137 statements made under oath in House Oversight depositions that conflict with the documentary record. Each shows the sworn claim, the evidence it contradicts, and the EFTA source so you can check it. These are contradictions with the documents, not adjudicated findings of perjury.
2026-07-15 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Dated first contact to July 2014 and used that date to explain the Attorney General statement, but Jeffrey Epstein told Bill Gates in June 2014 that he had already asked her to 'play point'
Sworn claimHer opening statement: "I first met Jeffrey Epstein in July of 2014" and "When Epstein cold-called me at my law firm in July of 2014, I had never heard of him and knew nothing about him" (p.10). She returned to the date to answer why she had sent him her draft statement declining consideration for Attorney General: "remember, I just have met him for the first time in mid-July of 2014. So we're now, what, 3 months later or something" (p.131). Committee counsel pressed the same arithmetic back at her: "someone you just met 3 months ago" (p.132).
The recordEFTA00991663 (22 June 2014), Jeffrey Epstein to Bill Gates: "Cathy Rummeler has left as Obamas counsel and has joined Latham and Watkins[.] I spoke to Larry and if there is no conflict I would like to retain her to sheppard through the structure of the DA[F]: regulatory, tax, etc." The next day, EFTA02585011 (23 June 2014), Jeffrey Epstein to Bill Gates and Larry Cohen: "[I've] asked kathy Ruemmler to play point on getting p[e]ople and structure together, she is smart, m[e]linda i think will li[k]e her, and she is well respected by the various relevant regulatory [b]odies, Irs, sec[,] justice etc." Both pre-date her stated first contact by three to four weeks, and the second is written as something already done. She is not a recipient of either email, and she told the Committee in advance that Jeffrey Epstein "often exaggerated his relationship with me to others" (p.10), so this is his account of the approach, not proof of a meeting. What it does establish is that the donor-advised fund pitch she describes as a cold call out of nowhere had been arranged through Gates's circle, with a conflicts check run through Larry Cohen, before her phone rang.
Said she would have reported him immediately had she heard any evidence he was abusing girls, then described him telling her at their second or third meeting that some of the women were underage
Sworn claimOpening statement: "if I had seen or heard any evidence suggesting that he was abusing women or girls, I would have immediately reported him to law enforcement" (p.10).
The recordTwenty pages later she recounted what he told her "within -- I don't believe it was the first meeting, but it was certainly the second or third meeting": that at his Palm Beach home "he had arranged for women to come to his home and provide massages to him and that some of those massages were sexual in nature", that he paid cash for each, and that "a small number of the masseuses or the women who were coming to his home were -- turned out to be under the age of 18, but that he did not have knowledge of that" (p.31). By her own account she was told, within weeks of meeting him, that he had paid for sexual contact with girls under 18. She did not report it. Her explanation is that she credited his lack of knowledge, on the strength of the 2008 Stephanie Thacker letter to the Deputy Attorney General's office and the Florida disposition. That is an argument about whether his conduct was criminal in the way she was told, not about whether she heard it.
Testified she understood him only as a 'customer' or 'John' until the 2019 indictment, but wrote to him in 2017 that 'there is abuse of power with your stuff too'
Sworn claimHer account throughout is that until July 2019 she believed his offence was buying sex from women he took to be adults: "the resolution seemed consistent with his description, that he was a customer, or a 'John,' and had never intentionally targeted minors" (p.10). Asked why she called him "sweetie", she said the email followed him contrasting himself with Harvey Weinstein (p.26).
The recordThe email is EFTA02563658, 21 November 2017. Jeffrey Epstein wrote: "jeffrey s crimes were paying for sex. no surprise or mislead[ing] fabricated job interviews. no abuse of power, only prostitut[i]on." She replied: "I hear you, sweetie, but there is abuse of p[o]wer with your stuff too. I know you didn't think about it tha[t] way, but it's there. And, yes, please kee[p] your head down. :-)" Her recollection of the context is accurate, and she pushed back on him, which the Committee did not draw out. But the reply is a written statement, twenty months before the indictment, that she saw abuse of power in what he had done. It also has her advising him to keep a low profile, from a lawyer who says she never acted as his lawyer. The exchange sits inside a sustained two-way correspondence about Weinstein and sexual harassment through October and November 2017 (EFTA02580243, EFTA02584953, EFTA00992501, EFTA00964056), including her own "My God. He is so sleezy, and it never sticks to him."
Explained the Attorney General draft statement as keeping a client's adviser informed, but the document shows Jeffrey Epstein editing the wording and her agreeing
Sworn claimShown her draft statement declining consideration for Attorney General of the United States, sent to Jeffrey Epstein on 23 October 2014, she said: "It was something that I was contemplating. Ultimately I didn't provide a statement" (p.132). Asked whether it was odd to send it to a man she had met three months earlier, she said it was not confidential, it was "all over the press", and "I wanted to make sure that, given that Epstein was the primary adviser, that he was informed in what was going to happen" (p.133).
The recordThe Committee marked the statement itself (EFTA02383491) but did not put the reply to her. In EFTA02383503, the same thread, Jeffrey Epstein answers with line edits: "I think words like ' i believe ' is i[m]portant. to soften the conclusion. and AG of the UNITED STATES is bes[t] for internatail news reports". Her response in the thread is "Good." Being informed and accepting edits are different things: the document has him shaping the language of a prospective Attorney General's public withdrawal, and her assenting. Separately, EFTA00997714 (26 September 2014) shows what he did with the information, telling a correspondent that "the woman we had lunch with at my house Kathy Ruemmler is on the very small choice list to be the new Attorney general of the United states", and EFTA00998197 (2 October 2014) has him tracking it for Larry Cohen: "ruemmler looking better as Attorney general."
Called the will naming her successor executor 'a draft', but it is an executed, witnessed and notarised will
Sworn claimAsked whether she knew she had been designated an executor of the estate, she said "I learned that later, that I was listed as a backup executor", and that "that was in a draft. That was in, you know, a draft document, and the final document does not -- I'm not identified" (p.60).
The recordThe instrument naming her is EFTA00074269, the will of 8 May 2018: "If any one or more of my Executors fails to qualify, is unable or unwilling to serve or ceases to act, I appoint KATHRYN H. RUEMMLER, as successor Executor", behind Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn. It closes "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Will this 8th day of May, 2018", signed, witnessed and notarised the same day before a New York notary. It is not a draft. Her substantive point is right: it is not the operative will either. Jeffrey Epstein signed a new will on 8 August 2019, two days before his death (EFTA01688067), revoking "all prior Wills and Codicils" and putting Boris Nikolic in the successor slot. Genuine drafts with other slates do exist in the corpus, at EFTA01266260 and EFTA01266268, and neither is the document that names her.
Described 'Uncle Jeffrey' as poking fun at a patronising man; the email is effusive thanks for a gift delivered to her apartment
Sworn claimAsked why she called him "Uncle Jeffrey", she said he was "extremely arrogant", "a mansplainer", "pushy" and "avuncular", and that she used the name "as a joke and, frankly, to poke fun of those qualities", "in a way to not be -- to sort of call him out for the way that he could be quite patronizing" (p.28).
The recordEFTA00482502, 8 October 2018, a thread with his assistant Lesley Groff. Groff: "Jeffrey is sending a couple of things to your NY apartment...Jojo is on his way now to you...he can leave with your doorman...are you home?" Ruemmler: "I am indeed! Thanks, Lesley!" and then, on delivery: "He has! So lovely and thoughtful! Thank you to Uncle Jeffrey!!!" She is right that the name attaches to a gift, as she said. Whether "So lovely and thoughtful" reads as calling him out is left to the reader. Her placement of the pet names early in the relationship does not hold for this one: it is from October 2018, more than four years in.
2026-06-30 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Called Ghislaine Maxwell a social friend he communicated with rarely, but the corpus holds a familiar 2001 to 2005 correspondence, some of it in his own hand
Sworn claimBand said his contact with Jeffrey Epstein was "infrequent and incidental to my duties" and that "I really barely knew him" (p.15), and of Ghislaine Maxwell that "I don't recall communicating with her frequently" (p.16), calling their emails nothing more than "flirtatious banter."
The recordThe EFTA corpus holds a steady run of Band-Maxwell email from 2001 to 2005, two of it sent From: "Doug Band" To: "Ghislaine Maxwell" (EFTA00579203, in which he calls her "babycakes"; EFTA00579276). In EFTA02335607 (21 April 2002) Band writes that he would tell people "you are my pimp but that at the same time you are my lover." In EFTA00582326 (13 April 2003) Maxwell tells him "how lucky I am being with my 2 favorite men" as they arrange a dinner at Jeffrey Epstein's townhouse; in EFTA00011434 (17 September 2001, to doug.band@gsa.gov) she proposes a New York dinner where "we'll have the slutty Spanish girl which will be nicely counterbalanced by the cool poised Swedish type." Further threads survive at EFTA00582156, EFTA00582193 and EFTA00581829.
Described flying with Jeffrey Epstein as 'infrequent and incidental,' but the flight logs put him on more than two dozen legs of the jet
Sworn claimIn his opening statement Band said his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein "were infrequent and incidental to my duties" (p.9). Pressed by Representative Lynch, he conceded flying on the plane "more than 15" times (p.75).
The recordJeffrey Epstein's flight logs list Doug Band as a passenger on more than two dozen legs across 2002 and 2003: a March 2002 New York to London round trip, a May 2002 circuit through Japan, Hong Kong, China, Singapore and Thailand, the September 2002 Africa tour via Portugal, Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa, and November 2003 flights to Russia and China. Being flown around the world on the jet more than two dozen times is not readily described as infrequent or incidental.
Said he never went to Palm Beach with them, but a logged flight lists him aboard to West Palm Beach with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
Sworn claimBand said he "never visited Epstein's island, his Palm Beach home, or his ranch" (p.9), and that he does "not recall being in Palm Beach with them or flying with them" (p.66).
The recordJeffrey Epstein's flight logs, entered by the Committee as an exhibit, record a 14 June 2003 flight from Teterboro to Montreal and on to West Palm Beach with Jeffrey Epstein, Doug Band and Ghislaine Maxwell aboard. The log places Band on a flight into West Palm Beach with them; it does not by itself establish that he entered Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence.
2026-06-26 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Testified Jeffrey Epstein was 'never' a best friend and not a 'dear friend,' but signed his 50th-birthday letter 'a Dear Friend... Love and kisses'
Sworn claimAsked about the relationship, Black said "I know there are emails where he claims that we're best friends. We were never best friends" (p.34), and, shown his own birthday-book entry, answered "No" when asked whether he considered Jeffrey Epstein "a dear friend" (p.38).
The recordBlack's contribution to the book Ghislaine Maxwell assembled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, entered as Committee Majority Exhibit 1, is a poem that celebrates Jeffrey Epstein liking women "Blonde, Red or Brunette, spread out geographically" and is signed "Best of all, a Dear Friend. Happy Birthday, Jeffrey. Love and kisses, Leon" (p.37). Black seated Jeffrey Epstein on his family foundation board from 1997 until the 2008 conviction, and testified his home was two blocks from the townhouse where they had breakfast roughly once a month.
His counsel told the Committee Jeffrey Epstein had 'no involvement with any NDAs,' but Black testified Jeffrey Epstein knew of the settlement because he 'was handling my estate'
Sworn claimClosing the interview, Black's counsel stated "Mr. Epstein had no involvement with any NDAs, whether they exist or not" (p.46).
The recordMinutes earlier Black testified that he told Jeffrey Epstein he was "being blackmailed and extorted" over the settlement with a woman who had accused him, and that Jeffrey Epstein "was aware of it" because "he was handling my estate. $100 million would have had an effect on the estate" (p.42). Asked which such agreements Jeffrey Epstein knew of, Black named that one. Awareness of a settlement that bore on the estate Jeffrey Epstein managed is hard to reconcile with counsel's blanket denial of any involvement.
2026-06-10 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
"Completely false" that Jeffrey Epstein proposed leveraging the Gates Foundation — his own emails say otherwise
Sworn claimAsked about reporting that Jeffrey Epstein proposed a way to leverage the Gates Foundation's resources to accommodate other billionaires' fortunes: "Completely false. Epstein never ever mentioned to me the organization of the Gates Foundation. It's not something he would have had knowledge of, so it wouldn't have made any sense." Earlier: "Did Epstein advise you on the Gates Foundation?" — "Never." (p.111)
The recordFour Gates-authored emails describe exactly the scheme he calls "completely false". EFTA01946813 (Nov 2013, subject "DAF structure teaming?"), Gates to Jeffrey Epstein: "I should understand better what I should do here. Should I approach Leon specifically about doing a OAF? I would like to do a few of them on a private basis and see how it goes." EFTA01935488 (Feb 2014): "It is a good analogy. It is clearer to me now than before and it could be a great thing... I will get to see if anyone at the Foundation sees any issues with sitting down with some people and asking if they would be interested." EFTA00669635 (Aug 2014, attaching Philanthropy_at_scale.pptx): "the only path I saw was to create a new institution which is now working very well... The new partnership approach would try to let people not give up all their time but feel good about their giving impact." EFTA00650185 (Dec 2014): "He might be a candidate for the large DAF approach where the Foundation helps with some of the giving."
The "final email" cutting Jeffrey Epstein off does not exist — his last email says the opposite
Sworn claim"I think my final email to him says, Hey, the raising money isn't going to work." (p.136) In his opening statement: "At that point, I concluded Epstein would never deliver on his promises. I told him we would go no further and stopped communicating or meeting with him." (p.9)
The recordGates' last known email to Jeffrey Epstein is EFTA00650185 (11 December 2014), sent in reply to Jeffrey Epstein's one-word prompt "feedback?": "I enjoyed the breakfast a lot. All of the attendees were interesting people... So I think the breakfast was a success in terms of relationships I value and will continue to spend time on. In terms or the DAF I don't think we have any people at this point who will move to do something soon. It is a good idea but it won't come together with 4-6 partners anytime soon." There is no termination, no "we will go no further", and no statement that the raising money isn't going to work. It is a warm, forward-looking note calling the idea "good". Jeffrey Epstein's reply the next day (EFTA02597199) treats the project as live and invites Gates and his family to the island.
"He would never play a role in any of the work" — Jeffrey Epstein set the agenda and Gates worked to it
Sworn claim"I made it clear to Epstein from the outset that he would never play a role in any of the work or receive any compensation." (p.9)
The recordEFTA00997639 (Sept 2014): Jeffrey Epstein instructs "when you are in for Robin Hood, perfect time for you to pitch DAF"; Gates replies with his week's schedule and adds "I can easily talk about the DAF approach at the dinner. Ray Dalio and Paul Tudor Jones and others will be at both events." EFTA00991663 (June 2014), Gates: "I think your idea of breakfasts around the US Open is a good idea. I will work on the calendar for that in the first half of July." In the same thread Jeffrey Epstein writes: "I would like to retain her [Ruemmler] to sheppard through the structure of the DAF: regulatory, tax, etc... [I] have heard nothing from your team since our meeting on the 3rd." EFTA01928217 (Apr 2014), Jeffrey Epstein: "Have not heard from your people since our meeting??"; Gates: "I meet on the DAF on April 29." Gates was taking direction, reporting progress, and asking Jeffrey Epstein what to do.
Kathryn Ruemmler: "I'm not quite sure why he added her" — Jeffrey Epstein had told him in writing three months earlier
Sworn claim"I'm not quite sure why he added her to the calendar this day. I gave him some discretion on that... You know, he may have been working towards suggesting I involve her in some of my work in some way, but that never happened." (p.100)
The recordEFTA02585011 (23 June 2014), Jeffrey Epstein to Bill Gates and Larry Cohen: "Ive asked kathy Ruemmler to play point on getting p[e]ople and structure together, she is smart, m[e]linda i think will li[k]e her, and she is well respected by the various relevant regulatory [b]odies, Irs, sec. justice etc." EFTA00991663 (22 June 2014): "I spoke to Larry and if there is no conflict I would like to retain her to sheppard through the structure of the DAF: regulatory, tax, etc." Gates was told, twice in writing and directly to his inbox, exactly why Ruemmler was involved — eleven weeks before the September 2014 meeting he says he cannot explain.
"He certainly wasn't a friend" / "never reciprocated" — Gates sent chatty holiday letters
Sworn claim"No, he certainly wasn't a friend." (p.17) "While he may have sought to foster a personal relationship, I was never interested in that and never reciprocated." (p.9)
The recordEFTA01939941 (5 January 2014), Gates to Jeffrey Epstein: "I will certainly pay you the dollar next time I see you. I forget the specifics but I absolutely said the Euro would be worth less today than it has ended up being and you said it would turn out like it has. I still like Dalio but he has had a tough year... I spent a week in the Caribbean on Serene. If you have a large group that is a nice boat... We cruised from Dominica to Grenada hanging out at different beaches. I played tennis at Canouan a few times." This is an unprompted personal holiday travelogue and a running wager between friends. EFTA01928217: "I am on my way to Indonesia which is mostly 2 weeks of vacation... My time in Paris went well. I saw the President..."
The Palm Beach flight was booked on Jeffrey Epstein's plane through his chief pilot
Sworn claim"It was not his 727, but we flew on a different plane to Palm Beach." ... "A private plane. And I don't know if he owned it or chartered it or what, but it was a Gulfstream, not a -- the well-known 727." (p.52)
The recordEFTA02100285 (26 February 2013) is an internal Jeffrey Epstein-office chain circulated to Lesley Groff and Lawrence Visoski, Jeffrey Epstein's chief pilot. It records Jeffrey Epstein's own words — "also maybe thurs 2 and fri , maybe fly with me to pb" — and Groff's note: "JE also says he might see Gates again on Thurs. Feb. 28th at 2:00 and then possibly on Friday fly to PB with Gates as his passenger..." A colleague replies about "gates plane" and Groff corrects: "actually, I think JE meant that Gates would fly with JE on JE's plane...but I could be wrong!" The flight was arranged through Jeffrey Epstein's own flight crew, with Gates travelling as his passenger.
Island invitations: he was invited to specific dated events with named guests
Sworn claim"And to be clear, there was no specific purpose, it was to meet with Epstein, generally speaking, but there wasn't an event you were going to at his island?" — "No. Or that I was invited to." (p.46)
The recordEFTA00996420 (2 September 2014), Jeffrey Epstein to Bill Gates: "reid hoffman, joi ito and maybe elon will come to island weekend of dec 6 . you can tell melinda its safe come" — a specific weekend, three named guests, and a reassurance aimed at Melinda French Gates. EFTA02597199 (12 December 2014): "any interesting people visiting the island over holidays. of course [y]ou and your family are welcome . eva , kathy ruemmler. women t[h]at Melinda might take comfort with." EFTA01058838 (December 2016): "come to visit the island. new adminstration people visiting". Nothing in the corpus suggests Gates ever went.
Undisclosed $20M sought for Boris Nikolic's fund — routed through Jeffrey Epstein
Sworn claimAsked to explain the ultimate dollar value of Nikolic's severance: "Well, the biggest economic thing between Dr. Nikolic and Gates Ventures was the sharing of the profit from the two investments that he made... Beyond that, I think he got a fairly standard exit package, which would have been on the order of 6 to 9 months of compensation." (p.79)
The recordEFTA01942897 (January 2014). Nikolic to Gates: "Did you have chance to discuss a possibility of increasing the amount you could invest in a fund? As I mentioned you that would be super helpful as no LP will come up with more than you..." Gates replies: "This was harder than I expected. Larry should come up with an email to Melinda explaining briefly why the S20M is important. I am hopeful she will say yes but I cannot guarantee it." Nikolic then FORWARDS the whole exchange to Jeffrey Epstein with the note: "Now I am waiting for a final decision." Gates gave the committee a full account of the economics of the Nikolic relationship and omitted this entirely.
2026-06-09 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Her own 2014 email books a massage she swore she never booked
Sworn claimGroff testified that massage scheduling ended when Jeffrey Epstein went to jail and never resumed. "So, in 2013, when you moved into the residence and your office was there, he never had you book a massage for him until he died in 2019?" — "That's correct." (p.91)
The recordEFTA00377229 is an email chain dated 4 January 2014, subject line "Re: Jeffrey Epstein - massage this afternoon?". Groff writes: "Jeffrey is back in PB and asking if you might be available for a massage later this afternoon. Can you let me know as soon as possible?" The masseuse offers the next day, and Groff replies: "Jeffrey says tomorrow is ok. What time is good for you?" This is Groff personally soliciting a private masseuse more than four years after his release. It also contradicts what her lawyers told DOJ in the 2020 attorney proffer (EFTA00025091): she "was not asked to make massage appointments after his plea, and, to her memory, the word `massage' was not used again." She used the word herself, in a subject line, in 2014.
The obstruction call: DOJ says she phoned Jeffrey Epstein, who told her not to hand over evidence
Sworn claimOn the 21 August 2007 FBI visit that served her with a federal grand jury subpoena, Groff testified: "I went upstairs and I called Darren Indyke, who is the in-house counsel, to just say people are here." (p.90) Shown the government's plea proffer, she said: "I believe it is. I don't know how they would know that. I really believe that I called Mr. Indyke. It's not -- I wouldn't call Mr. Epstein." (p.196) Asked whether she remembered Jeffrey Epstein pressuring her not to comply: "None. No." (p.197)
The recordThe United States' draft plea proffer — put to her by the committee as minority exhibit H, Bates EFTA00213369, and also in the corpus at EFTA02770202 — states: "While upstairs, Ms. Groff telephoned the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and informed him that the FBI agents were at her home. Mr. Epstein instructed Ms. Groff not to speak with the agents... Mr. Epstein warned Ms. Groff against turning over documents and electronic evidence responsive to the subpoena... This conversation occurred when Mr. Epstein was aboard his privately owned civilian aircraft in Miami." The same facts appear in EFTA00206732. Prosecutors drafted a criminal obstruction charge around this call — the government would not have built a charge on a phone call it believed never happened.
"I never applied for a visa for anyone else" — four documents show her manufacturing visa paperwork
Sworn claimGroff denied any visa role repeatedly. "The only visas that I helped apply for were for Mr. Epstein twice, once for Russia, once for Japan." Asked "You're positive?" she answered: "I never applied for a visa for anyone else." (p.149)
The recordEFTA02062951 (Jan 2016), Groff to Amex Centurion Travel: "This is a decoy flight...she will not really take it...but she needs to show an itinerary for this flight...can you put something together for me?" EFTA00501622 (Dec 2012): "[she] has an interview with the consulate at 10:30. She needs proof of hotel stay and air for this meeting." EFTA00496358 (May 2019), subject "CHANGE NOW!!": "She must show this return ticket when she arrives NY today...she had issues leaving Vilnius and Moscow because they wanted to see she would return to Europe." EFTA00493112 (Apr 2019): "can she get her visa before this date so she can start the course on time?" The FBI's FY19 tactical intelligence report (EFTA00261337) separately records a visa application dated 11/2/2017 listing Groff's contact number.
She notarized the trust that leaves her $2,000,000 — then said she was never a trust beneficiary
Sworn claim"Were you ever listed as the beneficiary of any trust owned by Jeffrey Epstein?" — "A beneficiary?" — "Yes." — "Was that the Butterfly Trust?" — "Just if you remember any -- being listed ever." — "No. No." (p.189)
The recordEFTA00099424 is the "JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 2017 TRUST", dated January 2017. Clause 10: "to LESLEY KATHERINE GROFF, if she survives me, Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000)." Clause 29 forgives her loans. The execution pages of that same instrument carry her own notary stamp — she notarized the signatures on it: "Sworn to before me this 30[th] day of January, 2017. LESLEY K GROFF Notary Public - State of New York." She personally stamped and sealed the document that named her for a $2M bequest and wiped out the $410,000 in loans she separately admitted receiving.
"Tell him about the girls" — the Jes Staley email destroys the no-introductions denial
Sworn claim"Were meetings ever scheduled for the purpose of Mr. Epstein introducing young women or girls to prominent individuals?" — "No, not that I know of." (p.114) And: "Did Mr. Epstein ever instruct you to schedule appointments with women directly before or after his business meetings?" — "No." (p.115)
The recordEFTA00362214 (23 September 2014), subject "Re: Jes Staley". Groff writes to Jeffrey Epstein: "Jes is asking if he could come see you at 6pm tonight instead of 6:30 as he has a conf call he must be on at 7pm. You have Barbro and BBB girls at 5:30. Ok to have Jes come at 6pm?" Jeffrey Epstein replies: "yes, but tell him about the girls I can step out for ten miniutes if he needs privacy". Groff flagged the overlap between the banker and the young women, and was instructed to tell Staley "about the girls" — an explicit instruction to broker exactly the introduction she told the committee never happened.
"They deemed me not guilty" — DOJ did no such thing; her counsel had advised her to take the Fifth
Sworn claim"There is no plea deal. I did sit with them voluntarily and answered all their questions, and they deemed me not guilty of being a coconspirator." Asked whether that was in writing: "I believe we asked them to do that, but they said that's not something they do." (p.81)
The recordThe SDNY prosecution memo (EFTA02731082) records the opposite: "on August 7, 2019, we had a phone call with Groff's attorney during which he indicated that he would not bring Groff in for a proffer and had advised her to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination if she is subpoenaed to testify. In recent weeks, we have reached back out to Groff's attorney to convey that we will not be able to provide her with any sort of agreement if she does not proffer with us." The same memo names her as a subject of the co-conspirator investigation. No document in the corpus "deems" her not guilty; DOJ's charging analysis of her is withheld in full.
"It wasn't me that was concerned" — her own email says "I am petrified"
Sworn claimShown her September 2017 email about flight records leaking, Groff minimised her own alarm: "It wasn't me that was concerned. I didn't want to hear the wrath and get in trouble from Mr. Epstein about inadvertently having confirmations be sent to people that were on our list." (p.132)
The recordEFTA00458074 (5 September 2017), Groff to the Amex Centurion agent, subject "PLEASE HELP! Take ALL Email Addresses OUT of OUR ACCOUNT!!": "Jeffrey is EXTREMELY private...he does not want ANY flight confirmations sent to anyone but me... Jeffrey was livid about this... I am petrified that all these tickets we have coming up this week from Russia to Paris will somehow resurface and get emailed to someone in our 'list' of emails... We really need to rectify this issue!" Her word was "petrified", about tickets bringing women from Russia to Paris being visible even to Jeffrey Epstein's own staff.
Internal contradiction: the apartment door codes
Sworn claimIn the first hour: "Did you have a PIN number for their apartments? Did you control their apartments?" — "No, I did not." (p.32) Four hours later: "I did know the codes on the apartments, but I had nothing to do with them." (p.169)
The recordNo document needed: the two answers cannot both be true. She denied having the PIN codes flatly, then conceded she knew them — and, when told an email exists showing she changed one, retreated to "Well, maybe there was something wrong with a code. I don't -- I don't know." The survivors' allegation put to her was that Jeffrey Epstein used PIN-code control of their apartments as leverage, administered through Groff.
2026-05-21 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Said she had no idea the material she gathered was being hidden from police — the FBI says her own lawyers described "actions Kellen took to destroy evidence"
Sworn claimAsked whether items or records were intentionally destroyed or withheld from the police, she answered: "I don't know." (p.100) And: "I didn't remove it. I just was gathering it from all the floors in the house and putting it in the dining room for the attorneys. I don't know what they did with it." (p.101)
The recordThe FBI's own electronic communication summarising the SDNY case (EFTA00174356) states: "On 07/31/2019, FBI And SDNY met with counsel for Sarah Kellen, who was Epstein's personal assistant during the period of the charged conduct. Kellen's lawyers provided an attorney proffer... The attorneys also provided an overview of her role in scheduling massages in Florida, as well as actions Kellen took to destroy evidence, at Epstein's direction." The SDNY co-conspirator memorandum (EFTA02731082) records that prosecutors agreed with her counsel that "we would not discuss [her] obstructive conduct during the first investigation" — i.e. her obstruction was expressly carved out of the proffer. The FBI evidence inventory (EFTA02730486) lists a "Box containing Shredded paper" and a "Disk containing images of Matchmaker shred reconstruction." Her account to Congress — that she innocently piled directories and printed photographs on a dining-room table for Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers during the Florida investigation and never knew why — is irreconcilable with what the FBI says her own attorneys told them.
Recast Ghislaine Maxwell's directory as a social address book — her own proffer says she used it to book the daily massages and added new masseuses to it
Sworn claim"Okay. So it wasn't specifically a directory of massage providers?" — "No." (p.51) And: "It was everybody that they knew. It was technically Ghislaine's directory." (p.51)
The recordThe SDNY co-conspirator memorandum (EFTA02731082), summarising Kellen's own November 2019 proffer: "When Epstein was in Palm Beach, [she] was responsible for scheduling his daily massages... Maxwell and [redacted] taught [her] how to schedule massages using a directory that was kept in Maxwell's office. Maxwell or Epstein would tell [her] who from the directory to call for a particular massage... Eventually, [she] was shown how to edit the directory on the computer, and she would update the directory with new contact information for new masseuses when told to do so." A footnote adds: "This appears to be the directory that [redacted] was instructed to remove from Epstein's Palm Beach and Virgin Islands residences... As [a] result, law enforcement has not recovered a copy of this directory." The book she described to Congress as a benign contact list is, on her own account to prosecutors, the massage-booking instrument — and the single most important destroyed piece of evidence in the case.
The entire massage subject was refused — the conduct she gave prosecutors a detailed account of in 2019
Sworn claim"Were massages a part of Mr. Epstein's routine day?" Her counsel: "Yeah, I think we're going to avoid massages." Asked to state it for the record, Kellen answered: "I would like to answer all the questions, I really would, but I need to listen to my counsel." (p.103) The same block came down on how the masseuses' contact information was obtained (p.103), on their ages (p.104), and on whether she ever witnessed Jeffrey Epstein have sexual contact with other young women or girls (p.86).
The recordKellen had already given SDNY a detailed narrative on exactly these points (EFTA02731082): she was "responsible for scheduling his daily massages"; "When a masseuse arrived at the Palm Beach residence, generally someone would meet her in the kitchen. [She] would then take her up to the massage room. If it was a masseuse's first time, [she] would show her the table, lotions, and towels. [She] would then leave and tell Epstein that his massage was ready"; and if a masseuse could not come, "she would ask the masseuse whether they could refer anyone else." An FBI FD-302 (EFTA01245817) states that Kellen "took [a victim] upstairs to provide EPSTEIN the massage. KELLEN removed the massage table from the closet and set it up." This is an evasion, not a false statement — but the scope objection, framed as protecting other victims, shielded precisely the body of conduct that made her a named co-conspirator.
"A few times of contact" after she left — her proffer says she saw Jeffrey Epstein every other month, right up to the $250,000 payment
Sworn claim"I had a few times of contact with him when I stopped working for him. He would ask to see me sometimes in New York, and I would see him at his townhouse in New York, and I believe one time in Miami." (p.29)
The recordThe SDNY memorandum (EFTA02731082), on her December 2019 proffer: "[She] was still in touch with Epstein and saw him every other month or so. During those meetings, [she] told Epstein about her financial troubles. Then one day in early December 2018, Leslie Groff emailed [her] inviting her to visit with Epstein at his residence in New York." The same passage records that Jeffrey Epstein then wired her $250,000 through Richard Kahn, and that "The last time [Epstein] provided [her] with money before that transaction was a $100,000 gift for her wedding." Bi-monthly in-person visits, a $100,000 wedding gift and a $250,000 wire is not "a few times of contact." She did confirm the $250,000 to the committee (p.128), but neither the frequency nor the wedding gift was volunteered.
"Jeffrey Epstein never told me not to cooperate" — a 2010 court filing says he threatened and harassed her against cooperating
Sworn claim"Was there any point in time at which Jeffrey Epstein told you not to cooperate with law enforcement?" — "No." Asked whether anyone instructed her how to interact with law enforcement: "Not that I recall." (p.116)
The recordEFTA00081180 (Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein & Edwards, Palm Beach County Circuit Court), describing the occasion when Jeffrey Epstein diverted his aircraft to the U.S. Virgin Islands to keep FBI agents from serving a target letter: "During the flight, the defendant verbally harassed Ms. Marcinkova, harassing and pressuring her not to cooperate with the grand jury's investigation... Epstein also threatened and harassed Sarah Kellen against cooperating against him as well." This is a litigant's sworn assertion rather than a judicial finding — but it squarely conflicts with her flat denial, and it sits oddly beside her own account of Jeffrey Epstein walking over to two FBI agents who were approaching her at the St. Thomas airport in 2007, speaking to them, and returning to say "Let's go" (p.12).
"No" to remaining in contact with Ghislaine Maxwell — she was still relaying Jeffrey Epstein's instructions to her in 2011
Sworn claim"Did you remain in contact with Ms. Maxwell after -- after she stopped working for Epstein?" — "No." Pressed, she added that there could have been "potentially an email here or there, but I don't have any, like, specific recollection." She gave 2010 as the last time she saw her. (p.73)
The recordThree 2011 emails from Kellen to Maxwell survive in the corpus. EFTA00561405 (6 April 2011) reads in full: "from JE:" / "Hotel Lambert" — she was relaying Jeffrey Epstein's instructions to Maxwell. EFTA00562975 (13 July 2011): "Just an FYI.. JE is also getting rid of the pigs, miniature horses, goats, as well as Diablo and I think Max.. any horses we don't ride." EFTA00561052 (26 February 2011): "Hey..hear you're in LA. Just an FYI, Alice Bamford is living in LA now, if you wanted to get in touch." Her hedge partially covers this, but the flat "No" does not — and the emails show an operational Jeffrey Epstein-to-Maxwell channel still running through her a year after the date she gave as her last contact.
Denied any sense that the girls were minors — the contemporaneous record repeatedly signals otherwise
Sworn claim"Did Epstein ever tell you that he liked younger women?" — "Not in -- no, not specifically in those words." "Did he ever tell you that he liked teenage girls?" — "No." (p.48) Every question about the ages of the masseuses was refused on counsel's instruction (p.104).
The recordEFTA00190247, the March 2007 "Operation Leap Year" prosecution memo to U.S. Attorney Acosta, names Kellen as one of three investigative targets: "The targets would arrange 'sexual massages' for Epstein... and many of those 'sexual massages' were performed by minor females." The same memo records that a victim-recruiter told Palm Beach police "that Kellen had mentioned something about how Epstein did not like to have sex with the girls, he was just 'turned on' by masturbating in front of them," and the prosecutor adds: "If Kellen really said this, or something like this, then Kellen clearly knew that Epstein was engaging in sexual activity." A victim data sheet (EFTA00216386) records, under knowledge of her being underage, that she "Would purposely miss the calls when either Epstein or his assistant, Sarah Kellen, would call saying she got in trouble in school." A Leap Year addendum (EFTA00223881) records "more than 250 telephone calls between Jane Doe #6 and Sarah Kellen." And in her own proffer (EFTA02731082), asked why masseuses cancelled, "she recalled some saying they had to work and one referencing soccer practice." This does not disprove a subjective claim of ignorance — but it is heavily undercut, and the committee never put any of it to her.
Blanket denial on every powerful man — after invoking the Fifth on the same subject in 2010
Sworn claimRun through a list of more than twenty prominent names, she answered "No" to each. Asked to broaden it — "Can you now answer whether you were aware of any of those individuals having engaged in sexual misconduct?" — she answered: "I wasn't aware." (p.85)
The recordEFTA00081180 records her March 2010 deposition: "She invoked the Fifth on all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abused." EFTA01112290 records: "Sarah Kellen, [redacted] and [redacted] all took the Fifth when asked about Dershowitz's awareness of Epstein's sexual abuse of underage girls or whether Dershowitz was involved in massages with young girls." A Fifth Amendment invocation is not an admission and this is not a contradiction in the legal sense. But in 2010, on advice of counsel, she would not deny that Ghislaine Maxwell recruited underage girls; in 2026 she volunteered a clean "No" to every name on the list, and drew no follow-up.
2026-05-06 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
"I did not in any way contact or have any connection to him" — but he emailed Jeffrey Epstein to set up the island visit
Sworn claim"So, to be clear, you did not reach out, yourself, to tell Mr. Epstein that you were going to be in the U.S. Virgin Islands over Christmas. Is that right?" — "Yes." ... "Yes, that is correct. I did not in any way contact or have any connection to him." (p.23) In his opening statement: "I still have no idea how his staff discovered my family's vacation plans or why they pursued arranging a visit with me." (p.10)
The recordEFTA00398853 (19 December 2012, 7:48 p.m.), From: "Lutnick, Howard," Subject: "Sunday": "Hi Jeff, We are landing in St. Thomas early Saturday afternoon and planning to head over to St. Bart's/Anguilla on Monday at some point. Where are you located (what is exact location for my captain)? Does Sunday evening for dinner sound good? I have another couple (Michael and Marcy Lehrman) with me on my boat..." Jeffrey Epstein replied: "come sat or sunday lunch? little st james on the map, behind christmans cove." The arrival logistics were proposed from the Lutnick side, in the first person, with details only Lutnick would supply — "my captain", "my boat", the identity of his travelling companions.
The "my assistant wrote all of them" defence collapses on the documents
Sworn claim"It may be helpful for you to understand that, if the email says 'Howard Lutnick' or 'Lutnick, Howard' those went to Matthew Gilbert. They did not go to me. They were not -- meaning, I would never see them." (p.22) "No. As I've told you, if it says Howard Lutnick, it was sent by Matthew Gilbert. And he's the one that sees them, meaning I don't. I don't see them." (p.34)
The recordThe emails sent under that name are not secretarial. EFTA00475738 was sent at 10:42 p.m. on a Sunday and is stamped "Sent from my iPhone": "Are you aware as to them building to block our park views. What should we do about it? Time is of the essence". EFTA00474452 was sent at 8:34 p.m. from hlutnick@cantor.com and speaks with personal authority: "You should put in a letter. I'm sending a lawyer. Don't ignore this." — to which Jeffrey Epstein "responded: WILL DO!" EFTA00398853 supplies details an assistant would not own ("my captain", "my boat"). Lesley Groff replied to the Frick message as if to the principal (EFTA00475742): "Hello Howard...I have passed your email on." The blanket rule he offered the committee is the premise on which most of his denials depend, and it does not survive the documents.
"One set of email interactions... four in one day once" — the corpus shows several separate exchanges
Sworn claim"I do not recall ever having a phone call with Mr. Epstein, and I think I had one set of email interactions with Mr. Epstein personally... And I think there were a total of four in one day once." (p.18) "The 2018 emails that I've seen -- that one exchange is the only email exchange that I have learned about in this process. And I don't recall any other." (p.89)
The recordAt least four distinct direct exchanges are in the files: 19 December 2012 (EFTA00398853, the St. Thomas email), 20 May 2018 (EFTA00475738), 27 May 2018 (EFTA00474452 — Jeffrey Epstein replies "WILL DO!"), and 28 May 2018 (EFTA01050772, the AdFin exchange he admits was his). At the Senate hearing three months earlier he had given a different figure again — "maybe 10 emails connecting me with him... over a 14-year period". His own counsel confirmed on the record that the AdFin note followed an earlier Lutnick-Epstein exchange about the Frick expansion.
"I did not have drinks" — three contemporaneous records say otherwise
Sworn claimShown Jeffrey Epstein's schedule for 1 May 2011: "It is. So this -- this is incorrect. I did not have drinks." (p.72) "His schedule said other things. That was wrong." (p.33) His account: "I rang the bell, sat in his foyer with my dog, waited for him to come down, heard what he had to say, and left. As far as I recall, it was about scaffolding." (p.10)
The recordEFTA01868626 (Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, 27 April 2011): "Howard Lumick will come see you at 5pm on Sunday May 1st." — a scheduled appointment, not a doorbell drop-in. EFTA02189429 (calendar alarm): "5:00 Drinks w/Howard Lutnick May 1, 2011 5:00 PM." EFTA00307010 (Jeffrey Epstein's day sheet): "5:00pm Appt w/Howard Lutnick (drinks) 6:30pm Dinner w/Woody Allen..." Jeffrey Epstein's office had also spent five weeks trying to connect them by phone. At the Senate hearing in February 2026 Lutnick had accepted the same document, describing "a meeting with him... for an hour at five o'clock"; in the House he repudiated it.
"I do not" know who Lesley Groff is — she emailed him by name for years
Sworn claim"Secretary Lutnick, do you know who Ms. Lesley Groff is?" — "I do not." (p.32)
The recordJeffrey Epstein's scheduler corresponded with the Lutnick household repeatedly and addressed him personally. EFTA02151530 (20 November 2012): "Hello, Mr. Lutnick, Jeffrey Epstein understands you will be down in St. Thomas some over the holidays..." EFTA02152981 (24 December 2012, To: Lutnick, Howard): "Good morning Howard. Jeffrey wished me to pass along the below to you: Nice seeing you." EFTA00475742 (May 2018): "Hello Howard...I have passed your email on." Not knowing her name today is possible; but the answer was given flatly, without qualification, about a person who had been emailing him for six years.
Redefining "I" to save the podcast claim — and refusing the plain question
Sworn claim"I was never, Howard Lutnick, I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or philanthropically, alone in a situation where I could be at all with a person who I found inappropriate. So that's correct." (p.48) Asked the literal question — whether he was in a room with Jeffrey Epstein after the tour of his home — he answered: "Again, I have described it correctly, and I'm going to stick to my answer." (p.49)
The recordInternal contradiction inside the same interview: minutes later he conceded the island lunch WAS social — "I would describe a lunch with my wife and my family and the other couple and their family, yes, I would describe that as a social lunch, meaningless and inconsequential social lunch. I agree." (p.50) He ultimately accepted his counsel's formulation that what he meant was "I was never in a room with him unaccompanied by my wife" (p.53). This is evasion by redefinition rather than a false statement of fact, but he twice declined to answer a direct factual question.
2026-04-30 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
He told the committee the Rothstein matter had no link to Jeffrey Epstein. His own 2009 emails say the opposite.
Sworn claim"Yeah, I do believe her name came up, but I don't think it was in the context of any of those sexual lawsuits. It was never tied to that ... to Epstein's crimes, or a lawsuit involving Epstein's crimes. ... but I don't believe Epstein's name ever came up." (p.60)
The recordWaitt's own email chain with Maxwell of 16 October 2009 — preserved because Maxwell forwarded it to Jeffrey Epstein in March 2011 marked "Only for your eyes" — reads: T Waitt: "Scott rothstein with Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler." Maxwell: "? I don't know these people". Waitt: "Well, maybe they are suing je as well. As they have your name." Maxwell: "They are suing me". Waitt: "Got to be related somehow to the guy that subpoenaed you. Who is that firm? They have all the info and apparently settling for 18mm. Same suit I believe." Maxwell: "Just checked that is the firm that subpoenaed me". Waitt himself raised "je", himself tied Rothstein's firm to the subpoena served on Maxwell in the Epstein civil litigation, and himself said the firm had "all" of her material.
"Were you aware of any blackmail threats at the time?" — "No."
Sworn claim"Were you aware of any blackmail threats at the time?" — "No." (p.97) His counsel added that it was his understanding it was a business deal being proposed, which he declined.
The recordGhislaine Maxwell, emailing Jeffrey Epstein on 24 March 2011 — a private message, not a litigation position — wrote: "As remember the story AJ approached him in July as you can see if not before and TW did not see the stuff nor know it was your cases — As Rothstein got more desperate AJ got a meeting behind TW back and then said to TW that if he paid my name would go away guaranteed ..tw said he was being blackmailed that is all I know — I don't know how many calls or e mails were sent between them also tw said he didn't pay anything —" This attributes the word "blackmailed" to Waitt himself. Caveat: it is Maxwell's hearsay report of his words, and it corroborates him on the key point that he paid nothing.
The $7.2M breakup payment "had no connection" to Jeffrey Epstein — but the negotiation ran through his Gmail account
Sworn claim"And did the payment have any connection to legal troubles of Mr. Epstein's of any kind?" — "No." (p.68)
The recordWaitt's settlement-options email to Maxwell of 12 September 2010 ("I think there's three or 4 options... but as to something like a $20mm loan, that's not gonna happen") was inside Jeffrey Epstein's inbox within hours — EFTA00756627 is that chain forwarded to jeevacation@gmail.com. The reply (EFTA00778759) was sent FROM "Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>", written in Maxwell's first person: "As you know I have spent the past years building what you and I had agreed was a future together. The boat. houses. staff, new apt." The $7,212,722.56 wire from "Theodore W Waitt" landed in Maxwell's JPMorgan account on 24 September 2010 (EFTA01575730). Whether or not Waitt knew, Jeffrey Epstein's own email account was a channel in the negotiation of that payment.
"I was under the impression that she moved on from that" — flight logs show Maxwell flying to the island with Jeffrey Epstein throughout their relationship
Sworn claim"I was under the impression that she moved on from that." (p.25) "Can you recall any instance of Ms. Maxwell going to Mr. Epstein's island while you were dating?" — "No, I don't recall any instances where she went to the island." (p.54)
The recordThe flight logs record 20 Maxwell flights in 2004 and 18 in 2005 — inside the relationship — including island legs with Jeffrey Epstein aboard. Maxwell's own email to Waitt of 21 March 2004 (EFTA02335814) states: "JE and I are still talking about the W W H W of our relationship, and what it looks like going forward from here with you in my life - he has nothing, had nothing negative to say and has simply reviewed all the ways for us to remain close without impeding any plans or fun that we may have !" Jeffrey Epstein was actively vetting the terms of Maxwell's continued closeness to him at the start of the Waitt relationship. Fairness caveat: two corpus sources cut the other way — Maxwell's sentencing memorandum (EFTA00156337) quotes trial testimony that by 2002 she had "moved on" from Jeffrey Epstein, and his pilot testified she was travelling much less by 2004 (EFTA00068582). The factual premise of his belief is contradicted; his personal ignorance is implausible but not disproven.
Two years of $30,000 wires into an LLC registered to Jeffrey Epstein's personal lawyer
Sworn claim"Our understanding is that this LLC was controlled by Darren Indyke who was Mr. Epstein's lawyer. Do you recall being aware of that at the time?" — "No." He added: "I remember hearing the name Darren quite frequently as someone Ms. Maxwell interfaced with." (p.63)
The recordThe committee's premise is corpus-confirmed: corporate records in the Epstein files list "116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC — Name: INDYKE, DARREN K" (EFTA01257329, EFTA01295770, EFTA01296188). The wire schedule (EFTA01577514) shows Waitt sending $120,000 in April 2008 and then $30,000 every month through at least April 2010 to "116 EAST 65TH ST LLC" — roughly $840,000. Sending that sum into a vehicle he never checked, whose principal was the man whose name he heard constantly, is implausible but not disproven — classified as evasion rather than proven falsehood.
"I had no affiliation with him myself" — Jeffrey Epstein's FedEx account shipped to Waitt's homes for two years
Sworn claim"Well, I clearly didn't want her affiliating with him and I didn't want to affiliate with him, and I had no affiliation with him myself." (p.58)
The recordFedEx invoices billed to Jeffrey Epstein's account show a sustained 2004-2005 shipping stream to Waitt's world: sender "GMAX"/"G MAXWELL" c/o JEFFREY E EPSTEIN to recipient "TED WAITT" in La Jolla (EFTA01312750, EFTA01312834, EFTA01316858, EFTA01317003), to his hotel (EFTA01312994), to his home signed for by a family member (EFTA01318666), and two September 2005 shipments listing the sender simply as "J EPSTEIN" to "TED WAITT" (EFTA01314665). Caveat: on most of these Maxwell is the named shipper and Jeffrey Epstein is the account holder, so this is not proof of person-to-person contact — but Jeffrey Epstein's household was routinely servicing the Waitt relationship at his own expense.
2026-04-14 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Denied DOJ ever compiled a list of Jeffrey Epstein's associates — then admitted the list was compiled and released
Sworn claim"So, for the record, is it your testimony today that the Department of Justice never had a list of Epstein's clients or associates in its possession?" — "Not to my knowledge." (p.21)
The recordAfter a break, unprompted, she reversed: "I did not direct anyone's name to be reviewed to see if it was in there, but it was done. Because I remember now... I remember being aware, of course, that his name was in it, along with hundreds -- or countless -- countless other individuals. And I think that list ultimately came out, as well, involving high-profile individuals. So I am aware that his name was searched, but that was among many names that the department searched... And, in fact, that list was ultimately released." (p.73) The corpus corroborates the existence of such a compiled list: EFTA00163724 records that "AG Bondi informed President Trump in May that his name was among hundreds of people identified in the Jeffrey Epstein files."
"I have not heard of a whistleblower saying that" — the allegation was put to her in a Senate letter that sits in DOJ's own release
Sworn claimAsked about reporting that FBI reviewers were instructed to flag mentions of Donald Trump: "I have not seen -- I have not heard of a whistleblower saying that. I have no knowledge of that." (p.103)
The recordEFTA00173350 is a five-page Senate Judiciary Committee letter dated 18 July 2025, addressed "Dear Attorney General Bondi." It states: "My office was told that these personnel were instructed to 'flag' any records in which President Trump was mentioned." It poses as numbered question 7: "Why were personnel told to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned? a. Please list all political appointees and senior DOJ officials involved in the decision to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned. b. What happened to the records mentioning President Trump once they were flagged?" The letter is in DOJ's own EFTA production.
Swore DOJ "produced everything required" while confirming ~200,000 pages were withheld on privilege
Sworn claim"To the best of my knowledge, the Department produced everything required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act... the only materials that were withheld were either non-responsive, privileged, or duplicative." (p.10)
The recordBy her own testimony the privileged category was substantial and included charging analyses: "I can give you an example, which would be, a prosecution memo is privileged." (p.32); and "he had said around 200,000 pages were redacted or withheld for privileges. -- Yes." (p.83). The Act requires disclosure of internal DOJ communications "concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate or decline to investigate" — and, as put to her on the record, "there is nothing in this law that allows the assertion of any of the kind of privileges that you've discussed today" (p.100). The corpus shows the effect: DOJ's own 86-page co-conspirator prosecution memorandum (EFTA02731082 / EFTA00022456) was released with its charging-analysis sections entirely blacked out, leaving only sub-headers.
"The only time Federal prosecutors were permitted to launch investigations... was when President Trump occupied the White House"
Sworn claim"These investigations span four administrations, dating back to the Bush administration... The only time Federal prosecutors were permitted to launch investigations against Epstein and Maxwell was when President Trump occupied the White House." (p.10)
The recordThe two sentences contradict each other, and the corpus resolves it against the second. EFTA02857524 is the complete federal prosecution memorandum for Operation Leap Year, addressed to U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta in May 2007 — under the Bush administration — seeking approval for a 60-count federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein, with victim-by-victim evidence summaries. EFTA00066350, an SDFL "EPSTEIN BOX INVENTORY," independently catalogues that federal effort: "Attorney Notes re Revised Indictment," "Target Letter," "Draft Non Prosecution Agreements." Federal prosecutors demonstrably launched a federal investigation under the Bush administration; it was terminated by the Non-Prosecution Agreement, not by never having been permitted.
Told Congress it could inspect all 6 million pages — then had to withdraw it
Sworn claim"The unredacted versions are also available to Members of Congress, including the duplicative material... so Congress can go in and see for themselves the 6 million pages versus why 3 million was released." (p.30)
The recordAfter the next break she corrected herself: "Regarding the documents in the Reading Room, when I said all 6 million were available, I know I said the duplicative ones were, but I want to clarify -- and I was just informed of this -- that the unresponsive documents that had nothing to do with the case are not in the Reading Room, nor is anything that contains privileged material." (p.77) On her own corrected account, Congress cannot inspect either the privileged withholdings (~200,000 pages) or the material DOJ unilaterally deemed unresponsive. Credit where due: she volunteered the correction rather than being caught.
"Not to my knowledge" on documents pulled and never re-posted — DOJ blacked out 57 of 58 pages of an FBI declaration on her watch
Sworn claim"Are you aware of any documents that were removed that were not subsequently produced in their redacted form?" — "Not to my knowledge. Unless you want to refresh my memory, but not to my knowledge." (p.74) She characterised removals as victim-driven corrections.
The recordThis project's own DOJ audit records that on 19 March 2026 — during her tenure — DOJ replaced EFTA00015219 on justice.gov, shrinking it from 4,576,225 to 623,354 bytes. The document is the 58-page "Declaration of Michael G. Seidel" (FBI Section Chief) from Radar Online v. FBI, which disclosed that the FBI processed 11,571 pages of Epstein records and withheld 10,339 of them in full. The replacement retains only the page-1 header; pages 2-58 are solid black. This is not a victim-name correction, and it was not restored. Separately, EFTA00095751 — the 63-page Maxwell trial witness manifest cataloguing 546 witnesses — returns 404 from DOJ. Fairness note: most still-404 files are single-page images consistent with legitimate victim-image takedowns; EFTA00015219 is a text document whose new redaction is asserted on its face as privileged.
Blanket refusal to discuss any conversation with the President — with no privilege asserted
Sworn claim"I'm not going to discuss any conversations I did or did not have with the President of the United States, and I've said that multiple times on multiple topics throughout my tenure." (p.56)
The recordNo privilege was formally asserted. DOJ counsel stated on the record: "we don't even need to formally assert the privilege in this context given the voluntary nature of these proceedings. So we're just going to refuse to provide answers about conversations with the President or his advisers." (p.46) Bondi confirmed it was a choice not to answer. The withheld subject matter is not speculative: EFTA00163724 reports that "AG Bondi informed President Trump in May that his name was among hundreds of people identified in the Jeffrey Epstein files." This is a refusal to answer rather than a contradiction — but it covers the single most consequential factual episode in the investigation, and was made without any legal instrument compelling silence.
The "sitting on my desk" walk-back
Sworn claim"If you listen to the entire interview, I was referring to the file... the question was, I believe, a list of clients, and I said, 'It's sitting on my desk to review, along with JFK files, MLK files.' I wasn't -- I meant the files, to review." (p.16)
The recordThe exchange is reproduced in EFTA00173350: "you were asked directly by Fox News' America Reports host John Roberts: 'DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients; will that really happen?' Your response was: 'It's sitting on my desk right now to review.'" In her favour: her recollection that she mentioned the JFK and MLK files in the same answer is corroborated by the same source, and she never affirmatively stated a client list existed. Against her: the question was unambiguously about the client list, and she did not correct the premise at the time. EFTA00163550 records that she only walked the comment back on 8 July 2025 — five months later. Classified as evasion, not a demonstrable lie.
2026-03-26 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Told Congress she was never criminally charged with falsifying records — her own lawyer corrected her
Sworn claim"Were you ever criminally charged with falsifying BOP records?" — "No." Her counsel interjected: "Yes, you were. You were criminally charged." — "Okay." (p.114)
The recordThe indictment (EFTA00009747) charges her in six counts: "To conceal their failure to perform their duties, NOEL and THOMAS repeatedly signed false certifications attesting to having conducted multiple counts of inmates when, in truth and in fact, they never conducted such counts." Her Deferred Prosecution Agreement (EFTA00009781) opens by reciting the six-count indictment charging her under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and five counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. She had been warned at the start of the interview that she was required to answer truthfully.
Claims the false records were not made to conceal anything — her signed agreement admits she acted willfully
Sworn claim"The inaccurate documentation were executed at the beginning of each shift and were not done to cover up my conduct or the conduct of my colleague. At the time, I considered what I was doing as the "MCC way."" (p.8)
The recordHer Deferred Prosecution Agreement (EFTA00009781) states: "The undersigned hereby further admits that she willfully and knowingly completed materially false count and round slips regarding required counts and rounds in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Correctional Center ("MCC") on August 9, 2019 and August 10, 2019." The indictment is explicit on purpose: "To conceal their failure to perform their duties..." (EFTA00009747). She now recasts a knowing, willful falsification she admitted in open court as institutional culture.
Insists she performed the 10 p.m. count; the Inspector General found no 10 p.m. count happened
Sworn claim"From my point of view, sitting here today, I conducted the 10:00 p.m. count improperly, because it was done by myself." (p.80) "I entered every tier and counted the inmates... I went up and down every tier, and then I counted, by myself." (p.81)
The recordThe DOJ Inspector General report (EFTA01656708) addressed this exact claim: "the OIG determined that MCC New York staff did not perform the 10 p.m. count in the SHU. Nonetheless, Noel and the Material Handler completed and signed the 10 p.m. SHU count slip." And: "the OIG's review and analysis of the SHU security camera video conflicts with Noel's statement that she conducted the 10 p.m. count... the video reflects that it was not until between 10:29 p.m. and 10:36 p.m. when Noel walked to different tiers inside the SHU. Yet... MCC New York records reflect that counts from all MCC New York housing units were reported to the Control Center by 10:30 p.m." She repeated to Congress the identical claim the OIG had already rejected on video evidence.
Denies being the officer who carried linen up Jeffrey Epstein's tier at ~10:40 p.m.
Sworn claim"I never distributed anything orange, whether linen, clothing... I never distributed linen the entire time I worked at MCC to any inmate at all. And I never went back up the tier, nor did I carry anything up the tier, nor did I enter the tier after that time that I did the count." (p.84) Asked whether it could have been anyone else: "No. And it wasn't me." (p.86)
The recordThe DOJ Inspector General (EFTA01656708): "the OIG determined that at approximately 10:40 p.m. a CO, believed to be Noel, carried linen or inmate clothing up to the L Tier, which was the last time any CO approached the only entrance to the SHU tier in which Epstein was housed." The FBI's own briefing deck (EFTA01656152) says the same. This matters because the OIG also found: "A search of Epstein's cell following his death revealed Epstein had excess prison blankets, linens, and clothing in his cell, and that some had been ripped to create nooses." By her own account no one else could have done it: the other officer was asleep, the inmates were locked in, and nobody could enter without her opening the door.
Denies telling the responding lieutenant "Epstein hung himself"
Sworn claim"The morning watch operations lieutenant told the IG that when he arrived, you told him, quote, 'Epstein hung himself.' Do you recall that happening?" — "No." (p.124)
The recordThe indictment (EFTA00009747) records: "as NOEL approached the door to the SHU to open the door for Supervisor-1, NOEL told Supervisor-1 that 'Epstein hung himself.' After arriving in the SHU, Supervisor-1 spoke with THOMAS and NOEL. NOEL told Supervisor-1 'we did not complete the 3 a.m. nor 5 a.m. rounds.'" The Inspector General (EFTA01656708) records the lieutenant's account independently. Two spontaneous statements attributed to her in the first minutes after the body was found are now absent from her memory.
No recollection of the orange sign ordering 30-minute rounds on Jeffrey Epstein
Sworn claim"the sign said, I'll just read it, it's one sentence, mandatory rounds must be conducted every 30 minutes on Epstein as per God... Do you have a recollection of ever seeing that sign?" — "I don't recall the sign." (p.117)
The recordThe Inspector General (EFTA01656708): "the Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge created a sign on orange paper that he hung on a computer in the SHU officer's area that said, 'MANADATORY [sic] ROUNDS MUST BE CONDUCTED EVERY 30 MINUTES ON EPSTEIN # 76318-054 AS PER GOD!!!!' The Day Watch SHU Officer in Charge said the sign was hanging on the computer on August 9 and 10, 2019, and it was clearly visible to everyone who worked in the SHU." The SHU had only two computers, both of which she used. Her non-recollection removes the one piece of evidence that she had specific, posted notice that Jeffrey Epstein in particular was to be checked every 30 minutes.
2026-03-19 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
"No knowledge whatsoever" of Epstein's crimes
Sworn claimIndyke states in his opening: "I had no knowledge whatsoever of Jeffrey Epstein's wrongdoings." He claims Epstein led "two entirely separate lives" and that "I did not know what my client did in his private life."
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI Second Amended Complaint): As estate co-executor and trust signatory, Indyke personally signed $1M+ in checks from the Butterfly Trust to young women with Eastern European surnames who were NOT beneficiaries — while he himself was a beneficiary receiving $3–4M. He authorized wire transfers from Southern Trust that "employed, paid, and concealed the activities of participants in the criminal activities of the Enterprise." He worked with immigration lawyer Arta Viscardis on visa paperwork for women he admits were Epstein's "assistants" — at least 10 of them. He later admitted under oath: "I drank the Kool-Aid at the time." GVI characterized Indyke and Kahn as "the indispensable captains of Epstein's criminal enterprise."
"Not attempting to structure" cash withdrawals
Sworn claimIndyke claims the $7,500 daily cash limit was "the bank's internal requirements" and he was "not attempting to structure such withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements." He told the teller he would cash a second check "the next business day" because "I didn't want people to think that I was doing something that wasn't supposed to do."
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI): Deutsche Bank filed THREE separate SARs specifically on Indyke (Sep 2016, Jun 2017, supplemental). He brought two checks ($7,500 + $4,000) totaling over $10,000 and told the teller he would cash the second "the next business day to avoid all the paperwork." Deutsche Bank noted "it appears that he purposely structured cash transactions in order to avoid the CTR requirement." Additionally: 97 separate $1,000 ATM withdrawals from an Epstein account near Indyke's office (Jun 2018–Feb 2019), ~45 check-cashing withdrawals at $7,500 each (2014–2016), 11 checks converting USD to Euros totaling $126K+ marked "Euros for safe," and a single $100K cash pickup on Jan 17, 2018.
Forced marriages "100% untrue" — then admits modifying lease for immigration
Sworn claimIndyke's opening statement: "Those allegations, too, are 100% untrue. I did not arrange, assist, or facilitate any marriages." But under questioning, he admits: (1) working with immigration lawyer Arta Viscardis on paperwork for ~10 women, (2) requesting leases from 301 E 66th St for women to give to the immigration lawyer, and (3) when asked if he changed a lease to add a second name for immigration purposes: "I think I probably did, yeah." He claims "I wasn't facilitating immigration. That's not an appropriate word."
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI): "LSJE, LLC — Indyke and Kahn signed company checks totaling ~$300K to young women and to the immigration lawyer in New York who was involved in one or more forced marriages arranged among Epstein's victims to secure a victim's immigration status." Indyke "directly facilitated a forced marriage between two victims to prevent deportation. Paid the immigration lawyer. Coached victim for immigration interviews."
Advised victim against divorce — "expressed concern"
Sworn claimWhen asked if he advised either victim not to get a divorce, Indyke says "No, I never advised anybody not to get a divorce" — then immediately describes doing exactly that: "I expressed concern to her based upon my understanding that she had just filed some kind of an application... What I knew about divorce in New York was that you are either filing for something called irreconcilable differences or abandonment... That seemed to me that would be inconsistent with statements that she likely made to the government."
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI): Indyke "threatened a victim who sought divorce — told her she would lose Epstein's and his associates' protection." His own testimony confirms he pressured a victim not to divorce by raising legal consequences of her immigration filing — the exact mechanism the GVI complaint describes. He denies "advising" against divorce while describing advising against divorce.
"Never socialized" — but IVF, $50M bequest, character reference, VS fashion show
Sworn claimIndyke: "I never socialized with Mr. Epstein. I never spent any time with Mr. Epstein other than when I was there for a status report or a legal project." He describes the relationship as "strictly a business relationship."
The recordWithin the same deposition, Indyke reveals: (1) Epstein paid for all his IVF treatments across 5 cycles, personally asking "when are we doing the next one?"; (2) Indyke made Epstein honorary godfather of his children; (3) Epstein's will bequeathed $50M to Indyke and $100M+ to Karyna Shuliak; (4) Indyke wrote a character reference for Epstein during the 2008 prosecution citing emotional support; (5) He attended a Victoria's Secret fashion show at Epstein's invitation. EFTA00082296: The will also directed $3M to Indyke's wife conditional on remaining married to him. Total compensation: $27–30M salary + $7M in loans + $3–4M from Butterfly Trust + $50M bequest. This is not a "strictly business" relationship.
Hard drives: "I don't know" to every question
Sworn claimIndyke confirms private investigators had hard drives from Epstein properties but claims ignorance of nearly every detail: how obtained ("I don't know"), when obtained ("I don't know"), at whose direction ("I don't know"), how many ("I don't know"), contents ("No"), current location ("I have no idea"), whether provided to law enforcement ("my sense is that no"). He confirms the U.S. Attorney's Office "did not have the hard drives" and there were "conversations" about this.
The recordIndyke was Epstein's primary attorney managing all legal affairs for 23 years. He admits learning about the hard drives through the Joint Defense Group that he participated in, and that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida was aware they didn't have them. As the attorney controlling Epstein's legal strategy, his claim of complete ignorance about evidence discussed in defense group meetings he attended strains credulity. EFTA00091391: As estate co-executor, Indyke later asserted privilege over seized device contents, blocking both prosecution and defense access to potentially incriminating data.
Cameras were only "external" — didn't know about safe room
Sworn claimIndyke claims cameras at the Manhattan property were only external perimeter cameras. He claims "I didn't even know there was a safe room in the house" until after Epstein died, and "I know of no recordings. I don't know of cameras that would have done that" regarding allegations of recording visitors.
The recordEFTA02805492: Indyke was VP/Secretary/Director of Maple Inc., the entity that held 9 East 71st Street. He managed all property matters for 23 years, authorized construction spending, visited the property at least twice monthly, and took possession of the residence after Epstein's death. The FBI's 2019 search recovered "piles of hard drives" and labeled CDs. That the attorney who controlled every legal and corporate aspect of this 21,000-sq-ft property — including filing "materially false and misleading financial statements" on behalf of the entity — was unaware of a safe room defies the scope of his documented involvement.
Contacted victims on behalf of defense — told them they didn't have to talk to law enforcement
Sworn claimIndyke initially testifies he never had contact with victims. Then reveals: "I remember one or two occasions... there were people who were concerned that law enforcement was calling them, and the defense counsel... asked me to call them and tell them that they could have a lawyer if they want, that they didn't have to speak to them if they didn't want." He claims he "never told them not to speak to one."
The recordIndyke — Epstein's personal attorney with total authority over his legal affairs — contacted potential witnesses/victims to inform them they didn't have to cooperate with law enforcement and that "counsel would be provided for you." While technically legal, having Epstein's own lawyer contact victims to offer them defense-funded attorneys creates an inherent conflict of interest and witnesses could reasonably perceive this as intimidation. The GVI complaint describes a broader pattern of witness intimidation and control by Epstein's inner circle.
Butterfly Trust: can't recall beneficiaries — while admitting he received $3–4M from it
Sworn claimWhen asked who the beneficiaries of the Butterfly Trust were, Indyke says: "I can't tell you all of the names today." He describes it as routine tax planning. But when asked directly how much he received as a beneficiary: "It's either three or four million over time." He also confirms he was an authorized signatory on the trust's checking account.
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI): Indyke and Kahn were BOTH beneficiaries of the Butterfly Trust AND authorized signatories on its checking account — signing $1M+ in checks to young women with Eastern European surnames who were NOT beneficiaries. EFTA00021050: Deutsche Bank described the Butterfly account as one "with many beneficiaries who had authority to make disbursements, one of whom was Ghislaine Maxwell." That Indyke cannot recall the beneficiaries of a trust from which he personally received $3–4M, on which he was a signatory, is either perjury or studied amnesia.
Southern Trust was just "the main operating business"
Sworn claimIndyke describes Southern Trust Company as "a current entity that's owned by the estate" and "the main operating business of Epstein before he died" that was "ultimately going to be providing financial and medical informatics" and "consulting services."
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI): Southern Trust fraudulently obtained $73.6M in USVI tax exemptions (2013–2017). Indyke "authorized majority of wire transfers and controlled day-to-day activities." Southern Trust was used to "employ, pay, and conceal the activities of participants in the criminal activities of the Enterprise." EFTA01404004: Indyke authorized a $1,000,000 wire from Southern Trust to Bank Leumi LeIsrael, beneficiary ERGO Ltd., reference "Reporty Investment" — directly funding the Carbyne surveillance company co-owned by Ehud Barak. "Financial and medical informatics" and "consulting services" is a sanitized description of an entity the GVI identified as a front for criminal enterprise.
Never instructed to destroy documents — but renamed Air Ghislaine and blocked evidence access
Sworn claimIndyke flatly denies: "Have you ever advised clients to destroy documents? No. Have you ever been instructed to destroy documents? No, I've never been instructed to destroy documents." He adds a caveat about "document retention programs" where "you can feel comfortable destroying documents."
The recordEFTA00010702: Indyke signed the rename of "Air Ghislaine Inc" to "Shmitka Air Inc" — erasing Maxwell's name from corporate records. EFTA00091391: As estate co-executor, he asserted privilege over seized devices, blocking prosecution access. He confirmed hard drives were withheld from the U.S. Attorney's Office. EFTA02805492: VP/Secretary/Director of Tree entities that filed "materially false and misleading financial statements." The pattern is systematic concealment — renaming entities, asserting privilege, withholding hard drives — even without a single explicit "destroy" instruction.
Character reference for convicted sex offender — while knowing charges
Sworn claimIndyke admits writing a character reference for Epstein's 2008 defense while knowing the charges involved sexual conduct with underage women. He claims: "I knew that people were saying, were making allegations against him, which were contrary to what I had observed in him." When pressed on whether he understood it would reduce Epstein's sentence, he says: "That's not what was going on. That's not what I was thinking at the time."
The recordIndyke's character reference cited Epstein's "emotional and financial support" — the IVF payments that created deep personal financial dependency. He was simultaneously: (1) a $450K+/year employee wholly dependent on Epstein, (2) the beneficiary of Epstein's fertility payments, (3) a member of the defense team aware of the charges, and (4) writing a character reference describing Epstein's generosity. The reference was used in the same case that produced the widely criticized 2008 non-prosecution agreement. His claim that he didn't understand its purpose is contradicted by his own legal training.
EFTA02857458
Payments to women were for "maintenance, repairs, and daily expenses"
Sworn claimIndyke's opening statement claims cash withdrawals were for "maintenance, repairs, and daily expenses" and "meals, gifts, fortuities, and fuel." When asked about trust payments to women identified as victims: "I believe the trust made payments to women. I can't tell you which the women were." He claims he cannot recall any wire transfers to Eastern Europe.
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI): Payments from accounts under Indyke's signatory authority totaling $2.5M+ went to "dozens of women with Eastern European surnames, purportedly for hotel expenses, tuition, and rent." Another $1M+ from a second account, same pattern. LSJE checks totaling ~$300K went to young women and the immigration lawyer facilitating forced marriages. He admitted signing checks for Svetlana Pozdayeva's "marketing" work, and signed a $375 check to Women's Health of Manhattan with a victim's name in the memo line while claiming no recollection of its purpose.
$50M bequest was payment for "complex estate" work
Sworn claimWhen asked why Epstein included him as a $50M beneficiary in the trust, Indyke explains it as compensation for managing a complex estate: "I believe that part of this was an understanding that Mr. Kahn and I would be providing substantial services for a very, very complex document." He notes the estate only pays $250,000 to each executor upon completion.
The recordThe $50M bequest was written into the trust BEFORE Epstein's death — it was not payment for managing the estate, it was a pre-existing reward. EFTA00016841/EFTA00016865/EFTA00016876/EFTA00016884: Evolution of Epstein's wills shows Indyke as the one constant executor across ALL versions while co-executors changed repeatedly. Combined with $27–30M in salary, $7M in loans (to be forgiven upon death), $3–4M from Butterfly Trust, IVF payments, and $3M to his wife — the total financial entanglement exceeds $90M. This is not standard attorney compensation; it is the financial architecture of loyalty and silence.
2026-03-11 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
"Strictly professional" — but $25M beneficiary of the 1953 Trust
Sworn claimKahn states: 'My relationship with Epstein was strictly on a professional level. We did not interact socially, and I never attended any of his parties or his social functions.' He repeats this at multiple points throughout the deposition.
The recordWithin the same deposition, Kahn confirms he is a $25M beneficiary of the 1953 Trust (created two days before Epstein's death), a beneficiary of the Butterfly Trust, and that Epstein's will forgave millions in loans to him through Coatue Enterprises. EFTA00019322: SDNY prosecution email states Kahn handles 'virtually all of his business activities.' EFTA02805492: GVI characterized Kahn and Indyke as 'the indispensable captains of Epstein's criminal enterprise, roles for which they were richly rewarded.' EFTA01789142: 'Happy Birthday Bunny' email with photos sent to Kahn's wife Jennifer, Karyna Shuliak, and Epstein. A $25M bequest, debt forgiveness, and family birthday emails are not features of a 'strictly professional' relationship.
CPA claims not to know the $10,000 cash reporting threshold
Sworn claimWhen asked: 'You're not aware of a $10,000 figure being an amount that sends flags and reports to the Department of the Treasury?' Kahn replies: 'No, I'm not aware.' He also claims not to know about the pattern of $9,800 cash withdrawals — textbook structuring to stay below the federal reporting limit.
The recordThe Bank Secrecy Act's $10,000 Currency Transaction Report threshold is fundamental knowledge for any CPA. Kahn managed 140+ bank accounts for Epstein and his entities. Either he is lying under oath about not knowing a basic requirement of his profession, or he is admitting to negligence that would warrant revocation of his CPA license. EFTA02805492 (GVI): Kahn and Indyke 'structured these transactions in order to evade the bank's reporting requirements.'
"Still don't see any red flags" — even with hindsight
Sworn claimKahn states: 'Looking back as co-executor and knowing what I know now, I still don't see any red flags with Epstein's entities.' He adds: 'I find nothing suspicious about that, no red flags' when asked about the shell company network.
The recordBy the time of this testimony, Kahn had served as estate co-executor for 6+ years and had full access to all records. He knew about the GVI complaint alleging $73.6M in tax fraud, forced marriages, $300K in checks to young women, and cash structuring. He knew JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank both dropped Epstein for suspicious activity. He knew the FBI found piles of hard drives and labeled CDs. Yet he maintains he sees 'no red flags' — a claim that either constitutes perjury or an admission that he was willfully blind throughout his employment.
Epstein told him about the minor — Kahn stayed 11 more years
Sworn claimKahn admits: 'In 2008, I trusted Epstein when he told me that it was a mistake that he was with a minor and that it would never happen again.' In his opening statement: 'Epstein told me that his 2006 arrest was a mistake, that he did not know the woman was underage, and that nothing like that would happen again. I believed him at the time.'
The recordKahn's own testimony proves he knew in 2008 that Epstein had been with a minor. He then continued working for Epstein for 11 more years — through the 2008 plea deal, through the Miami Herald exposé, through Deutsche Bank dropping Epstein, through the 2019 arrest — while continuing to process cash withdrawals, wire transfers to young women, and manage the financial infrastructure that the GVI later characterized as fueling sex trafficking. His claim of 'no knowledge' is contradicted by his own admission.
"A full scholarship (a fake one, obviously)"
Sworn claimKahn is confronted with an email chain where someone writes 'A full scholarship (a fake one, obviously)' about an HBRK-sponsored educational arrangement for a woman connected to Epstein. Kahn denies writing fake letters: 'I don't think that's an accurate statement that I personally give out scholarships.'
The recordThe email, from Kahn's own HBRK entity, explicitly describes the scholarship as fake. When confronted, the questioner notes: 'Well, that's not what you said in your email to him concerning this email, though, is it?' Kahn later admits the letter he wrote was 'embellished.' EFTA02805492 (GVI): Documents a broader pattern of fabricated employment letters and visa fraud coordinated through HBRK and Epstein's entities.
Admits immigration letter was "embellished" — but denies fraud
Sworn claimKahn testifies: 'I agree that the letter was embellished.' But insists: 'I never committed immigration fraud.' He adds: 'These two women never told me that this marriage was a sham. These two women never told me that this marriage was forced.' Then: 'In hindsight, I regret writing this letter because I now know that I unknowingly contributed to these women's pain and suffering.'
The recordWriting an 'embellished' letter to immigration authorities is, by definition, immigration fraud — presenting false information to a government agency. EFTA02805492 (GVI): Kahn and Indyke 'participated with Epstein in coercing his sex trafficking victims, in at least three cases, to enter into arranged and forced marriages' to obtain immigration status. As LSJE LLC signatory, Kahn signed checks to 'the immigration lawyer involved in forced marriages.' His claim of innocence rests on the assertion that two trafficked women did not confide in their trafficker's accountant.
JSC Interiors checks structured to "look like" payroll
Sworn claimWhen shown checks from JSC Interiors LLC made out to women, Kahn explains: 'These were checks that were cut from an outside payroll company and they represented checks to look like two individuals that were on JSC Interiors payroll.'
The recordKahn admits the checks were designed to 'look like' legitimate payroll — but for women he elsewhere describes as Epstein's 'assistants' whose actual roles he claims not to understand. JSC Interiors was set up 'similar to HBRK' (Kahn's own words). EFTA02805492 (GVI): Kahn 'signed company checks for combined value of almost $300,000 made out personally to young women' and 'gave conflicting reports' to banks about whether recipients were employees. Creating payroll checks designed to 'look like' legitimate employment for women connected to a sex trafficker is not innocent bookkeeping.
MC2: extended a credit line to Brunel's trafficking-linked agency
Sworn claimKahn describes Jean-Luc Brunel as merely 'a friend of Epstein's' whom he met 'a handful of times.' He claims: 'The extent of my relationship with MC2 was as Epstein's accountant when the credit line was extended to the agency.' He admits Epstein sent money to Svetlana through MC2 but claims: 'No, I do not' know the purpose.
The recordEFTA00948419: Kahn personally arranged which Epstein entity would wire $25K to MC2: 'will hbrk or jee or another entity send money to MC2?' MC2 was identified in multiple lawsuits as Brunel's pipeline for trafficking victims to Epstein. Brunel was indicted in France for rape of minors and found dead in his cell in Feb 2022. Kahn didn't merely process a payment — he extended a credit line and routed money through MC2 to individual women on Epstein's behalf, while claiming total ignorance of the agency's connection to trafficking.
"I never saw payments that said cash massages"
Sworn claimWhen asked about massage-related payments, Kahn responds: 'I never saw payments that said cash massages.' Earlier: 'Did I ever record payments or see them? No, I don't recall ever seeing massage payments.'
The recordThe specific denial 'I never saw payments that said cash massages' is notable because nobody asked about 'cash massages' — the compound phrase reveals familiarity with the concept of cash-for-massages that Kahn claims not to have known about. EFTA00161836 (GVI): Kahn and Indyke 'obtained large and frequent stocks of cash for Epstein which, based on public knowledge, would have funded Epstein's cash payments for "massages" — code for forced sex.' Kahn admitted in the same deposition that he personally delivered cash to Epstein during regular meetings at the townhouse.
$12.7M wire to Morocco — claims it was a real estate purchase
Sworn claimKahn testifies: 'Epstein was looking to purchase a property in Morocco and was giving me instructions on what amount of money to wire to his real estate representative.' He claims the wire was retracted and 'all the money went back to Charles Schwab.' When asked if Morocco has an extradition treaty with the US: 'I'm not aware of which countries have extradition.'
The recordEFTA01656452: The wire of $12,708,324 was sent just days before Epstein's arrest. Kahn co-signed it and then tried to terminate it the next day. A second wire of $14.95M was attempted two days AFTER Epstein's arrest. EFTA01265973: Kahn absorbed a $113,527 loss on the EUR/USD conversion when the first wire was recalled. Morocco has no extradition treaty with the US. The sequence — massive wire to a non-extradition country days before arrest, followed by an even larger wire after arrest — suggests flight preparation, not real estate.
Delivered cash to Epstein at the townhouse — from HBRK office
Sworn claimKahn admits: 'Epstein would request cash. For a period of time, when I met with Epstein, I was asked when we would come from HBRK office to bring Epstein cash.' He claims: 'I don't recall if I was giving the cash to property managers or to women or to pilots or to Epstein.'
The recordEFTA01929215: Kahn personally carried cash and euros to Paris for Epstein: 'please advise on cash and euro to bring today.' EFTA02805492 (GVI): Kahn and Indyke 'obtained large and frequent stocks of cash for Epstein' that funded payments for 'massages — code for forced sex.' A CPA who personally ferries cash from his office to a client's residence — and who simultaneously claims not to know the $10,000 federal reporting threshold — is either lying about the threshold or admitting to a pattern of deliberate ignorance.
Butterfly Trust beneficiary while signing checks to young women
Sworn claimKahn confirms: 'I was a beneficiary of that trust. I was never told why I was a beneficiary.' He identifies other beneficiaries including Karyna Shuliak. He acknowledges approximately $1M in disbursements were made from the Butterfly Trust.
The recordEFTA02805492 (GVI): Kahn was simultaneously a beneficiary of the Butterfly Trust AND an authorized signatory — signing $1M+ in checks to non-beneficiary young women with Eastern European surnames. EFTA00531290: Kahn wired $50K from Butterfly Trust to Shuliak: 'as per JEE instructions... please confirm receipt and thank Jeffrey.' EFTA02312341: Wired $100K from Butterfly Trust to Shuliak's stock account. Being both beneficiary and signatory on a trust used to pay trafficked women is not a conflict Kahn acknowledges.
10-12 apartments at 301 East 66th — housing Epstein's "assistants"
Sworn claimKahn testifies that Epstein had '10 to 12 apartments at 301 East 66th Street.' He confirms Nadia Marcinkova, Svetlana, Jean-Luc Brunel, and an employee of Eva Dubin all had apartments there. HBRK operated from a 'one-bedroom apartment' in the same building.
The recordEFTA02324888 / EFTA02328759: Kahn managed separate cleaning for 'girl's apartments' versus guest apartments in the same building. EFTA00025091: Attorney proffer describes 'massage appointments' as 'part of a normal day' at this address, and document shredding at '301 East 66th.' Kahn's office was in the same building where Epstein housed trafficking victims, where 'massages' were scheduled daily, and where Kahn himself managed the segregated cleaning staff. His claim that this was a 'one-bedroom' accounting office isolated from Epstein's activities is untenable.
"Jane Doe 4" — claims not to know her, then confirms settlement
Sworn claimWhen asked about Jane Doe IV, Kahn first says: 'I'm sorry. I don't know who Jane Doe IV is.' After being told she alleges Trump raped or abused her at age 13, he pivots: 'I believe that Jane Doe IV received a settlement via mediation with the estate, I believe in 2025.' His attorney later walked back the claim.
The recordAs co-executor managing all estate litigation and settlements, Kahn's initial claim not to know who Jane Doe IV is — followed by specific knowledge of her settlement — is internally contradictory within minutes. Later in the deposition he acknowledges: 'We have just a lot, so I can't quite remember Jane Doe IV with 100% certainty.' The volume of victim lawsuits is itself an indictment of the enterprise Kahn administered. EFTA01266204: The 1953 Trust naming Kahn and Indyke as sole trustees.
~199 instances of "I don't recall" from Epstein's personal accountant
Sworn claimAcross 5.9 hours of testimony, Kahn says 'I don't recall,' 'I don't remember,' or 'I'm not sure' approximately 199 times — roughly once every 1.8 minutes. Topics include: who lived in which apartments, cash withdrawal amounts and recipients, which entities made which payments, why entities were created or dissolved, and what services Epstein provided to clients.
The recordKahn simultaneously describes himself as Epstein's meticulous financial controller who tracked expenditures 'as meticulously as possible' and managed 140+ bank accounts — while claiming inability to recall basic operational details about cash flows, apartment occupants, and entity purposes. The selective recall is pattern-consistent: Kahn remembers details that support his innocence and cannot recall details that suggest knowledge of criminal activity.
Stayed to "put out fires" after Miami Herald exposé
Sworn claimWhen asked why he didn't leave after the 2018 Miami Herald investigation revealed the full scope of Epstein's crimes, Kahn explains he was 'quite busy at that time putting out fires' — helping Epstein find new banking after Deutsche Bank dropped him.
The recordRather than leaving after learning the truth, Kahn's response to overwhelming public evidence of sex trafficking was to help Epstein maintain his financial infrastructure. He helped open Charles Schwab accounts (April-May 2019), which were then used for the $12.7M Morocco wire and attempted $14.95M post-arrest wire. 'Putting out fires' meant ensuring a sex trafficker retained banking access.
Epstein tried to create his own bank after being unbanked
Sworn claimKahn reveals: 'Epstein received this [International Banking Entity] license maybe in 2012 or 2013, and it sat dormant for five or so years' until 'after he was dropped by Deutsche Bank and was unable to find banking elsewhere.' Kahn helped capitalize this entity with Southern Trust funds.
The recordAfter JPMorgan (dropped for suspicious cash withdrawals) and Deutsche Bank (dropped after Miami Herald exposé) both terminated Epstein, Kahn helped Epstein attempt to create his own bank in the USVI — the jurisdiction where Southern Trust had already fraudulently obtained $73.6M in tax exemptions. This is the 'putting out fires' Kahn described: not distancing himself from a sex trafficker, but helping that trafficker build financial infrastructure beyond regulatory oversight.
2026-02-27 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
"Four or five" flights on Epstein's plane
Sworn claimClinton claims he took only "four or five" international trips on Epstein's Boeing 727 in 2002-2003 for Clinton Foundation AIDS work, plus "one ride from Florida to New York."
The recordMaxwell's DOJ interview (DOJ-OGR-00022986): Maxwell herself states Clinton and Epstein "went on the plane 26 times or whatever." EFTA00159483: Pilot testimony states Clinton flew "ten or twenty times." EFTA00204650: Vanity Fair article documents Clinton traveling with Epstein, Chris Tucker, and Kevin Spacey to Africa, Brunei, and other destinations. Clinton's claim of "four or five" is the lowest estimate from any witness.
"First met Epstein in 2001 or 2002"
Sworn claimClinton claims he first met Epstein after leaving the White House, introduced by Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in 2001 or 2002.
The recordClinton himself acknowledged a 1993 White House photograph shaking hands with Epstein at a Historical Association fundraiser. He was also shown a handwritten get-well note he apparently wrote to Epstein's mother in 1995 — which he said "looked like his handwriting" but could not recall writing. Maxwell's DOJ interview (DOJ-OGR-00022988): Maxwell confirms she "went to the White House with Epstein once for... a historical, like one of those benefits." A personal get-well note to someone's mother implies a relationship far beyond a photo-line handshake.
Birthday letter for Epstein's 50th: "brief acquaintance"
Sworn claimClinton characterizes his relationship with Epstein as a brief, casual acquaintance who offered his plane for Foundation work. Yet he confirmed writing a personal letter for Epstein's 50th birthday book (January 2003): "Jeffrey — Happy 50th — It's reassuring isn't it, to have lasted as long, across all the years of learning and knowing, adventures and [illegible]..."
The recordWriting a personal letter for someone's 50th birthday book, referencing "all the years of learning and knowing, adventures" is inconsistent with a brief acquaintance who merely lent his plane. Combined with the 1995 get-well note to Epstein's mother, this documents a warm personal relationship spanning at least 1995-2003, not the arm's-length donor relationship Clinton describes.
"No contact after 2003" — Maxwell at Chelsea's wedding in 2010
Sworn claimClinton claims the relationship with Epstein ended in 2003 because "other donors interested him more" and says he does not recall speaking to Epstein "for more than a decade prior to his 2019 arrest."
The recordMaxwell's DOJ interview (DOJ-OGR-00022988): Maxwell confirms attending Chelsea Clinton's wedding on July 31, 2010, saying she was invited because "Ted and Clinton were very close." EFTA00029524, EFTA00084366: News articles confirm Maxwell, Epstein's ex-girlfriend and convicted co-conspirator, attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 — a year after Epstein's release from jail as a convicted sex offender. Inviting Maxwell to a family wedding demonstrates continued social ties well past Clinton's claimed 2003 cutoff.
2026-02-18 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
$20M "sale" of 9 East 71st St
Sworn claimWexner claims he sold the townhouse for ~$20M at fair market value, but cannot explain the payment mechanism ("whether it was a check, money order, or bag of money, I have no idea"). The deed didn't transfer until the mid-2000s. Media reported no cash was exchanged.
The recordEFTA00139235: FBI profiling states Epstein was "misappropriating more than $46M" as seed money from Wexner. The house was worth ~$77M by 2011.
"Never saw women under age 28-30"
Sworn claimWexner claims he never saw young women at any Epstein property and has "no recollection" of his own bodyguard Richard Adrian.
The recordEFTA01249191: Adrian (Wexner bodyguard 1991-92) saw young girls at Epstein's Palm Beach home, told to "keep to yourself." EFTA01249593: Former employee reports underage models did "private viewings" in lingerie for Wexner and Epstein on a restricted 12th floor. Multiple victims (EFTA00019994, EFTA00023292) describe being lured via Victoria's Secret.
"Never heard of" Jean-Luc Brunel
Sworn claimWexner claims total ignorance of Epstein's primary modeling industry procurer.
The recordBrunel was one of the most notorious modeling agents in the fashion industry and deeply connected to the VS/modeling world Wexner ran. 129 document co-occurrences between Wexner and Brunel in the EFTA corpus.
Robert Morosky introduced Wexner to Epstein
Sworn claimWexner describes this introduction as innocent, through "Bob and Wendy." He never mentions Morosky's FBI report.
The recordEFTA01249643: The same Robert Morosky (Vice-Chair of The Limited) separately called the FBI to report Limited brand aircraft being used to transport young girls from Mexico to the US in the 1990s.
FBI/DOJ "never" contacted him
Sworn claimWexner claims no law enforcement agency ever reached out to him about Epstein.
The recordEFTA00021353: FBI/NYPD Child Exploitation Task Force requested Victoria's Secret records in Feb 2021. The company claimed it had "switched systems" and only retained 2 years of records.
Collegial 2008 email
Sworn claimUpon supposedly discovering massive theft and sex crimes, Wexner emailed Epstein: "I feel sorry you violated your own number one rule. Always be careful." Epstein replied: "No excuse."
The recordThe tone is remarkably gentle for someone discovering that their financial advisor stole hundreds of millions and trafficked minors. Reads as two people with a longstanding understanding, not victim confronting perpetrator.
"Gang stuff" dismissed as "psycho babble"
Sworn claimWexner dismisses Epstein's letter referencing "gang stuff for over 15 years" that Abigail was "unaware of."
The recordEFTA01110729: The letter's specificity — naming Wexner's wife, citing a 15-year duration, promising "I would never under any circumstances give it up or put you in harm's way" — reads as a reference to real shared secrets, not generic bluffing. EFTA00645002: Epstein's 2015 notes list "34 girls wexner" alongside leverage points including "jack kessler" — the same person who introduced Wexner to Epstein.
"Shocked" by every financial revelation
Sworn claimWexner claims surprise at: ~$1.3B in stock moved through trusts, $20M from his charities to Epstein's, $2.3M Wexner Foundation transfer to Ehud Barak, $25K quarterly payments to his wife's OB/GYN.
The recordWexner held unfettered power of attorney with Epstein from 1991. His own attorneys told DOJ that Epstein's theft accounted for "virtually all of Epstein's wealth" — yet Wexner claims this characterization is wrong. EFTA01648951: Steve Scully stated Wexner was "#1 on Epstein's speed dial."
"Not even a clue of a clue" — contradicted within same deposition
Sworn claimWexner testified he never had "not even a clue" about Epstein's behavior. But within the same five-hour deposition, he acknowledged receiving three separate reports: (~1993) an executive told him Epstein was posing as a Victoria's Secret talent scout; (pre-2006) chief of staff Bruce Saul relayed that a woman accused Epstein of being "aggressive"; (1997) he was informed about Alicia Arden's allegation that Epstein assaulted her while posing as a VS scout. In each case, Wexner says he called Epstein, who denied it. Three reports about a financial advisor impersonating your company's talent scout and being "aggressive" with women are, by definition, clues.
The recordAll three incidents are Wexner's own testimony — he simultaneously claims "not even a clue" and describes three clues. EFTA00016124: Santa Monica PD report confirms Alicia Arden filed a complaint in May 1997 about Epstein identifying as a VS talent scout. 519 documents in the corpus reference "talent scout" in the context of Victoria's Secret recruitment fraud.
"What happened in 2008 again?"
Sworn claimWhen asked if he had contact with Epstein after 2008, Wexner replied: "What happened in 2008 again?" — feigning ignorance about the most publicized criminal case of his former financial advisor of 20 years.
The recordWexner's own June 2008 email to Epstein ("Always be careful") proves he was aware of the plea deal at the time. His Aug 2019 public letter to the Wexner Foundation explicitly references "the charges against him" and "the stories in the press." His inability to recall "what happened in 2008" is irreconcilable with his documented contemporaneous awareness.
Interlochen never asked about — Wexner never volunteered it
Sworn claimThe word "Interlochen" appears zero times in 5 hours of testimony. Wexner was never asked about and never disclosed the Wexner Foundation's $185,000 donation (92.5% of cost) to build the "Jeffrey E. Epstein Scholarship Lodge" at Interlochen Center for the Arts — a summer camp for children as young as 8.
The recordEFTA00097133: SDNY prosecutor email states "the Wexner Foundation donated $185,000 for the Epstein Lodge on 7/25/1994." EFTA00090261 (GX-741): Interlochen letters confirm $200K gift, two weeks' summer use for Epstein, furniture sent to Maxwell. EFTA01249911: FBI 302 of VP Ambrose — Maxwell was "gatekeeper," cabin was "segregated away from main campus," and Maxwell said "she, EPSTEIN, and their personal masseuse was coming." SDNY prosecutors categorized "Interlochen" under "Potential Victims" in device search warrants. 247 documents reference Interlochen in the corpus.
$2.3M Wexner Foundation → Ehud Barak: "never heard of it"
Sworn claimWexner claims total ignorance of the Wexner Foundation transferring at least $2.3 million to former Israeli PM Ehud Barak between 2004–2006, with Epstein personally signing transfer forms.
The recordEFTA01249848: FBI FD-71A titled "WEXNER FOUNDATION — financial connection to JEFFREY EPSTEIN" documents the $2.3M transfer. EFTA01249854: Detailed tip to FBI confirming "the Wexner Foundation transferred at least 2.3 million USD to the Israeli former Prime Minister Ehud Barak" with "Epstein signed personally on few of the transfers' forms." These are foundation transactions bearing Wexner's name, directed by his trustee, to a foreign head of state.
Maria Farmer: "I never met her. Didn't know she was here."
Sworn claimWexner denies any knowledge of Maria Farmer staying at the property adjacent to his New Albany estate in 1996, where she was sexually assaulted by Epstein and Maxwell. He also denies his security staff guarded that property.
The recordWashington Post reported that a member of Wexner's security staff confirmed they guarded that property. The Franklin County Sheriff's office confirmed a contractual relationship with Wexner's security detail. Farmer filed a sworn affidavit (2019) detailing the assault at the Wexner property. 22 documents in the corpus contain both "Maria Farmer" and "Wexner."
2026-02-10 · Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science
"Met him two other times" over 14 years
Sworn claimLutnick states: "Over the next 14 years I met him two other times that I can recall. Two times... I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with that person." Claims "maybe 10 emails connecting me with him" over 14 years.
The recordSen. Merkley identifies 8 instances of interaction after 2005 in the EFTA files. The corpus actually reveals even more: (1) Oct 2009 phone number request via Richard Barnett (EFTA02438886), (2) Mar-Apr 2011 phone calls through assistants (EFTA01869477), (3) May 2011 drinks appointment (EFTA00307010), (4) Nov 2012 Thanksgiving island coordination with Bobby Kotick (EFTA02155312), (5) Dec 2012 island visit — followed next day by 'Nice seeing you' email (EFTA02152981), (6) Dec 2012 $350K AdFin co-investment (EFTA00289560), (7) Jan 2013 article shared (EFTA02149688), (8) Jul 2013 'My neighbor smart' endorsement to PA/Prince Andrew contact (EFTA01968336), (9) Oct 2013 nanny resume sharing (EFTA01954703), (10) Dec 2013 $2M AdFin promissory note (EFTA00289477), (11) Nov 2015 Hillary Clinton fundraiser invitation (EFTA02671545), (12) Nov 2017 $50K UJA donation (EFTA02568733), (13) May 2018 Frick Collection legal coordination — 'I'm sending a lawyer' (EFTA00475738), (14) May 2019 iMessage about Trump at Lutnick's house (EFTA01213110). Plus: shared contractors, shared painter (Maxwell's Dominick Ziewiek), and AdFin board membership. The corpus contains 242 documents mentioning Lutnick — not '10 emails.'
Denies 2011 dinner at Epstein's home
Sworn claimSen. Van Hollen: "Did you have a dinner in Epstein's New York City home in 2011?" Lutnick: "No." When asked about a dinner with Woody Allen, Lutnick says: "I actually don't know what you're referring to" then concedes there was "a meeting with him... for an hour at five o'clock."
The recordEFTA00307010 / EFTA00307013 (Epstein's calendar, May 1, 2011): '5:00pm Appt w/Howard Lutnick (drinks)' — same day schedule includes '6:30pm Dinner w/Woody Allen, Soon-Yi, Prof. Steve Kosslyn, Katherine Keating, Alexandra Keating.' EFTA01868626 (Apr 27, 2011): Groff to Epstein: 'Howard Lumick will come see you at 5pm on Sunday May 1st.' The drinks appointment was immediately before the Woody Allen dinner at Epstein's residence.
"Cut off all contact" after 2005
Sworn claimPrior to the hearing, Lutnick told the New York Post: "I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn't going because he's gross." At the hearing he claimed he was "disgusted" in 2005 and implies he had virtually no contact afterward.
The recordEFTA corpus documents continuous contact from October 2009 through May 2018: phone number request via contractor (EFTA02438886), phone calls arranged through assistants (EFTA01869477), drinks at Epstein's home (EFTA00307010), coordinated island visits with Bobby Kotick (EFTA02155312), family lunch on Epstein's private island (EFTA01912798), 'Nice seeing you' follow-up the next day (EFTA02152981), $350K co-investment in AdFin Solutions four days later (EFTA00289560), Epstein endorsing Lutnick to someone with Prince Andrew — 'My neighbor smart' (EFTA01968336), nanny resume sharing (EFTA01954703), $2M AdFin promissory note (EFTA00289477), planned AdFin board membership (EFTA01084694), Hillary Clinton fundraiser invitation (EFTA02671545), $50K UJA donation described as from 'a close friend of the Lutnicks' (EFTA02568733), urgent Frick Collection legal coordination — 'I'm sending a lawyer. Don't ignore this' (EFTA00475738), shared painter (Dominick Ziewiek, also used by Ghislaine Maxwell, EFTA00645993). Relationship described as 'close friend of the Lutnicks' in the UJA solicitation letter.
"I don't recall why we did it" — island visit
Sworn claimLutnick says of the December 2012 island visit: "I don't recall why we did it" and frames it as a spontaneous stop on a family vacation — "I was on a boat going across."
The recordEFTA00401062 (Nov 20, 2012): Epstein proactively coordinated the visit a month before — Groff emailed Lutnick: 'Jeffrey Epstein understands you will be down in St. Thomas some over the holidays. Jeffrey requested I please pass along some phone numbers.' EFTA02155312: Epstein calendar reminder: 'did bobby kotick and howard lutnick get my email yesterday re island #'s?' EFTA01911282 (Dec 19, 2012): Lutnick initiated the specific visit by email: 'Hi Jeff, We are landing in St. Thomas... Does Sunday evening for dinner sound good?' This was not spontaneous — it was coordinated over a month in advance by both parties.
"No idea" about nanny meeting
Sworn claimWhen asked about Epstein expressing interest in meeting his nanny, Lutnick says: "No. I saw that. I had no idea what that was about. Had nothing to do with me involved with him on that."
The recordEFTA01954703 (Oct 3, 2013): Richard Kahn — Epstein's own financial manager at HBRK Associates — forwarded the Lutnick nanny's resume directly to Epstein: 'Attached is resume of Lutnick nanny. I am trying to arrange a time via Peter for you to meet her.' Kahn managed finances for both Epstein and Lutnick, making it implausible that the nanny referral happened without Lutnick's knowledge. The nanny was being referred from Lutnick's household to Epstein's.
"Ghislaine Maxwell was not on the island"
Sworn claimSen. Van Hollen: "Was Ghislaine Maxwell on the island at that time?" Lutnick: "No."
The recordNo direct evidence in corpus to confirm or refute Maxwell's presence on the island on that specific date (approximately Dec 23, 2012). Maxwell is documented as frequently present on Little St. James and was Epstein's primary associate managing the island, but her specific whereabouts on this date cannot be verified from the EFTA files.
2026-02-09 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Pleaded the Fifth to every question
Sworn claimMaxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment more than a dozen times during the approximately 20-minute virtual deposition from Federal Prison Camp Bryan, Texas. She stated: "I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence" and "I would like to answer your question, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline."
The recordMaxwell was asked whether she was a close friend of Epstein, whether she was involved in trafficking of young women or girls, whether she coerced victims to provide sexual favors, for the names of additional co-conspirators, and whether she was aware Epstein was sexually abusing minors. She declined to answer all questions. Maxwell was convicted on 5 of 6 federal sex trafficking counts (Dec 2021) and sentenced to 20 years (June 2022). She appears in 21,611 EFTA documents.
Attorney offers clemency deal: "Both Trump and Clinton are innocent"
Sworn claimMaxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus stated: "Ms. Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump." He added: "Both President Trump and President Clinton are innocent of any wrongdoing. Ms. Maxwell alone can explain why, and the public is entitled to that explanation."
The recordMaxwell's own DOJ interview (DOJ-OGR-00022986) contradicts the blanket claim that Clinton is "innocent of any wrongdoing" while simultaneously offering to provide details. In that interview, Maxwell confirmed Clinton flew on Epstein's plane "26 times or whatever," acknowledged the opportunity for Clinton to receive a massage existed, and described Clinton's relationship with Epstein and Maxwell's attendance at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. The offer to prove innocence in exchange for freedom suggests Maxwell has information she believes has trade value.
Pending habeas petition cited as reason for silence
Sworn claimAttorney Markus explained Maxwell "must remain silent" because she has a habeas corpus petition pending that "demonstrates that her conviction rests on a fundamentally unfair trial."
The recordEFTA00064853: Victim testimony describes Maxwell as "relentless" in forcing a young victim to touch Epstein. Maxwell was convicted on counts of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors, transportation of a minor, and sex trafficking of a minor. 21,611 documents in the EFTA corpus reference Maxwell. Rep. Jasmine Crockett stated: "She has no remorse. She is not seeking to bring about some kind of closure for these women. She doesn't care."
2025-09-19 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Told the Committee OPR found 'we did not violate any law' on victim notification, when the report is written around a court's unrebutted finding that the office violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act
Sworn claim"But OPR found we did not violate any law, we did not violated any Department policy, and there was no misconduct with respect to victim notification" (p.71). He restated it: "the Justice Department, in this 300-page report, found that there was no misconduct, no violation of law, no violation of policy, because it was the Justice Department's position that it did not attach" (p.86).
The recordThe OPR report (November 2020, in the corpus as EFTA02809635, and again at EFTA02733081) contains a section headed "The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA", and says it wrote that section "To address the district court's adverse judicial findings". It nowhere says the court was wrong. Its actual conclusion is narrower and is about professional discipline, not legality: "none of the subject attorneys committed professional misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims", because they "did not have a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the NPA". The report defines its own test as requiring that a lawyer "intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard". It also confirms the underlying conduct: victims "were not informed about the NPA" until after the June 2008 guilty plea, the letters sent to them "misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility", and "the government conceded during the CVRA litigation that it entered into the NPA without conferring with the petitioners". No professional misconduct under an intent-based disciplinary standard is not the same as no violation of law, and the report is explicit that it is answering a judicial finding it does not disturb. Page-level pinpoints, printed inside the report: EFTA02809645, EFTA02809646, EFTA02809647, EFTA02809921, EFTA02809922.
Attributed an assurance of 'continuous confinement' to the State Attorney; the OPR record shows that office noncommittal on work release and traces the assurance to defence counsel
Sworn claim"We'd had assurance from the State attorney and we had assurance from his counsel that he would be in continuous confinement. And then, after he goes to jail, he applies for work release, and Palm Beach gives him work release. And we're not even notified that he gets work release" (p.36). Repeated at p.44, "We had an assurance that he would be in continuous confinement, we were told multiple times that he would be", and at p.97, "We expected, quote/unquote, continuous confinement. We were given an assurance of continuous confinement."
The recordThe OPR report, held in the corpus in several independent disclosure copies (EFTA02809635, EFTA02733081, EFTA02736200, EFTA02830776, EFTA02847284), records the State Attorney's office as noncommittal rather than as giving an assurance. State Attorney Krischer told the U.S. Attorney's office in November 2007 that Jeffrey Epstein "was, in fact, eligible to petition for work release", and would oppose such a petition only "if it is in the agreement". Asked directly to write a work-release prohibition into the state plea agreement, the state prosecutor "was noncommittal" and said she would have to consult the State Attorney. The state plea agreement "did not address the issue of work release". Krischer later told OPR that work release was "within the control of the Sheriff's Office, not my office". The report attributes the assurance to one source, and it is not the State: the line prosecutor "received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve his entire sentence of confinement 'in custody.'" His account of being blindsided by the grant is separately in tension with the report's note that the day after the June 2008 plea a Sheriff's Office official told his prosecutor that Jeffrey Epstein "would be eligible for work release and will be [pl]aced on work release".
Blamed a law enforcement partner's short notice for victims not being told about the June 2008 plea; OPR traces the failure to his own December 2007 decision to take the job off his staff
Sworn claim"I believe we got notified on a Friday afternoon that he was taking his plea Monday morning. I would expect that a law enforcement partner would give us at least a business day, and I'm being sarcastic here, on a plea of this nature. And so our attorneys were left to scramble and work with the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office and Victim Notification on very, very short notice, and I think that led to some of the feelings of lack of forthrightness on the part of the victims" (p.97).
The recordOPR puts the cause six months earlier and with Acosta personally. His line prosecutor had drafted a letter to state officials that "would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified in the federal investigation", and OPR "found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any similar communication to the State Attorney's Office". Its conclusion: "Acosta personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be." Answering the defence that he was entitled to rely on staff, OPR wrote that "the issue is not whether Acosta 'personally' took certain specific steps but that he stopped his staff from implementing a notification plan they had devised, and instead, shifted responsibility for notification to another entity while failing to consider how or even whether that entity would be able to accomplish the notification that Acosta expected to happen." The report ties the very short June 2008 window he described to Congress back to that decision, noting the scramble could have been avoided had the office coordinated with the State Attorney nearer his December 19, 2007 letter. Page-level pinpoints inside the report: EFTA02809932, EFTA02809933.
2025-08-18 · House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Called the surveillance video the 'icing on the cake' for a suicide conclusion; the FBI's own briefing records a DVR failure that began 12 days before the death
Sworn claimAsked what evidence supported the statement that no one entered L block, Barr answered "I know we're starting with the video, but, for me, the video was the icing on the cake" (p.19), and said that over time "it became clearer and clearer to me that it was undoubtedly suicide" with the video "probably the last thing that I looked at" in reaching that conclusion (p.24).
The recordThe FBI case briefing for the MCC death investigation (EFTA00164939, case 90A-NY-3151227) records: "DVR2 - system failure on 7/29/2019, resulting in the system not recording. On 8/8/2019, BOP learned that DVR #2 system was not recording." The failure began 12 days before the death and was noticed 2 days before. Two further mechanisms degraded the same record: the video download for the night before the death failed on the initial attempt and the technician's backup was taken from "the wrong camera" (EFTA01683641), and OIG deposition testimony in September 2021 described DVR-2 after drives were removed without proper shutdown as "It means everything is gone. Yes. There is no video. There's nothing" (EFTA00063136). Footage the DOJ later described as "full raw" was "likely modified, according to the metadata embedded in the video" (EFTA00173350).
Described a sealed SHU whose entry 'would leave a record'; the FBI's finding that no one entered rests on video review, not on any door log
Sworn claimBarr testified that "the SHU is itself physically isolated from the rest of the facility and that it only has two entranceways. The primary entranceway has to be opened remotely by central control. So no one would have the key for it. And it was my understanding that that would leave a record of it being opened" (p.19). Asked directly whether anyone reviewed whether an entrance or exit was logged, he answered "I believe the Bureau was looking at that intensively" (p.22).
The recordThe DOJ Inspector General report (EFTA00035824, June 22, 2023) states the basis for the no-entry finding in terms of video alone: the FBI "reviewed available recorded video footage" and found that "between approximately 10:40 p.m. on August 9 and about 6:30 a.m. on August 10, no one was seen entering Epstein's cell tier from the SHU common area." The FBI briefing (EFTA00164939) likewise anchors the timeline to what was last seen on video, noting a CO "carried linen or inmate clothing up to the L Tier, last time any CO approached the only entrance to the SHU tier" at approximately 10:40 PM. No door-access log is cited as corroboration in either record. The corroborating record Barr described as existing is not the record the finding rests on.
Argued nobody had time to exploit Epstein being alone; the records show the enabling conditions ran for weeks, not hours
Sworn claimBarr argued the death could not have been a homicide partly on timing: "it wasn't known until 8 o'clock that morning, I believe, that his cellmate was gone, and it wasn't even clear during the day whether he'd get a replacement. So there wasn't much time for people to understand that he was going to be by himself, very, very little time. And this would've required coordination" (p.27).
The recordThe conditions were not confined to that day. The FBI briefing (EFTA00164939) records 5 missed head counts between 7/23/2019 and 8/9/2019, with CO Michael Thomas working 2 of the 5 including the shift during which Epstein died, and a DVR that had not been recording since 7/29. The OIG report (EFTA00035824) found staff "falsified count slips and round sheets" and that Epstein was left unobserved for roughly 8 hours. Epstein had been removed from suicide watch on July 29 after 31 hours (EFTA00036082) with an order that he be housed with a cellmate, an order the OIG found staff failed to carry out. The absence of a cellmate was the last element of a documented 17-day pattern of failed monitoring, not a condition that arose the morning of August 9.
Attributed the suicide-watch removal to psychologists and defence pressure; the BOP's own after-action review found the clinical record had minimised the incident
Sworn claimBarr testified that after the July attempt "they put him under suicide watch, which is the most intensive form of monitoring. And then he was taken off suicide watch, based on the psychologists at the MCC making the determination that he could be taken off that kind of intensive watch" (p.23), adding "I found out afterward that, you know, his lawyers had been pressing hard for him to be let out of suicide watch" (p.23).
The recordThe BOP After Action Review (EFTA00036082) records that the clinical document underpinning that determination understated what had happened: "The Suicide Risk Assessment dated July 23, 2019, refers to the ligature as a 'string' when in fact it was a sizable portion of torn bed sheet." Epstein was removed from suicide watch after 31 hours and 5 minutes, and told the psychologist "I'm a coward... he does not like pain" and that he "cannot remember what happened in SHU that caused the marks on his neck" (EFTA00032162). Barr's account presents the removal as a clinical judgement under external pressure; the department's own review identified a defect in the clinical record itself.
Stated the rationale for withholding raw Epstein material from the public, six years before the same argument was made against Epstein Files Transparency Act compliance
Sworn claimOn disclosure, Barr put the case for withholding as a question: "Is it 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 all the raw stuff out there to permit all the -- you know, the internet to get heated up about this and assault the person for what you know is not accurate?" (p.102). On the 'client list', he testified that "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" (p.65).
The recordRecorded as a statement of position rather than a contradiction: this is the former Attorney General articulating, on the record, the discretion-to-withhold rationale that is now the subject of the compliance dispute over the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It is offered here for the reader to weigh against the volume of raw material the DOJ subsequently published, and against the categorical distinction Barr draws between a social contact book and a compiled list of people to whom girls were provided.
2009-10-15 · Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida
Said he had never heard the name Forrest Sawyer - Sawyer is written out in full on the manifest of a flight Visoski himself piloted
Sworn claimQ: "Forrest Sawyer, do you know why he was on your airplane?" A: "Never heard the name, actually." Q: "Really?" A: "No." (p.111). This was not a failure of recall: he was being walked through the flight log book at the time, and had just been reading entries off it aloud.
The recordFlight 251, 24 February 2004, JFK to MRY (Monterey/Carmel) on the Boeing 727 N908JE. All three independently sourced versions of the log record the passenger as FOREST SAWYER, spelled out in full rather than initialled, and record the crew as "LV/LM" - Larry Visoski and Larry Morrison. Our reconciled flight record for that leg (data/flight_logs.json, flight 251) carries Visoski with the comment "(Pilot)". The unredacted flight-log spreadsheet independently lists him as passenger with the initials FS. Sawyer also appears by name on the plaintiffs' witness disclosures in this same litigation, and "Sawyer/Forest" appears twice on a Jeffrey Epstein travel-invoice ledger dated 5 and 6 October 2004, seven months after the flight.
Conceded he flew under-18s into the United States, then two hours later testified he could not remember a single one
Sworn claimAt p.94: Q: "At times weren't there also people that you would bring in from other countries into the United States that were under the age of 18?" A: "Yes." Asked which flights, he said "Well, I would have to look at the flight logs." At p.213, near the end of the same deposition: "I don't remember anybody transporting on the airplane from the country back into the U.S. that was a minor, to my knowledge."
The recordThe two answers are irreconcilable and no intervening testimony explains the change. The concession at p.94 was not hypothetical - it followed his agreement that he was required to report each passenger's date of birth to Customs on international arrivals, which is how he would have known. Between the two answers he was asked whether he knew he was "transporting girls under the age of 18 who were supposed to be models" and answered "I had no knowledge," and whether Jean-Luc Brunel was aboard such flights, answering "I don't remember those flights."
Six vehicles and a boat bought with Jeffrey Epstein's money were titled in his name and he testified he never once asked why
Sworn claimQ: "You never at any time ask any questions to Jeffrey Epstein why are you placing these cars in my name?" A: "I did not." Q: "So your suspicions were never -- your curiosity was never piqued at all as to why these cars are being placed in your name?" A: "My curiosity was piqued." Q: "You never asked him the question, you just agreed to do it?" A: "That's correct." (p.200-201). On the 2008 Range Rover: "He just says we want to buy an '08 Land Rover and put it in my name. So we did. I didn't ask any further questions." (p.198)
The recordThe assets he acknowledged: a 2008 Land Rover Range Rover Sport ("68,000"), a 2005 Mercedes-Benz CLK ("35,000"), a 2005 Jaguar X-Type ("11,000"), a 2008 Ford F-250 ("Twenty-five, I'm guessing"), a 1999 Chevy Suburban, a 1999 Mercedes-Benz SUV, and a 34-foot powerboat registered to his home address ("I think it was 60,000") which he described as "Jeffrey's boat." In each case he confirmed the money was wired to his account from New York. He dated the Range Rover purchase to "eight or nine months" earlier - "during the time of the Florida Science Foundation," i.e. while Jeffrey Epstein was on work release from his 2008 sentence. The plaintiff's filing the next day (EFTA02773983) told the court that Visoski "declared that, in the last year, Epstein has transferred to him four very valuable cars and a boat and registered them in his (Visoski's) name," in support of a pending motion to appoint a receiver over assets Jeffrey Epstein was alleged to be hiding from his victims' judgments. Asked whether Jeffrey Epstein put property in anyone else's name, Visoski answered "I'm the only one I'm aware of."
Denied the Ford F-250 and the Ferrari were in his name, then reversed both within a few questions
Sworn claimOn the Ford: Q: "Ford F-250, 2008, registered in your name, are you familiar with that?" A: "It's not registered in my name." Q: "So if that's registered in your name, that would be a shock to you?" A: "Yes, it would be." Then, on the next page: "I remember buying that car. I just -- that shouldn't be in my name... for some reason it got put in my name." (p.201-205). On the Ferrari: Q: "Any reason why the car is registered in your name and the asking price is $159,000 being sold in New York?" A: "That car is not registered in my name." ... "The ad is in my name." Q: "Why would he put his pilot in charge of selling his Ferrari?" A: "Because I bought it." Q: "How much did you buy it for?" A: "179,000. Now, when I say 'I bought it,' it was his money." (p.208)
The recordBoth denials were withdrawn only after counsel produced the registration and the advertisement. Immediately after the Ferrari exchange, asked whether there were "any other cars, vehicles, items, other things that are registered in your name that are actually Jeffrey Epstein's," he answered: "No. You've actually covered them all and actually shed light on some that I did not realize, like that Ford" (p.210) - i.e. his own account of what he held for Jeffrey Epstein was bounded by what opposing counsel had independently found, not by what he disclosed. He also testified the F-250 was shipped to St. Thomas as a work truck for "the workers, for the island," and "should have been put under LSJ, LLC" - Little St. James - while saying of that company "I don't have any facts to tie the two together" with Jeffrey Epstein.
Explained the anonymous "2 females" log entries by saying the crew did not know the names - the passenger manifests he described anonymise women on flights where the men are named in full
Sworn claimAsked why many log entries read only "2 females" or "3 females" instead of names: "Just because we didn't know our -- the person's name. We tried to do the best we could to keep the records... Dave and I." He then confirmed a separate passenger manifest was completed for every flight: Q: "there would also be a passenger manifest for each of these flights?" A: "Yes." Q: "Who keeps that documentation?" A: "Corporate -- our corporate office... Up in New York, Darren Indyke." (p.97)
The recordThe manifests exist and are in the corpus: 2,115 documents carry a JEGE, Inc. or Hyperion Air, Inc. PASSENGER MANIFEST form header, 1,968 of them from the House Oversight estate subpoena, spanning roughly 2001 to 2019. Co-pilot David Rodgers described the same two-document system: "We kept two documents, one was a flight log and the other was a passenger manifest" (EFTA00068582). The forms are pre-printed with the pilots' names and a numbered passenger list. DOJ-OGR-00032120, a JEGE manifest for N908JE dated 2005 from PBI to St. Thomas, is filled in as: 1. Jeffrey Epstein, 2. Sarah Kellen, 3. Nadia Marcinkova, 4. "Female", 5. "Female". The named and the unnamed are on the same sheet in the same hand. That is not a crew who could not learn a name; it is a record in which some passengers were written down and others were not. The manifests are also the direct test of who was actually aboard, and they are the one primary passenger record we hold that has never been merged into the flight index - data/flight_sources.json registers six sources and the manifests are not among them.
After eighteen years as its only employee he said he did not know what NES, LLC was or whether Jeffrey Epstein owned it - while telling the aviation world he worked for JEGE and listing Air Ghislaine as his employer on political donations
Sworn claimQ: "And what is NES, LLC?" A: "I don't really know. I mean, it's the company that my check comes from." (p.8) Q: "would you say that the owner or controller of that company is Jeffrey Epstein?" A: "I don't know that for a fact." (p.12) On Air Ghislaine: "Have you ever worked for a company called Air Ghislaine?"... "Is Jeffrey Epstein associated with that company?" A: "I don't know." (p.113) But at p.209: "I represent Air Ghislaine, JEGE and Hyperion as chief pilot, so I consider those really the companies that I work for and never really associated myself with NES, LLC as my realistic employer... when I go to a convention, an aviation convention, and somebody says who do you work for, I use the name JEGE." He also confirmed he had listed Air Ghislaine as his employer when making political contributions.
The recordA Jeffrey Epstein office staff list (EFTA00003150) records the structure plainly: "Jeffrey E. Epstein Principle LSJE Employees ... Head Pilot: Larry Visoski." The 2007 federal grand jury production (EFTA01702202) was made by Jack Goldberger "as counsel to JEGE and Hyperion" and encloses those companies' registrations, Delaware franchise tax records and 1099s for 2003, 2004 and 2005. Air Ghislaine Inc. appears in the aircraft records at EFTA00021666. He later signed aircraft registrations for Hyperion Air LLC in his own name (EFTA00017875, 17 July 2019) and was named as the sole manager and member of Plan D, LLC from its 2012 formation until the July 2019 annual report disclosed Jeffrey Epstein as the principal (EFTA00018778) - a decade after this deposition, and the same pattern of holding a Jeffrey Epstein entity in his own name that he said he had never questioned.
Swore the massage table on the Boeing appeared never to have been used - victims testified massages on the plane were routine
Sworn claimQ: "Was there a massage table on the airplane?" A: "The Boeing used to have a table on there, but it stayed in the same spot and appeared to be never used." Q: "So to the best of your knowledge, you have no knowledge of that massage table on the airplane ever being used?" A: "Correct." On cross he confirmed the crew cleaned the aircraft after passengers left, and that if the table had been used it would have been he and the crew "taking towels or doing something with the massage table" - then repeated that he never saw any sign it had been used, and that "It stayed in the same location since the day it was put on there." (p.214-215)
The recordDeposition testimony filed in Giuffre v. Maxwell describes the aircraft as where the abuse began: "I got to the island -- oh, I was made to massage Jeffrey on the plane. Sorry. That's where I gave my first massage to Jeffrey. So my first massage started with him on the plane, with his feet and his hands" (EFTA02789707, also at EFTA02796020). Another passage describes massages aboard as ordinary and as the prelude to assault: "it wasn't from giving foot massages, which is a normal thing that we would do on the plane... But it went from foot messages to oral sex to intercourse" (EFTA02786319, also EFTA02788680). Visoski was in the cockpit, and said so - "Our focus is up front" - but he was also the person who cleaned the cabin, which is the basis on which he foreclosed the question entirely.
Agreed it was "a good assumption" the jail visits touched on Jeffrey Epstein's crime, then denied the subject was ever raised
Sworn claimHe was the first name on Jeffrey Epstein's jail visitor log and visited repeatedly, travelling to and from the jail with Igor Zinoviev. Q: "Since you're going to see an inmate in the jail, is it a safe assumption a portion of that conversation was about the person that you're going to see and possibly the crime that was committed?" A: "Yes, that would be a good assumption." Three questions later: Q: "Did you and Igor discuss whether or not you were going to talk to him about his plea of guilty or the fact that he's not registered as a sex offender?" A: "No." ... "We never -- we don't discuss that amongst ourselves and/or with Jeffrey in any way, form." Asked what they did discuss: "we talked about fishing" and "trying to give my best of intelligent conversation." (p.166-169)
The recordThe visitor log was Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, obtained from the facility holding Jeffrey Epstein, and Visoski confirmed his name appears first on it. This testimony is also the setting for his answer at p.66, given after the guilty plea and after these visits, that "I don't believe he had sex with underage women" - and at p.137 he confirmed he had never read any of the complaints against Jeffrey Epstein: "No, I have not." Asked whether he was aware of any list of underage girls kept to service Jeffrey Epstein, he answered "Absolutely not."