#houseoversight010796
LightNews LightNews
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 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