11 Shocking Epstein Secrets Exposed in Lawyer's Depo

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 door 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 you 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 lie 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. Uh 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'd 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.