Howard Lutnick And His Trip To Congress (Part 1)
The transcripts from Howard Lutnick’s closed-door appearance before Congress painted a picture of a witness trying to minimize both the depth and duration of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein while lawmakers confronted him with records suggesting far more contact than he had previously acknowledged. Lutnick repeatedly described his interactions with Epstein as “inconsequential,” insisting he only met with him a handful of times and claiming he cut ties after a disturbing 2005 interaction inside Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. According to the testimony, Lutnick said Epstein made sexually suggestive comments about massages during that visit, which he claimed immediately disgusted both him and his wife. However, members of the House Oversight Committee confronted him with emails, schedules, and business records showing contact continuing years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, including meetings at Epstein’s townhouse, discussions involving a shared business venture, and a 2012 lunch visit to Epstein’s private island alongside Lutnick’s family
The transcripts also showed lawmakers growing increasingly frustrated with what they viewed as evasive answers and shifting explanations from Lutnick as more documentation was placed in front of him. Democrats in particular accused him of misleading the public for years about the true extent of the relationship, especially after previously portraying Epstein as little more than a casual acquaintance. Lutnick attempted to explain away the continued contact by claiming the encounters were brief, social, or business-related and that he never witnessed any criminal behavior or saw underage girls around Epstein. He also reportedly walked back previous public comments suggesting Epstein blackmailed powerful people, telling lawmakers he had only been speculating and had no firsthand knowledge of such activity. Republicans on the committee largely defended Lutnick and argued Democrats were trying to weaponize the hearing politically, while critics argued the testimony further demonstrated how many powerful figures continued associating with Epstein long after his criminal conduct was already publicly known.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
HGO126550 Lutnick Draft-pdf2_Redacted-Update_RedactedV3.pdf
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to begin taking
a look at the Howard Lutnik transcripts from the deposition
in front of Congress. Mister Emmer will go on the record.
This is a transcribed interview of Secretary Howard W. Lutnik
conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
under the authority granted to it pursuant to House Rule ten. Accordingly,
House Rule ten grants the Committee bore jurisdiction for the
Committee to conduct investigations of any matter at any time.
This interview is requested by Chairman James Comer as part
of the Committee's investigation into the circumstances and subsequent investigation
into the circumstances and subsequent investigations and the crimes of
Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell, the operation of the sex
trafficking rings and ways for the government to effectively combat them,
The ways in which mister Epstein and miss Maxwell's ought
to curry favor and exercise influence to protect their legal activities,
and potential violations of ethic rules related to elected officials.
Can the witness please state his name and spell his
last name for the record. Secretary Lutnick Howard Lutnik l
U T N I c K. Mister Emmer, thank you.
I want to thank Secretary Lutnik for appearing voluntarily here today.
My name is Jack Emmer, and I'm the Chief Council
for Investigations for Chairman James Comer. Under the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform rules, you're allowed to have council
present to advise you during the interview. Do you have
counsel representing you present with you today? Lutnik, yeah, Emmer,
will counsel please identify themselves for the record. Mister Tellwigger,
who is the lawyer for Lutnick? Zach Urwilger, a partner
at Vincent and Elkins law firm. Another lawyer pops up,
mister Crowley Michael Crowley, Associate Vincent and Elkins. Another lawyer,
mister Mayron, Austin Meyron, Department of Commerce. This dou needs
three lawyers to do a deposition about somebody he only
met three times, according to him. Okay, mister Emmer, thank
you for the record. Starting with the majority staff, can
the additional staff members please introduce themselves with their name,
title and affiliation. Mister Grant Billy Grant, Deputy Chief Council
for Investigations, Chairman Comber, Peter Spector, Director of Oversight for
Chairman Comer, Ellison Tolan, Council Chairman Comer, Hannah Cathy, Professional
staff Member Chairman Comer, Emily Firebend Council for Chairman Comber,
Brittany Brignack, Senior Council Chairman Comber. Mister Ashworth, Daniel Ashworth,
General Counsel for Chairman Comber, Will Harness, professional staff member
for Chairman Coomber, Ashley Vineyard, Deputy staff Director for Chairman Comer,
Jessica Collins, Communications Director for Comer, and then the next
names are redacted. Mister Emmer, thank you. We have members
of Congress present today, starting with the Chairman can the
Majority members intro, and then the minority members James Comer, Kentucky,
William Timmins, South Carolina. Emmer, thank you, Secretary Lutnik. Before
we weigh in, I would like to go over the
ground rules for this interview. The questioning will proceed in rounds.
The majority will ask questions for up to an hour,
and then the minority will have an opportunity to ask
questions for up to an hour if they choose to
the extent. Members have questions for the witness, they will
be propounded during their sides respective rounds. The clock will
stop before you need to confer with your council, your
council speaking, and when members are speaking during the opposing
sides rounds of questions, we will all back and forth
until there are no more questions. Do you understand, Secretary,
letnak I do emmer. There is a court reporter taking
down everything I say and everything you say to make
a written record of the interview. For the record to
be clear, please wait until the staffer questioning you finishes
at each question before you begin your answer, and the
staffer will wait until you finish your response before proceeding
to the next round. Further, to ensure that the court
reporter can properly record the interview, please speak clearly, concisely,
and slowly. Also, the court reporter cannot record nonverbal answers,
such as nodding or shaking your head, so it's important
that you answer each question with an audible verbal answer.
Exhibits may be entered into the record. Majority exhibits will
be identified numerically. Minority exhibits will be identified alphabetically. Do
you understand leut nak I do emmer? We want you
to answer our questions in the most complete and truthful
manner possible, so we'll take our time. If you have
any questions or you don't fully understand the question, please
let us know. We will attempt to clarify, add context,
or rephrase our questions. If we ask about specific conversations
or events in the past, and you are unable to
recall the exact words or details, you should testify to
the substance of those conversations or events to the best
of your recollection. If you recall only part of a
conversation or event, you should give us your best recollection
of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall.
Do you understand, let nick I do emmer. Although you're
here voluntarily and you'll not be sworn in, you're required
by law pursuant to Title eighteen of the United States Code,
Section one thousand and one to answer questions from Congress truthfully,
not even sworn in. You guys catching on yet, It's
all a big fucking joke, That's all it is. To
these people, but not to us and not to the
vast majority of people out there that are paying attention.
And this also applies to questions posed by Congressional staff
in the interview. Do you understand lutnake i do emmer?
If at any time you knowingly make false statements, you
could be subject to criminal prosecution. Do you understand lutnik
i do Emmer. This includes both knowingly providing false testimony,
but also stating that you do not recall or remember
something when in fact you do. Do you understand lutnick
i do Emmer. Furthermore, you cannot tell half truth or
exclude information necessary to make statements accurate. You're required to
provide all information that would make your response truthful. A
deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false statement.
Do you understand lutnick i do emmer? Is there any
reason that you're unable to provide truthful testimony in today's interview?
Lt Nick no Emmer. Please note that if you wish
to assert a privilege over any statement today, that assertion
must comply with the rules of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform pursu into that Committee, Rule sixteen C
one states for the chair to consider assertions of privilege
over testimony or statements, witnesses or entities must clearly state
the specific privilege being asserted and the reason for the
assertion honor before the scheduled date of testimony or appearance.
Do you understand, Secretary Lutnik, I do emmer. Ordinarily we
take a five minute break at the end of each
hour of questioning, but if you need a longer break
or a break before that, please let us know, and
will be happy to accommodate. However, to the extent that
there is a pending question, we would ask you to
finish answering the question before we take a break. Do
you understand, Lutnik? I do emmer. Do you have any
other questions before we begin? Lutnick no emmer. Do you
have an opening statement that you would like to read?
Lutnick I do emmer. You may proceed, Lutnik, Chairman, Comer,
members of the Committee and Committee staff, I unequivocally condemned
the conduct attributed to Jeffrey Epstein and everyone who participated
in his legal activities. The survivors of his crimes deserve
our respect and support. I voluntarily agreed to appear and
answer questions in connection with this Committee's investigation. I would
like to begin by briefly describing my virtually non existent
interactions with this individual who lived adjacent to my New
York City home. In nineteen ninety seven, I purchased an
unfinished townhouse as my family home in New York City.
Renovations took several more years than expected due to the
events of September eleventh terrorist attacks and their impact on me,
my family, and all my co workers in the World
Trade Center. Approximately eight years after our purchase, in two
thousand and five, my family and I finally moved into
our new home, which happened to be a to his residence.
Shortly thereafter, my wife and I were invited by that
individual to his residence for coffee. During this brief interaction
that included my wife, me, and this individual, he made
a crude and gross remark in my wife's presence, which
caused us to cut the visit short and leave immediately
Following that brief initial meeting. As we walk back to
our home, my wife and I discussed the encounter and that,
given his clear lack of boundaries, I would never establish
a personal or professional relationship with them, and that is
exactly what I did following this two thousand and five interaction.
My only other two interactions with Epstein over the ensuring
ensuing fourteen years were both meaningless and inconsequential. My second
interaction occurred six years later in twenty eleven, when his
staff initiated contact with my office, suggesting he had a
reason to get in touch with me. Our offices attempted
to connect us by phone over the course of several weeks,
but we were unable to do so. Ultimately, to the
best of my recollection, his staff indicated he would be
in his residence on a particular weekend afternoon, and my
staff arranged for me to ring his bell during my
and my wife's typical Sunday walk around the block with
our dogs to hear what he had to say. My
best recollection is I rang the bell, sat in his
foyer with my dog, waited for him to come down,
heard what he had to say, and I left. As
far as I recall, it was about scaffolding. It was
meaningless and inconsequential. Next, some eighteen months later, in late
twenty twelve, his staff inexplicably contacted my office unprompted regarding
my family's planned holiday travel to the Caribbean. Unbeknownst to me,
his staff somehow had become aware that my family and
I would be near his island over the holidays, although
they were apparently unsure whether that meant during the Thanksgiving
or Christmas holiday. I still have no idea how has
staff discovered my family's vacation plans or why they're pursued
arranging a visit with me. From what I have since learned,
it appears he was initially seeking a meeting with just me.
My wife made clear, however, that we had a large
traveling party of approximately twelve plus people, and if we
were to come, it would be with everyone. My family
of six and another family of six had a brief,
meaningless and inconsequential lunch, and then left. To the best
of my recollection, those were the only three occasions in
which I interacted with Epstein in person. Each and every
one of those was meaningless and inconsequential. To put this
in perspective, Epstein lived in the house next door to
my family for fourteen years, and in that time I
interacted with him in person only three times, again, each
meaningless and inconsequential. I had no personal or professional relationship
with this individual, despite the proximity of our addresses. Further,
at no time during these limited interactions did I witness
any conduct, let alone any type of illegal conduct of
which we have since become aware. In closing, after our
first interaction, my wife and I discussed that I would
not establish a personal or a professional relationship with that individual.
On a podcast on October twenty twenty five, I informally
recounted that conversation. What I said on that podcast regarding
my conversation with my wife was correct. I did not
establish a personal or a professional relationship with that individual.
The documents and my prior testimony confirm that I am
here to answer your questions. 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
the information that goes with this episode can be found
in the description box.