January 4, 2026 • 35 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 going to get right
back to that Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress.
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 you know,
(00:21):
an urgent report could also be done. I mean it's
a judgment call. A US attorney can want to question
somebody as sensitive as a member of the royal family,
you know, our closest ally, and they might file an
urgent report saying I want to you know that we're
going to be pursuing this guy as a witness, and
it's going to make the papers question. So that's definitely
(00:44):
someone that there should have been an urgent report filed. Answer. Yeah,
question now whether it made it to your bar cuts
her off or him off? Well, no, I mean they
can say he is just a witness. But the fact,
I think one of the reasons when you go and
hold a press conference and you attack him in front
of the mansion and so forth, that is actually something
(01:06):
that the US attorney should have run by me not
that I would have opposed it, but I would like
to know about it. And again, red flags for everybody
out there. So you mean to tell me the Attorney
General wants to know if you want to speak to
a royal as a witness, But they have nothing to
do with the deal that Jeffrey Epstein received from the
Justice Department. Yeah, okay, sure, who is buying that answer?
(01:34):
I don't think he told me, but I wasn't mad
at him for the substance question. This is potentially a
poorly worded question, but so based off that your recollection,
is it possible that they just didn't inform you that
there were other prominent people under investigation or as witnesses? Answer?
(01:54):
I think it's possible that the SDNY did not inform me,
you know, how deep they were in the investigation of
particular individuals, that would not surprise me. By the same token,
I feel that my view of that office and the
people involved would be that if they had any evidence
establishing a crime, they would pursue it as such. And
I also feel, you know, it's sort of amazing after
(02:17):
all these years, you know, going back to the nineties,
when you had people reporting and the victims, and a
lot of speculation and people finding connections. I still have
not heard. No evidence has come out that would establish
criminality for most of those individuals. Question uh huh? Answer
that have been named, and I think it would come
out if there was any feeling that within the government
(02:39):
on either side that someone was covering it up, I
think it would get out. I mean SDNY and New
York is well known as being home of many many
a leak on investigation. So question, so, in your experience,
you have no doubt if SDNY prosecutors saw evidence of
a crime, they would have followed that evidence and if
(03:00):
it led to an indictment, they would have indicted. And
if it led to a conviction, they would have followed
the facts where they led. Is that fair answer? Yes?
For that group. I also feel you know they would
have done the same for Clinton. I believe remember this
stuff also went on under President Biden's administration, and they
were looking for something to bring against President Trump, and
(03:22):
this was if they had any evidence, this would have
been low hanging fruit. I was never informed of the evidence,
and I'm skeptical that there is any. Do you recall
when I'm more the SDN wise more formal investigation, and
Depstein began. Answer no, I mean I may have at
the time, I just don't remember. Question likely prior to
(03:43):
you becoming attorney general. Answer not necessarily, but quite possibly.
Question Okay, do you recall generally when you became aware
of the ongoing investigation. Answer no, I don't. I obviously
became aware of it around the time of his arrest.
It could have been shortly before. I mean, usually we
would be told of an arrest like that going down
(04:04):
in Teterborough. Question a more high profile arrest the moment
someone lands in an airport. Answer yes, question in cases
like this one will stick with the high profile cases.
Do any of the kind of investigatory decisions rise to
the Attorney General's office, whether or not to issue a
search warrant, or apply for a search warrant, or apply
(04:26):
for a subpoena? Would any of that have arisen from
your office? Answer? I wouldn't say it would be very
unusual for it, but there could be unusual circumstances, like
you're going to search a very sensitive area. You know
that's going to cause all kinds of hubbub. Question I
believe it was a member of Congress a couple of
years ago suggested that you personally approve the search warrant
(04:50):
for Epstein's house in New York, his townhouse in New York.
Do you recall answer? Did someone say that question? I
believe so. Answer, I don't recall that question, But that
and the questions cut off by Bar That's not the
kind of thing I would have thought was particularly needed.
You know, you needed my approval for question kind of
(05:13):
just run of the mill search warrant answer of somebody
who's already been arrested. Question yeah, oh callahan run of
the mill? Is your term redacted? Yeah? Like not outside
the ordinary practice of an investigation, I believe would be
cut off by Bar. I would have considered the normal question. Okay,
(05:34):
during the course of the investigation, did you receive any
regular briefings from the FBI or the SDNY? Answer during what?
Question during the course of their investigation? Answer into question
mister Epstein answer death or question no? Answer, Oh, you're
talking about before you committed suicide? Question yes, sir, answer,
(05:58):
I don't recall any question. Would there normally be those
kinds of briefings or updates fall to the head of
the criminal division, or would it be even lower than that.
Answer the investigation itself. I think I'm not even sure
it would get to main Justice other than alerting us
maybe that the investigation was going on, but particular actions
(06:20):
wouldn't be regularly reported. Question. I don't want to get
it wrong, but I believe you said that there were
in regards to the non prosecution agreement out of the
Southern District of Florida, that there were conversations about being
careful that the twenty nineteen investigation did not run a
foul of that. Did I summarize that correctly? Answer? I
(06:41):
vaguely recall some discussion I don't know exactly when it
occurred about, you know, to the extent, what charges can
be brought that don't run a foul of that plea agreement.
I remember some discussion. Question do you recall any more
of the content of the discussion? Answer no. Question concerns
that the plea agreement restricted the Southern District of New York.
(07:03):
Answer no. I just think it was a question of
everyone agreeing on what we had a good legal argument.
Question and then answer we being the whole Department of Justice. Question.
And then you were asked about the kind of specific
on the seizure list that the DOJ released earlier this
year from the FBI that had like picked up a laptop,
(07:25):
but didn't say what was on the laptop. Did you
recall ever reviewing any of the FBI's evidence in the
Epstein criminal investigation answer before a suicide question, Yes, sir,
answer no question. Do you recall reviewing any of the
evidence after his suicide? Answer? Just evidence relating to his
(07:46):
you know, relating to his suicide. I don't recall reviewing
evidence relating to charging Maxwell or anybody else. Question, So
no answer. I mean I was told in Maxwell's case,
when they got to the point that they were ready
to indict. I believe I was told the substance, but
I didn't review the evidence myself. Question applying to both
(08:06):
mister Epstein and miss Maxwell. You reviewed for mister Epstein,
you reviewed evidence surrounding his death. Answer uh huh question,
but not substantative criminal evidence regarding his investigation and prosecution.
Is that correct? Answer? Right question? And then with miss Maxwell,
you didn't review the underlying criminal evidence. You just got
(08:28):
notified about appending indictment. Answer right question. Okay, answer, that's
my best recollection question. I just wanted to make sure
it was all in line. There. We've been back and
forth a little bit. And on that note, I want
to shift to the non prosecution agreement a little bit
as in relation to both, kind of like the minority said,
(08:49):
your experience generally with non prosecution agreements, but then a
few questions about whether or not they had any impact.
During your second tenure as the Attorney General. You were
asked if you were aware of it at the time.
I believe you said you were not aware of it
in two thousand and seven. Answer. I became aware of
(09:10):
it when it was public, you know, in public coverage
of the matter. Question Uh huh. Did you ever review
the agreement as attorney general in those discussions about its
potential impacts? Answer? I don't recall going back and looking
at it myself. I think other people were doing that.
I mean everyone, I think understood that there would be
litigation over whether or not the indictment could stand and
(09:32):
whether it was preempted by the settlement. Everyone understood that,
and I think they were Everyone was satisfying themselves that
we were in a strong legal position. Question, of course,
mister Epstein never got a chance to appeal, never got
convicted and never got the chance to appeal the conviction.
But miss Maxwell is appealing based on the non prosecution agreement.
(09:55):
Is that your understanding answer? That's my understanding question. You
were asked a little bit about this, specifically the co
conspirator language in that agreement. You said something along the
lines of the United States not prosecuting any and all
co conspirators, including but not limited to, and then listed
for people affiliated with Epstein. And I want to ask
(10:16):
you again, had you seen in your experience that breath
of language in these kinds of agreements before answer? You know,
I don't recall seeing that, you know. I think as
a general matter, in a you know, unspectacular case, I
think it may not be inappropriate to when you're trying
to get a deal done with the primary suspect to
(10:37):
agree that you won't go after peripheral people as a
way of continuing the case, like I'm going to also
go after your I won't go after your wife for
you know, her role in this question. Uh huh answer,
Or I won't go after your children for their role
in this and so forth. That kind of stuff is done, okay,
But this case is different because of the nature of
(10:58):
the crime and because of the span of the victims
question and kind of the breadth of what those potential
co conspirators could be. Answer yes, question in general, then
I'll ask about high profile Answer and you know, arguably
not enough was known to make that kind of broad agreement.
(11:19):
Question in general, do non prosecution agreements need to be
approved by someone in Justice Headquarters? Answer? Actually, off the
top of my head, I don't know. Question what about
in bar cuts them off? I think there are certain
kinds of cases, definitely, But I'm not sure about this question.
And would it be more likely in higher profile cases?
(11:42):
Answer no, I mean certain kinds of cases where the
substantive law is in play and the money laundering section
may have to sign off on some things, or the
fraud section may have to sign off on some things.
Question So it's to the best of your recollection, more
akin to what's the alleged crime is versus the profile
of the person being charged? Answer right, All right, folks,
(12:05):
We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna 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
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
the Bill Barr transcript. Question. Okay, since it's been in
(12:27):
the news, in your experience our non prosecution agreements binding
within all districts of the United States, you said you
felt like you had a good legal standing to bring
the twenty nineteen case against Epstein and then the twenty
twenty case against Maxwell. But the current argument in the
Southern District of Florida that can bind the Southern District
of New York. Is there any Department of Justice manual
(12:50):
that talks about that? Answer? Not that I'm aware of.
I can't recall how that issue is handled. Question on
this specific agreement between the Southern District to Florida and
mister Epstein, I believe it was sealed as part of
the case. Is that common bar? I know what happens? Question?
And you had said before that one of your problems
with the one of the issues to you with this
(13:12):
particular agreement was that it restricted the ability of victims
to speak about the case or speak about the agreement.
I believe the CVRA requires victims to be able to speak.
Answer yes, question potential plea agreements. Is that the case, Barr?
I believe so. I think it's a statutory requirement. Question.
Did you come to that view after reviewing the agreement
(13:36):
in twenty nineteen or just based off a news coverage answer?
Just based off a news coverage question. Again, this is
kind of just using it as an example of what's common.
He agreed to plead guilty to a couple of charges
and eventually served thirteen months in Palm Beach County jail
and left for sixteen hours a day to go to work.
Is that common in those kinds of agreements? The broad
(13:58):
work release, mister O'Callahan you're asking about, that's the state
execution of the plea agreement in the state right redacted. Yes,
it was still signed off on by gets cut off
by O'Callahan. And he's never he's never been. The non
prosecution agreement is with the subject of Florida US Attorney's office.
(14:19):
The way that the state sentence is executed, that's a
local Florida Palm Beach matter. And I don't think mister Barr,
you know, has any information about that. Barr, that's true. Question. So,
the post sentencing. How an inmate is or work released
foreign inmate is done by the local folks. The US
Attorney's office wouldn't be involved. Answer not usually, I would suspect,
(14:41):
but I don't know. Question Okay, again, I want to
get it right. So you said that in your personal view,
you thought that it was wrong to not let victims
have a say, and also that there was legal vulnerability. Again,
the vulnerability is the potential? Is that the potential on
future cases? Is that fair? Answer? The reason you let
(15:03):
them have their say? Question? No, you said that you
had two kind of personal concerns with the non prosecution
agreement of mister Epstein, that it was wrong to not
let the victims have their say, both I imagine personally
and under the CVRA, but also under the legal vulnerability.
And I'm just wondering. Answer by bar Well, No, it's
(15:24):
the same thing. Question the same the CVRA. Answer I
thought at the time that made it legally vulnerable. Question
all right? Answer these were you know, I was not
an advocate. You know here I generally am concerned about
victims' rights. I looked at this, I didn't like the
aspect of it, and I thought it was a legal vulnerability.
(15:44):
But I wasn't sitting in judgment of the decision. I
didn't know all the facts. Question. I'm not asking for
judgment of overall decision. Just if, like on your first
blush read of this, it had multiple bar That's what
I was concerned about. Question all right, Barr or you know,
felt I wouldn't have done question I think it got
(16:06):
a little jumbled in the last hour of possible recusals.
You did not recuse from the SDNY investigation. Is that correct? Answer?
I did not recuse from the sd I think I
was considered whether I should. There was a question asked
me during my confirmation. I'm not sure what that was
relating to, but something about Epstein. Question I thought it
(16:28):
was relating to if you investigated the non prosecution agreement? Answer? Ah,
question and I believe there were issues with Kirkland and
Ellis representing mister Epstein in that case your former employment answer. Yeah,
So I wasn't sure about the timing of things and
whether it implicated the time that I was there or
you know, anything like that, And I don't think it did.
(16:50):
I actually don't think I would have recused myself from that,
but I just was never involved in that. I mean,
the thing that happened under my tenure relating to Epstein
was the investigationation of Epstein in the Southern District, and
I did not recuse myself from that. Question Courtney Wilde,
one of Epstein's victims, said that she sent a letter
to you during your tenure as Attorney General. Do you
(17:13):
recall receiving that letter? Answer? No. Question and then I
believe you said that you were made aware of the
OPR investigation into mister Acosta while he was US attorney
for the Southern District of Florida, kind of like at
the end of the OPR investigation that you were aware
of their findings but not the investigation itself. Answer no,
(17:33):
I may have been aware that they were investigating. I
was just not aware of where they stood. I didn't
monitor the investigation. Question okay, answer they finished when they
finish and I found out what they were thinking. Question No,
that's helpful. I wanted to clarify that. Do you know,
just to the best of your knowledge, how does how
can the Attorney General direct OPR to conduct investigations or
(17:57):
do they do it? No, the AG can direct them.
That's how they were originally established. Question did you direct
OPR to investigate the non prosecution agreement? Answer? No, question
do you know who did? Answer no, But they don't
have to be directed. They can also initiate their own
question Uh huh. Answer, So no one had to direct it.
(18:18):
If they sought newspapers and you know we're concerned about it,
they can initiate it. It doesn't require being directed. I'm
just saying the ag can direct it. Question again, this
is more just of your experience type. Questioned. The agreement
was signed in late two thousand and seven and then
executed in two thousand and eight, and then the OPR
investigation came in twenty twenty. Is it common for kind
(18:42):
of an internal review of US attorneys to happen so
far after the fact of the alleged answer by OPR standards,
that's speedy question, okay, And it could be she's cut
off or he's cut off by bar answer in those days.
Question in those days, it could have been a result
of the agreement being sealed and then press reports. Answer
(19:04):
could have answer could have been the answer is that
these things investigations by OPR as OIG take a long time.
Question all right? In addition to being informed of the
outcomes of the OPR investigation, did you review any of
the underlying materials? Answer concerning what question the OPR investigation
into the non prosecution agreement of mister Epstein. Answer, I
(19:27):
don't recall looking at it. I may have seen a
summary of their reasoning or something like that, but I
just don't recall. Question to you to that she's cut
off again by Barr. Answer delving into it, he was
no longer there. Question The OPR said that they conducted
a number of witness interviews during the investigation. To your knowledge,
does OPR keep records of witness interviews? Would they have
(19:50):
been transcribed? Answer? I don't know. Question shifting to Miss Maxwell.
She was arrested during your tenure, but as it pointed out,
did not go to trial until after you had left
the department. And you've talked about being made aware of
repending indictment. Was that when you were first made aware
of potential investigation into Miss Maxwell? Answer no, I mean well,
(20:11):
I would say that I assumed that they were looking
I don't know if I was told to, but I
think anyone would have assumed that they were looking at
Maxwell as a facilitator and a co conspirator, so I
assume that question. Do you know if there was a
more formal investigation into her that occurred after mister Epstein's
death or was it running concurrently with Epstein's death? Answer?
(20:33):
I don't know exactly how they were staging things, but
my assumption was that they were focusing on building their
case against Epstein and also trying to develop evidence that
would support a charge against her. And I think they
were probably doing them in tandem. But you know how
much they were pushing one over the other. I don't know. Question.
Then we talked about the urgent request of high value
(20:54):
co conspirators. Were you aware of any potential co conspirators
in the Epstein or Maxwell case that have not been prosecuted? Answer?
That have not been prosecuted. I mean, now we're switching
to the term co conspirator. I think I laid out
that I was not aware that SDNY had concluded that
or had established that they had any of the names
that had been bandied about were in fact engaged in
(21:17):
a legal activity that they could charge. Question. Okay, that's helpful. Answer.
When I say bandied about, I'm talking about you know,
the names that have come up here, like Dershowitz and
Branson and Richardson and people like that. Question the names
on the flight logs? Answer well, being on the flight
logs is not even I mean, it's not even prima
fossee evidence of wrongdoing. It's just you know, the person. Question.
(21:40):
But you don't recall ever being told that those names
that were being that were on the flight log or
fluttered about in the press, ever rose that this is
someone that we could potentially indict. Answer that's right. Question
Were you kept up to date on the Maxwell investigation?
I don't need to reread the quote, but were you
taking a similar posture of let the investment togator is
(22:00):
run the course of the investigation. Answer to which investigation question?
Miss Maxwell? Answer? Same course question? Do you recall any
conversations regarding the non prosecution agreement impacting the potential of
a charge for Miss Maxwell? Answer? I remember a discussion
about an impacting the work of the SDNY, but I
(22:21):
can't pin down, you know how much it related to
Epstein versus Maxwell. Question and then a few blanket questions
before some more general investigative type questions. Did anyone ever
instruct you to not investigate or prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. Answer
no question. Did anyone instruct you not to investigate or
prosecute Miss Maxwell? Answer no question. Did anyone instruct you
(22:45):
not to investigate or prosecute any other potential co conspirator?
Answer no question. And I believe you said earlier, but
you're confident that if the Southern District of New York
identified co conspirators that they believe they could con they
would have brought the case. Answer. I believe so. Question.
We've talked as as you have mentioned the kind of
(23:07):
broad nature of whatever the Epstein cut off by bar
and also just as a practical matter, you know, I
was aware of a lot of leagues of the Southern
District of New York, not just the Attorney General's office,
but also the FBI there, and it was in my view,
and this I think would be on both sides of
the issue. If they felt that there was a political
effort to block what they felt was a righteous case,
(23:29):
it would leak out. There's no doubt in my mind
it would leak out, and we would have heard about
it long ago. Question. I appreciate that. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna 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,
(23:49):
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
the Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress. Question.
I appreciate that. I want to talk about again the
colloquial Epstein files and what that means. Obviously, it's kind
of taken a life of its own of what that
(24:11):
could possibly mean. Along with the client list. I think
your description of the client list is how I will
if I say client list, is how I will use
client list, whether or not there is a list of
people that Epstein facilitated prostitution or underage prostitution to individuals.
As an overarching question, what kinds of documents make up
a criminal investigative file? Answer whatever documents or potential evidence
(24:36):
in the case question So, witness interviews answer yes. Question
evidence gathered during a search warrant answer Records of activities,
whether it be comings and goings on planes or whether
someone was in the same place as an allegation. So
for example, on you know, Prince Andrew, they spent at
least I think I've seen reports that say, this was
(24:58):
not reported to me by the Southern District, that Virginia's
allegations of you know, something happened in London, something happened
here corresponded to where people were. So those kinds of
things are the kinds of records, hotel records, things like that,
and witness interviews and things like that. Question and you
mentioned a little bit earlier about protecting grand jury secrecy
(25:20):
and federal Rule six e. Would everything that's in a
case file be presented to a grand jury? Answer no question?
And then would it be common And I think this
is what has come out of the Department's efforts to
unseal some grand jury transcripts in the case that the
kind of underlying investigative review, you know, between the FBI
(25:40):
agents and the witness, for purposes of the grand jury,
the FBI agent would testify as to what the witness said.
Is that common answer yes, question in your experience with
the underlying interview transcript be prevented from disclosure or just
what was presented to the grand jury answer the transcript
the testimony would be protected question the underlying testimony? Answer,
(26:05):
what do you mean underlying testimony? Question? So the FBI
interview is a witness. The FBI agent then testifies to
the grand jury. Answer the material presented to the grand
jury would be protected. Question, but not necessarily cut off
by bar. It's not the medium that it's not limited
to the medium question. Okay, answer, that's my understanding. Question
(26:31):
do you know if those underlying interviews are recorded or
just transcribed? Answer? I don't know. Question Could a case
file also include FBI three zero two s answer yes,
question and ten twenty threes answer. Any document that reflects
evidence that is potentially relevant could be in the case file.
So the word case file is a little ambiguous. Question Yes,
(26:55):
as in Epstein files as a whole answer right, question,
We've talked a lot and you saw it. The list
of what the FBI seized in the case is seized
evidence kept after a case concludes. So mister Epstein died
his case concluded, would seize evidence still exist? Answer? I'm
not sure of the answer of that. I think people
(27:16):
who claim to have an interest in the property have
to sort to seek it back, and the government has
to make its case as to why it has to
be kept. That's my understanding of the process. But I'm
not sure. Question a separate, ongoing criminal case would possibly
be a good reason to keep the evidence. Answer yeah,
including whether there are appeals pending. Question Yeah, and obviously
(27:38):
some of the real property at least is gone, like
I think the island was purchased by someone else. Answer,
I don't know. Question the subpoena process for the US
attorneys and this is my own lack of knowledge, so
excuse me. But does the US attorney issue the subpoena
or does the grand jury issue the subpoena? Answer? Well,
(27:58):
the grand jury does, but in practice, the prosecutor determines,
you know, basically determines what is going to be produced
on behalf of the grand jury. Question and so the
grand jury would say, would recommend the subpoena for a
testimony to X and then to US attorney would draft?
Answer No, I think the US attorney would say, we're
(28:19):
going to interview this person. Question all right, answer and
bring that person before the grand jury. Question and those
subpoenas can be for documents and testimony. Answer yes, question
why issue a document subpoena versus execute a search warrant. Answer,
because you know many subpoenas are third party subpoenas, like
for bank records and so forth. And don't go into
(28:42):
a bank and search them. You impose the obligation on
the bank to produce them, and they will question and
those can be cut off by bar And even for
a subject you know, you would still frequently give that
person the chance to comply. You don't go searching unless
there's some reason you're concerned about the destruction of evidence.
Question And those can be executed against more than just
(29:05):
the subject of the investigation. Right, answer anybody? Question you
mentioned banks? Answer anybody that you know you believe could
have relevant evidence. Question so other witnesses or companies, businesses,
telecom providers answer sure, question all yes, answer all yes.
Question What about company data repositories? Google? Microsoft? Answer yes.
(29:30):
Question you mentioned banks and financial institutions. What about state
governments like camera footage off of the state courthouse or
anything like that? Could they do that as well? Answer
government stuff question? Yeah? Answer yes. Question So in the
Epstein case and without I think you said that you
didn't review the quote unquote Epstein files in their fulsomeness,
(29:54):
But it would be likely that the case would include
information like I just laid out three ZHO two's ten
twenty three's, returns from subpoenas, returns from search warrants, other
witness interviews, all of that would be included potentially in
a case file. Is that fairer answer? Potentially? Yes? Question,
And this could potentially include information that for whatever reason,
(30:15):
should not be released, victims personal identity and child sexual
abuse material being two prominent examples in this one answer,
Those are examples, but there are multiple reasons why you
wouldn't want to release the law files. Question. What are
some others? Answer? Because it's sometimes unfair to the individual
who the government does not has not included based on
(30:35):
the evidence that they've done anything wrong. Question, So, like
a hypothetical would be FBI conducts a witness interview, produces
a three to zero two, the interview names four people.
After further investigation, it's determined that those four people that
the interview is not credible, and those four people likely
didn't commit any crimes. Is that fair? Answer? So, I mean,
(30:58):
you could take the examples from this case. You know,
some of the victims made public allegations anyway that were fabrications.
Question Uh huh. Answer. I'm not saying this is true
of all the victims, but there are some that then withdrew.
So it's possible that there's material in there that the
government has come to the conclusion is not credible or
(31:18):
is you know, conclusively refuted by other evidence. Question Uh
huh answer. You know, in the case of Bill Clinton,
as far as I was aware, there was no evidence
that he visited the island. You know, the government did
not obtain any such evidence because you didn't look stupid.
Ask mister Scully, Ask the people that worked on the island,
Ask some of the other girls who traveled to the island.
(31:43):
Question uh huh answer, And he denied it. But there
is somebody who asserts he did. I'm just using that
as an example. Question Uh huh answer. And it's fair
to put that. If the government has come to the
conclusion that he didn't visit the island, and the police
has evidence to show that, why would you put that
rowstu out there to permit all the you know, the
internet to get heated up about this and assault the
(32:04):
person for what you know is not accurate. Question? And
then you said earlier, and I want to ask you
again using the language the descriptor of the client list,
and we all kind of agreed on. You know, you
never saw a document or anything resembling a client list. Answer,
I have never seen a document resembling a client list.
Question what about any evidence or anything suggesting mister Epstein
(32:27):
was bribing individuals with salacious material? Answer you mean bribing them,
giving them something? Question extorting them? Answer? No, I don't
recall ever seeing such evidence. And it seems highly improbable
to me that you would extort somebody by engaging in
an act yourself. That's a crime. You don't get much
leverage if you go to jail too. Yeah. Well, what's
(32:48):
Fergie talking about? Then? Dinner? Her lawyer just say that
Epstein threatened to ruin the family of York. Well, what
do you think he was talking about? Think he was
just making idle threats or do you think that he
hadot Look, this whole entire thing stinks, and Barr has
been part of the cover up from the very beginning.
And furthermore, he lied directly to Congress here when he
(33:09):
said he never met with anybody that was in the
shoe with Epstein, he met with Stone Rays, didn't he
He had a personal meeting with Stone Rays, who then
died a few, you know, months later or whatever. But
he straight up said in this deposition, in these documents
that he never met with anybody. Question Yeah, same kind
of same question with the Maxwell case, all of the
(33:31):
potential evidence and documents that we just discussed about potentially
being a case file. Is it possible all that exists
for miss Maxwell as well? Answer the same kind of
stuff question? Uh huh? Answer possibly? Question did you ever
review any of the substantive evidence in her case? Answer?
I think I said no. Question okay. And then you
(33:52):
discussed in a little bit in relation to communication between
DJ and the White House regarding cases, that it would
be rare, but you I had two conversations with President
Trump regarding the Epstein case. Answer I recall two conversations
with Trump relating to the Epstein case. Question. Is it
common to have communications regarding cases within the Department of Justice?
(34:14):
Answer within the department? Question? Uh huh? Answer for who
to have to talk to whom? Question? Well, I mean
for SDNY to notify you, would they pick up the
phone or was it an email? Or was it a memo.
How would that If SDNY needed to get in contact
with you, how would they do it? Answer? Well, it's
rare for SDN why to want to get in contact
(34:35):
with main Justice. But if they wanted to, it could
be anything from a communication to a division, to the
deputy's office, or to the AG which was is pretty
rare question. Okay, and then I'm going to phrase these two. Answer.
But you know, look, every case is different. So for example,
on the Maduro indictments, I was very involved in those
(34:57):
because we were trying to coordinate an indictment. I mean
a case in Florida, a case in the Southern District,
and national security interests and so forth. Question uh huh.
Answer something like that, you would have more interaction with
the office, but on something like this you won't generally
have that much interaction. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
(35:17):
the topic, we're gonna 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 this episode, we're going to get right
back to that Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress.
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 you know,
(00:21):
an urgent report could also be done. I mean it's
a judgment call. A US attorney can want to question
somebody as sensitive as a member of the royal family,
you know, our closest ally, and they might file an
urgent report saying I want to you know that we're
going to be pursuing this guy as a witness, and
it's going to make the papers question. So that's definitely
(00:44):
someone that there should have been an urgent report filed. Answer. Yeah,
question now whether it made it to your bar cuts
her off or him off? Well, no, I mean they
can say he is just a witness. But the fact,
I think one of the reasons when you go and
hold a press conference and you attack him in front
of the mansion and so forth, that is actually something
(01:06):
that the US attorney should have run by me not
that I would have opposed it, but I would like
to know about it. And again, red flags for everybody
out there. So you mean to tell me the Attorney
General wants to know if you want to speak to
a royal as a witness, But they have nothing to
do with the deal that Jeffrey Epstein received from the
Justice Department. Yeah, okay, sure, who is buying that answer?
(01:34):
I don't think he told me, but I wasn't mad
at him for the substance question. This is potentially a
poorly worded question, but so based off that your recollection,
is it possible that they just didn't inform you that
there were other prominent people under investigation or as witnesses? Answer?
(01:54):
I think it's possible that the SDNY did not inform me,
you know, how deep they were in the investigation of
particular individuals, that would not surprise me. By the same token,
I feel that my view of that office and the
people involved would be that if they had any evidence
establishing a crime, they would pursue it as such. And
I also feel, you know, it's sort of amazing after
(02:17):
all these years, you know, going back to the nineties,
when you had people reporting and the victims, and a
lot of speculation and people finding connections. I still have
not heard. No evidence has come out that would establish
criminality for most of those individuals. Question uh huh? Answer
that have been named, and I think it would come
out if there was any feeling that within the government
(02:39):
on either side that someone was covering it up, I
think it would get out. I mean SDNY and New
York is well known as being home of many many
a leak on investigation. So question, so, in your experience,
you have no doubt if SDNY prosecutors saw evidence of
a crime, they would have followed that evidence and if
(03:00):
it led to an indictment, they would have indicted. And
if it led to a conviction, they would have followed
the facts where they led. Is that fair answer? Yes?
For that group. I also feel you know they would
have done the same for Clinton. I believe remember this
stuff also went on under President Biden's administration, and they
were looking for something to bring against President Trump, and
(03:22):
this was if they had any evidence, this would have
been low hanging fruit. I was never informed of the evidence,
and I'm skeptical that there is any. Do you recall
when I'm more the SDN wise more formal investigation, and
Depstein began. Answer no, I mean I may have at
the time, I just don't remember. Question likely prior to
(03:43):
you becoming attorney general. Answer not necessarily, but quite possibly.
Question Okay, do you recall generally when you became aware
of the ongoing investigation. Answer no, I don't. I obviously
became aware of it around the time of his arrest.
It could have been shortly before. I mean, usually we
would be told of an arrest like that going down
(04:04):
in Teterborough. Question a more high profile arrest the moment
someone lands in an airport. Answer yes, question in cases
like this one will stick with the high profile cases.
Do any of the kind of investigatory decisions rise to
the Attorney General's office, whether or not to issue a
search warrant, or apply for a search warrant, or apply
(04:26):
for a subpoena? Would any of that have arisen from
your office? Answer? I wouldn't say it would be very
unusual for it, but there could be unusual circumstances, like
you're going to search a very sensitive area. You know
that's going to cause all kinds of hubbub. Question I
believe it was a member of Congress a couple of
years ago suggested that you personally approve the search warrant
(04:50):
for Epstein's house in New York, his townhouse in New York.
Do you recall answer? Did someone say that question? I
believe so. Answer, I don't recall that question, But that
and the questions cut off by Bar That's not the
kind of thing I would have thought was particularly needed.
You know, you needed my approval for question kind of
(05:13):
just run of the mill search warrant answer of somebody
who's already been arrested. Question yeah, oh callahan run of
the mill? Is your term redacted? Yeah? Like not outside
the ordinary practice of an investigation, I believe would be
cut off by Bar. I would have considered the normal question. Okay,
(05:34):
during the course of the investigation, did you receive any
regular briefings from the FBI or the SDNY? Answer during what?
Question during the course of their investigation? Answer into question
mister Epstein answer death or question no? Answer, Oh, you're
talking about before you committed suicide? Question yes, sir, answer,
(05:58):
I don't recall any question. Would there normally be those
kinds of briefings or updates fall to the head of
the criminal division, or would it be even lower than that.
Answer the investigation itself. I think I'm not even sure
it would get to main Justice other than alerting us
maybe that the investigation was going on, but particular actions
(06:20):
wouldn't be regularly reported. Question. I don't want to get
it wrong, but I believe you said that there were
in regards to the non prosecution agreement out of the
Southern District of Florida, that there were conversations about being
careful that the twenty nineteen investigation did not run a
foul of that. Did I summarize that correctly? Answer? I
(06:41):
vaguely recall some discussion I don't know exactly when it
occurred about, you know, to the extent, what charges can
be brought that don't run a foul of that plea agreement.
I remember some discussion. Question do you recall any more
of the content of the discussion? Answer no. Question concerns
that the plea agreement restricted the Southern District of New York.
(07:03):
Answer no. I just think it was a question of
everyone agreeing on what we had a good legal argument.
Question and then answer we being the whole Department of Justice. Question.
And then you were asked about the kind of specific
on the seizure list that the DOJ released earlier this
year from the FBI that had like picked up a laptop,
(07:25):
but didn't say what was on the laptop. Did you
recall ever reviewing any of the FBI's evidence in the
Epstein criminal investigation answer before a suicide question, Yes, sir,
answer no question. Do you recall reviewing any of the
evidence after his suicide? Answer? Just evidence relating to his
(07:46):
you know, relating to his suicide. I don't recall reviewing
evidence relating to charging Maxwell or anybody else. Question, So
no answer. I mean I was told in Maxwell's case,
when they got to the point that they were ready
to indict. I believe I was told the substance, but
I didn't review the evidence myself. Question applying to both
(08:06):
mister Epstein and miss Maxwell. You reviewed for mister Epstein,
you reviewed evidence surrounding his death. Answer uh huh question,
but not substantative criminal evidence regarding his investigation and prosecution.
Is that correct? Answer? Right question? And then with miss Maxwell,
you didn't review the underlying criminal evidence. You just got
(08:28):
notified about appending indictment. Answer right question. Okay, answer, that's
my best recollection question. I just wanted to make sure
it was all in line. There. We've been back and
forth a little bit. And on that note, I want
to shift to the non prosecution agreement a little bit
as in relation to both, kind of like the minority said,
(08:49):
your experience generally with non prosecution agreements, but then a
few questions about whether or not they had any impact.
During your second tenure as the Attorney General. You were
asked if you were aware of it at the time.
I believe you said you were not aware of it
in two thousand and seven. Answer. I became aware of
(09:10):
it when it was public, you know, in public coverage
of the matter. Question Uh huh. Did you ever review
the agreement as attorney general in those discussions about its
potential impacts? Answer? I don't recall going back and looking
at it myself. I think other people were doing that.
I mean everyone, I think understood that there would be
litigation over whether or not the indictment could stand and
(09:32):
whether it was preempted by the settlement. Everyone understood that,
and I think they were Everyone was satisfying themselves that
we were in a strong legal position. Question, of course,
mister Epstein never got a chance to appeal, never got
convicted and never got the chance to appeal the conviction.
But miss Maxwell is appealing based on the non prosecution agreement.
(09:55):
Is that your understanding answer? That's my understanding question. You
were asked a little bit about this, specifically the co
conspirator language in that agreement. You said something along the
lines of the United States not prosecuting any and all
co conspirators, including but not limited to, and then listed
for people affiliated with Epstein. And I want to ask
(10:16):
you again, had you seen in your experience that breath
of language in these kinds of agreements before answer? You know,
I don't recall seeing that, you know. I think as
a general matter, in a you know, unspectacular case, I
think it may not be inappropriate to when you're trying
to get a deal done with the primary suspect to
(10:37):
agree that you won't go after peripheral people as a
way of continuing the case, like I'm going to also
go after your I won't go after your wife for
you know, her role in this question. Uh huh answer,
Or I won't go after your children for their role
in this and so forth. That kind of stuff is done, okay,
But this case is different because of the nature of
(10:58):
the crime and because of the span of the victims
question and kind of the breadth of what those potential
co conspirators could be. Answer yes, question in general, then
I'll ask about high profile Answer and you know, arguably
not enough was known to make that kind of broad agreement.
(11:19):
Question in general, do non prosecution agreements need to be
approved by someone in Justice Headquarters? Answer? Actually, off the
top of my head, I don't know. Question what about
in bar cuts them off? I think there are certain
kinds of cases, definitely, But I'm not sure about this question.
And would it be more likely in higher profile cases?
(11:42):
Answer no, I mean certain kinds of cases where the
substantive law is in play and the money laundering section
may have to sign off on some things, or the
fraud section may have to sign off on some things.
Question So it's to the best of your recollection, more
akin to what's the alleged crime is versus the profile
of the person being charged? Answer right, All right, folks,
(12:05):
We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna 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
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
the Bill Barr transcript. Question. Okay, since it's been in
(12:27):
the news, in your experience our non prosecution agreements binding
within all districts of the United States, you said you
felt like you had a good legal standing to bring
the twenty nineteen case against Epstein and then the twenty
twenty case against Maxwell. But the current argument in the
Southern District of Florida that can bind the Southern District
of New York. Is there any Department of Justice manual
(12:50):
that talks about that? Answer? Not that I'm aware of.
I can't recall how that issue is handled. Question on
this specific agreement between the Southern District to Florida and
mister Epstein, I believe it was sealed as part of
the case. Is that common bar? I know what happens? Question?
And you had said before that one of your problems
with the one of the issues to you with this
(13:12):
particular agreement was that it restricted the ability of victims
to speak about the case or speak about the agreement.
I believe the CVRA requires victims to be able to speak.
Answer yes, question potential plea agreements. Is that the case, Barr?
I believe so. I think it's a statutory requirement. Question.
Did you come to that view after reviewing the agreement
(13:36):
in twenty nineteen or just based off a news coverage answer?
Just based off a news coverage question. Again, this is
kind of just using it as an example of what's common.
He agreed to plead guilty to a couple of charges
and eventually served thirteen months in Palm Beach County jail
and left for sixteen hours a day to go to work.
Is that common in those kinds of agreements? The broad
(13:58):
work release, mister O'Callahan you're asking about, that's the state
execution of the plea agreement in the state right redacted. Yes,
it was still signed off on by gets cut off
by O'Callahan. And he's never he's never been. The non
prosecution agreement is with the subject of Florida US Attorney's office.
(14:19):
The way that the state sentence is executed, that's a
local Florida Palm Beach matter. And I don't think mister Barr,
you know, has any information about that. Barr, that's true. Question. So,
the post sentencing. How an inmate is or work released
foreign inmate is done by the local folks. The US
Attorney's office wouldn't be involved. Answer not usually, I would suspect,
(14:41):
but I don't know. Question Okay, again, I want to
get it right. So you said that in your personal view,
you thought that it was wrong to not let victims
have a say, and also that there was legal vulnerability. Again,
the vulnerability is the potential? Is that the potential on
future cases? Is that fair? Answer? The reason you let
(15:03):
them have their say? Question? No, you said that you
had two kind of personal concerns with the non prosecution
agreement of mister Epstein, that it was wrong to not
let the victims have their say, both I imagine personally
and under the CVRA, but also under the legal vulnerability.
And I'm just wondering. Answer by bar Well, No, it's
(15:24):
the same thing. Question the same the CVRA. Answer I
thought at the time that made it legally vulnerable. Question
all right? Answer these were you know, I was not
an advocate. You know here I generally am concerned about
victims' rights. I looked at this, I didn't like the
aspect of it, and I thought it was a legal vulnerability.
(15:44):
But I wasn't sitting in judgment of the decision. I
didn't know all the facts. Question. I'm not asking for
judgment of overall decision. Just if, like on your first
blush read of this, it had multiple bar That's what
I was concerned about. Question all right, Barr or you know,
felt I wouldn't have done question I think it got
(16:06):
a little jumbled in the last hour of possible recusals.
You did not recuse from the SDNY investigation. Is that correct? Answer?
I did not recuse from the sd I think I
was considered whether I should. There was a question asked
me during my confirmation. I'm not sure what that was
relating to, but something about Epstein. Question I thought it
(16:28):
was relating to if you investigated the non prosecution agreement? Answer? Ah,
question and I believe there were issues with Kirkland and
Ellis representing mister Epstein in that case your former employment answer. Yeah,
So I wasn't sure about the timing of things and
whether it implicated the time that I was there or
you know, anything like that, And I don't think it did.
(16:50):
I actually don't think I would have recused myself from that,
but I just was never involved in that. I mean,
the thing that happened under my tenure relating to Epstein
was the investigationation of Epstein in the Southern District, and
I did not recuse myself from that. Question Courtney Wilde,
one of Epstein's victims, said that she sent a letter
to you during your tenure as Attorney General. Do you
(17:13):
recall receiving that letter? Answer? No. Question and then I
believe you said that you were made aware of the
OPR investigation into mister Acosta while he was US attorney
for the Southern District of Florida, kind of like at
the end of the OPR investigation that you were aware
of their findings but not the investigation itself. Answer no,
(17:33):
I may have been aware that they were investigating. I
was just not aware of where they stood. I didn't
monitor the investigation. Question okay, answer they finished when they
finish and I found out what they were thinking. Question No,
that's helpful. I wanted to clarify that. Do you know,
just to the best of your knowledge, how does how
can the Attorney General direct OPR to conduct investigations or
(17:57):
do they do it? No, the AG can direct them.
That's how they were originally established. Question did you direct
OPR to investigate the non prosecution agreement? Answer? No, question
do you know who did? Answer no, But they don't
have to be directed. They can also initiate their own
question Uh huh. Answer, So no one had to direct it.
(18:18):
If they sought newspapers and you know we're concerned about it,
they can initiate it. It doesn't require being directed. I'm
just saying the ag can direct it. Question again, this
is more just of your experience type. Questioned. The agreement
was signed in late two thousand and seven and then
executed in two thousand and eight, and then the OPR
investigation came in twenty twenty. Is it common for kind
(18:42):
of an internal review of US attorneys to happen so
far after the fact of the alleged answer by OPR standards,
that's speedy question, okay, And it could be she's cut
off or he's cut off by bar answer in those days.
Question in those days, it could have been a result
of the agreement being sealed and then press reports. Answer
(19:04):
could have answer could have been the answer is that
these things investigations by OPR as OIG take a long time.
Question all right? In addition to being informed of the
outcomes of the OPR investigation, did you review any of
the underlying materials? Answer concerning what question the OPR investigation
into the non prosecution agreement of mister Epstein. Answer, I
(19:27):
don't recall looking at it. I may have seen a
summary of their reasoning or something like that, but I
just don't recall. Question to you to that she's cut
off again by Barr. Answer delving into it, he was
no longer there. Question The OPR said that they conducted
a number of witness interviews during the investigation. To your knowledge,
does OPR keep records of witness interviews? Would they have
(19:50):
been transcribed? Answer? I don't know. Question shifting to Miss Maxwell.
She was arrested during your tenure, but as it pointed out,
did not go to trial until after you had left
the department. And you've talked about being made aware of
repending indictment. Was that when you were first made aware
of potential investigation into Miss Maxwell? Answer no, I mean well,
(20:11):
I would say that I assumed that they were looking
I don't know if I was told to, but I
think anyone would have assumed that they were looking at
Maxwell as a facilitator and a co conspirator, so I
assume that question. Do you know if there was a
more formal investigation into her that occurred after mister Epstein's
death or was it running concurrently with Epstein's death? Answer?
(20:33):
I don't know exactly how they were staging things, but
my assumption was that they were focusing on building their
case against Epstein and also trying to develop evidence that
would support a charge against her. And I think they
were probably doing them in tandem. But you know how
much they were pushing one over the other. I don't know. Question.
Then we talked about the urgent request of high value
(20:54):
co conspirators. Were you aware of any potential co conspirators
in the Epstein or Maxwell case that have not been prosecuted? Answer?
That have not been prosecuted. I mean, now we're switching
to the term co conspirator. I think I laid out
that I was not aware that SDNY had concluded that
or had established that they had any of the names
that had been bandied about were in fact engaged in
(21:17):
a legal activity that they could charge. Question. Okay, that's helpful. Answer.
When I say bandied about, I'm talking about you know,
the names that have come up here, like Dershowitz and
Branson and Richardson and people like that. Question the names
on the flight logs? Answer well, being on the flight
logs is not even I mean, it's not even prima
fossee evidence of wrongdoing. It's just you know, the person. Question.
(21:40):
But you don't recall ever being told that those names
that were being that were on the flight log or
fluttered about in the press, ever rose that this is
someone that we could potentially indict. Answer that's right. Question
Were you kept up to date on the Maxwell investigation?
I don't need to reread the quote, but were you
taking a similar posture of let the investment togator is
(22:00):
run the course of the investigation. Answer to which investigation question?
Miss Maxwell? Answer? Same course question? Do you recall any
conversations regarding the non prosecution agreement impacting the potential of
a charge for Miss Maxwell? Answer? I remember a discussion
about an impacting the work of the SDNY, but I
(22:21):
can't pin down, you know how much it related to
Epstein versus Maxwell. Question and then a few blanket questions
before some more general investigative type questions. Did anyone ever
instruct you to not investigate or prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. Answer
no question. Did anyone instruct you not to investigate or
prosecute Miss Maxwell? Answer no question. Did anyone instruct you
(22:45):
not to investigate or prosecute any other potential co conspirator?
Answer no question. And I believe you said earlier, but
you're confident that if the Southern District of New York
identified co conspirators that they believe they could con they
would have brought the case. Answer. I believe so. Question.
We've talked as as you have mentioned the kind of
(23:07):
broad nature of whatever the Epstein cut off by bar
and also just as a practical matter, you know, I
was aware of a lot of leagues of the Southern
District of New York, not just the Attorney General's office,
but also the FBI there, and it was in my view,
and this I think would be on both sides of
the issue. If they felt that there was a political
effort to block what they felt was a righteous case,
(23:29):
it would leak out. There's no doubt in my mind
it would leak out, and we would have heard about
it long ago. Question. I appreciate that. All right, folks,
we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna 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,
(23:49):
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
the Bill Barr deposition that he gave to Congress. Question.
I appreciate that. I want to talk about again the
colloquial Epstein files and what that means. Obviously, it's kind
of taken a life of its own of what that
(24:11):
could possibly mean. Along with the client list. I think
your description of the client list is how I will
if I say client list, is how I will use
client list, whether or not there is a list of
people that Epstein facilitated prostitution or underage prostitution to individuals.
As an overarching question, what kinds of documents make up
a criminal investigative file? Answer whatever documents or potential evidence
(24:36):
in the case question So, witness interviews answer yes. Question
evidence gathered during a search warrant answer Records of activities,
whether it be comings and goings on planes or whether
someone was in the same place as an allegation. So
for example, on you know, Prince Andrew, they spent at
least I think I've seen reports that say, this was
(24:58):
not reported to me by the Southern District, that Virginia's
allegations of you know, something happened in London, something happened
here corresponded to where people were. So those kinds of
things are the kinds of records, hotel records, things like that,
and witness interviews and things like that. Question and you
mentioned a little bit earlier about protecting grand jury secrecy
(25:20):
and federal Rule six e. Would everything that's in a
case file be presented to a grand jury? Answer no question?
And then would it be common And I think this
is what has come out of the Department's efforts to
unseal some grand jury transcripts in the case that the
kind of underlying investigative review, you know, between the FBI
(25:40):
agents and the witness, for purposes of the grand jury,
the FBI agent would testify as to what the witness said.
Is that common answer yes, question in your experience with
the underlying interview transcript be prevented from disclosure or just
what was presented to the grand jury answer the transcript
the testimony would be protected question the underlying testimony? Answer,
(26:05):
what do you mean underlying testimony? Question? So the FBI
interview is a witness. The FBI agent then testifies to
the grand jury. Answer the material presented to the grand
jury would be protected. Question, but not necessarily cut off
by bar. It's not the medium that it's not limited
to the medium question. Okay, answer, that's my understanding. Question
(26:31):
do you know if those underlying interviews are recorded or
just transcribed? Answer? I don't know. Question Could a case
file also include FBI three zero two s answer yes,
question and ten twenty threes answer. Any document that reflects
evidence that is potentially relevant could be in the case file.
So the word case file is a little ambiguous. Question Yes,
(26:55):
as in Epstein files as a whole answer right, question,
We've talked a lot and you saw it. The list
of what the FBI seized in the case is seized
evidence kept after a case concludes. So mister Epstein died
his case concluded, would seize evidence still exist? Answer? I'm
not sure of the answer of that. I think people
(27:16):
who claim to have an interest in the property have
to sort to seek it back, and the government has
to make its case as to why it has to
be kept. That's my understanding of the process. But I'm
not sure. Question a separate, ongoing criminal case would possibly
be a good reason to keep the evidence. Answer yeah,
including whether there are appeals pending. Question Yeah, and obviously
(27:38):
some of the real property at least is gone, like
I think the island was purchased by someone else. Answer,
I don't know. Question the subpoena process for the US
attorneys and this is my own lack of knowledge, so
excuse me. But does the US attorney issue the subpoena
or does the grand jury issue the subpoena? Answer? Well,
(27:58):
the grand jury does, but in practice, the prosecutor determines,
you know, basically determines what is going to be produced
on behalf of the grand jury. Question and so the
grand jury would say, would recommend the subpoena for a
testimony to X and then to US attorney would draft?
Answer No, I think the US attorney would say, we're
(28:19):
going to interview this person. Question all right, answer and
bring that person before the grand jury. Question and those
subpoenas can be for documents and testimony. Answer yes, question
why issue a document subpoena versus execute a search warrant. Answer,
because you know many subpoenas are third party subpoenas, like
for bank records and so forth. And don't go into
(28:42):
a bank and search them. You impose the obligation on
the bank to produce them, and they will question and
those can be cut off by bar And even for
a subject you know, you would still frequently give that
person the chance to comply. You don't go searching unless
there's some reason you're concerned about the destruction of evidence.
Question And those can be executed against more than just
(29:05):
the subject of the investigation. Right, answer anybody? Question you
mentioned banks? Answer anybody that you know you believe could
have relevant evidence. Question so other witnesses or companies, businesses,
telecom providers answer sure, question all yes, answer all yes.
Question What about company data repositories? Google? Microsoft? Answer yes.
(29:30):
Question you mentioned banks and financial institutions. What about state
governments like camera footage off of the state courthouse or
anything like that? Could they do that as well? Answer
government stuff question? Yeah? Answer yes. Question So in the
Epstein case and without I think you said that you
didn't review the quote unquote Epstein files in their fulsomeness,
(29:54):
But it would be likely that the case would include
information like I just laid out three ZHO two's ten
twenty three's, returns from subpoenas, returns from search warrants, other
witness interviews, all of that would be included potentially in
a case file. Is that fairer answer? Potentially? Yes? Question,
And this could potentially include information that for whatever reason,
(30:15):
should not be released, victims personal identity and child sexual
abuse material being two prominent examples in this one answer,
Those are examples, but there are multiple reasons why you
wouldn't want to release the law files. Question. What are
some others? Answer? Because it's sometimes unfair to the individual
who the government does not has not included based on
(30:35):
the evidence that they've done anything wrong. Question, So, like
a hypothetical would be FBI conducts a witness interview, produces
a three to zero two, the interview names four people.
After further investigation, it's determined that those four people that
the interview is not credible, and those four people likely
didn't commit any crimes. Is that fair? Answer? So, I mean,
(30:58):
you could take the examples from this case. You know,
some of the victims made public allegations anyway that were fabrications.
Question Uh huh. Answer. I'm not saying this is true
of all the victims, but there are some that then withdrew.
So it's possible that there's material in there that the
government has come to the conclusion is not credible or
(31:18):
is you know, conclusively refuted by other evidence. Question Uh
huh answer. You know, in the case of Bill Clinton,
as far as I was aware, there was no evidence
that he visited the island. You know, the government did
not obtain any such evidence because you didn't look stupid.
Ask mister Scully, Ask the people that worked on the island,
Ask some of the other girls who traveled to the island.
(31:43):
Question uh huh answer, And he denied it. But there
is somebody who asserts he did. I'm just using that
as an example. Question Uh huh answer. And it's fair
to put that. If the government has come to the
conclusion that he didn't visit the island, and the police
has evidence to show that, why would you put that
rowstu out there to permit all the you know, the
internet to get heated up about this and assault the
(32:04):
person for what you know is not accurate. Question? And
then you said earlier, and I want to ask you
again using the language the descriptor of the client list,
and we all kind of agreed on. You know, you
never saw a document or anything resembling a client list. Answer,
I have never seen a document resembling a client list.
Question what about any evidence or anything suggesting mister Epstein
(32:27):
was bribing individuals with salacious material? Answer you mean bribing them,
giving them something? Question extorting them? Answer? No, I don't
recall ever seeing such evidence. And it seems highly improbable
to me that you would extort somebody by engaging in
an act yourself. That's a crime. You don't get much
leverage if you go to jail too. Yeah. Well, what's
(32:48):
Fergie talking about? Then? Dinner? Her lawyer just say that
Epstein threatened to ruin the family of York. Well, what
do you think he was talking about? Think he was
just making idle threats or do you think that he
hadot Look, this whole entire thing stinks, and Barr has
been part of the cover up from the very beginning.
And furthermore, he lied directly to Congress here when he
(33:09):
said he never met with anybody that was in the
shoe with Epstein, he met with Stone Rays, didn't he
He had a personal meeting with Stone Rays, who then
died a few, you know, months later or whatever. But
he straight up said in this deposition, in these documents
that he never met with anybody. Question Yeah, same kind
of same question with the Maxwell case, all of the
(33:31):
potential evidence and documents that we just discussed about potentially
being a case file. Is it possible all that exists
for miss Maxwell as well? Answer the same kind of
stuff question? Uh huh? Answer possibly? Question did you ever
review any of the substantive evidence in her case? Answer?
I think I said no. Question okay. And then you
(33:52):
discussed in a little bit in relation to communication between
DJ and the White House regarding cases, that it would
be rare, but you I had two conversations with President
Trump regarding the Epstein case. Answer I recall two conversations
with Trump relating to the Epstein case. Question. Is it
common to have communications regarding cases within the Department of Justice?
(34:14):
Answer within the department? Question? Uh huh? Answer for who
to have to talk to whom? Question? Well, I mean
for SDNY to notify you, would they pick up the
phone or was it an email? Or was it a memo.
How would that If SDNY needed to get in contact
with you, how would they do it? Answer? Well, it's
rare for SDN why to want to get in contact
(34:35):
with main Justice. But if they wanted to, it could
be anything from a communication to a division, to the
deputy's office, or to the AG which was is pretty
rare question. Okay, and then I'm going to phrase these two. Answer.
But you know, look, every case is different. So for example,
on the Maduro indictments, I was very involved in those
(34:57):
because we were trying to coordinate an indictment. I mean
a case in Florida, a case in the Southern District,
and national security interests and so forth. Question uh huh.
Answer something like that, you would have more interaction with
the office, but on something like this you won't generally
have that much interaction. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
(35:17):
the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
All of the information that goes with this episode can
be found in the description box.
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!