Epstein Data Wiki

The 2025 Justice Department examination of Ghislaine Maxwell

Properties1
tagstopic, department-of-justice, odag, fbi, proffer, us-v-maxwell, 2025, transcripts

30 min read

What is recordedTwo days on which the Deputy Attorney General of the United States personally questioned a convicted federal prisoner, on the record, under a proffer agreement12
QuestionerTodd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General, who asked the great majority of the questions across both days134
Also present for the United StatesDiego Pestana, named on the appearance page as Acting Associate Deputy Attorney General; Spencer R. Horn, FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge, New York, who announced the recording and the time at the opening of each day; Mark Beard, Deputy U.S. Marshal13
For Ghislaine MaxwellDavid Oscar Markus, Leah Saffian and Melissa Madrigal13
DatesThursday 24 July and Friday 25 July 2025256
Times spoken into the recordDay one opened at 10:12 a.m. and concluded at 3:34 p.m.; day two opened at 9:24 a.m. and concluded at 12:05 p.m. No time zone is stated on the record3576
PlaceThe Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida; the proffer agreement is dated at Tallahassee, Florida28
InstrumentA proffer agreement headed “THIS IS NOT A COOPERATION AGREEMENT”, signed on 24 July and extended by hand to a continuation on 25 July28
Extent of the transcriptContinuously paginated across both days to printed page 337, with a transcriber’s certificate at printed 215 and 3389610
How it came aboutBlanche said on the record that Maxwell’s counsel had approached him about a week and a half or two weeks earlier11
RecordingsThe audio was produced separately, in native format, under sixteen Bates numbers (the sequential stamps printed one to a page across a production) immediately following the proffer agreement in one of the two productions1213
Not established hereWhether anything followed the examination; the Department’s internal reason for sending the Deputy Attorney General rather than line staff; the truth of anything Maxwell said

On 24 and 25 July 2025 the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche, spent parts of two days questioning Ghislaine Maxwell at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida.23 She was at that time a federal prisoner serving a 240-month sentence imposed in the Southern District of New York; her conviction, sentence and appeals are set out at Ghislaine Maxwell, which this page does not repeat. The questioning was recorded, transcribed and later released. The two days are paginated continuously to printed page 337.6

The unusual feature of the proceeding is not what was said in it. It is that the Department’s second-ranking officer conducted it himself, rather than assigning it to the prosecutors who had tried the case or to the field agents who had investigated it. The record shows the Deputy Attorney General asking the great majority of the questions across both days, with an Associate Deputy Attorney General, an FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge and a Deputy U.S. Marshal in the room; the Associate Deputy Attorney General puts a small number of questions of his own.134

Nothing on this page is a finding of fact about anything Maxwell described. She was a convicted prisoner answering questions under an agreement she had asked for through her lawyer; her answers are reported here as her answers, in her framing, and are not evidence that what she described happened.

The instrument

The examination was governed by a two-page proffer agreement, printed with fill-in lines for the client, counsel, the Deputy Attorney General, a witness and an interpreter.28 It recites that it concerns “the meeting of Ghislaine Maxwell (“Client”) and his attorney, David Oscar Markus, Esq., with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to be held at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida on July 24 and 25, 2025”.2 The pronoun is the form’s, not a description of anyone.

Its first numbered paragraph is set in bold capitals: “THIS IS NOT A COOPERATION AGREEMENT.”2 It continues that “The Client has agreed to provide the Government with information, and to respond to questions, so that the Government may evaluate Client’s information and responses in making prosecutive decisions”, and that by receiving the proffer “the Government does not agree to make a motion on the Client’s behalf or to enter into a cooperation agreement, plea agreement, immunity or non-prosecution agreement”.2 The remaining paragraphs are the standard proffer terms: the government will not offer her statements in its case in chief (the evidence it puts in as part of its own case at a trial), subject to exceptions for false statements, obstruction and perjury, for use as leads, for cross-examination and for rebuttal.2 Paragraph 8 provides that the understandings “extend to the continuation of this meeting on the dates that appear below”, and a continuation date of 25 July 2025 is written in by hand beneath it.8

The signature page is dated at Tallahassee, Florida, with the date written in by hand.8 Four signature lines are blacked out in both published copies (the client’s, the Deputy Attorney General’s, the attorney’s and the witness’s), as is a row of four initial boxes; the printed names beside two of them are filled in by hand as those of Markus, for the client, and of Horn, as witness, and the interpreter line carries a handwritten “N/A”.8 This page does not reproduce anything either copy withholds.

Blanche put the agreement to Maxwell in his own words at the start of day one: the most important part of it, he said, “is that this isn’t a cooperation agreement, meaning that by you meeting with us today, we’re really just meeting, I’m not promising to do anything.”14 He went on: “I’m not promising to ask Judge Nathan or any of the judges that’s been assigned to your case to do anything. It — we’re just talking.”15 He described the protection she received as “what’s called immunity” for her statements, subject to exceptions of which “[t]he most meaningful one” was that if she said something untrue “that’s a lie, we can bring a prosecution against you for what’s called false statements”.16 The same agreement is discussed in the district court’s opinion on Maxwell’s collateral challenge (a post-conviction attack on a conviction or sentence, brought separately from the direct appeal), which is cited at her page.

How the meeting came about

On the record, Blanche attributed the initiative to the defence: “Ms. Maxwell, I guess about a week and a half or two weeks ago, Mr. Markus reached out to me and said that — that you wanted to speak with somebody from the government about, not only your case, but about everything that’s been in the media and that’s been publicized about Mr. Epstein in your case.”11

Maxwell agreed with that account and added her own gloss, saying she had told “him” that she would be “very keen to talk to anyone, because no one from the government, at any time, ever in the — since the inception of the case, so dating back to the early 2000s, has ever spoken to me”, and that she believed her attorneys had told the government at the time that she wanted to speak to them.17 That sheet names no one; the question she was answering was Blanche’s account, on the previous printed page, of Mr. Markus reaching out to him.11 The transcript records no response from Blanche to that characterisation, and the documents this page draws on do not establish whether any such approach was made or received.

At the close of the second day Blanche returned to the same point: “it was you, you know, who kind of said you wanted to talk, but we gladly accepted it.”18

The two days

Blanche spoke first on the record, “I am going to ask everybody to put their name on the record here.”, and Horn then announced the recording: “Today we’re doing a proffer of Ms. Maxwell. The date is July 24th and the time is 10:12 a.m. This interview is being recorded.”3 Blanche identified himself, “And my name is Todd Blanche. I’m the Deputy Attorney General.”, and had everyone else in the room state their names.3 The session ended at 3:34 p.m.: “This will conclude the recorded proffer interview for Thursday, July 24th. We will continue tomorrow, Friday, July 25th.”5

Day two opened at 9:24 a.m. with Horn again announcing the recording, and with Blanche having Maxwell and her counsel initial the same proffer agreement for the continuation.7 It ended at 12:05 p.m.6 Each day’s transcript ends with a certificate of transcription in which an official transcriptionist, Cathy M. Ayotte, certifies the transcript to be a true transcription of the audio recording; on each, a cursive mark reading her name sits on the ruled line above her printed name, and the same mark appears on both.910

The times above are those spoken into the record in the room. No zone is stated anywhere on the record, and the transcript does not supply one.

How Blanche questioned her

The questioning was conversational rather than adversarial in form, and Blanche said so at the end: “the purpose of what we did yesterday and today was — was exactly what we did, which is to have a conversation about Mr. Epstein and about you.”18 Two methods run through it.

Names put one at a time. Much of both days consists of Blanche naming a person and asking whether Maxwell knew them and how. On the second day he set the method out explicitly: “we went through several individuals yesterday and I want to go through just a couple of more names and ask if you — if you know them. And if you do know them, how you know them.”19 The first name he put after saying that was Elon Musk’s, “Do you know Elon Musk?”, to which she answered “I do”, and described meeting him at a birthday gathering in the Caribbean at which, she said, Epstein “was not there”.1920 Names raised in these passages are blacked out at points in the copies cited here, and this page identifies none of them.

Allegations put and answered. Where Blanche put an allegation to her, the transcript records her answer immediately. Early on the second day he told her that a person whose name is redacted “has said that she was working at Mar-a-Lago and that you received a treatment of her — from her at some point, and that you recruited her to meet Mr. Epstein.”21 Asked whether she knew “affirmatively, whether that’s true or false, or do you just not have a memory either way”, Maxwell answered: “I really don’t believe it’s true. But I know that I did go to spas and if I met someone, I did ask if they’re (indiscernible) — so I don’t — in the realms of possibility, it could have, but I have no memory of it.”22

He then turned to money, putting to her that she had been on Epstein’s payroll for many years “starting around $25,000 and ending up at around $250,000 per year”, that banking information from her trial showed payments “totaling something like $30 million”, and asking why the money was sent.22 Fifteen printed pages later he framed the government’s theory as a proposition and invited her to reject it: “the idea that you were paid $30 million between ‘99 and 2007, in order to — by Mr. Epstein to reward you for recruiting young women. That is in your — you’re saying that is categorically, completely false?” She answered: “That is categorically false, correct.”19

Other exchanges follow the same shape. Asked whether Epstein had a list of the kind that had been discussed in public, “like, a list of people, like a book of famous people that he knew”, a “black book or a client list”, Maxwell said “There is no list. We’ll start with that”, and offered to trace the story to its “absolute inception”; her counsel interjected that “there is no list, there’s no client list.”23 Asked whether she had ever thought Epstein “was getting any money from any intelligence agency, including Mossad”, she said “Well, I don’t believe so, but I wouldn’t know.”24 Asked about Epstein’s falling-out with Leslie Wexner, whose dealings with Epstein are covered at Les Wexner, she said “I only know what Les has said in the press”; asked whether she knew Steven Hoffenberg, she said “Only from the press.”25

What the Department said about what came next

Twice on the record Blanche described the proceeding as unplanned and open-ended. Near the end of the first day he set out what remained to cover and added: “that’ll take us through lunch tomorrow and then we’ll be done. I’m not — I don’t have a plan. I didn’t know that I was coming here until this week, okay? So I’m not — there isn’t like a — we don’t have like a schedule of what happens next or what happens.” He immediately told her not to read anything into that: she “shouldn’t take the lack of a next step as anything other than, we don’t have a next step yet”.26

At the close of the second day he said the same thing again: “I’ll talk to Mr. Markus about kind of what we’re going to do next, if anything. There’s no — and I don’t — I’m not being coy or — I just — I don’t know yet. I don’t know.” He said the Department had “some work to do” and would do it “with your lawyers to the extent we have questions or follow-up”, and that he expected to “be in touch soon”.18

The documents this page draws on do not record what, if anything, followed. A week later an FBI Daily News Briefing, circulated by the Bureau in coordination with its Office of Public Affairs, summarised press coverage in which a family criticising remarks by the President had been “reiterating their demand that Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted accomplice, receive no leniency”, and noted that “[t]heir statement followed a recent interview of Maxwell by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, amid reports that she is seeking immunity in exchange for further testimony.”27 That is a Bureau summary of press reporting, attributed there to The Independent; it is not a Department record of any request for immunity, and no such request appears in the documents this page draws on.

Maxwell’s transfer that August from a federal correctional institution to a minimum-security prison camp, and the district court’s later use of passages of this transcript against one of the claims in her collateral petition, are recorded at her page.

How the record was published

The Department produced the record of the examination as four transcript documents, not two: for each day, a full-size transcript with one printed page to a sheet, and a condensed transcript printing four pages to a sheet followed by an alphabetical word index.28 The full-size day-one transcript runs 263 sheets and covers printed pages 1 to 215; the full-size day-two transcript runs 157 sheets and begins at printed page 216, so a printed page number in the second day’s transcript is not that sheet’s position in its file.287 The condensed versions run 103 and 66 sheets.28

Each of the four exists in two productions, stamped in parallel: a DOJ-OGR series and an EFTA series, item for item and page for page across the whole block.2829 The proffer agreement follows the transcripts in both.29 This page cites the copies in the EFTA series for everything that exists in both, and reproduces nothing that those copies withhold.

The two productions diverge at one point. In the DOJ-OGR series the proffer agreement is followed by sixteen further Bates numbers, each a single sheet: the first of them carries nothing but the words “Document Produced in Native Format” above its production stamp, and the machine text of each of the other fifteen carries the same legend; the release’s own file naming identifies them as WAV audio files of the two days, in numbered parts plus recorder test files, and the day-one names carry the word Tallahassee.1230 In the EFTA series there are no such sheets: the run passes directly from the second page of the proffer agreement to the first page of the next document in the block, a Department Office of Professional Responsibility executive summary that is present in both series.29 The audio has no counterpart in the EFTA series of this block.

The statute requiring the Department to publish its Epstein and Maxwell records is described at the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The July 2025 Department and Bureau memorandum whose attachments sit immediately before this block in the same Bates run is described at Maxwell trial exhibits.

What this page does not do

The transcripts are testimony about named third parties and about allegations. Names raised in them are blacked out at points in the copies cited here, and this page identifies none of them, supplies no attribute a copy withholds, and quotes no passage across a redaction. It names only the officials and lawyers who identified themselves on the record, the transcriptionist who certified the transcripts, and public figures whose names appear unredacted in the copy cited at the page cited, in each case with Maxwell’s own answer beside the question.

Nothing Maxwell said in this examination is treated here as established. The proceeding was not a trial, she was not cross-examined, and this page records no judicial finding on any of her answers.

Footnotes

  1. Appearance page of the transcript of the interview of Ghislaine Maxwell by the United States Department of Justice, 24 July 2025, headed “INTERVIEW OF: GHISLAINE MAXWELL” and “DATE: July 24, 2025”, listing for the United States “Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General”, “Diego Pestana, Acting Associate Deputy Attorney General”, “Spencer Horn, FBI Special Agent” and “Mark Beard, Deputy U.S. Marshal”, and for Ghislaine Maxwell “David Markus”, “Leah Saffian” and “Melissa Madrigal”. EFTA02846680 p.1. The same appearance page opens each of the other three transcript documents. On the record at p.2 Pestana gives his own title without the word “Acting”. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Proffer Agreement, p.1 of 2. EFTA02847269 p.1: “With respect to the meeting of Ghislaine Maxwell (“Client”) and his attorney, David Oscar Markus, Esq., with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to be held at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida on July 24 and 25, 2025 (“the meeting”), the following understandings exist”; “(1) THIS IS NOT A COOPERATION AGREEMENT.”; “The Client has agreed to provide the Government with information, and to respond to questions, so that the Government may evaluate Client’s information and responses in making prosecutive decisions.”; “the Government does not agree to make a motion on the Client’s behalf or to enter into a cooperation agreement, plea agreement, immunity or non-prosecution agreement.” Paragraphs (2) and (3) carry the case-in-chief undertaking and its exceptions. The same document is stamped DOJ-OGR-00022982 in the other series; the two copies were compared page against page at the image and carry the same redactions. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  3. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.2, in printed order and with each speaker change marked. At lines 3 to 4, “TODD BLANCHE:” “I am going to ask everybody to put their name on the record here.”; at lines 5 to 10, “SPENCER HORN:” “Good morning.” “My name is” “Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Spencer Horn of” “FBI, New York.”; “Today we’re doing a proffer of” “Ms. Maxwell.”; “The date is July 24th and the time is” “10:12 a.m.”; “This interview is being recorded.”; at lines 11 to 16, “TODD BLANCHE:” “And my name is Todd” “Blanche.” “I’m the Deputy Attorney General.”; at lines 17 to 18 Pestana identifying himself as “Associate” “Deputy Attorney General”; and at lines 19 to 21, Blanche again, “Mark Beard from the” “United States Marshal Service is here as well.” The quotations are given in the line units in which they are printed; the extraction renders the end of line 20 as “Mark Beard from th”, and the quotation follows the image. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  4. Measured over the two full-size transcripts, EFTA02846680 pp.1-215 and EFTA02847046 pp.1-122, by counting speaker labels in the machine text: 2,329 labelled turns, of which 1,122 are Maxwell’s and 1,083 Blanche’s, leaving 124 for everyone else — 72 for Markus, 21 for Saffian, 16 for Horn, 6 for Pestana and the remainder for Madrigal and for labels the extraction damaged. The count is of what the extraction rendered as a speaker label, so it is a floor and not an exact tally. One of Pestana’s turns is confirmed at the image as a question of his own: EFTA02846680 p.152, “DIEGO PESTANA:” “Were you friends with” a person whose surname is blacked out on that page and is not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2

  5. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.214: “so why don’t we stop for today.”; “This will conclude the” “recorded proffer interview for Thursday, July 24th.” “We will continue tomorrow, Friday, July 25th.”; “(Interview concluded at 3:34 p.m.)” Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Same transcript, EFTA02847046 p.122, printed page 337: “This concludes the recorded” “proffer interview of Ms. Maxwell.” “The time is” “12:05 p.m., on Friday, July 25th.”; “(Interview concluded at 12:05 p.m.)” This is the last page of transcript text; the pagination of the two days runs continuously from printed 1 to printed 337. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Transcript of the interview of Ghislaine Maxwell by the United States Department of Justice, 25 July 2025, EFTA02847046 p.2, whose printed page number is 217: “SPENCER HORN:” “Good morning.”; “It is” “Friday, July 25th, the time is 9:24 a.m.”; “And we are here for a” “recorded proffer agreement with Ms. Maxwell.” Horn’s turn ends at line 7; at lines 11 to 13, “TODD BLANCHE:” “So the proffer” “agreement we signed yesterday, I just — there’s a” “place on it for us to all kind of initial.” This document’s first sheet carries printed page 216, so throughout it the printed number is 215 higher than the sheet’s position; every pin in these notes is the sheet’s position. A short redaction sits in Maxwell’s reply at line 19 and nothing is taken from it. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Same Proffer Agreement, p.2 of 2. EFTA02847269 p.2: “(8) The understandings set forth in paragraphs” [the numeral is rendered by the extraction as a capital letter] “above extend to the continuation” “of this meeting on the dates that appear below”; “Dated: Tallahassee, Florida”; “Client”; “If applicable:”; “Dates of Continuation”; “Initials: counsel, Client, DAG”; and, in fill-in lines the extraction damages, those for the attorney for the client, the witness and the interpreter. The date beside “Dated”, the continuation date, the two printed names and the interpreter’s “N/A” are entered by hand; the four signature areas and the four initial boxes are covered by solid black rectangles. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.215, “CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION”, certifying the “transcription of the audio recording” over the printed name “CATHY M. AYOTTE, Official Transcriptionist”, above which a cursive mark reading that name sits on the ruled line. The mark is not described here as written by hand. Rendered at 600 dpi it coincides with the mark on the second day’s certificate (EFTA02847046 p.123) under a pure translation of 550 pixels across and six down, the two ink sets sharing 0.56 of their union and the difference lying as a fringe along the strokes. Both certificate sheets are scanned in greyscale, so neither shows ink colour. Printed page 215 is the last page of the first day’s transcript; the sheets that follow it in the file are the alphabetical word index. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2

  10. Same transcript, EFTA02847046 p.123, printed page 338, “CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION” in the same terms as the first day’s, over the printed name “Cathy M. Ayotte, OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTIONIST”, with a cursive mark reading that name on the ruled line above it. It is the same mark as the one on the first day’s certificate at EFTA02846680 p.215, where the measurement is set out. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2

  11. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.6: “Ms. Maxwell, I guess about a week and a”; “half or two weeks ago,” “Mr. Markus reached out to me” “and said that — that you wanted to speak with” “somebody from the government about, not only your” “case, but about everything that’s been in the media” “and that’s been publicized about Mr. Epstein in your” “case.” Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Slip sheet, DOJ-OGR-00022984, a single otherwise blank page carrying the words “Document Produced in Native Format” above the production stamp. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00022984 p.1. Read from the page image. The machine text of the sheet at each of the other fifteen Bates stamps in the range DOJ-OGR-00022985 to DOJ-OGR-00022999 carries the same legend; those fifteen were not image-checked. This production does not serve its page images over the automated route used for the rest of this page’s images; this sheet was rasterised from the published file itself. ↩ ↩2

  13. The same sixteen stamps, read as a range: DOJ-OGR-00022984 to DOJ-OGR-00022999 inclusive, each a single sheet, sitting between the proffer agreement at DOJ-OGR-00022982 and the Office of Professional Responsibility executive summary at DOJ-OGR-00023000. ↩

  14. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.3: “The most important part of” “this agreement is that this isn’t a cooperation” “agreement, meaning that by you meeting with us today,” “we’re really just meeting, I’m not promising to do” “anything.” Read from the page image. ↩

  15. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.4: “I’m not promising to ask Judge Nathan or” “any of the judges that’s been assigned to your case” “to do anything.” Read from the page image. ↩

  16. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.4: “what’s called immunity”; “The most meaningful one of which”; “that’s a lie, we can bring a prosecution against you” “for what’s called false statements”. Read from the page image. ↩

  17. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.7: “him that I would be very keen to talk to anyone,”; “because no one from the government, at any time, ever” “in the — since the inception of the case, so dating” “back to the early 2000s, has ever spoken to me”; “that my attorneys, at the time,”; “did tell the government that I wanted to speak to” “them”. A short redaction sits in the middle of the sentence beginning “That’s true and I did”; the quotation here begins after it. Read from the page image. ↩

  18. Same transcript, EFTA02847046 p.121, printed page 336: “I said to you yesterday” “that the purpose of what we did yesterday and today” “was — was exactly what we did, which is to have a” “conversation about Mr. Epstein and about you.”; “I’ll talk to Mr. Markus about kind of what we’re” “going to do next, if anything.”; “There’s no — and I don’t — I’m not being” “coy or — I just — I don’t know yet.”; “we have some work to do.” “We’ll do it with your lawyers to the extent we have” “questions or follow-up.”; “it was you, you know, who kind of said you” “wanted to talk, but we gladly accepted it.”; “expect that we’ll be in touch soon.” Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  19. Same transcript, EFTA02847046 p.20, printed page 235: “idea that you were paid $30 million between ‘99 and” “2007, in order to — by Mr. Epstein to reward you for” “recruiting young women.”; “saying that is categorically, completely false?”; “That is categorically” “false, correct.”; “we went through several individuals yesterday and” “want to go through just a couple of more names and” “ask if you — if you know them.”; “Do you know Elon Musk?”; “I do.” Read from the page image; the page carries no redaction. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  20. Same transcript, EFTA02847046 p.21, printed page 236: “Went to another friend’s island.”; “not with” “Epstein,” “he was not there”; “And Mr. Musk was present for that.” Asked whether that was the first time she met him she answered that as far as she remembered it was; the extraction damages that line and it is described rather than quoted. The host of the gathering and the owner of the island are named on the page and are not reproduced here. Read from the page image. ↩

  21. Same transcript, EFTA02847046 p.4, printed page 219: “has said that she was working at Mar-a-Lago and that” “you received a treatment of her — from her at some” “point, and that you recruited her to meet” “Mr. Epstein.” The name of the person whose account is being put is covered by a black bar labelled “DOJ REDACTION”; two such bars appear on the page, and the counterpart copy in the other series carries both in the same places. Nothing under either is reproduced or reconstructed. Read from the page image. ↩

  22. Same transcript, EFTA02847046 p.5, printed page 220: “Do you know, affirmatively,” “whether that’s true or false, or do you just not have” “a memory either way?”; “I really don’t believe” “it’s true.”; “But I know that I did go to spas and if I” “met someone, I did ask if they’re (indiscernible) —” “so I don’t — in the realms of possibility, it could” “have, but I have no memory of it.”; “kind of being on payroll, for lack of a better word,” “for many, many years, starting around $25,000 and” “ending up at around $250,000 per year.”; “there’s banking information that shows a ton of money” “being sent to you from Mr. Epstein over the years.”; “And I think totaling something like” “$30 million, something like this.” “What’s — what’s” “the — why was that money sent to you?” Read from the page image. ↩ ↩2

  23. Transcript of 24 July 2025, EFTA02846680 p.164: “So there’s been a lot of” “conversations about whether Mr. Epstein maintained,” “like, a list of people, like a book of famous people” “that he knew.”; “it’s called a black book” “client list or a list.”; “Did you know of the existence of any such” “list?”; “There is no list.” “We’ll start with that.”; “The genesis of that story,” “can actually trace for you from its absolute” “inception”; and, from Markus, “there is no list, there’s no client list.” “Nothing like that.” Read from the page image. ↩

  24. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.190: “did you ever think that Mr. Epstein was” “getting any money from any intelligence agency,” “including Mossad?”; “Well, I don’t believe” “so, but I wouldn’t know.” “I mean, I would be very” “surprised if he did.” “I don’t think so.” “No.” One redaction bar sits later on the page and nothing is taken from that sentence; how many words it covers is not readable from the image. Read from the page image. ↩

  25. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.63: “Did Mr. Wexner and” “Mr. Epstein — are you aware of they — of their” “falling out that they ultimately had?”; “I only know” “what Les has said in the press.”; “Do you know somebody named” “Steven Hoffenberg?”; “Only from the press.” Read from the page image; the quoted passage carries no redaction. ↩

  26. Same transcript, EFTA02846680 p.213: “And then, like I said, that’ll take us” “through lunch tomorrow and then we’ll be done.” “I’m” “not — I don’t have a plan.” “I didn’t know that I was” “coming here until this week”; “there isn’t like a — we don’t have like a schedule” “of what happens next or what happens.”; “so you” “shouldn’t take the lack of a next step as” “other than, we don’t have a next step yet, so.” The extraction renders the word “anything” on that line as “enythinc”; the quotation follows the image. Read from the page image. ↩

  27. FBI Daily News Briefing of 1 August 2025. Its first page carries the transmitting message, “Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - FBI Daily News Briefing - August 1, 2025” and “Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2025 10:20:09 +0000”, over a masthead reading “August 01, 2025”, “Federal Bureau of Investigation”, “Daily News Briefing” and “(In coordination with the Office of Public Affairs)”; the sender and recipient addresses are blacked out. EFTA01655293 p.1. The item cited here is at EFTA01655293 p.4: “reiterating their” “demand that Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted accomplice, receive no leniency.”; “Their statement followed a recent interview of Maxwell by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, amid reports that she is seeking immunity in exchange for further testimony.” The briefing attributes the item to The Independent and lists further outlets. It is a summary of press reporting compiled by the Bureau, not a Department record of the matters it reports. A surname is blacked out on the page and the family concerned is not identified here. Read from the page image. ↩

  28. The four transcript documents of the EFTA series, with their extents as recorded in the corpus and confirmed against the published files: EFTA02846680, 263 sheets, 24 July, one printed page to a sheet, printed pages 1 to 215 followed by an alphabetical word index; EFTA02846943, 103 sheets, the same day condensed four printed pages to a sheet with the same index; EFTA02847046, 157 sheets, 25 July, one printed page to a sheet, printed pages 216 to 338 followed by its own index; EFTA02847203, 66 sheets, the same day condensed. The condensed sheets carry their own footer giving the printed pages they contain, for example sheet 7 of EFTA02847203, whose footer reads “7 (Pages 237 to 240)”. The two formats also extract differently: in the full-size documents the machine text interleaves each printed line number between the lines of speech, so a quotation crossing a line break is not contiguous in the extraction, while in the condensed documents the line-number columns are extracted as a separate block and the speech runs continuously. The counterpart documents in the other series carry the Bates stamps DOJ-OGR-00022393 and DOJ-OGR-00022656 for the first day and, for the second day, the Bates stamps DOJ-OGR-00022759 and DOJ-OGR-00022916. Sheet extents read from the published files; page layout read from the page images. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  29. The two series run in parallel across this block, each item beginning at the stamp that follows the previous item’s last page: DOJ-OGR-00022393 with EFTA02846680 (263 sheets each), DOJ-OGR-00022656 with EFTA02846943 (103), DOJ-OGR-00022759 with EFTA02847046 (157), DOJ-OGR-00022916 with EFTA02847203 (66), and DOJ-OGR-00022982 with EFTA02847269 (2, the proffer agreement). The next document in each series is the Department Office of Professional Responsibility executive summary of November 2020, 13 sheets, at the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00023000 and at EFTA02847271. In the DOJ-OGR series sixteen stamps, DOJ-OGR-00022984 to DOJ-OGR-00022999, sit between the proffer agreement and that summary; in the EFTA series the proffer agreement’s second page is immediately followed by the summary’s first. Extents and adjacency from the corpus document table, the extents being the lengths of the Bates runs; the EFTA extents were also confirmed against the published files. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  30. The names by which the release identifies the sixteen native files are not printed on the slip sheets; they are recorded against those sixteen Bates stamps in the file-path column of the corpus document table. They are of the forms “Day 1 - Part 1 - 7_24_25_Tallahassee.003.wav” through “Day 1 - Part 7”, with three files named “Day 1 - Test”, and “Day 2 - Part 1 - 2025.07.25 - xxx7_25.003 (R).wav” through “Day 2 - Part 4”, with two named “Day 2 - Test”: eleven parts and five test files. Six of the part files carry “(R)” in the name and five do not. The description here is of the release’s file naming, not of anything printed on a document; the audio itself is not cited, linked, quoted or described. ↩

Backlinks