Transcription
Do you believe that girls and women were abused? >> I believe so. Yes. I drank the Kool-Aid at the time. That's the answer is I drank the Kool-Aid at the time.
>> Lawyer Darren Indk has been described in many ways when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, the man who was convicted of sex crimes back in Florida and also was accused of being a sex trafficker of minors. There are those who believe he was his right-hand man. There were those who believe he was his close confidant. And there are those who believe he was an alleged partner in whatever Epstein was accused of doing. Now, if anybody knows what Epstein was up to in the 90s and early 2000s, it would be him, right? From what we saw behind the scenes as part of Epstein's defense team for his Florida case to the last words the financeier said to him, we are covering it all as we examine his newly released videotaped deposition. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Hey, real quick, I just want to say thanks for following the story with us. I think it's a really, really important one to cover. And the reason that we can do this is because of the incredible support we get from our partner Morgan and Morgan. Okay, Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. For over 35 years, they have been fighting for the people and have recovered more than $30 billion for their clients. Look, the proof is in the track record. With more than a thousand lawyers across a 100 offices nationwide, hiring Morgan Morgan is like hiring an army to go into battle for you. A team that will fight hard to get their clients the compensation they deserve. Look, not all law firms are the same. you hire the wrong one, you may be beat before you even start. So, if you're ever injured, you can check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless you win. For more information, you go to forthepeople.com/lcsidebar. You can click the link below or you can scan the QR code on screen.
>> Do you personally believe that girls and women were abused by Jeffrey Epste in Palm Beach? >> I do believe that that Epstein engaged in bad conduct with women. Yes.
So, the two men who might have been closest to Jeffrey Epstein had to answer some very critical and, yeah, sometimes uncomfortable questions posed by the House Oversight Committee earlier this month. Now, we're not only hearing their answers, right? It's not just reading from a transcript. We are seeing it for ourselves. We have the videotapes. We are seeing the reactions as they were confronted with the guy that they were working for for such a long period of time. Not only what he was convicted of, but what he was accused of. and they had to face the fact that they have been accused of being complicit in whatever Epstein was accused of doing. And we did a whole sidebar yesterday on accountant Richard Khan's testimony, the money man, which included details about the Epstein victim's compensation fund, what we saw inside Epstein's multi-million dollar homes, why he continued working for Epstein after Epstein was convicted of sex crimes in Florida. I'm talking solicitation of prostitution, procurement of a minor. In hindsight, I regret that I relied on Epstein's word that this would never happen again. And I believe at the time we were in the middle of a financial crisis and I had a family to support. So I made the wrong decision in staying for him, staying working for him because I later learned as co-executive that Epstein continued to abuse hundreds of minors and adults. So I made an improper decision.
>> And you can check out that full episode over on Long Crimes YouTube channel. But right now today, I want to talk about the other guy. I want to talk about Epstein's other apparent right-hand man, his former lawyer, co-executive of Epstein's estate, Darren Indk. Now, he worked for Epstein for decades, reportedly starting in the 1990s. And by the way, when you type in Ind, okay, into the DOJ's website, the Epstein files library on the DOJ website, you get more than 30,000 hits. Now, he has been accused of giving young women and girls money or gifts at Epstein's request, allegedly facilitating forced marriages to secure immigration status, reportedly helping dispose of evidence that could have implicated his boss. I mean, those are the allegations. He's never been criminally charged. He's never been prosecuted. He's never been arrested. Okay? And he's never really been directly implicated in a criminal investigation of any sort of wrongdoing, as far as we can tell. There have been allegations that were made against him in in litigation, but nothing from a criminal context. But I will say this, in the Epstein files, there's a diagram that was apparently put together by the feds that shows Epstein's purported inner circle. Ind is right at the top. And by the way, as we go through his testimony, there was a claim by at least one member of that committee who believes Darren Indk might have committed perjury when he testified. Now, we're going to dig more into that in just a minute, but here's what he had to say. indike had to say during his opening statement at this March 19th closed dooror deposition. I will just tell you it's very fascinating we even get this video. Usually closed dooror depositions we wouldn't even get this but unique case spirit of transparency. I'm not surprised it was released. Take a look.
My complete lack of involvement in that misconduct is a matter of record. Not a single woman has ever accused me of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she or anyone else reported to me any allegation of Mr. Epstein's abuse. I did not socialize with Epstein, and I reject as categorically false any suggestion that I knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that I was aware of his actions while I provided legal services to him. Far from being Mr. Epstein's lieutenant or chief of staff, as I have been incorrectly described by plaintiffs, lawyers, and uninformed journalists, I was one of many attorneys whom Mr. Epste regularly consulted, including such noted luminaries as Kenneth Star, for entirely legitimate purposes. My primary role was to provide corporate, transactional, and general legal services to Mr. Epstein and his companies. And yes, I did so. The press and plaintiff's council have mischaracterized cash withdrawals I made from Mr. Epstein's bank accounts from 2013 to 2017. Entirely ignored in that reporting is the fact that the bank involved knew full well that these accounts belong to Mr. Epstein. Neither I nor he made any effort to disguise his name or identity. And as part of its standard policy, the bank itself imposed a $7,500 limit on daily cash withdrawals. I was not attempting to structure such withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements. Quite the contrary, I simply sought to comply with the bank's internal requirements and limits with the bank's full knowledge. It is undisputed that during this time, Mr. Epstein had difficulty assessing credit cards from major banks. Instead, he and his staff required cash to pay for a wide variety of expenses, including maintenance, repairs, and daily household needs for his residential properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, Paris, and the USVI, as well as meals, gifts, gratuitities, and fuel for his private aircraft. For a person of Mr. Epstein's financial position with five multi-million dollar residences staffed by dozens of employees and with an extensive travel itinerary. It did not strike me as unusual that Mr. Epstein's business, household, and personal needs required large amounts of cash on a regular basis. I never believe that the cash I withdrew from Mr. Epstein and his staff was used by Mr. Epstein or his staff for any improper purposes.
But what Indike did know was Epstein's Florida case. Remember, he was convicted in 2008 for procuring a child for prostitution, solicitation of prostitution. That was the so-called sweetheart deal that allowed Epstein to avoid more serious federal charges, potentially more serious time.
>> I also understand from uh your testimony during the previous round that you ultimately represented Mr. Epstein along with other counsel in connection with his arrest and prosecution in Florida. >> I was never the direct defense council, but I was brought on as a group of people that were.
>> So, it would be fair to say that you were a member of his defense team. >> Yes. Very loosely, but yes.
>> So, I think that anticipates my next question. Was there an allocation of responsibility among the members of the team? Did certain lawyers have responsibilities that differed from others? >> We can't talk about how he allocated responsibility among the lawyers. There wasn't a group wasn't a group meeting like uh let's do this, you do that, you do the other thing.
>> Based on your observation. >> My observation was that there was a group of lawyers at the time all of whom kind of shared information and did things together. Um, I my role was kind of specific task excuse me task oriented. Um, sometimes I would um, if if Epstein would ask me, did so and so do this yet? Could you ask them to do this or ask them when they're going to do this? Um, but um, I believe it was more like a group, a group thing. Uh, some people, some people were better writers than others. Marty Marty Weinberg was a very good writer. Um, Jay Lefgo's also a very good writer. Um, but I think as as a rule, everybody kind of worked together.
And what to your understanding were the crimes that Jeffrey Epstein ultimately fled to? >> Um, my understanding was that there were two charges. One charge was a solicitation of prostitution and the other charge was procuring prostitution of someone under the age of 18.
>> And please correct me if I'm wrong. And I understand from your testimony earlier um that you were aware of the requirement that Jeffrey Epstein register as a sex offender in various states as a result of his plea. Is that right? >> Yes, I became aware of that fact. Yes.
>> Um, and that included New York State. >> Uh, yes, there was an initial registration in New York. Um.
>> And you were involved in the registration. Is that right? >> Uh, yes, I I believe uh I was involved with him in the registration. Um.
>> And did you become aware in connection with that that Jeffrey Epstein was designated a level three sex offender in New York State? >> The answers to your question is yes. Um, but that was after um a whole a round of uh litigation.
>> The issue was litigated. >> The issue was litigated. Yes.
>> And were you part of the legal team that represented him in connection with that litigation? >> Loosely. Loosely.
>> Were you troubled by Mr. Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration in Florida. >> I was troubled. I guess the answer is yes. I I I it was troubling. Um, the the problem I have in grasping and kind of tackling the question you have is is not really knowing what it is. It has come to as as it's come to pass clearly he did something at the time. What I was struggling with is what it is that that he actually did do. Um, I think I went into the previously I went into how the police reports were inconsistent with recorded statements, how they were references to items as sex toys, which weren't were broken salad utensils. There was even a statement in the uh from I never heard the statement directly, but I was made aware of a statement made by the lead prosecutor in Florida um who was a female experienced sex crimes prosecutor that uttered a statement to the effect that there were no real victims there. Now, I'm not saying there weren't. I'm just saying that that's what I heard at the time. So I gra I'm you know struggling with these things and not knowing what allegations are true or what allegations aren't true and and I know that um with respect to his sex sex offense the sex offender charge which was required not by the state it was required by the US attorney's office after the after the state had had kind of convened the grand jury the grand jury came back with something that I don't remember the charge, but it wasn't that charge. And the the consequence for that charge was mandatory PTI, which was much less than obviously the police chief wanted. And so, so what happened during the course of the of the federal investigation is the the US attorney's office wanted something more than that and wanted him to plea to one to plead to charges that would one put him in jail and two uh plea to charges that for which there would be uh a sex offender registration requirement. And >> the charge that they the charge that they ultimately said you should go back to the state and make them charge you this >> was a charge that the defense team had been saying that they didn't have the factual predicate to actually have that charge but that will do it because that's what you want to get this thing resolved. So the the troubling part of it I I it's hard for me to un to know for sure what actually happened, what was true, what was not true. A lot of the allegations turned out not to be true.
>> What about now? Do you have a belief as to whether girls and women were abused in Florida? >> Well, again, you know, after he went to uh after he was arrested the second time and then died, um lots of people have come forward of women who come forward who didn't come forward before who said that they hadn't come forward but but you know since then as the co- executive of the state I've been made aware of of many many claims and so with that number of claims being made it's really hard to say that no he didn't do anything obviously he did a lot of terrible things so my view is I don't know exactly what he did and I say this again because I want everybody to be clear about this I didn't see it I didn't see anything and nobody complained to me about anything so I don't know but all these people came forward so obviously there's something there so your question is what are what do I believe now I believe he did bad things.
>> At any point after you learned about Mr. Epstein's arrest in Florida. >> Mhm.
>> Did you ever consider quitting your job? >> With all of the discussion about how the answer's I don't think I did. Uh, you know, I'm going back in time. I I don't think I did. And and the explanation for that is is twofold. with all of the discussion about the the defects in the investigation and statements from like the lead prosecutor and all this stuff and and and the lie detector test and all this and all of these other things. I think there was even a a psychological evaluation that said he wasn't a pedophile. So all of these conflicting reports came. It sounded to me, it seemed to me who was very inexperienced with this stuff that maybe it wasn't what they were saying. And so I so.
>> When taking into consideration all of that information, it sounds like you were weighing the question. >> No, I'm quoting the question now. The question then was I was I you know I drank the Kool-Aid at the time. I think the that's the answer is I drank the Kool-Aid at the time.
>> Now I should tell you it seems working for Jeffrey Epstein was a lucrative endeavor for many of his closest associates. Why do I say that? because the committee members grilled Indike about the amount of money he made over the years as Epstein's attorney.
>> He was very generous with you. So I from 2003 to 2013, according to public reports, uh your personal bank account received more than $2.4 million from Epstein, while your business account received over $8.3 million. You also uh received a loan that was never repaid of um uh $7 million. And a copy of Mr. Epstein's trust showed that he planned to leave you $50 million50 uh which was matched only by his girlfriend Karina Chulak. Um, you what were you doing for him that made him so generous to you? >> I think I've already discussed all of the things that I did for Mr. Epstein which were all legitimate legal legal tasks. I was working for him at least six days a week, sometimes seven days a week. I was on call 24 hours a day with him and I was not at liberty to take on other clients in a way that other lawyers in private practice would want to take on clients to continue their business.
>> A lot of money. Y >> And as we told you in a previous episode, Epstein also apparently funded fertility treatments for Ind. Indarly referenced that in a letter that was going to be part of Epstein's sentencing back in Florida. So he was talking, he was attesting to Epstein's character. Quote, "Thankfully, after our fifth cycle, my wife and I were blessed with twin daughters, although Jeffrey was adamant that we owed him nothing. Jeffrey honored us by agreeing to be the godfather of our children."
>> Did you ever ask Mr. Absin for personal favors? >> Um, let's see how to answer that question. I asked him for help when I was um I think it's my first year or so.
>> Sorry, my first year or so when I worked for him. I don't remember the exact time period. Um, my my wife and I were having uh fertility issues. Um, and um, for infertility treatments were quite expensive and they weren't covered by insurance. Um, so I had I had asked him if it was possible for me to forego the insurance um and in lieu of the amount of money that he was paying for insurance at the time if I could take that money and and apply it towards the cost of infertility treatments. Uh, and at that time his response to me was absolutely not. You should keep your medical insurance and I will pay for your infertility issues. Subsequent to that, it didn't work and it didn't work I think four other times. Subsequent to that, without me having to ask, he would tell me when are we doing the next one? And so, uh, Epstein paid for all of our infertility treatments until we were able to conceive.
So, a big focus of both Ind's depositions were the claims that were made against President Donald Trump, which were revealed in the release. As we've told you, this information comes from unverified tips that came into the FBI's National Threat Operations Center, which means there's a lot of secondhand information. There was no corroborating evidence, but it said Redacted reported an unidentified female friend who was forced to perform on President Trump approximately 35 years ago in New Jersey. The friend told redacted that she was approximately 13 to 14 years old when this occurred and the friend allegedly bit President Trump while performing. The friend was allegedly hit in the face after she laughed about biting President Trump. The friend said she was also abused by Epstein. And there's a note that this tip was sent to the Washington office to conduct an interview. And we know there was a whole back and forth about whether there were more interviews that were part of the release and not part of the release. But during Khan's deposition, there was some back and forth about whether Jane Doe for, she's the now adult woman who claimed Trump sexually assaulted her when she was just 13 years old. Khan seemed to struggle to remember if Jane do received any payouts or settlement from the Epstein victim's compensation fund. He even went so far as to notify the committee after his deposition that he can no longer confirm or deny whether Jane do even filed a claim.
So what did Indike have to say about this? Now, Jane Doe alleged that she met Epstein in in South Carolina in the 1980s and through him was introduced to President Trump who we know the the allegation was that he abused her when she was 13 and these are allegations made by Jane Door. Are you aware of Jane Door? >> I'm aware of the the Jane Do the case Jane do.
>> You're aware of Jane Door. >> Aware of the the case Jane Door. I'm not aware of the person.
>> You know who do you know the identity of Jane do in this case? >> I I don't.
>> So you you do not know the identity of Jane >> here today. I couldn't tell you.
>> Okay. Have you ever seen a document with the identity of Jane Door? >> I'm sure I must have.
>> You So you have seen a document? >> I'm sure I must have.
>> Okay. Now last week, Mr. Khan, who's the co-executive of the estate, testified that Jane Door had received a settlement from the Epstein estate, of which you're a co-executive. Now later in the deposition when oversight staff attorneys asked about the settlement involving Jane do Mr. Khan's attorney clarified on the record according to his team that Mr. Khan's earlier testimony had been mistaken and that neither he nor Mr. Khan recognized Jane do as someone who had filed a claim against Yep estate. Now, since then, there's been additional back and forth and confusion about the details of Jane Door and her interactions with the estate and there's been back and forth and clarification. So, I just want for clarity since you're a co-executive now, Mr. Khan, and given your position as a co-executive estate for both, did Jane do receive a settlement from the estate? Let me be clear as your position as the co-executive of the estate, did Jane do receive a settlement from the estate? So, Congressman Garcia, I just I have to say two things about anything with Jane Does. Um, the first is we're bound by court orders not to say anything about the identifi to the extent someone has sued under a Jane Doe name. Um, we're not permitted by court orders to say who the person is at all. Um secondly, putting aside whether it's someone as a Jane Doe or somebody specifically identified, we are bound in confidentiality requirements in any settlement. We are as the estate and the co-executives to not identify if someone has settled or anything about the settlements. Having said that, any of those claimants who have settled, typically they are not bound by that. So, you know, you're free to ask them if they want to identify things, but we cannot do that. Okay. Aside from the identity and disclosing the identity to us of Jane Do4, any NDAs or non-disclosure agreements, as we have made clear in prior cases, Congress does not recognize and we have the ability to determine whether we do and do not recognize. In this case, given that you are under subpoena, we would ask that you provide us information whether J4 perceived and let me I I heard you. Let me continue.
>> Yeah. But let me just say to that quickly that um putting aside whatever order may come out requiring them to disclose, I believe, but I I'd have to look at each particular settlement agreement, we likely have notice provisions to the person settling if we were bound to disclose it to first notify that person because they could probably take.
>> So to be clear, you're not confirming >> or denying the settlement of Janeo4. Is that correct? >> We cannot.
>> So Mr. Mr. Was was there a settlement paid from the Epstein victim compensation program to to any Jane do or Jane do for? >> We have the same confidentiality restrictions.
>> So you're not unwilling to answer if there was actually a a payment from the Epstein victim compensation. >> It's not a willingness issue. Is it bound by confidentiality?
>> Well, I'm not going to take that premise, but I I understand your your position. Mr. Induct, do you have any additional information on Jane that you can provide us? >> No.
Now, after the deposition, you had Representative Dave Man who told the press that was gathered outside that Indely perjured himself.
>> I have to say I'm very surprised that he did not take the fifth amendment. I think it's very likely he perjured himself over and over and over again. Uh, and just to give you a few examples, I'm not going to go into detail, but um, you know, he he claimed, and I think this is in the statement you all received, uh, that he had no knowledge of any women or girls. And yet how that doesn't account for the fact uh that numerous women have described how he helped them fix their problems. Uh, one one woman had described how uh she had helped he had helped her get an apartment. Uh, they he helped women with their immigration issues. Uh, he reportedly told a number of women not to talk to police when the police started investigating Epstein. Uh, it's just not credible to claim that you had no knowledge of what was happening. Uh, I asked among other things about um the $725,000 that he withdrew in cash at the maximum level of $75 to $100 per withdrawal that doesn't trigger federal reporting. Um, he couldn't describe what that was for. Just kind of, you know, again claimed no knowledge and don't want to get into the details. You'll read the transcript. But, uh, this is just not credible. What is also really something that is incredible is that the FBI and Department of Justice had never interviewed Mr. Ind or Mr. con even those people were central figures in the Epstein files and and the scandal around the rapes, the human trafficking and all that. Uh, and I just want to applaud uh Robert uh Jasmine Summer Lee who's not here with us because it's under their leadership that we are moving forward right now. And I think what has become crystal clear over the course of these last few depositions is that these people are going to lie to us over and over and over. And what is really important is that we get the documents because the documents are the things that can actually show us what actually happened here. I I suspect he's going to give a few more hours of saying how he knows nothing in defiance of actual evidence showing he knew a lot. Um, I think he again is perjuring himself. Um, if I was advising him, I'd tell him to take the fifth amendment because I I believe he's guilty of perjury.
Representative Robert Garcia shared similar feelings, releasing the following statement. Darren Indk played a central role in facilitating Jeffrey Epste's abuse of women and girls and managing legal strategies that helped Epstein avoid government scrutiny. In his deposition before the committee, Indike would not confirm or deny a settlement with Jane Door, who accused Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of abuse when she was a minor. However, he confirmed the existence of hard drives held by Epstein's private investigators. These hard drives are of great interest to our committee. Survivors and victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve to know the truth. Oversight Democrats will not stop until there's full transparency about everyone complicit in Epstein's crimes.
Now, it's unclear if those accusations of perjury could lead to legal consequences down the line. They would have to refer to the DOJ. They would have to assess if there's something there, and they would have to assess if they want to move forward. Perjury can be kind of tricky unless you have a black and white case where you can definitively show someone wasn't telling the truth and they willingly, knowingly weren't telling the truth. Can be murky, can be tough to prosecute. But I want to go back to some of the other big moments from Indik's deposition. Okay, because both Richard Khan, the accountant, and Indike, they apparently moved massive amounts of money around for Epstein. According to Khan's testimony, when Epstein died in 2019, he had somewhere between 500 and $600 million in assets. And the committee members were skeptical. You know, Indike never suspected that some of these transactions were illegal or criminal in nature or at the very least suspicious or unexplained.
>> Mr. And with the benefit of hindsight, were there things you witnessed or observed about Mr. Epstein that could have suggested he was trafficking and sexually abusing young women and girls? >> I mean, at what period of time?
>> During the entirety of your relationship? >> I had no knowledge of any allegations before 2006. And after 2006 when he ultimately went to jail and was backed um my understanding was that the issue was underage people uh sex with underage people. My understanding was that it was limited to Florida. Um, and when I was in New York, which is where I spent my time, I never saw any underage people. I never saw any any sexual activity. Nobody ever complained to me about sexual activity. I had no reason to believe that there was engaging in sexual activity. And frankly, given the amount of scrutiny that Epstein was under, I didn't believe he would do something like that, particularly after he told me he wasn't going to be in that position again. He was by all accounts 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 misconduct.
And you've discussed at length the catch that was withdrawn that I believe you had a role in retrospect would that have been something aimed that should have raised concerns not with the size of his households not with all of the things that that was that that was needed for that cash. I mean the island the island alone they were buying tools and supplies and furniture and all manner of things. Um food they had they had construction workers on the island. Pools were breaking down all the time. They had machine shops. They needed lubricating supplies for for for the machine shop. Um, you know any number of things like that. you know, given the size and scope of his households and the number of people involved and the fact that there wasn't a lot of credit cards available at the time because banks were basically shutting him down that way. No, the cash the the the cash that was being asked for me seemed to be for legitimate purposes and I had no reason to think that they were for illegitimate purposes.
>> Did you also handle his taxes? >> No.
>> Did you ever review his tax returns? >> I reviewed his tax return. The answer is no. Not while they were being done. In connection with the estate, I reviewed the tax return.
>> Hundreds of thousands of dollars were given every year out in cash. I mean, technically, you have to file a 1099 if you exceed $600 an year for services. So, I mean that it's not >> Are you aware that 1099s were not were not filed? >> We'll look into that and get back to you.
>> Okay. But that's not my role. That wasn't what I did.
During the deposition, by the way, which lasted nearly 7 hours, I will tell you, and this is something why it's good to get the video. Indemingly appeared defensive. Did you settle victim's claims associated with the crimes pre20 uh 2008? >> Did I settle the claims?
>> Were there dozens of victims that were underage that ended up suing uh Epstein or the estate? And did you settle those claims? >> I don't know the number of people that were underage, but there were there was a list of of of people that the government provided And I believe there were a number of those a number of those people that filed claims against Epstein and those claims were ultimately settled. Yes.
>> Were those settled in 200910 or were they settled post death? >> Uh 2009 and 10.
>> Okay. >> So you in fact did have to get somewhat involved in the his alleged criminal activity prior to that to settle the claims. >> I wasn't involved in his criminal activities atmosphere. You had to understand the depths of it because you had to settle the claim on behalf of the state.
>> So, so, so that we're clear, people settle claims for all kinds of reasons. All kinds of reasons, including the cost of litigating, the the time spent litigating, how much it interferes with your your your current uh uh business.
>> So, wait, did he go to jail because he didn't do anything wrong? >> I didn't say that. Okay. So, he did something wrong. He said look,
>> You're you're saying he did I mean >> No, no, I'm not saying that. And you're putting words into my mouth and it's and it's actually unfair. What I'm saying is on a case-by case battle on a case-by case basis, you can look at a settlement and and see whether or not the the claims in in those cases have merit or they don't have merit. And and while I will never be in a position, I will never want to be put to the task of saying that any particular woman who's claiming abuse wasn't abused, I won't do that. I will say that there were facts that came to light during the the defense council's investigation of many of these claims which suggested that some of these claims that some of these allegations in these claims were not accurate. So which claims were true, which claims were not true? I don't know. I wasn't there. I wasn't in Florida. I don't know what was true or was not true.
>> But you were involved in >> But but let me finish what I was saying please. What I what I have said is that now it's clear that there was there was misconduct. Okay. I also was clear that when he was in jail and he looked devastated and told me he wasn't ever going to be in that position again and told me he didn't know that there were people that were underage and said this was never going to happen again. I believed him and I told you in my opening statement that that was a mistake and I do feel horrible about that. I I had I known that he was doing it, I would have walked away. But in the context of of all of this all of the the information that was provided which suggests that a lot of what was being said was not true and a lot of of what was being claimed about happened in the past after he had gone to jail and after he said he wasn't going to do it again. I didn't have a reason to believe after he got out that he was doing it again.
I started out, the first question I asked was about this because in your opening statement you said, "I made the mistake of believing Mr. Epstein that he would not again commit a crime." Um, he has never been indicted, charged. I don't even know if he's been investigated for anything after 2009. I the indictment in 2019 was 2002, 2005. So, what what criminal activity are you aware of that occurred after he got out of prison that violated your trust? But that that is what you're talking about here.
>> When he died and it it precipitated kind of a a flow of of people coming and making claims against claims against Epstein. And there were lots of people that made claims against Epstein. And there were lots of people that went to the Epstein victim's compensation fund to get to to make claims against Epstein with the with that benefit. And as you said, I I how could I how could I possibly say that nothing happened with with that number of claims out there? And given given that given that that's what I was talking about.
>> I don't know what's true, what's not true, but I know there's stuff there.
>> What are the crim The crimes that have been alleged are sex assault, are sex trafficking, human trafficking. What's the other what's what else is on the list? I don't know what if the crimes are sex trafficking or human trafficking. What I know is that people claimed that he he he abused them. He sexually abused them. There were claims, I believe, in some of the complaints that were filed after he died about rape. Those are the claims that I did not know about.
How many of the victims that um have made claims and have recovered from the different funds uh post 2008 did you interact with on a regular basis in your capacity as his lawyer? >> A very small minority of them. The the only people that I would have interacted with were people who were uh >> ostensibly assistants. >> Ostensibly assistants.
And the committee members also wanted to know whether Ind alleged victims not to talk to law enforcement because in the files release we got a look at this 2019 account of who appears to be a Polish former model who worked for Epstein as an assistant between 2005 and 2006. At least that was the claim. She apparently spoke to the FBI and federal prosecutors and it says quote Epstein told Redacted that there was an investigation and that it had something to do with visas. Epstein told Redacted that they were asking about her parents. Epste had surprised Redacted with a visit from her parents. Redacted knew that Epstein was lying about how her parents got their visas. Redacted recalled a time where she was on the island and Epstein told her, "Do you see the camera? They're watching me." Redacted did not recall how she had learned about the actual reason for the initial investigation. Epstein's council, Darren Indike, called her into his office and told her not to talk to law enforcement. During the previous hour, I believe the minority had asked you if you ever had any contact with victims. I believe you answered no. Is that right? >> That's I think I think I think so. Yes. I think that's when you say contact other than assistance, right?
>> So, for the record, you never told victims not to contact or speak with law enforcement. Is that right? >> I can. So, the answer is yes. I never told anybody not to not to speak with law enforcement. I remember one or two occasions and I don't know when and I think this was in the early investigation or the later investigation that uh um there were there there were people who were concerned that law enforcement was calling them and the defense council who they didn't know um asked me to call them and 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 But I never told them not to speak to one. I simply related the statement from the defense council that if they wanted a lawyer, they could have one provide.
Now, according to Indike, he actually spoke with Epstein 2 days before he was found dead in his jail cell in 2019. Remember, Epstein was being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City ahead of a federal sex trafficking trial. And according to multiple official reports, Epstein was found hanging by a bed sheet in his cell during an early morning bed check. So what did he have to say to Indike just days before?
>> When was the last time you spoke with Jeffrey Epstein? >> Couple of days before he died.
>> What did you talk about? >> Um the just to be clear >> I it's privilege. It was it was not personal. It was privilege. It was based upon his being in in the jail at the time. Um, and it was regarding subjects that one would talk about um like bail and things like that.
>> Okay. So I am going to ask the witness for the substance of those conversations >> and those are subject to attorney client privilege. >> Yeah.
>> Not going to be able to answer the details on that.
>> Okay. So, just I'm going to refer that one to the majority for a ruling. And for the record, the question is, what did Jeffrey Epstein say to you during your last conversation with him those two days before he died? And >> and you have a generic description of him already from the witness.
So, there you have it. Some of the testimony of Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Darren Indy, and ostensibly one of his right-hand men for decades, insisting he knew nothing, saw nothing, heard nothing. What will come of this testimony? We will wait and see. It's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, ex Instagram, my NewsNation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday at 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.