Epstein Web
LightNews LightNews
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Epstein Web
@epsteinweb.bsky.social
1 followers 1 following 530 posts
Creating an app that will allow people to browse and search the Epstein Files. Create videos about the files.
Posts Replies Media Videos
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010801.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010801
23 these manifests prove your position. 24 scathing cross examination. So your statement is 24 MR. SCOTT: And he's answered that because 25 categorically false, sir. 25 based on his review of them, Mr. Scarola. 19 (Pages 249 to 252) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010801
February 6, 2026 at 11:42 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010801.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010801
that timeframe period,” 24 have conclusively told me that their review of the 25 correct? 2s manifests shows that I was right. 250 252 a MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative -- 1 Q. Who else — 2 A. Let me be -- 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid any attorney-client 3 MR. SCOTT: -- mischaracterization. 3 communications cither with Ms. -- you know, 4 A. Let me be clear. A, I never flew down on 4 with your current lawyers, please. 5 Jeffrey Epstein's plane during the relevant period 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 6 of time. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 BY MR. SCAROLA: 7 Q. Who told you that they had reviewed the 8 Q. Flew down to where? 8 manifests and they confirmed your position? 9 A. To Palm Beach or anywhere else. I was 9 MR. SCOTT: Objection, work product. 10 never on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, according to the 10 MR. SCAROLA: Well, you know, Mr. Scott, 12 flight manifests and according to my own records, a1 he can't have it both ways. He can't insert 12 during the relevant period of time. 12 into the record the gratuitous statements that 13 Ihave independent records of my travel 13 he inserts into the record regarding others 14 which demonstrate that I was not in Jeffrey 14 having corroborated his inaccurate testimony, a5 Epstein's house during the relevant period of time. 15 and then refuse to tell us who those others 16 And -- but the -- talking about the manifests, the 16 are. It constitutes a waiver of whatever 17 manifests conclusively prove that ] was never on the 17 privilege might exist. 18 airplane during the relevant period of time. 18 MR. SCOTT: He can -- he can tell who they 19 So I don't know how you can claim that the 19 arc. I'm just saying he can't go into 20 manifests show that I was with Virginia Roberts 20 communications with them. 21 during the relevant period of time. They do not do 21 MR. SCAROLA: Well, he's already said what 22 that. And if you would testify under oath to that, 22 the communication was. The communication was 23 I think you could be subject to pretty -- pretty
February 6, 2026 at 11:42 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010801.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010801
249 251 1 flew down to Palm Beach during that relevant period 1 Q. Which of the manifests are you referring 2 of time. 2 to when you claim what you have claimed about the 3 So I have a timeframe not that was 3 manifests, Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? 4 provided by your client but that was provided by the 4 A. [can only tell you that I have reviewed 5 externalities of the case. And that timeframe 5 the manifests and they show, to me, that I was never 6 coupled with the manifests clearly exonerate me 6 on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane during the relevant 7 without any doubt. 7 period of time. That's all I can tell you now. 8 Q. Lwant to make sure that I understood what 8 I'm not in a position where [ look at all 9 you just said. "I never flew down to Palm Beach 2 these documents now. If you point me to any 10 during the relevant timeframe"? 10 particular trip that shows that I was on Jeffrey aa A. Tnever flew down and stayed at Jeffrey's 11 Epstein's plane, { would be happy to respond to 12 house in Palm Beach during that relevant period of 12 that. 13 time. 13 Q. There are two separate collections of 14 Q. Okay. So you want to withdraw the 14 documents purporting to be flight manifests for 15 statement that you never flew down to Palm Beach —~ 15 Jeffrey Epstein's plane. When you made the public 16 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 16 statements that you made regarding the flight logs 17 BY MR. SCAROLA: 17 or manifests exonerating you, were you referring to 18 Q. — during that relevant period of time -- 18 Exhibit Number 6 or Exhibit Number 7? 19 A. Let me be -- aS) A. Ihave no recollection as to which 20 MR. SCOTT: Objection. 20 particular exhibits, which are formed for purposes 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 21 of the legal case, I had reviewed. I know I had 22 Q. ~ and what you want to say is, "I never 22 reviewed the manifests. Not only had | reviewed the 23 flew down to Palm Beach and stayed at Jeffrey 23 manifests, but others reviewed the manifests and 24 Epstein's house during
February 6, 2026 at 11:42 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010800.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010800
Jeffrey Epstein's plane during that 25 that, you should have produced them in discovery and 25 period of time. And the manifests show that I never 18 (Pages 245 to 248) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010800
February 6, 2026 at 11:42 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010800.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010800
1 Q. Well, Mr. Dershowitz, it might be 2 A. Your client has adamantly refused, and her 2 inappropriate if you had not repeatedly made the 3 lawyers and your clients have refused to give me any 3 public statements that the flight logs exonerate 4 timeframes, any timeframes when your client claims 4 you. 5 that she had improper -- falsely claims, 5 A. They do. 6 perjuriously claims that she had improper sexual 6 Q. So what I am attempting to find out is the 7 encounters with me. 7 basis upon which you can contend that the flight 8 So how can you possibly ask me a question 8 logs exonerate you if you are now telling us you 9 that includes the word "timeframes" when your clicnt 9 don't even know when it is that you are alleged to 10 has refused -- when Virginia Roberts has refused to 10 have been in the same place at the same time as 11 give any timeframes? How can it be possible that 11 Virginia Roberts. 12 the flight logs show me being in the same time and 12 A. Okay. 13 same place with her when she has refused to describe 13 Q. So how -- how can you make both those 14 any of the times that she claims to have been in 14 statements? 1s those places? 15 A. Very simple, because I know the timeframe 16 So the answer to the question is 16 that Virginia Roberts, A, knew Jeffrey Epstein. And 17 categorically no, sir. 17 during that timeframe, I can conclusively prove that 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 1 was never on Jeffrey Epstein's island where she 19 Q. What is the question that you are 19 claimed to have sex with me. That the only time I 20 answering no to? 20 was at the ranch was with my wife, with the Ashe 21 A. Whether or not the timeframe shows that I 21 family, with my daughter, the house was under 22 could have been in the same place at the same time 22 construction, we just simply stayed outside the 23 as your client. Absolutcly not. Because we don't 23 house and looked around, That the manifests show | 24 know what times your client -- now, if you know 24 was never on
February 6, 2026 at 11:41 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010800.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010800
245 247 1 that you were in the same place at the same time — 21 I would be very anxious to see any timeframes when 2 A. First -- 2 Virginia Roberts claims she was with me on the 3 Q. —as Virginia Roberts? 3 island, claims she was with me on -- at the ranch, 4 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. 4 claims she was with me on the airplanes, claims she 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. 5 was with me in Palm Beach. And they will all 6 MR. SCOTT: Then you answer the question. 6 conclusively -- 7 And Mr. Scarola will try to, you know, keep the 7 Q. You forgot ~ 8 emotion down, I'm sure, so we can get through 8 A. -- prove -- 9 this with less acrimony between everybody here. 9 Q. —New York. Didn't you mean New York 10 A. Your client has adamantly refused, as well 10 also? 11 as the lawyer -- 11 A. No, I did not mean New York -- 12 BY MR. SCAROLA: 12 Q. Oh, okay. 13 Q. No, sir, that's nonresponsive to my 13 A. -- because New York is very different. I 14 question. 14 was, in fact, in New York for large periods of time. 15 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. 15 I was not, in fact, on the island during the 16 BY MR. SCAROLA: 16 relevant timeframe. I was not in the airplane in 17 Q. My question is: Do you deny that the 17 the relevant timeframe. I was not in Jeffrey 18 flight logs corroborate that you were in the same 18 Epstein's Palm Beach home in the relevant timeframe. 19 place at the same time as Virginia Roberts? 19 And I was once in the ranch but under circumstances 20 A. So the question includes the word "time" 20 where it would have been absolutely impossible for 21 and, therefore, I must answer in this way. Your 22 me to have had any contact with her. 22 client -- 22 So if you will give me the timeframe, I 23 Q. How to build a watch? 23 will be happy to answer your question. But without 24 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute, you're cutting 24 timeframes, that question is an absolutely 25 him off. He's been trying to answer the 25 inappropriate question. And the answer to it is no. 246 248 1 question.
February 6, 2026 at 11:41 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010799.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010799
because I am 22 that you were in the same places at the saine time as 23 totally, completely, unequivocally innocent of any 23 Virginia Roberts, don't they? 24 of these charges. 24 A. No, they do not. 25 So of course | knew that I would be 25 Q. Do you -- do you deny that they confirm 17 (Pages 241 to 244) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010799
February 6, 2026 at 11:41 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010799.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010799
were decent and ethical lawyers, 25 Roberts' allegations against you? 25 not filed that. 242 244 1 A. I don't know if I reviewed everything. 1 And there are cases, legal ethics cases 2 But I certainly, in preparation for this deposition, 2 that say that lawyers are obliged to make that phone 3 reviewed some of the documents that were produced in 3 call. Lawyers are obliged to check if it's easy to 4 discovery. But I can't say I reviewed them all. 4 check. Lawyers are obliged to, particularly when 5 Q. Well, having placed such substantial E they're making extremely heinous charges against a 6 emphasis during the course of your public 6 fellow lawyer, do yery, very, detailed is appearances on the flight logs exonerating you, it 7 investigations. And they didn't do that in this 8 would certainly seem logical that one of the things 8 case. 9 that you would want to review would be all of the 9 Q. I will represent to you that I have handed 10 available -- all of the available flight logs, 10 you all of the available flight logs produced in the 1 right? a1 discovery of this case. Could you show me, please, 12 A. No. 12 which of these flight logs exonerates you? 13 MR. SCOTT: Objection, argumentative, 13 A. The absence of evidence is evidence of 14 A. No. 14 absence. None of the flight logs have me on an. 15 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 airplane with Virginia Roberts. None of the flight 16 Q. No? 16 logs have me on an airplane during the relevant 17 A. No. Look, I knew I was never on a plane 17 period of time when Virginia Roberts claims that she 18 with any underage females under any circumstances. 18 had sex with me in the presence of another woman. 19 I knew that. I knew that as certainly as I'm 19 So, the flight logs clearly exonerate me. 20 sitting here today. So, I knew absolutely that if 20 There's absolutely no doubt about that. 21 the manifests and the flight logs were accurate, 21 Q. Well, the flight logs, in fact, confirm 22 they would, of course, exonerate me
February 6, 2026 at 11:41 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010799.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010799
241 243 1 (Discussion off the record.) 1 exonerated by any flight logs that were innocent -- 2 THE WITNESS: What's Number 6 then? I'm 2 that were complete and accurate, of course. 3 confused, there were two. 3 Q. So you made the public statements e BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 repeatedly that the flight logs would exonerate you 5 Q. Have you ever seen Exhibit Number 6 5 without having examined the flight logs to see 6 before? 6 whether they were accurate or not; is that correct? 7 A. Exhibit Number 6. I don't believe so. It 7 A. Well, [knew -- I knew that -- 8 doesn't look familiar to me. 8 Q. Did you say those things without having 9 Q. No? 9 examined the flight logs? 10 A. It does not look familiar to me. 10 A. I said those things having looked at some 11 Q. Did you bother at any time to review al of the flight logs at some point in time. But I 12 discovery that was produced by Bradley Edwards and 12 knew for sure that the flight logs would exonerate 13 Paul Cassell responding to requests for information 13 me because I knew I was never on Jeffrey Epstein's 14 that supported the allegations of Virginia Roberts? 14 plane with Virginia Roberts or any other young 15 A. I'm not clear what you're asking. 15 underage girls. So, I knew that to an absolute 16 Q. Ewant to know — 16 certainty. And I was prepared to say it. I'm 17 A. Inwhich case? In which case are we 17 prepared to say it again under oath here. 18 talking? 18 And if your clients had simply called me 19 Q. This case. This case. 19 and told me they were planning to do this, we 20 A. Right. 20 wouldn't be here today because I could have shown 21 Q. Did you ever bother to review the 21 them in one day that it was impossible for me to 22 discovery produced in this case responding to 22 have had sex with their client on the island, in the 23 requests for all of the information that supported 23 ranch, on the airplanes, in Palm Beach. And they 24 their belief in the truthfulness of Virginia 24 would have, if they
February 6, 2026 at 11:41 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/2 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010798.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010798
Cassell says "asks Dershowitz these 1 interview, you said: "She made the whole thing up 2 questions" occurred before your -- your media 2 out of whole cloth. I can prove it by flight 3 appearances and after your media appearances; is 3 records. I can prove it by my travel records." 4 that correct? 4 Did you make those statements? 5 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form, argumentative 5 A. Yes, and they're absolutely true. 6 and repetitious. 6 Q. Okay. I am going to hand you every flight 7 A. It occurred before some of the media 7 record that has been produced in connection with 8 appearances, and it occurred after some of media 8 this litigation. 3 appearances, yes. 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 BY MR. SCAROLA: 10 MR. SCAROLA: Could we mark that as the 12 Q. Did it occur before your first media 12 next composite exhibit, please? 12 appearances? 12 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 13 A. My first media appearances came as the 13 Exhibit 6.) 14 result of phone calls I received from -- 14 MR. SCAROLA: And mark this as the next is Q. That's nonresponsive to my question, sir. 15 composite exhibit, which will be 7. 16 A. -- newspapers -- 16 MR. SCOTT: These are all the flight 17 Q. I didn't ask you anything about what your 17 manuals? 18 first media appearances occurred — 18 MR. SCAROLA: As far as I know. 19 A. Yes, you did. 19 MR. SCOTT: Okay. 20 Q. —asa result of. I asked you -- 20 MR. SCAROLA: They're the only ones that 21 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask his question. 21 have been produced in discovery. If there are 22 BY MR. SCAROLA: 22 more, I'm going to be interested to hear about 23 Q. -- whether the e-mail that you claimed to 23 it. 24 have seen was sent before or after your first media 24 (Thereupon, marked as Plaintiff 25 appearance? 25 Exhibit 7.) 16 (Pages 237 to 240) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010798
February 6, 2026 at 11:40 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/2 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010798.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010798
237 239 1 A. It was whenever -- I'm not sure I ever saw = MR. SCOTT: I think he's answered that 2 the date. He just quickly showed me the e-mail and 2 twice. 3 I quickly looked at it. 3 A. Itcame after. It came after. 4 Q. The e-mail that you are referencing, in 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 fact, occurred after you had begun all of your media 5 Q. Thank you, sir. On January 5, you made 6 appearances with respect to this filing ~ 6 another CNN Live appearance in an interview with 7 A. Let me be very clear about -- 7 Hala Gorani. Do you recall that? 8 Q. didn't it, sir? 8 A. [do not recall the name of the person -- 9 A. Letme be very clear about my media 9 Q. Take a look at the transcript, if you 10 appearances so that I -- 10 —_ would, please, page 15. 11 Q. How about just answering the questions? 11 MR. SCOTT: Take a moment to review the 12 A. I'm trying to answer the question. All of 12 transcript, please, Mr. Dershowitz. 13° my media appearances -- 13 THE WITNESS: Page 15. 14 Q. The question is: Did it occur before or 14 MR. SCOTT: Take your time to review that. as after your media -- your media appearances? That 15 A. Yeah, that name is not familiar to me but, 16 doesn't call for a speech — 16 of course, I remember doing an interview, yes. ae A. Itcame-- i BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. ~it calls for before or after. 18 Q. Allright, sir. And during the course of 19 A. Itcame before some and after some. It 19 that interview, you said: "There are flight 20 came, for example, before my appearance on the BBC 20 manifests. They will prove I was never on any 22 because they showed me the e-mail before they 22 private airplane with any young woman.” Correct? 22 interviewed me for the BBC. So some occurred -- it 22 A. Yes. 23 occurred before some and it occurred after some. 23 Q. Go to page 17, if you would. 24 Q. Allright. So it is your assertion that 24 A. Ub-huh. 25 this single e-mail that you have made reference to 25 Q. Atline 4 of transcript of that same 238 240 1 where Paul
February 6, 2026 at 11:40 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010797.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010797
way, you want an interesting 22 A. I don't know. 23 story, there's -- Prince Andrew of Great Britain and 23 Q. -- that you referenced in that response? 24 Alan Dershowitz have been accused of sexual 24 A. I don't know. 25 misconduct. | still believe that. 25 Q. Well ~- 15 (Pages 233 to 236) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010797
February 6, 2026 at 11:40 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010797.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010797
SCAROLA: 24 MR. SCOTT: I think he's trying. 24 Q. We'll get to that in just a moment. 25 25 A. --asimple basic thing, 234 236 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: 1 Q. But right now — right now could you 2 Q. You made the further statement in that 2 please tell us was there anything other than your 3 same interview, "They dropped the dime on the media 3 inferring that they must have contacted the media to 4 when they filed it," referring to the CVRA. 4 support your conclusion that either Paul Cassell or 5 pleading — 5 Brad Edwards did, in fact, alert the media at the 6 A. Right. 6 _ time of the filing of this pleading? 7 Q. -in which were you named? gs A. Yes, 8 A. Right. 8 Q. What else besides your inference? 9 Q. What is the basis for that statement? 9 A. When the BBC came to see me, the BBC 10 A. The basis for that statement was that the 10 reporter showed me an e-mail from Paul Cassell, 121 filing was done virtually on the eve of New Year's 11 which urged him, the BBC reporter, to ask me a 12 ona day that the press was completely dead. And 12 series of questions. So 1 knew that Paul Cassell 13 nonetheless, immediately upon the filing, I got a 13 was in touch with the British media and was trying 14 barrage of phone calls that led me to conclude, and 14 to stimulate and initiate embarrassing questions to 1s ted many, many, many other lawyers who called me to 15 be asked of me. 16 conclude that obviously somebody tipped somebody off 16 And when I spoke to a number of reporters, 17 that they didn't just happen to file -- to find in 17 they certainly -- obviously reporters have 18 the middle of an obscure pleading which didn't even 18 privilege, but they said things that certainly led 19 have a heading that indicated that | was involved or 19 me to infer that they had been in close touch with 20 anybody else was involved. 20 your clients or representatives on their behalf. 21 So, I'm certain that a dime was dropped to 21 Q. What was the date of the e-mail — 22 somebody saying, by the
February 6, 2026 at 11:40 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010797.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010797
233 235 1 limitations, yes. 1 Q. And by dropping the dime on the media when z Q. You refused to waive the statute of 2 they filed it, you intended to convey the message 3 limitations with regard to sexual crimes, correct? 3 that Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards intentionally 4 A. Ididn't refuse anything. I didn't feel 1 a generated the focus of press attention on that 5 had any obligation to respond to you. And I did 5 filing; is that correct? 6 not. 6 A. Absolutely. Absolutely without any doubt. Q. So, you were asked to waive the statute of 7 Why else would they have brought Prince Andrew into 8 limitations with regard to your sexual crimes and 8 this filing? Prince Andrew had no connection to the 9 you refused to respond? 9 NPA, no relevance at all. But they knew that by 10 A. Iwas asked by you, utterly 10 _ including Prince Andrew, this would drag my name 11 inappropriately, and what I had said -- and if you 11 into every single newspaper and media outlet in the 12 check what I said, I said if any reasonable 12 world. 13 prosecutor were to investigate the case and find 13 It was outrageous for them to do this. 14 that there was any basis, I would then waive the 14 Particularly because they did so little, if any, 1s statute of limitations. I didn't waive the statute 15 investigation, which will, of course, be determined 16 of limitations because you, a lawyer, for two 16 when they're deposed. And -- and -- 17 unprofessional, unethical lawyers asked me to do so, 17 Q. Well, you've already made that 18 what obligation do I have to respond to you? 18 determination, right? 19 Q. Well, you have no obligation to respond to 19 MR. SCOTT: Wait. 20 me at all, Mr. Dershowitz, except now while you are 20 A. I'mconvinced that -- that they did little 21 under oath and I am asking you questions and I would 21 or no investigation. They never even bothered to 22 greatly appreciate you responding to the questions 22 call me. That would have been -- 23 that I ask. 23 BY MR.
February 6, 2026 at 11:40 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010796.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010796
waive the statute of 14 (Pages 229 to 232) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010796
February 6, 2026 at 11:39 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010796.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010796
Idid. 1 the witness and trying to prevent her from having a 2 Q. And he said, I - 2 media barrage that would interfere with their lives. 3 A. He wouldn't answer that. 3 Q. You told Don Lemon on CNN that the flight 4 Q. --refuse to tell you? 4 manifests would exonerate you, prove that you were 5 A. No, he didn't know the answer to that 5 not in the same place at the same time as Virginia 6 either because he didn't return the phone calls. He 6 Roberts, correct? 7 said -- 7 A. That's right. And that's true. 8 Q. How did he know they were lawyers if he 8 Q. You also told Don Lemon, quote, "I am 9 didn't return the phone calls? 9 waiving the statute of limitations or any immunity." 10 A. Because they left messages, presumably. 10 A. That's right. 11 Q. With names that identified them as 11 Q. You were then subsequently asked to waive 12 lawyers; is that right? 12 the statute of limitations and refused to, correct? 13 MR. SCOTT: You're arguing with the 13 A, Absolutely false. 14 witness -- 14 I waived the statute of limitations by is A. [don't know the answer to that. 15 submitting a statement under oath. Had I not 16 MR. SCAROLA: No, I'm trying to find out 16 submitted that statement under oath, the statute of 17 whether there's any logical basis for the 17 limitations would have been long gone. But by 18 stories that the witness is telling. ; 18 stating under oath categorically that I did not have 19 MR. SCOTT: And I think he's trying to } 19 any sexual contact with her, I waived the statute of 20 explain it. And I think he's trying to do it | 20 limitations and could be prosecuted for the next 21 in an easy, slow format. So, you know -- 21 five or so years for perjury in what | said was 22 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. Well, let's take it 22 false. 23 easy -- 23 But what | said was true, so | have no 24 MR. SCOTT: -- if we all take -- if we all 24 fear of any statute of limitations or any criminal 25 take the tension down here, maybe we can get 25 prosecution. So, yes, I did
February 6, 2026 at 11:39 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010796.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010796
229 222) 1 BY MR. SCAROLA: i more accomplished. 2 Q. What's her phone number? 2 MR. SCAROLA: Let's take it easy and slow. 3 A. Her phone number is known to Virginia 3 BY MR. SCAROLA: 4 Roberts and presumably -- and to Virginia Roberts' 4 Q. How did Michael tell you he knew these 5 lawyers because she received phone calls from 5 people he didn't speak to were lawyers? 6 Virginia Roberts' lawyers. So all you have to do is 6 A. He told me that he received a phone call # ask your colleagues and you will get that. But I a from Virginia Roberts. That then his wife received 8 think there's no reason to put her phone number in 8 numerous phone calls and texts from her all through 9 the public record so that she will receive massive 9 the night. And that they received phone calls as 10 amounts of phone calls from the media. Seems to me 10 well from her lawyers. One of them had a Miami a1 that any -- that a judge would try to prevent that 12 phone number. 12 from happening. I would hope so. And I'm -- you 12 And I don't know how he knew they were 13 can get the name and the phone number from my lawyer 13 lawyers. But that's what he conveyed to me. All| 14 as long as it's -- 14 can tell you is what he told me, and I'm telling you 1s MR. SCOTT: We'll provide that. 15 that. 16 A. -- done off the record, not so that the 16 Q. Did you ask him for the phone number? 17 media can see it. 17 A. I didnot. 18 BY MR. SCAROLA: 18 Q. Why not? 19 Q. You just swore under oath that lawyers 19 A. I didn't think it was appropriate or 20 contacted Rebecca; is that correct? 20 necessary. 21 A. I swore under oath that I was told by 21 Q. What was inappropriate about asking for 22 Michael that lawyers contacted Rebecca, yes. 22 the phone number to find out who was attempting to 23 Q. Which lawyers? ee) contact this witness? 24 A. Idon't know the answer to that. 24 A. [was not particularly interested in that. 25 Q. Did you ask him? 25 All I was interested in was getting the truth from 230 232. i A.
February 6, 2026 at 11:39 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/2 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010795.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010795
it's 226 228 1 Please instruct the witness. 1 inappropriate because of what -- he's not going 2 MR. SCOTT: Avoid that. We discussed that 2 to answer the question. I will provide you the 3 yesterday. 3 name. 4 THE WITNESS: That's fine. 4 BY MR. SCAROLA: EI BY MR. SCAROLA: 5 Q. Okay. She has still insisted that her 6 Q. What was the date of the phone 6 name not be revealed; is that correct? 7 conversation that you tape recorded? 7 A. Her husband asked me to do whatever I 8 A. I don't recall. But it's on the 8 could not to put her name in front of the press, in 9 transcript. 9 front of the media. 10 Q. And does it also reflect that the 10 Q. There's no — there's no one from the 11 recording is being made with her permission? a1 press here today. 12 A. Uh-huh. 12 MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but they're going to 13 Q. That's a yes? 13 order the transcript and they're going to see, 14 A. Yes. Yes, that's a yes, 14 so that's the same thing. And I've already 15 Q. What is Rebecca's last name? 15 told -- 16 A. You know Rebecca's last name and she has 16 A, You will have her name in five -- 17 asked me not to reveal it to the press. And so I 17 MR. SCOTT: I will give you her name -- 18 would like to comply with that -- with that request. 18 A. -- minutes. All you have to do is -- 19 For purposes of discovery, you know her name, you 19 MR. SCOTT: And, Jack, if you want to take 20 know her husband's name, you know her phone number, 20 a break now -- 21 and she has been called. But there's no reason for 21 THE REPORTER: Holdon. Hold on, 22 me to reveal it so that it appears in the press that 22 gentlemen. You can't talk at the same time. 23 she would be called by newspapers and by the media. 23 MR. SCOTT: Let me do the talking at this 24 Q. Mr. Dershowitz, how do you know what I 24 point. 25 know if you haven't told me? 25 THE WITNESS: Please. 13 (Pages 225 to 228) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010795
February 6, 2026 at 11:39 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/2 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010795.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010795
225 227 1 MR. SIMPSON: The flash drive is the same 1 A. [know what you know because I'm a logical 2 as the document production. 2 person and I know that Virginia -- I know that 3 MR. SCAROLA: So the answer is no, they're 3 Virginia Roberts repeatedly called this -- this 4 not there; is that correct? 4 woman and her husband, repeatedly text her, and 5 MR. SIMPSON: Correct. 5 knows her name. And you and Virginia Roberts’ 6 MR. SCAROLA: Okay. And what's the 6 lawyers are operating in privity here. You're 7 explanation for that? 7 whispering to each other, you're passing notes. You 8 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate this 8 are part of a joint legal team. 3 on the record with you, Mr. Scarola. 9 And if you want to know her name, all you 10 MR. SCAROLA: All right. Thank you. 10 have to do is ask Sigrid McCawley and she'll tell di BY MR. SCAROLA: il you her name. I'm sure you know her name. And if 12 Q. Which conversation with Rebecca did you 12 you don't know her name, it’s because you haven't 13° tape record? 13 asked. 14 A. [tape recorded a conversation with her 14 Q. Okay. Well, I'm asking you ~ 15 permission where she told me that she was pressured, 15 A. I'm not going to tell you -- 16 she didn't -- where Rebecca told me that Virginia 16 Q. -and I'm telling you I don't know her 17 was pressured and that she didn't want to name me 17 name. 18 but she was pressured to name me, that she had never 18 A. Okay. 19 previously named me. 19 Q. Okay? As an officer of the court, Iam 20 By the way, I told this to Virginia 20 telling you I don't know her name. And you are 21 Roberts’ lawyer. 21 under oath and obliged to answer material and 22 MS. McCAWLEY: Objection. To the extent 22 relevant questions, and I want to know what her name 23 you're going to reveal anything that was said 23 is. 24 during settlement discussions, I'm moving for 24 MR. SCOTT: I will provide you the name 25 sanctions, period. We're not doing this today. 25 off the record, but I'm not -- if he feels
February 6, 2026 at 11:38 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010794.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010794
response to the 24 after April of 2015. And I certainly tuned over 24 subpoena duces tecum on the flash drive that 25 the recordings and the -- recordings to my lawyers, 25 you provided to us? 12 (Pages 221 to 224) www.phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010794
February 6, 2026 at 11:38 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010794.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010794
are 222 224 1 permission, and I have those tape recordings. 1 now told they do not, then you wouldn't be a Q. Well, you're getting a little bit 2 obliged to supplement the production that had 3 overexcited, Mr. Dershowitz, because you never tape | 3 already been completed. But it is not the date a recorded anything that Virginia Roberts told you. 4 of the request that matters, it is the date of 5 A. Did I say Virginia Roberts? 5 the produetion that matters. 6 Q. You misspoke. 6 And what we're now being told is there are 9 A. [misspoke. You wouldn't know that. But, 7 allegedly highly relevant transeripts of a 8 in faet, let me be clear. 8 telephone conversation that occurred months ago 9 I tape recorded, with her permission, 9 when the last production that we received, 10 Rebecca's statements to me about what Virginia 10 which we are told still is not complete, ad Roberts had told her. And I just want to make sure il oceurred approximately two weeks ago. 12 that for completeness, even though you didn't ask 12 So, there's no privilege log entry. 13 the question yesterday, that's part of the record. be: There's no production of these documents. And 14 Q. Well, [actually did ask the question and 14 there is clearly a very significant discovery 15 my recollection is that you said you didn't even 15 violation if, in fact, such documents exist. 16 think about tape recording anything -- 16 MR. SIMPSON: I'm not going to debate it 17 MR. SCOTT: No, that's not aecurate. You 17 here, Mr. Scarola, but your assertions are not 18 never asked that. 18 accurate. 19 BY MR. SCAROLA: 19 MR. SCAROLA: All right. There also was a 20 Q. But can you tell us, please, did you turn 20 subpoena duces tecum that was responded to 21 over those tape recordings in the discovery that you 21 tomorrow -- I'm sorry, yesterday. Can you tell 22 were required to make in this case? 22 us whether the documents that are now being 23 A. The discovery -- these events occurred 23 described are included in
February 6, 2026 at 11:38 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010794.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010794
221 223 1 1 who made transcripts of them. 2 BY MR. SCAROLA: 2 Q. Did you turn them over to opposing 3 Q. ~ "who would fit into this description? 3 counsel -- 4 They and the woman got together and contrived and * MR. SCOTT: The transcripts -- 5 made this up." 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 Did you make that statement on national 6 Q. - in the course of discovery? 7 television? 7 MR. SCOTT: The transeripts we consider to 8 A. Yes, aud J just repeated it under oath. I 8 be work produet. If you make a request to 9 believe that to be the case. | think that's exaetly 9 produce, we'll provide them. 10 what happened. And I think that my source has 10 MR. SIMPSON: Just for completeness, they 121 corroborated that. 12 were also after your discovery request. 12 By the way, can I add at this point -- I 12 MR. SCOTT: Request to produce, we'll 13 don't mean to distract you, but I think the record 13 consider providing them. 14 would be more complete if I indicated that I did get 14 BY MR. SCAROLA: 15 aphone call last night from Michael, who told me 15 Q. Is there an entry in any privilege log 16 that he had received numerous phone calls and texts 16 that identifies these allegedly privileged work 17 from Virginia Roberts trying to persuade her not to 17 product documents? 18 talk to me or cooperate with me and offering the 18 MR. SIMPSON: We will -- the lawyers will 19 help ofa lawyer. 19 address the document production issues. But 20 And I also -- although you didn't ask the 20 two things, Mr. Scarola, first, they postdate 21 question, Mr. Scarola, I think for completeness and aa. your request and you have said several times 22 fullness, I do want to say that you asked me whether 22 there's no duty to supplement. And second, 23 or not I knew about what could be taped and what 2 they're work product. 24 couldn't be taped. | did tape record some of what 24 MR. SCAROLA: Well, sir, if they postdated 25 Virginia Roberts [sic.] told me, with her 25 a full and complete production, which we
February 6, 2026 at 11:38 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 3/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010793.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010793
There were multiple motives. One of the 25 together, the three of them, these two sleazy, 22 motives was crassly financial. They were trying to 22 unprofessional disbarrable lawyers" -- 23 line their pockets with money. But as I also said, 23 A. Uh-huh, uh-huh. 24 and I said this over and over again, they profiled 24 Q. -- "they said" -- 25 me. They sat down with their client, knowing that 25 MR. SCOTT: Let him ask the question. 11 (Pages 217 to 220) www. phippsreporting.com (888) 811-3408 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010793
February 6, 2026 at 11:38 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 2/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010793.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010793
pleading, it doesn't pass even 22 same Don Lemon CNN interview what possible motive 22 the minimal giggle test. And I'm embarrassed for 23 the attorneys, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, could 23 Professor Cassell that he would have signed his name 24 have had to have identified you in the pleading that 24 toa pleading that alleges that Prince Andrew would 25 was filed in the Crime Victim's Rights Act case, 25 pressure the United States attorney for the Southern 218 220 z Do you remember that? 1 District of Florida into giving Jeffrey Epstein a 2 A. That's right, yes. 2 good deal. 3 Q. And your response was, quote — 3 MR. SCAROLA: Move to strike the 4 MR. SCOTT: Here's your transcript if you 4 unresponsive portions of the answer. And 5 need to refer to it. 5 obviously the break didn’t do any good. 6 BY MR. SCAROLA: 6 MR. SCOTT: Let's proceed. 7 Q. —"They want to be able to challenge the t MR. SCAROLA: We're going to. 8 plea agreement and I was one of the lawyers who 8 BY MR. SCAROLA: 9 organized the plea agreement. I got the very good 9 Q. You stated, quote: "If they," referring 10 deal for Jeffrey Epstein." 10 to Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, "could find a a1 Did you make that response? 11 lawyer who helped draft the agreement" — 12 A. Yes. 12 A. Right. 13 Q. So, you recognized as of January 5, 2015, is Q. ~"who also was a criminal having sex, 14 that the reason why the statements were filed in the 14 wow, that could help them blow up the agreement." as Crime Victim's Rights Act case was because the Crime 15 Did you make that statement on -~ 16 Victim's Rights Act case had, as an objective, 16 A. Yes. 1 just repeated it now, yes, under 17 setting aside the plea agreement that you had 17 oath, yes. 18 negotiated for Jeffrey Epstein, correct? 18 Q. Did you state the following in that same 19 MR. SCOTT: Objection, form. Go ahead if 19 interview: "So they," referring to Bradley Edwards, 20 you can answer it. 20 Paul Cassell and Virginia Roberts, "sat down bee A.
February 6, 2026 at 11:37 AM
epsteinweb.bsky.social
Part 1/3 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010793.jpg
#epsteinweb #houseoversight010793
217 219 1 demonstrably false, but you could have easily 1 she has a history of lying, knowing that she is 2 discovered that the implication you were drawing was 2 easily suggestible, and they basically pressured 3 demonstrably false by simply taking one second and 3 her, according to my sources, into including me when 4 —— Googling her name as my wife did. 4 she didn't want to include me, because by including 5 BY MR. SCAROLA: s mie, they could make a claim, false as it was, could 6 Q. And so at 25 years old, she wasn't a young 6 make a false claim that a person who negotiated the o woman? 4 NPA was also criminally involved with her. 8 A. She was not the kind of woman that I was 8 They also lied -- lied unethically and 9 describing as underage. She was a mature, serious, 9 unprofessionally by saying that I negotiated that 10 I think I said in my public statements a model. 1 10 provision of the NPA, which gave me, myself, any 11 wasn't aware at the time that see was working for 11 kind of immunity from prosecution had I had improper 12 Victoria's Secrets, but Google demonstrates that. 12 sex with Virginia Roberts, which, of course, I did 13 And I described her exactly, in exactly the right 13 not. And that was one of the bases on which I was 14 terms, a serious person. 14 certain that they had engaged in unprofessional, 28 Talways saw her dressed when I saw her -- 15 disbarrable and unethical conduct by including that 16 I saw her maybe on two or three occasions, dressed 16 provision, as well as including a provision that 17 appropriately. She was a serious adult worker and I 17 Prince Andrew was included because he, Prince 18 think you insult and demean her when you suggest 18 Andrew, pressured a United States attomey to try to 19 that anything other than that she was a serious 19 get a good deal for Jeffrey Epstein. 20 adult when she flew on that airplane. 20 That is so laughable. How any lawyer 22 Q. You were asked on the occasion of that 21 could put that in a
February 6, 2026 at 11:37 AM