16:14):
of any such list. Do you have any understanding as
to why Attorney General Bondi initially made that representation? Answer No,
I have no knowledge. I could see that her explanation.
I heard her explanation of it, and I think it's
potentially a good explanation. I don't discount it. Question did
it strike you as unusual that she changed your position publicly? Answer? Well,
(16:38):
I don't know if she changed your position. My understanding
is that, and I did watch the interview that she
you know, she started answering. She was basically geared up
to answer the question about how she was going to
get the material out, and the question er at the
end put in the phrase client list, and she blew
through that and just gave the answer she was going
(16:58):
to give, like it's on my desk. And her explanation,
I think is that she was referring to the file
that she intended to put out. I don't discount that,
but I have no knowledge. Question Okay, are you aware
of the document that Jeffrey Epstein kept that he referred
to in the press as quote unquote the black book? Answer?
Do I have knowledge of what question? A document that
(17:19):
the press is described as maintained by mister Epstein and
referred to as a black book. Answer. I think I've
heard I've seen that expression in the media, But as
I say, no one has ever And I sort of
took that as the client list since versus as a
phone book with his everybody in it that he socializes
or does business with. And as I've said, no one
has ever indicated to me that there is something one
(17:42):
place that compiles the people that he essentially exploited these
girls by providing them to these individuals. Question. So you
haven't seen a phone directory that mister Epstein compiled. Answer
not that I can recall. You mean a phone directory
of what question containing names of people that were associated
with mister Epstein. Answer just generally associated. I don't recall that,
(18:04):
but I wouldn't be what It wouldn't surprise me. I
wouldn't think that by itself it had evidentiary value other
than that he knew a person. Question. You mentioned earlier
that the FBI continued to investigate the existence of possible
co conspirators of mister Epstein. Could you just generally walk
us through the investigative steps that DOJ took to pursue
(18:24):
those co conspirators? Answer? I mean that was done by
the Southern District. I mean the person in charge of
the investigation was US attorney Jeff Berman, and he had
an experienced team, and they would have he would have
to the extent that there was any direction or judgments
being made that required supervision, he would have made them,
not me. Question, did you have any visibility into subpoena
(18:48):
that SDNY issued? Answer visibility in the sense of reproving
them ahead of time. I don't recall approving subpoenas in
that case. I don't recall issues coming up to me.
It's possible, I mean a lot was coming in question.
And what about knowledge after the fact that they had
been issued? Answer well, I think to the extent I
read things that may have involved like that. I assume
(19:10):
they got search warrants to collect stuff from the house
and things like that. Question, but you didn't get any
direct information from SDNY regarding the issuance of subpoenas answer,
not that I can recall. Question and what about witness interviews? Answer?
I think there was a dispute over Prince Andrew. Question okay,
and how did you he interrupts her? Not between me
(19:33):
and the office, but between Prince Andrew and the Southern District.
And I was aware of the dispute because I forgot
how I became aware, whether it was public or what? Question?
And what do you recall of the dispute? Answer? I
think they wanted to talk to him and he wouldn't
really submit to an interview. That's my recollection of what
the dispute was over. Question and did you discuss that
with the SDN why answer? No? I think after the fact,
(19:56):
I think Berman went out and gave a pretty strong statement.
I think he may have been standing in front of
the house, as I recall, something to that effect. And
it was about Andrew basically trying to say publicly that
he was cooperating and in real fact he was not cooperating.
And I think I talked to him about that question
talk to answer after it was his question, mister Berman,
(20:19):
Barr Yeah. Question. A number of prominent individuals have been
alleged to be connected to mister Epstein as his clients
or otherwise as associates. What I'd like to do is
read to you a list of names, and for each
I ask you to state whether, to your knowledge, that
individual was within the scope of DJ's investigation. If anything,
(20:39):
DOJ determined with respect to the individual? Does that make sense? Answer? Yeah,
But I mean I don't know what within the scope
of investigation means, whether they were subjects or targets. Question.
How about witnesses subjects or targets? O callahan in an
Epstein investigation that lasted for multiple decades, You're going to
ask him if any of these individuals wherever somehow part
(21:02):
of that investigation redacted? Yeah, O'Callahan, that's too broad. I
don't think it actually comports with what was stated. The
scope of this is redacted. Okay, I can come at
it in a different way. I'll just read the first name,
Alan Dershowitz. Did mister Dershowitz, to your knowledge, ever become
relevant to the Epstein investigation in any respect? The witness
(21:23):
I don't know, O'Callahan. And this is all Barr I assumed.
I did not go and ask them who you're talking to? Now,
that in itself sort of suggests they're targeting someone or
even think someone is a subject versus a witness and
so forth. But I didn't get into that. I didn't
go up to them and say, gee, are you looking
into Dershowitz? Are you looking into Governor Richardson? Are you
(21:45):
looking into George Mitchell? Are you looking at Donald Trump?
Are you looking at Branson? Or whatever? I didn't do that. Well,
maybe you should have. How about that, Darth barr I
saw names appearing in the media hyping all these so
called connections. I did not ask them whether, but I
assume that some of these people were examined redacted. So
you didn't discuss Alan Dershowitz with anyone else within DJ
(22:08):
the witness no I obviously may have mentioned, may have
discussed Dershowitz sifting around my office saying wow, O'Callahan. That's
part of the problem is that there's so much media
reporting witness, right, O'Callahan, media reporting on individuals that in
common workplace conversation, stuff like that happens. He just happens
to be the Attorney General of the United States. Barr
(22:32):
I did not delve into the investigation of Epstein redacted,
so Barr, I let the investigators let the chips fall
where they may redacted understood. So again, just for the
sake of clarity, Apart from information that came to you
through the media, what was publicly reported was, to your knowledge,
Alan Dershowitz relevant to the investigation in any way. Barr,
(22:54):
I don't know. I mean these questions are a little
bit too broad for my taste, O'Callahan. It's a very
difficult thing thing you're asking him to do. Barr. Of
course he's relevant to the investigation. You would think redacted.
Were their discussions within the DOJ about Alan Dershowitz to
your recollection? Barr, as I say, sitting around my office,
people could say, gee, Professor Dershowitz is in hot water.
(23:17):
But I did not. I was not in communication with
the SDNY about the handling of the investigation. Oh callahan,
I mean that might be an approach if SDNY ever
briefed them. You know, these people are being targets of
the investigation because SDNY, as he testified to over and
over again, was in charge of the investigation, so they
(23:37):
were going to report they would have reported an urgent
matter to them. Barr. I don't recall any discussion with
SDNY where we discussed the nature and weight of evidence
that they had against the individuals that, in my mind
had been identified publicly as people who could be involved
and in proper activities. I was told that the office
(23:59):
had evidence in its possession that established that somebody was
involved in those activities. I don't remember sitting down discussing,
you know, g here's the weight of the evidence, or
here's something that gives us leads we can pursue. I
wasn't focused on, you know, myself, looking at or hovering
over the handling of that case. Question Okay, So for
(24:19):
the rest of the names, I will couch the question
as follows. Did you ever become aware of each of
these individuals either being a witness or subject or a
target in the SDN WHY investigation? Answer? Become aware of
you had things published all the time? Question right bar
in the press. Question about their formal status in the
(24:40):
dj investigation. I don't think that would be publicly reported. Answer? Okay,
the formal status that was provided to me by the
SDN Y question yep, that's all I'm asking answer okay.
Question so the next name is David Copperfield. Answer I
don't recall that being so question, Michael Jackson. I don't
recall that being so question Prince Andrew Barr. And when
(25:03):
I say I don't recall, I mean my best recollection.
I did not get that information question. Okay, answer go ahead.
I mean just read down the list. Oh Callahan, I
think the question about Prince Andrew is pending. Barr. That's right,
I was aware of Prince Andrew's issue. You know, go
through the list. I'll tell you. Oh Callahan, So just
to clarify, you're aware of Prince Andrew being sought as
(25:23):
a witness by the Southern District Barr, Yes, and then
he dispute over him cooperating. I was aware of that question,
Bill Clinton Barr, same answer question, Bill Richardson answer, same
answer question. George Mitchell, same answer question. Glenn Dubin, same answer,
(25:44):
Bill Gates, same answer question, Leon Black, same answer question. Okay, Now,
Jasmin Crockett interrupts. Just to clarify, when you're saying, same answer,
is that the same answer as Prince Andrew or is
that the same answer as the prior because but ones
other than that, Crockett, they were different witness other than
(26:04):
Prince Andrew Crockett. Okay, just to be clear for the record,
and really really quickly, I'm going to jump in just
before we have to wrap, because we're talking about the investigations.
Maxwell was investigated during your tenure, not necessarily taken to
trial while you were still at the DOJ. She is
someone that was involved in the SDNY situation. You were
aware that she was not born in this country, correct bar. Yes, Crockett. Okay.
(26:29):
You were also aware that a jury of her peers
found her guilty of five out of six counts that
were brought against her by the SDNY, including child sex
trafficking conspiracy, correct bar. Yes, Crockett. In addition to that,
you have been made aware through public reports. Well, let
me clarify this child sex trafficking is not considered to
be a low level offense in the federal government, correct bar.
(26:52):
I'm not sure what low level means, but it's a
serious offense, Crockett. It's definitely a felony, correct bar. Oh, yes, Crockett,
and a person can face up to life imprisonment for it,
correct Barr. I haven't looked at the statute, but that
wouldn't surprise me. Crockett. Okay. And typically when someone is
classified by the time that they enter into the Bureau
(27:13):
of Prisons, their classification is usually based upon a multitude
of things, one of them being how serious of an
offensive person has been found guilty of, correct witness. That's
one of the factors, Crockett, Okay, in addition to their
criminal history and other things. But long story short, they're
looking at whether or not the person is potentially a
danger to the community, correct bar. That's another factor, Crockett.
(27:37):
When you were reading your public things, I'm assuming you've
heard that there has been a transfer approved from MS
Maxwell to a minimum security prison camp. Are you aware
of that? Oh, Callahan, you're referring to press reports, Congresswoman Crockett, Yes,
because that bar I've seen, Crockett. That would be the
only way, Barr says, I've seen those reports, Crockett during
(27:58):
your tenure as Attorney General, during either time. I'm curious
to know, are you ever is it ever within your
recollection that there was someone who had been convicted, finally convicted. Well,
I guess it's not final. She's still on appeal, convicted
of five counts of child sex trafficking, and they somehow
ended up transferred to a minimum security prison camp. Barr.
I mean, off the top of my head, I can't
(28:20):
remember a situation like that, Jasmin Crockett. In fact, you'd
agree with me that in order for someone to be
transferred under those types of circumstances, it would actually take
a higher level of approval. That is not something that
just any low level BOP person would be able to do.
Correct Barr, I wish that were correct. You never know, Crockett,
(28:42):
because mistakes happened. Bar. Yeah, sometimes you wake up and
you find that something's happened, like taking someone off suicide watch, Crockett.
But you would agree with me that the policy in
general is not to put someone who's been convicted of
those types of crimes into a minimum security camp. Barr. Actually,
I think the way the system works is the political
(29:03):
level usually allows the Bureau of Prisons broad leeway in
determining how people are handled under their structure and using
their criteria, and if they disagree, they might intervene. Crockett understood, Bar,
That's how I think the system generally operates. Crockett understood.
To the best of your knowledge, whether it's during your
(29:23):
tenure or during reports, She's never been in the type
of facility in the last four years of her incarceration
until now, correct, Barr. I gather that's the case, Crockett. Okay, thanks,
all right, we're gonna wrap up right here, and we're
gonna pick up where we left off in the next episode.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
(29:44):
be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
we're picking up where we left off with Bill Barr
and his deposition chairman, Comer General Barr. May I jump
in for a couple of questions. Were you aware of
the involvement of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign in
(30:06):
the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr, to the
extent it was determined by Durham. Yes, Durham was looking
into that. Comer. Did you review documents that indicated the
involvement of former Secretary Clinton in the Russia collusion investigation
involving President Trump? Barr? Did I look at documents, Comer, yes,
(30:28):
Bar yes, Comer, to the best of your recollection. Did
you at any point attempted to classify items in the
Russia collusion investigation, Barr. Some items are classified and some
I opposed to classifying. Comber. Okay, were you aware of
the involvement of President Obama or his officials in the
Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump? Barr? I was aware
(30:52):
of meetings held at the end of the Obama administration.
They were described Comer and did you review any documents? Barr?
I think I saw a set of notes taken by
an intelligence official, perhaps Comer. Okay, all right, thank you, sir.
Question and much like disclaimer at the beginning of the
Minority Hour, I might ask some similar questions this hour,
(31:14):
but we're going to start back with mister Epstein's death
and some of the irregularities within the jail. We talked
about the missed institutional counts and observations, and the two guards,
two corrections officers, Tovin Owell and Michael Thomas were eventually
indicted for falsifying those records. Were you involved in that indictment?
(31:34):
I was. I think it was passed by me. I
think I was informed as to what they were going
to do. Question. I think they eventually entered a plea agreement.
Bar yep question, and the case was otherwise dropped. Were
you involved in that at all, Barr? I think people
described it to me, I think before it happened. Yeah. Question,
(31:54):
But much like some of the Epstein investigation, you're not
involved in the prosecutorial decision on whether or not bar
cuts them off. Right. Question to take the case on
the institutional counts. My understanding of these is that at
set intervals corrections, officers need to go through their area
of responsibility and just do account of the inmates to
(32:16):
make sure that everyone is accounted for. Is that a
fair summary of that answer? The count process. Yes, and
they report the counts, I think, is it? I forgot
how frequently they report the counts, but they call in
the counts. Question from the indictment, at least they were
responsible for counts at four pm, ten pm, twelve am,
(32:39):
three am, and five am. Does that sound right? Answer?
Sounds right? Question? And then, to the best of your recollection,
were these institutional accounts done by those officers? Answer? I
can't remember if one of them was done, but they
generally were not done. Question And then you testified earlier,
but the officers falsified the records. Is that correct? Answer? Yes? Question?
(33:02):
Moving to the thirty minute rounds. Again, my understanding of
the rounds or that they were directed by the psych
Department and the medical department because mister Epstein was coming
off Suicide Watch and coming off kind of the more
enhanced observation. Is that correct? Answer? Yes, I'm not sure
if it was. I think that's part of and parcel
(33:22):
of this level of scrutiny. Question like the step down
from Suicide Watch. Answer yes, question, and my understanding again
is that they would have conducted this twice an hour,
once the first thirty minutes, once in the second, at
irregular intervals, and at least forty minutes apart. Does that
sound right? Answer? Yes, question to your recollection? Answer to
(33:46):
my knowledge, yes, question to the best of your recollection,
were these thirty minute rounds done? Answer? I believe that's
why they were prosecuted for not doing them and lying
about it. Question and then to your call the officers
falsified the records? Answer yes, question, I believe you said it,
and I know I have, But I want to ask directly,
(34:08):
were those thirty minute rounds specific to mister Epstein? Answer?
I believe they were specific to anyone who warrants that
kind of level of watch. I don't know who else
did in that shoe question, So that was my next question.
Do you recall if anyone on L block required thirty
minute observation or even in nine South? I don't know.
Question there was I can introduce if you need me to.
(34:31):
But there was a sign on the SACHU officer's desk
that read, mandatory rounds must be conducted every thirty minutes
on Epstein, as per God and as per God. I'm
assuming it was a joke for the warden or something.
Answer right. Question do you recall hearing about that sign?
Answer after the fact question prior to your departure as
(34:52):
Attorney General. Answer I can't remember. Question and what do
you recall any discussion regarding that sign? Answer it may
have been part of the case, in other words, that
it was clear to them that it was a priority
to conduct those rounds as to Epstein. Question part of
the case against Noel and Thomas. Answer yes, question we've
(35:14):
gone through all of the kind of major irregularities. After
you learned of these, did you take any disciplinary action
against anyone involved? Answer? It could be referred to as disciplinary.
I think on the very day I was informed of
his death, I started reaching out to find the old
management of BOP that I was familiar with and had
(35:35):
always considered to be, you know, fantastic managers of BOP.
So I started lining them up because I intended to
see if I could bring them in. And then within days,
I think, maybe very quickly, I reassigned the warden and
I replaced I think the following had the people come
in to interview within a few days with the job,
and then I think within a week I moved out
(35:56):
the head of BOP and put in new people. Question
and to point in a new deputy BOP director. Answer yes,
both the top and the deputy. And that was all
done within a week, and I left the other discipline
up to them to meet out. Question they would be
the ones that placed the two guards on leave? Answer
I don't know. I think they were probably put on
(36:18):
leave right away. Answer okay, but further discipline in figuring out,
you know, who was responsible for what oversight? But I
think there was no question they admitted it right up
front that they screwed up, as they said, question that
they were asleep at the desk? Answer yeah, question was
there to your knowledge, was there a larger investigation into
(36:41):
whether or not these issues were systemic at MCC or
if they were isolated to Epstein. Answer, I actually can't
answer that authoritatively. I think BOP does a lot of
investigations of the BOP and I think maybe their report
on this incident says this was not new news. I mean,
this is a problem question. Uh huh. Answer. I think BOP,
(37:03):
you know, has gone downhill in terms of its professional
you know, its management structure and professionalism. Part of that
is the nature of the job and especially in big cities,
the pay rate and so forth, it's hard to get
good people. Question MCC I believe is now closed. Answer
I think it was closed after I left. Yeah, question
(37:23):
it was after you left. Answer well, I stopped new
prisoners from going in. I believe that's what I did,
and I think I redirected them to Brooklyn, MDC. Question.
Thank you. I'm going to ask a few questions about
the individual cases, similar to what my colleagues asked, and
I might have some follow ups based off those questions.
(37:43):
You testified a little bit, you know, I want to
quote it as best as possible that you wanted to
let investigators let the chips fall where they may, in
other words, not involve yourself too heavily in the twenty
nineteen prosecution answer investigation question investigation and general. And then
you said that I want to get it right, that
it's DOJ policy to bring to the Attorney General's attention
(38:06):
if a prominent person was going to be the subject
of an investigation. Is that a fair summary of what
the policy is. Answer? Yes, it's called urgent reports. I
think they have to file an urgent report. Question Did
the Southern District of New York ever file an urgent
report regarding the Epstein case? Answer? I can't remember. I
(38:28):
don't remember what they did, but you know, certainly I
was never informed by them that they were focused. You
know that they believed they had a predicate to actually
investigate the individual. Question and pardon me, I don't know.
Answer other than Maxwell and Epstein. Question, I don't know
the actual like formal designations, but they wouldn't have to
(38:48):
Would they have to issue a formal report if they
wanted to interview someone as a witness that was a
prominent individual, or just if that prominent individual was going
to become a suspect or a target in the investigation? Answer?
I don't think it was that refined, I think they
had to use their rule of common sense as to
what would the national leadership of the department want to
(39:10):
know about? And just interject real quick, you see what
he's saying right here right that the bosses have to know.
So taking that and bringing it over to what happened
with a costa what does it tell you question? Uh
huh answer? And you know, if they decided, you know,
had some predicate to actually pursue an individual, you know,
(39:31):
moving into the potential area of a target, they would
have to do an urgent report. Yeah. Question and to
the best, like out of this list that the minority
read to you, the one that you were called elevating witness,
suspect or target was Prince Andrew. Answer, I don't know
if he was a target, and you know, I guess
to my knowledge, he was at least a witness question
(39:52):
Uh huh answer. I don't know if it went beyond that,
but you know that's somebody who in real time I
understood they were trying to get in the door to
question question understanding again what you said, you don't recall
specific urgent reports being file with you, would that have
been someone that met the criteria of a prominent person.
Answer in my mind question, and I'll ask specifically to him.
(40:16):
Do you recall whether or not you got an urgent report?
They're cut off by bar and it could affect foreign
relations and so forth. It's a sensible rule. Now, is
it always followed by US attorneys? No, there are many,
that's it. Not many, But there's sometimes the case where
you don't get a report for something that you should
have been And the SDNY is relatively well known for
(40:37):
playing its cards very close to the vest question and again,
to the best of your recollection, you never got an
urgent report regarding Prince Andrew. Answer, I don't recall. Quite possibly,
but I don't recall that. All right, folks, we're gonna
wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
gonna pick up where we left off. All of the
(40:57):
information that goes with this episode can be found in
the description box.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.