FULL DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM ‘BILL’ BARR REGARDING EPSTEIN, TRUMP, CLINTON, AND OTHERS
I wrote about this when I first got my hands on it, but many of you have since joined me and so because it is so… interesting.. I thought I’d mention it again. In August the House Oversight committee took the deposition of William ‘Bill’ Barr, the former Attorney General, regarding Epstein, Trump, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and others. Barr was appointed as Attorney General under George H.W. Bush, and then also by Trump in Trump I, where he lasted a bit over a year and a half. (Notes from the Front members: the pdf of the full 129-page deposition is included for you.)
A deposition is the taking of testimony in a formal settings and, and this is important, under oath. The witness being deposed is sworn in (usually by the court reporter who is there to record the deposition), and it has the exact same effect as being sworn in in court. Depositions are often used to impeach a witness on the stand during a trial. For example, if someone said in their deposition that “the cat was white” and now during the trial on the stand they say “the cat was black”, the attorney examining the witness would say “Wait, in your deposition you said that the cat was white. Which is it? Were you lying in your deposition, or are you lying now?”, thus having the effect, among other things, of discrediting the witness in front of the jury.
Ok, my notes:
Often more than one attorney or other interviewer will be “taking” the deposition, and of course the witness (also known as a “deponent”) will have their attorney or attorneys with them as well. In this case Barr (the deponent) seems to have a single attorney by his side. By contrast, I count *14* people on the House Oversight Committee’s side, all of whom, inexplicably, have their names redacted. It wouldn’t be very difficult to figure out their names from their titles (which are not redacted), if one was of a mind to. Curiously, James Comer’s and Suhas Subramanyam’s names are *not* redacted.
In the transcript Barr is referred to as “the Witness”, while the various interviewers are referred to as, and I quote:
[black box of redaction]
Items of interest include:
At Page 10 there is a pause when Representative Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, apparently enters the room and joins. While at first I had no idea what she was doing there, other than maybe to observe, at Page 45 she actually jumps in with questions for Barr about the non-prosecution of co-conspirators agreement between the DOJ and Epstein:
Ms. Crockett: Can I jump in really quickly?
Interviewer: Yeah
Ms. Crockett: I’m sorry. Just to go back to what was just brought up about — during your tenure during either times you were Attorney General, do you recall there ever being a scenario that you authorized that was similar that disallowed the prosecution of coconspirators in this type of plea deal?
Barr: You know, I can’t specifically remember things that were — that I approved. But I’m not sure that provision sticks out at me as odd.
Ms. Crockett: Okay. But you can’t recall ever approving anything like that before, right?
The Witness: Right.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you
And then there is this interesting exchange where Comer inserts himself and asks questions about Clinton and Obama, even though this is a deposition about *Epstein*:
Chairman Comer: Did you review documents that indicated the involvement of former Secretary Clinton in the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump?
The Witness: Did I look at documents?
Chairman Comer: Yes.
The Witness: Yes.
Chairman Comer: To the best of your recollection, did you at any point attempt to declassify items in the Russia collusion investigation?
The Witness: Some items declassified, and some opposed declassifying.
Chairman Comer: Okay. Were you aware of the involvement of President Obama or his officials in the Russia collusion investigation involving President Trump?
The Witness: I was aware of meetings held at the end of the Obama administration. They were described.
Chairman Comer: And did you review any documents?
The Witness: I think I saw a set of notes taken by an intelligence official perhaps.
Chairman Comer: Okay.
There is also a *very* interesting conversation about how they handle investigating and calling in for questioning potentially sensitive – even potentially explosive – witnesses, such as Prince Andrew.
And then there’s this:
Interviewer: Yeah. Same kind of — question with the Maxwell case. All of the potential evidence and documents that we just discussed about potentially being in a case file, it’s possible all that exists for Ms. Maxwell as well?
Barr: The same kind of stuff?
Interviewer: Uh-huh.
Barr: Possibly.
Interviewer: Did you ever review any of the substantive evidence in her case?
Barr: I think I said no.
Interviewer: Okay. And then you discussed it a little bit in relation to communications between DOJ and the White House regarding cases, that it would be rare, but you had two conversations with President Trump regarding the Epstein case?
Barr: I recall two conversations with Trump relating to the Epstein case.
At one point the interviewer starts asking Barr about whether he was aware of any evidence that Epstein was an asset or informant for any foreign intelligence service. Barr responds “As opposed to an employee?”
This below snippet is also interesting as it pertains to Epstein being an “asset or an informant for any foreign intelligence service”, or an employee thereof.
Interviewer: What about Mr. Epstein being an asset or an informant for any foreign intelligence service?
Barr: As opposed to an employee?
Interviewer: Uh-huh.
Barr: And the question is, did I see any such evidence?
Interviewer: Are you aware of any evidence of that?
Barr: No.
Interviewer: Similar questions for the U.S. And I believe you answered them. Aware of any information or evidence —
Barr: Oh, “evidence,” meaning stuff that the Southern District has and says, this is evidence of that? As opposed to speculation or —
Interviewer interrupts: Yes.
Barr: – allegations that you see floating around the press?
Interviewer: Yes.
As you can see, there’s lots there into which to sink your teeth. Again, if you find anything that you believe to be of particular note, let us know in our private members’ chat, which you can access here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/chat
Notes from the Front members: the full 129-page deposition is in your inbox. Please be sure to highlight and bring to attention in our private chat anything you see in the deposition that pertains to any *non-victims* who are currently living!
To protect myself from claims of improper republication, and trolls, I don’t publicly share documents I find, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members. Some of them may be public, and you can probably find them on your own if you wanted to spend the hours that I do looking for them, but then you wouldn’t get the explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, nor the snark that I inject into those explanations. ;~) And honestly, $5 a month is less than you would pay for a minute of lawyer time anywhere else. You can join below for immediate access to all of the documents, our private chat, etc.. – it’s $5 a month and it’s fine to join and then cancel if you only want certain documents.
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/full-deposition-of-william-bill-barr-9a5
Source