Epstein’s Lawyers Say They “Didn’t Know” — But Follow the Money

It took us from an idea to a real business.

“We got set up, I think, in less than a day.”

With very little effort, we could just focus on the supply chain to the product development. Shopify gives us the ability to customize without the complexity. We can change something without introducing fragility or having to pay a developer.

We're thirsty total and we leveled up our business with Shopify. Start your free trial at Shopify.com/AU. The release of the deposition of both Jeffrey Epstein's accountant, Richard Con, and his lawyer, Darren Indike, is leading to more questions about the Justice Department's

handling of the Epstein case.

Here's what they told the House Oversight Committee.

We've been talking about the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein that we conducted in Florida. As you now, Mr. Epstein was subsequently investigated and executed in the Southern District, New York. Were you ever contacted by the Department of Justice

or the FBI in connection with that investigation? No. Were you ever contacted by the Department of Justice

“or the FBI in connection with the investigation”

or prosecution of Gillian Maxwell in the Southern District of New York? It was not personally contacted. Have you ever been firmly questioned by any government authority and connection with Mr. Epstein?

I've never been questioned by any government authority. Absolutely wild. Neither Con nor Indike have an accused of wrongdoing, but they are two men who worked with the deceased sex offender for years. It's hard to believe the DOJ would not

have interest in talking to either of them. As NBC News points out, their testimony directly undercuts the government's review of the case, which, quote, "The Justice Department and the FBI "called exhaustive in an unsigned joint memo in July,

announcing that the government would not disclose additional materials "on the disgraced finance year." I want to bring in our senior legal reporter, Lisa Ruben, and Terrible Mary, is with us. She writes the red letter on Substack and has hosted

two hotcast series on the Epstein case. It is good to see you both. That is really startling to be explained to me

how does even possible the DOJ that SDNY would never

reached out to them? I have no idea why SDNY would not have reached out to them. I can explain why they might not have reached out prior to Epstein's death. For two reasons, one, both of them were still in his employ

and to the extent that you don't want to tip off the subject or an investigation, you don't want to get to the people closest to him who are likely to be loyal to him and help perhaps with the subversion of evidence. That was something that was accused with respect to Jeffrey Epstein

in the earlier Florida investigation that they destroyed things that were at the Palm Beach House that they disposed of computer equipment and other evidence. If you thought that was likely to happen again, you might not ask Dernendiker Rich Khan to come in.

But the other reason is something that Michael Feinberg touched on

with you yesterday, which is Dernendiker as a lawyer,

is not typically the kind of person you bring in to talk to. Usually when the FBI wants to talk to someone like that, they have to establish that there is sort of a higher threshold for talking to someone who behaves as a lawyer. That having been said, why they didn't talk to either of them

after Epstein was found dead, is stunning to me. They had lots of information that they could have provided that would have been helpful in the prosecution of Galean Maxwell. And of course, some of their answers yesterday, Alicia, I believe, incorporate them

and why they weren't investigated with respect to potential crimes. They may have committed or at least were potentially

“eating in a bedding, which sound, which sound do you think you know?”

I am thinking about a number of things, but in particular, I'm thinking about immigration-related crimes. So there are a number of pieces of sound where each of them are asked about instances in which they helped Epstein victims arrange for documents that would be helpful

in immigration-related proceedings. In Mr. Con's case, he was asked, for example, about a letter that he wrote on behalf of two known Epstein victims, one in American citizen, the other a foreign-born person, where he attested to the strength of their relationship

and their passion for each other. He admitted on his congressional testimony that that was an embellish letter, I'd like to go further than that. One of the people in that relationship was Jeffrey Epstein's known girlfriend and his girlfriend at the time of his death.

She is the largest beneficiary of his will. How a person who principally serves as his accountant and who knew each of these women, he said he knew both of them. I'm not naming them for their own safety and privacy, but he said he knew both of them.

Why he didn't know one of them was Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend. At the time he was asked to write this letter, is kind of baffling to me, right? Okay, I want to stick on that point, Tara. Here is another moment from Darren and Dyke's step-as-esition.

Let's listen and then we'll talk about it on the other side. Mr. and Dyke, with the benefit of hindsight,

that could have suggested he was trafficking

“and sexually abusing young women and girls.”

I mean, had what period of time? During the entirety of your relationship. No. I had no knowledge of any allegations before 2006. And after 2006, when the ultimately went to jail and was back,

my understanding was that the issue was underage people. Sex within the rage people. I understand it was limited to Florida. And when I was in New York,

which is where I spent my time, I never saw anything underage people.

I never saw any sexual activity. He was, by all counts, a very smart man. I couldn't imagine he would do anything to put himself back in that position again. So no, there's nothing that I saw that would lead me to believe that he was engaging in miscarter.

Tara, based on the extensive reporting you have done on this case, does that seem plausible to you? No, it's not plausible at all. It's incredibly, it's baffling, frankly, to think that. I mean, he was literally withdrawing cash at $7,500 each.

He needed cash. What do you need cash for if not for trafficking? He's paying off all of these settlements for what? What are you paying settlements for? He claims he didn't know what the settlements were about.

He says that, you know, wealthy people, they pay settlements all the time to deal with lawsuits. It's shocking to me that he would say that.

“I think he needs to be called back in, too, to answer questions about Jane Doe 4.”

One of the Epstein survivors who alleged that she was assaulted with Epstein and President Trump. And during the hearing, she said that he paid a settlement to this Jane Doe 4. And then he retracted it. So he needs to be brought back in to answer further questions under oath. I think this entire hearing needs to be redone, frankly.

All right, I have more questions about that. And no one is going anywhere, we're going to sneak in a quick break and then we're going to be right back. I'm not satisfied until the survivors are satisfied. That's my benchmark. And obviously, you know, in my floor speech here in the House of Representatives,

I said, men need to be perp walked in handcuffs to the jail. And until we see that here in this country, we've seen some of that in other countries. But until we see that here in this country, we don't have a system of justice that's working. Representative Thomas Massey on the Epstein files. We are back with Lisa and with Tara, let's talk about the money and the money trail here,

specifically something we heard from Khan about $3 million he received in loans from Jeffrey Epstein.

Take a listen. It would be clear you are still paying off those loans. When Epstein died, I was continuing to pay interest on those loans. And that's when advice of counsel said, don't do what it said. It stopped.

It stopped. Thank you. Payment stopped and based on what the trust provisions had in him. Put that in context for me. Well, there's no doubt that working for Jeffrey Epstein was more lucrative than it seemed on its face, based on the salary that both of these guys earned.

As Rich Khan admitted in his deposition and Dernendick admitted his. Both of them got sizable, multi-million dollar loans from him. And stopped repaying on those loans after Epstein died. That means that for some period of time minus the little amount of interest that they paid,

they've gotten multi-million dollar basically awards where they've not had to pay taxes on that.

But in addition to that, Lisa, he made distributions to both of these men from trusts that he had. And both of them testified to that as well again, and then multiples of millions of dollars. So you will hear from common index lawyers, oh, they only made $250,000 a year. Oh, they're not being compensated for their time as co-executors of the estate. That is true, but the financial picture in totality is far more complex.

Working for Jeffrey Epstein was ultimately lucrative. And as beneficiaries of his will, next to that girlfriend we were talking about, the next two people in line are Dernendick and Rich Khan. They don't expect to see any money they say based on demands on the estate. They see new claims are being filed every day.

“But if anybody sees money after that girlfriend, who's it going to be the two of them?”

Tara, how's all of this landing with survivors?

And these people will represent a Jeffrey Epstein for decades.

“And like, Jen said so many of the other people that worked for Jeffrey Epstein,”

they were really well-paid. I went to their homes, the Butler, the pilot.

They are long retired now and you see where they live and they live in mansions in southern Florida.

And these are, you know, the type of positions that don't usually lead to this sort of retirement.

“There was, I think that these people knew who they were working for and for that they could”

charge a premium.

I mean, he was, he was bequeeped with these two lawyers $12 and $10 million from the estate.

It's, that is not normal for executives of the states. So I think they knew exactly what they were doing to pretend that they didn't know what the

“settlements were for, the fact that he advised some of these girls to not speak to the feds”

according to a survivor and to come to them if they needed a lawyer. And this is something that I heard from Jane Doe won, the Crime Victims Rights Act case. Courtney Wilde, she said that when the FBI was trying to reach her, that she believed they were coming for her because Jeffrey Epstein told her when she was 16 years old but she was the one who committed a crime of prostitution and that he was willing to give her a lawyer.

So she went to his lawyers and she went to his lawyer. She said she felt like a prostitute, essentially what he made this 16-year-old feel like and that that was the game, that was the manipulation and that in these men were part of it against with children involved. But what I still want to say is that you don't have to do that.

You're a master-writer, you're a topist, you're a soft-handed, you're a master-writer. I'm saying, you can't say that you're a thief.