[0:00]Great. Uh, rank ranking member Robert Garcia. Just going to make some comments about uh, Just Dy's um, interview right now. So, first, just as a reminder, I think it's important to note that oversight Democrats have once again
[0:11]requested that these interviews be under oath and they continue to not be under oath. And I think what's happening right now is a good reason as to why all of these interviews need to be under oath
[0:22]and we need honest questions. So, Mr. Sy is clearly, in our opinion, just not being truthful and flat out lying. The reality is he's claiming first that he had no real friendship with Jeffrey
[0:33]Epstein. I mean that is just ridiculous. There is documented evidence including in the Epstein files and numerous emails of a decadesl long friendship and not
[0:42]just a friendship uh references of being best friends of close friends. And so that as a start just is he has become incredibly an uncredible witness. In addition, there's also, I think
[0:54]important, more importantly, there are credible accusations from survivors that Mr. Staly was involved in sexual abuse
[1:03]and he refuses to answer questions honestly about that. He dismisses questions that are being asked and at the end of the day, we believe these
[1:13]survivors. He has been accused of sexual abuse and he's unwilling to talk about or be honest about those instances. He claims that he's unaware of Jeffrey
[1:23]Epstein's trafficking activities, which is again not credible. This is someone that chose to work with a person that he knew had been convicted already of sex
[1:34]crimes. And so the the fact that Mr. Staley continues to lie, evade, and not answer questions is incredibly concerning. Before I turn it over, I just also just want to add that once
[1:44]again uh we we continue to call on the Senate to not confirm Todd Blanch and we join and support the survivors that have come out courageously united to also say
[1:55]that he does not deserve confirmation and we are still awaiting half of the Epstein files that need to be released to the public and of course most importantly to the survivors themselves.
[2:05]So with that I'll turn it over to Miss Unsari. Good afternoon, Congresswoman Ansari from Arizona's third district. Uh, today we are dealing with yet another
[2:16]pathological liar in front of the oversight committee. It has been really um jaw-dropping to see how the men who have come before us and in some cases
[2:28]the women who have come before us continue to lie so brazenly. I think it demonstrates that they are very much accustomed to the fact that they have gotten away with this. They have gotten
[2:40]away with enabling or perpetrating heinous crimes for decades. And this is the first time ever that they have had to come forward in any sort of authentic
[2:51]way before the public to talk about what happened. And today, what we are seeing today is a man who is brazenly lying, who's being so cavalier in terms of
[3:01]saying, "No, I don't know. I don't recall." Acting like he barely knew Jeffrey Epstein, denying um, you know, events that happened that are very clearly documented in email
[3:12]correspondence between the two. And that is why, you know, we continue to do this work and why this investigation is so critical because this is the first time that these people have had to come
[3:24]forward and testify. And while they are not under oath, it is still a crime to lie to Congress. And we will continue to fight to make sure we identify clear
[3:35]discrepancies between the truth and their stories. And if we need to subpoena people again when we are in the majority, we will absolutely do so. And I just want to say that in this moment, the most important thing that we can do
[3:46]to get some justice for these survivors is to stop Todd Blanch from being confirmed as the next attorney general of the United States. He has been
[3:55]leading the biggest cover up in American history. He has refused to look into people like Mr. Staley. He has refused to look into Howard Lutnik, the commerce
[4:05]secretary. He has refused to do anything to investigate the leads that are already well documented in the Epstein file. So Todd Blanch should not be confirmed as the next attorney general
[4:16]and we will do everything in our power to make sure that happens. you, Emily Randall from Washington State. And I just want to join my
[4:26]colleagues in saying how not dis disappointing but not shocking it is to hear yet another man lie about
[4:36]his complicity and involvement in the assault and mistreatment of women, the crimes against these women who have been trafficked. We have seen over and over
[4:47]again folks avoid skirt around lie on the record about their involvement in this horrifying
[4:58]action that was taken in Epstein's trafficking ring. The survivors have told us over and over what they experienced. And yet around the table
[5:09]with next to their lawyers, we hear these men try once again to avoid accountability. And we are continuing to fight as oversight Democrats and the Democratic caucus to bring truth and
[5:21]justice to the survivors and the American people. But it will be when Robert Garcia is the chair and we have subpoena authority and are able to hold these conversations
[5:32]under oath on the record with cameras in the room that we are truly able to get the justice that these survivors deserve. And I also join my colleagues
[5:42]in calling for the Senate not to confirm Todd Blanch, who has been the architect of this White House cover up, who is working for Donald Trump and not for the
[5:52]American people. And the American people deserve better. They deserve truth. They deserve justice. And they deserve a legal system that doesn't continue to
[6:03]protect men in power on the backs and bodies of women. Thank you. >> Hi, Congressman Su Zone, Virginia's 10th
[6:15]district. The survivors told us from the very beginning to follow the money. Well, the money that Jeffrey Epstein had was in these large banks. And these
[6:25]people like Jess Staley helped Jeffrey Epste continue to be bankable even after he committed heinous crimes, even after he's convicted of sex with a minor. And
[6:34]Jess Staley went us so far by his mission to actually fly down to Florida while Jeffrey Epste was in jail for a friendly visit. This is how this world worked. It didn't matter what crimes you
[6:46]committed. It didn't matter what type of person you were. If you had money, the banks would take it and the banks would keep it and the banks would continue to work with you as in this case. If it weren't for banks and bankers like Jess
[6:57]Staley, then Jeffrey Epste would not have been able to continue to commit these crimes against women. He would not have continued to do some of the things that he did. But it was because of these banks that he was able to do so. That's why we subpoenaed the banks from the
[7:09]very beginning. That's why we're going to continue to hold everyone accountable, including bankers like Jess Staley. and I associate myself with the
[7:20]statements of my colleagues, but I just like to add a different perspective. Um, as a as a prosecutor, I've led these types of investigations. I've sat in the
[7:29]room with survivors uh of these types of horrific crimes. And I think sometimes we do it a disservice by by referring to
[7:40]it as the Epstein files when what it's really about are the survivors of EP of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and making certain that we hold everyone
[7:49]accountable um who was involved in those crimes. Uh and so I'm I'm proud to stand amongst these my colleagues uh because at the end of the day, investigations
[8:01]are only going to be as thorough and as detailed as the folks that are pushing those investigations and Democrat uh uh oversight Dems under the leadership of
[8:12]our ranking members, soon to be um um chairman. Um, we are going to we are not going to stop until there is a full accounting, until there is a full
[8:24]detailed and thorough investigation, until the survivors of these horrific crimes get the justice that they deserve
[8:31]and nothing less. Thank you. >> James Wenshaw from Virginia's 11th district. The Epstein files revealed that Jess Staley described his
[8:43]friendship with Jeffrey Epste as profound. Today he says they had no friendship. The Epstein files have revealed that Jess Staley faces credible and serious
[8:55]allegations of rape and sexual abuse. Today he said he had only one consensual encounter with a woman introduced to him
[9:05]by Jeffrey Epstein. We know that the wealth, the power, and the privilege that individuals like Jeffrey Epstein
[9:14]and Jess Staley enjoyed has shielded them from accountability. And there's one person today who has the power, the ability to change that. And
[9:26]that person is Todd Blanch. he could take action today to reopen the Department of Justice's investigation into the Epstein case
[9:36]to investigate individuals like Jess Staley who face credible accusations of rape and sexual abuse, but he refuses to do it. And that's why any member of the
[9:48]United States Senate who votes to confirm Todd Blanch is complicit in the cover up of the Epstein files. And I urge them, Democrats and Republicans,
[9:59]to listen to the survivors, to listen to what we've heard today, the lies from Jess Staley, and refuse to confirm Todd Lynch.
[10:10]>> All right. Good afternoon. I'm Melanie Stanbury and I represent New Mexico's first congressional district. And I want to just be clear that where there is smoke, there is a flame. And the reason
[10:21]why Jess Staley is in front of the committee today is because he is implicated not only in sexual abuse crimes committed against women who were
[10:31]trafficked through Jeffrey Epstein's networks. He is also potentially implicated in financial crimes that enabled not only the crimes against
[10:40]women but other potential wire fraud and other illicit wire transfers. So we need to be clear that he has been called in front of the committee. He should have
[10:51]been uh called under a subpoena to testify under oath, but he is here under his own recgnizance testifying voluntarily under a transcribed
[11:03]interview. This is a failure by the majority to conduct a real investigation under oath. Now, let's be clear a little bit about the facts here. We know from
[11:13]documentation that Mr. Staley met Jeffrey Epstein in 200 when he was working for JP Morgan as
[11:23]a private banker. We know he maintained not only a professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but he also was engaged in a personal relationship. In
[11:33]fact, we have evidence just in the files that are released that they exchanged over a thousand emails. We know even from his testimony today that he
[11:42]traveled in 2008 to Florida to visit Jeffrey Epstein on a personal call while he was under arrest and visited him in
[11:52]his own words as a friendly visit. And we have email documentation that in 2010 he was requesting and interacting with
[12:04]Jeffrey Epstein to procure women that he had sexual encounters with. And when he was asked in the room what happened and to describe those
[12:15]encounters, he could not recall over and over again. He could not recall. But somehow he could magically recall the details of his friendly visit to Jeffrey
[12:25]Epstein, which had happened years prior to those interactions. And this is why these individuals should be testifying under oath. This is why we need a real
[12:36]investigation here in the House. And this is why Todd Blanch should be doing his job and following investigative leads because there are multiple allegations against this individual for
[12:48]sexual crimes, financial crimes, and even he left JP Morgan over his relationship with Epstein because JP Morgan found that he had enabled a
[12:59]continued relationship and banking of a known criminal. He was still engaged in a friendship and potentially procuring girls through Epstein, allegedly through
[13:10]these emails that we see in the files. He was also found just last year in the UK of having lied to regulators about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
[13:22]And now he's sitting in a room behind us lying to members of the US House of Representatives because he claims he cannot recall the details of his sexual
[13:33]encounters and crimes that involve Jeffrey Epstein. This is why we need a real investigation. This is why Todd Blanch cannot be confirmed by the Senate. This is why the Epstein Files
[13:45]Transparency Act must be enforced. This is why the files in their entirety must be disclosed. And this is why House Democrats on the oversight committee are
[13:55]going to continue to investigate these crimes. And you better believe that next Congress, they will be here under subpoena. So with that, we will open it up for a few questions and I'm happy to
[14:06]take the first question. >> Can you elaborate on how this envir how it would be different in the room if if someone like Jess Daily was here under subpoena? I mean, we know that it is a
[14:16]crime to lie to Congress no matter what. If you have a witness who is claiming to not recall and that's going to be their posture despite the facts that are, you know, clearly out there that you can
[14:25]present to them, how would a subpoena help you handle this situation differently? Or if someone is completely just going to say, I don't recall, would that change if they're here voluntarily
[14:36]or here under in a deposition under subpoena? >> Let's have a prosecutor handle that one. Um, essentially the reason why we want to have someone under oath is is that is
[14:47]because there are penalties for lying under oath. Also, we get to we get to see what that story is. And as we're conducting our our investigation, we get
[14:58]to use the the the revelations from that story and not only see if there are other crimes that have been committed, but also whether the uh this individual
[15:07]was being honest and and and and truth and and truthful with their statements. And that takes us in all different uh places with respect to an investigation. So, yes, it's important when when we're
[15:19]doing an investigation, we start with a deposition under oath because we want to hear what is your story and if you change that story, we're going to we're going to ask you why and we're going to
[15:30]investigate that as well. But they're getting two bites of the apple essentially. Now he gets to come in, say whatever he wants and not be and and there be no consequence u for any
[15:41]statements that he makes and then come back under oath and then say something different and and not be held accountable. and and I and and I agree with my colleague that um Republicans uh
[15:52]on the oversight committee are not doing their job by not requiring that particularly when it comes to these types of heinous crimes um um that that
[16:02]we're seeing um alleged in and that we've seen occur um during this investigation. >> Can you make a criminal referral just based off of testimony today given that it's a crime to lie to Congress
[16:14]regardless if you're under oath or here voluntarily? You absolutely could, but that would require a Department of Justice that was interested and determined to conduct a detailed and
[16:25]thorough investigation. And we're not seeing that uh under this current administration. And that's why I also agree with my colleagues that um we the
[16:35]Senate cannot confirm Todd Blanch um uh because this is a matter of justice. This is a matter of getting justice for survivors and victims and treating them
[16:45]with the dignity that they deserve. >> I'll just elaborate slightly because I think it's an important question you're bringing up that's relevant for this entire investigation. And that is there
[16:56]is a difference in how these witnesses approach answering questions. If you know that you are not under oath in front of Congress, you know there's a Department of Justice that's not going
[17:07]to prosecute crimes and you have made an arrangement with the majority council before you came in here regarding the scope of the voluntary nature of your
[17:16]conversations. What we've seen over and over again in these recorded interviews is that witnesses will reference that. They will say, "I'm not here to discuss this. This wasn't part of the scope of
[17:28]the agreement." So they do not feel compelled by the law to actually provide the information that we're asking. Secondly, there's a burden of proof, right? Uh in order to actually prosecute
[17:39]a crime that they lied to Congress, you need to have a record of it. Certainly, we have a record of these interviews, but they're very careful with their very expensive corporate lawyers to try to
[17:49]establish uh that this is not within the scope of a voluntary interview. So, it changes the entire nature of it. But I want to make the point that this is a smoke screen that the chairman and
[17:58]Republicans are using to try to show the public that they're doing an Epstein investigation without doing it under the impromoder of actually using Congress as
[18:09]real legal tools. So, uh, if they were actually conducting a good faith investigation, these would be under oath. >> Thank you. Yes.
[18:17]>> Are there any NDAs involved here? And if there aren't similar to that of like Leon Black for example, uh what is what
[18:27]is the nature of the bank subpoenas? Have you gotten anything on that yet? Can you share that with us? >> Do either of you want to address that? No. Um I'm not sure if that was addressed in the first Republican hour,
[18:39]but during the time that I was in the room, it was not addressed. Um, but uh there certainly we have lengthy questions that we're hoping to ask all all of these witnesses and we're hoping
[18:49]to address all of that today. And I'm really glad that you brought Leon Black. That is another dynamic. When you have witnesses here under their own uh voluntary measures, they can leave and
[19:00]basically say they're not going to answer any more questions without any sort of consequences. Any other questions? Yes. You said Steve said he couldn't remember the encounters, three encounters that he
[19:11]had with women Epstein introduced him to, but Senator Walenshaw said he did. Talk about one that he had a consensual interaction with. Do you mind expanding on that? What was said in the room there?
[19:22]>> Yeah. Um, Mr. Staley was asked about uh a visit that he had with a woman who um
[19:31]retained her ability to um I think prosecute. But she we asked if it was consensual. Our lawyers asked if it was
[19:41]consensual. He said yes. The lawyer asked how did you know it was consensual? And he said well because she invited me
[19:50]over. And I think the point was brought up in the room that is common knowledge now that Jeffrey Epstein procured women,
[20:01]sent them to the hotel rooms of powerful people like Mr. Staley with the direction to have sex. I think the the power
[20:13]dynamic that was there, the sex trafficking crimes that have been uncovered shows that there is not clear consent in all of these relationships. And for Mr. Staley to just assume that
[20:24]because Mr. Epstein sent someone to um engage in sexual relationship relations with him that it was consensual is
[20:36]I think unproven, unfounded. Um, there are also clear email correspondents between Mr. Epste and Mr. Staley about what he might have needed when he was in
[20:48]London and did he need anything? Mr. Staley says, "Yep." Does not remember what it was that he needed. And then all of a sudden, another woman gets an email from
[21:00]Mr. Epstein with the address of Mr. Staley's hotel room. There are clear pattern fact patterns here that
[21:09]Mr. Sely is conveniently not recalling because he is not under oath because he is not compelled to answer because of the agreement that he has with the Republicans. And I I I don't know how
[21:20]else to feel besides disgusted by both humanity and what we are calling a justice system led by Todd Blanch who is engaging in this cover up and allowing
[21:31]folks like Mr. daily to completely avoid any sort of criminal um consequences for his actions. >> And we'll take one more. Go ahead.
[21:41]>> Did Jess talk at all about the extent of Jamie Dom's knowledge of Jeffrey Epste? >> Is that discussed yet in the room? Uh
[21:53]I'm not aware that that's been discussed yet, but I was it may have happened when I was not in the room. But I do know that the financial crimes aspect of all of these questions will be asked and
[22:04]hopefully answered. So, thank you. >> All right. Thank you all.