Mega Edition: Bill Barr And The Epstein Related Deposition Given To Congress (Part 7-9) (4/3/26)

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 billbar 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

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.

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 17th,

2025 as Exhibit B, a three-page catalog of evidence that was reportedly prepared by the FBI.

Bar, should I read the whole thing or redacted? No, I can point to you. You're certainly welcome to.

I can also point you to the portions that I plan to ask you about.

Bar, well, why don't we try that redacted? Sure.

Question, so the article describes Attorney General Bondi making available, quote-unquote,

the first phase of the declassified Epstein files. Mr. Bar, were you previously aware of

Miss Bondi making these 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 have never discussed the matter with her. I don't know. Question, and you have an

understanding of what the Epstein files contained as the phrase is used in this piece.

O'Callahan, the lawyer for bar 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 declassified Epstein files. It's the very first sentence of

the article. Answer, yeah, 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 bar, this is what you've given to me. Question,

so it's what the ABC piece describes as the only documents in the first phase of the declassified

materials that Attorney General Pound 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 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 either Epstein before he committed suicide, obviously, and then what they

may have collected that affected other potential defendants. In other words, 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, 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, Ocalaan, 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, so Ed, that is an enhanced version of the catalog, which if you print it out from

the publicly available source, contains typhus, that is far smaller, so we blew it up so that your

client would be able to read it at the witness table. Mr. Ocalaan, okay, the witness, bar, okay,

thank you. Mr. Ocalaan, me too. Bar, 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 U.S. Attorney office normally does,

and my understanding is that 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 throughout your tenure

as Attorney General, answer yes. Question, to your understanding, did it continue

after you left DOJ? 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 and understanding was if they

came across evidence that would establish either that someone helped them in recruiting these young

girls, or as involved in sexual activity with them, that they would have preceded 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 for my standpoint, both for reasons of

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 that

they had evidence to make a case. Jasmine 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, Pound Bondy, that he appears in the department of justice files on Jeffrey Epstein.

I'm curious to know in those conversations that you recall with president, do you recall ever

informing him 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 refer to these days, but no,

I didn't have that kind of conversation with him. I think at some point logs were made available

or public that he was on Epstein's plane, making commutes from or flying between Miami and New

York or Miami and New Jersey or stuff like that, and I think that that got out publicly. I don't

recall discussing that with him. Miss Crockett, okay. Bar, and I can't even remember when it came out.

Crockett, okay, so to be clear, you had no direct knowledge of the president himself being named

in the Epstein investigation is what you're telling us?

Bar, 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 add connections with them, which to 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 trying to see if there was, in fact, any evidence to support that any of these people actually

violated the law. Jasmine 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?

Bar, I was never told by the Southern District that they had evidence to support any claim like

that. Crockett, thank you. 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.

Jasmine Crockett, I'm done. Sorry. Question, just shipping 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 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 there were things being uncovered like that. Bullshit,

nobody ever rated Zorro 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 does that footage to your knowledge still within the possession of the

DOJ? Answer, 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

or what? Answer, well I mean 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's strong policy reasons not to make it available,

which in 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 of the evidence it isn't

and the judgments about credibility are made. I think we've all seen examples where 302'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 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, as 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 her 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 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 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 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 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 released of this kind of information is appropriate despite the considerations

that you just articulated? Answer, well, part of my direct experience was obviously the Mueller

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 a crime or accusing someone of committing a 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, you know, and 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 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 has been significant

focus on the possible existence of what's been described as an Epstein client list.

Is that a term 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 refer to? Answer, well, I guess

my view is Epstein sort of had three lives. He was a socialite, and he had a lot of social activity

that was legal, 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 of recruiting young girls for his own satisfaction,

and there were some allegations that he made those girls available to contacts to his.

And so when I hear a client list, are we talking about his financial clients? I doubt it.

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 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 interview statements of the victims 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 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 2025 memorandum from the FBI that explicitly disclosed the existence 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, 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 questioner at the end put in the phrase client list, and she blew through that,

and just gave the answer she was going 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 the press is described as maintained by Mr. 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 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 Mr. Epstein compiled? Answer, not that I can recall, you mean a phone directory of what?

Question, containing names of people that were associated with Mr. Epstein? Answer, just generally

associated? I don't recall that, 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 Mr. Epstein.

Could you just generally walk us through the investigative steps that DOJ took to pursue 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 experience 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 that SDNY issued? Answer, visibility in the sense of approving 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 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

in 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 SDNY? Answer, no. I think after the fact, I think Burman 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, Mr. Burman? Bar, yeah. Question, a number of

prominent individuals have been alleged to be connected to Mr. 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 DOJ's investigation,

if anything, 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'Callaghan, in an Epstein investigation that lasted for multiple decades,

you're going to ask them if any of these individuals were ever somehow part of that investigation?

Redacted, yeah. O'Callaghan, that's too broad. I don't think it actually can port 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 Mr. Dershowitz do your knowledge ever become relevant to the

Epstein investigation in any respect? The witness? I don't know. O'Callaghan, and this is all?

Bar, 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 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 Bar? 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

DOJ. The witness? No. I obviously may have mentioned, may have discussed Dershowitz sifting around

my office saying, wow, O'Callaghan, that's part of the problem. Is that there's so much media

reporting? Witness, right? O'Callaghan, media reporting on individuals that in common workplace

conversations, stuff like that happens. He just happens to be the attorney general of the United

States. Bar, I did not delve into the investigation of Epstein. Redacted, so, Bar,

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? Bar, I don't know. I mean these questions are a little bit too broad for my taste.

O'Callaghan, it's a very difficult thing you're asking him to do. Bar, of course, he's relevant to

the investigation you would think. Redacted, where there are discussions within the DOJ about

Alan Dershowitz to your recollection. Bar, as I say, sitting around my office, people could say,

gee, Professor Dershowitz is in hot water. But I did not, I was not in communication with the

SDNY about the handling of the investigation. O'Callaghan, 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 were going to report, they would have reported an urgent matter to them. Bar,

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 in improper activities. I was told that the office had evidence in

its possession that established that somebody was involved in those activities. I don't remember

sitting down discussing, you know, gee, 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 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 SDNY 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 DOJ

investigation. I don't think that would be publicly reported. Answer, okay, the formal status that

was provided to me by the SDNY 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, Bar, and when 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. Okay, Lehan, I think the question about Prince Andrew

is pending. Bar, that's right. I was aware of Prince Andrew's issue, you know, go through the list,

I'll tell you. Okay, Lehan, so just to clarify, you're aware of Prince Andrew being sought as

a witness by the Southern District. Bar, yes. And then he dispute over him cooperating. I was

aware of that. Question, Bill Clinton, bar, same answer. Question Bill Richardson, answer, same

answer. Question George Mitchell, same answer. Question Glenn Dubin, same answer. Bill Gates,

same answer. Question Leon Black, same answer. Question, okay. Now Jasmine 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 the witness, the ones other than that,

Crockett, they were different. Witness other than 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. 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, 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? Bar, 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 of prisons, their classification is usually based

upon a multitude of things. One of them being how serious of an offense a 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 are looking at whether or not the person

is potentially a danger to the community, correct? Bar, that's another factor. Crockett, when you

are reading your public things, I'm assuming you've heard that there has been a transfer

approved from his 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. Bar says, I've seen those reports. Crockett, during 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? Bar, I mean off the top of my head,

I can't remember a situation like that. Jasmine 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 approval. That is not something that just any low level BOP person would be able to do,

correct? Bar, I wish that were correct. You never know. Crockett, because mistakes happen. 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. Bar, actually, I think the

way the system works is, the political level usually allows the Bureau of Prisons,

broadly weigh 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 year in knowledge, whether it's during your

tenure or during reports, she's never been in the type of facility in the last four years of

her incarceration until now, correct? Bar, I gather that's the case. Crockett, okay, thanks.

All right, we're going to wrap up right here and we're going to pick up where we left off in the

next episode. 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 Bill Barr and his deposition, Chairman Comer, General

Barr. May I jump in for a couple of questions where you will aware of the involvement of Hillary

Clinton and the Clinton campaign and the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump?

Bar, 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

and the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump?

Bar, did I look at documents? Comer, yes, Barr, yes. Comer, to the best of your recollection,

did you at any point attempt to declassify items in the Russia collusion investigation?

Bar, some items declassified and some I opposed to classifying. Comer, okay,

were you aware of the involvement of President Obama or his officials in the Russia collusion

investigation involving President Trump? Bar, I was aware of meetings held at the end of the

Obama administration. They were described, Comer, and did you review any documents? Bar,

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, but we're going to start back with Mr. 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, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas

were eventually indicted for falsifying those records. Were you involved in that indictment?

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? Bar, I think people

described the to me, I think, before it happened, yeah. Question, but much like some of the Epstein

investigation, you're not involved in the prosecutorial decisions 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 a count of the inmates to 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 4 p.m. 10 p.m. 12 a.m. 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. does that sound right? Answer

sounds right. Question, and then to the best of your recollection, were these institutional

counts 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, moving to the 30 minute rounds again, my understanding of

the rounds were that they were directed by the psyched department and the medical department

because Mr. 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 it

in parcel 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 30 minutes, once in the second, at irregular intervals, and at least 40 minutes

apart. Does that sound right? Answer, yes. Question, to your recollection, answer to my knowledge, yes.

Question, to the best of your recollection, were these 30 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 recall, the officers falsified the records. Answer, yes.

Question, I believe you said it, and I know I have, but I want to ask directly, were those 30 minute

rounds specific to Mr. Epstein? Answer, I believe there 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 30 minute observation

or even in nine south? I don't know. Question, there was, I can introduce if you need me to,

but there was a sign on the SHU officer's desk that read, mandatory rounds must be conducted

every 30 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 Attorney General? Answer, I can 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 Epstein. Question, part of the case against Noelle and Thomas? Answer, yes. Question,

we've 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 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 the head of BOP and put in new people.

Question, and appointed 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 leave right away. Answer, okay.

But further discipline and 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 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,

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, 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. 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 2019 prosecution. Answer, investigation, question,

investigation in 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 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 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,

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

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 Acosta, 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, 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 at 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, uh-huh, answer, I don't know if it went beyond that, but you know that 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 filed 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, 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 you as attorneys? No, there are many that sit, 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 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 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.