THE LUTNICK PACKAGE: EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS MORE TO HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH EPSTEIN THAN HE IS SAYING, AND HE’S GOING DOWN!
Here is the Lutnick package that I promised you. The thing about “Epstein files”, is that there are so, so many of them. It’s like that old adage about the blind men feeling an elephant; the one feeling the tail thinks an elephant is rope-like, the one feeling the legs thinks an elephant is tree trunk-like, the one feeling the flank thinks an elephant is like a wall. None of them have the whole picture.
So it is with the Epstein files; it isn’t until you fit them together, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, that things start to become clearer, and the evidence comes into high relief.
What is clear is that Howard Lutnick has lied. I mean, we knew, intuitively, that he was lying. But now the paper trail shows it.
First, I want to point out that when Blanche interviewed Maxwell, she very clearly said, talking about the Epstein cabal, and I quote, “some are in your cabinet, who you value as your coworkers”.
I have *zero* doubt that she was talking about Lutnick (and maybe others, but definitely Lutnick). I’ve been saying that all along.
Now, Lutnick has steadfastly maintained that the last time he had contact with Epstein was in 2005.
Then he steadfastly maintained that the last time he had contact with Epstein was 2012, because he got caught lying about it being 2005. And really, you know there was no way that it was simply that he didn’t remember the 2012 occasion because “Oopsie, I totally forgot that I took a family vacation *on someone’s private island* in 2012” just doesn’t cut it. 👖🔥
Well, last week the House Oversight committee held a closed-door hearing, with Lutnick in the witness seat. Yes, it was closed door – but there is a transcript, and as you may imagine I grabbed it immediately. (The transcript of that hearing, along with all of the documents related to this post, are included for Notes from the Front members.)
In his hearing he reiterated the narrative that 2012 was his last interaction with Epstein, along with disclosing the earlier interaction in 2005, and one in 2011. Here, among other things, is exactly what he says:
“To the best of my recollection, those were the only three occasions in which I interacted with Epstein in person. Each and every one was meaningless and inconsequential.”
Now, I happen to be fluent in weasel words, in fact I have an advanced degree in weasel words, and those are weasel words if ever I saw them. In this case they are weasel words (bet you think that’s the magic phrase today, huh?) designed to make sure he can’t be impeached in the future for *lying through his teeth* during the hearing.
Perhaps you recognized them too, but just in case, these are the weasel words:
“To the best of my recollection”
“in person”
The first one is pretty obvious, if later someone points out something contrary to what he said, he can just explain it away with “Oops, I forgot about that, I *did* say ‘to the best of my recollection’.”
But the second one is a bit slyer, because one does *not* have to be in person to have an ongoing relationship with someone.
Same with someone saying when the last time they had “direct contact” with someone was – does it mean in-person? Does it mean direct email? For example we *know* that while it is quite possibly true that Trump didn’t have “direct contact” with Epstein after a certain year, there were *absolutely* messages being conveyed between Epstein and Trump through intermediaries, including Bannon.
THIS is why Lutnick was careful to say “in person”.
In your Lutnick package you will find two sets of emails. The first is from 2017 (well after 2012) in which Epstein donates *$50,000* to a benefit dinner hosted by the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) – and the honoree of that dinner? None other than Howard Lutnick. Moreover, Epstein’s $50,000 got him a table at the dinner, which he *gifted to Lutnick*. Did Epstein call Lutnick and say “Hey Howie, I’m donating fifty grand to your benefit dinner”? Probably not. Did Lutnick *know* that Epstein donated the $50,000? Absolutely, and if there was any doubt, Epstein saying “Tell Howard he can have the table” cements it.
Did the $50,000 go directly to Lutnick? No, it went directly to the UJA. Did Lutnick get anything monetary from or through the UJA because of Epstein’s donation? Maybe, maybe not – in fact, probably not. BUT DID LUTNICK BENEFIT FROM THAT DONATION? *Absolutely*. Clout, leverage, goodwill. The additional goodwill of having a table at which to invite people to sit. At a *minimum* he benefited indirectly from Epstein’s donation.
But you know, you don’t actually have to infer from this that they were still in contact, because Exhibit B, my friends, is the *2018* email *between Epstein and Lutnick*. (Also included in the Lutnick package.)
Now, in this email you will see reference to Sherry, Pierre, and the purchase of a guest house. Pay no attention to those, they are just banter (in fact Lutnick explains this in the transcript).
What is relevant about this email exchange between Epstein and Lutnick is that they are having it *at all*. In *2018*. Epstein is asking about AdFin, Lutnick is telling him his thoughts about AdFin. Moreover, Epstein starts out with “On another note”, indicating that this is an ongoing email conversation between the two. In 2018.
*Ten years *after* Epstein was arrested and convicted for trafficking*. And just *one* year before Epstein was arrested *again*, meaning *while* his trafficking was in full swing.
Now, I can believe that Lutnick didn’t know about the ongoing trafficking, but he sure as hell knew Epstein’s history, and he double sure as hell with a cherry on top *LIED ABOUT LAST CONTACT*
And, with apologies to Paul Harvey, here is the rest of the story:
YESTERDAY the House Democrats sent a formal letter to Lutnick, *demanding* his resignation over his lies. (Yes yes, of course that letter is included for you Notes from the Front members! It’s your dessert in the Lutnick package!)
Among lots of other great things, they say “When asked whether you had discussed Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or the Epstein files with President Trump, you flatly refused to answer, offering neither an objection nor an assertion of privilege. Nothing justifies shielding discussions of your personal relationship with a convicted sex offender from congressional oversight. Instead, you chose to further the White House cover up.”
You see, once you start fitting the pieces together, well, he’s going down.
Notes from the Front members: The Lutnick Package is in your inbox now! I’ve also included an FBI intake form accusing Lutnick of money laundering – of course a statement isn’t proof, but I sure would like to know what happened with that investigation – I mean, there was an investigation, right? Right?
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member this document is a great reason to join! For just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform’s algorithms to show you my updates *and* get the included documents! *And* help keep me in that sweet elixer of productivity, coffee! :~) Join here now:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/the-lutnick-package-evidence-that
Don’t have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite – it’s like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://notesfromthefront.fyi
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the name “Paul Harvey” or the words “pants on fire” – your choice! It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about Paul Harvey and burning pants! ;~)
Source