Lutnick Makes $5 Million Donation BEFORE Epstein TESTIMONY?!?

got some startling news in the Epstein child sex trafficking matter, and his relationship with Howard Lutnick.We now have the transcript of Howard Lutnick's testimony to Congress.But more troubling, we now have the revelation in the last 24 hours that Howard Lutnick forgetting for a moment that he was the Commerce Secretary, made a $5 million donation to the leading fund used by the House Republicans to support themselves, a super PAC called the Congressional Leadership Fund.And there he is listed while he was negotiating with the Oversight Committee to give testimony concerning his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.He made a $5 million donation.And when I say he forgot that he was Commerce Secretary for a moment, because the original filing listing the actual donation listed his employer as Cantor Fitzgerald and his position as chairman.

and then have the $5 million along with his address listed along with all the others that made a donation to that super PAC.Only one big problem.He's been the Commerce Secretary for 19 months.Now it dawned on somebody that he got it wrong or right.And because, you know, there is a family office that's being run over there called Cantor Fitzgerald run by his sons.But the takeaway is, why is he donating while he's negotiating in order to have the oversight committee ask him questions.

Was he buying softballs that he wanted thrown at him?Fortunately, Ro Khanna was in the room.I'm going to read you some of the transcript there.But it is mind -bogglingly stupid to have a commerce secretary embroiled in a scandal to also stroke a check for $5 million.It sounds like Elon Musk but this is a cabinet secretary in the line of succession to the president.I may have

the answer as to why he did not go along with everybody else to China on the China mission.Sounds like he's in the doghouse.I'm Michael Popock.It's Memorial Day on Legal AF.Let's get down to the continued stench of scandal that seems to constantly surround and swirl around not only the president, Donald Trump, but those in his cabinet.Why do I have to do a report about a $5 million public donation where the guy forgets that he's no longer in the private sector and that he's the Commerce Secretary for the American people?

Now, some people might think I go hard on Howard Lutnick, maybe because I used to work for him a number of years ago.Note, I have no insider knowledge about anything he's doing these days, but I am here to provide honest commentary about what I observe.Who, and they should be fired, who in the Commerce Department or working for Howard Lutnick listed his occupation as working for his family office, the financial services firm, Cantor Fitzgerald?And why did they time the donation right before he testified?You know what the assumption is.You know what the inference looks like.

It looks like he's buying softball questions from people like James Comer, the chair of that oversight committee, in return for this donation.Sure, there are other rich people, rich dudes making donations that are listed there, but none of them are the Commerce Secretary or in the Cabinet or about to give critical testimony.Now, he tried to pull a fast one on the American people.He didn't agree to swear under oath, but it doesn't matter because under 18 USC 1001, our criminal statutes, if you lie under oath and you'reyou've committed, I'm sorry, if you lie at all, whether it's under oath or not, you are going to jail.In fact, that's how the entire proceeding kicked off.

If you want to take a look, firstly, at the federal filing about his donation, which we have up here, The original, before he amended it, go over to Legal AF Substack, where we have posted it, and you will see chapter and verse, everything about his background, where he says he thinks he works, and his address.Okay, let's turn to the beginning of the testimony, which happened just several weeks after he made the donation.He says, He's told at the beginning, this is on page seven of the transcript, which we will also post on Legal AF Substack, although you are here voluntarily and you will not be sworn in, you are required by law pursuant to 18 of the United States Code Section 1001 to answer questions from Congress truthfully.That applies to congressional staff in this interview.Do you understand?I do.

If at any time you knowingly make a false statement, you could be subject to criminal prosecution.Do you understand?I do.This includes both knowingly providing false statements, but also stating that you do not recall or remember something when in fact you do.Do you understand?I do.

All right, well, let's kick it off after he goes through all of the three different times he says he met with Epstein, including a meaningless, inconsequential lunch for the day on his island.By the way, we have a photo of Howard Lutnick along with his kids on the island back in 2012 up next to me.Then Ro Khanna takes over at a certain point.for the Democrats and he says Mr. Secretary you said quote what happened in that massage room I assume was on video when you were with Jeffrey Epstein.How did you know it was on video?Did Mr. Epstein ever tell you he recorded people?

No that was just me speculating for a podcast.interesting.This is what he testified seven or eight months ago, or gave podcast content to Miranda Devine, who has a thing called AirPod One under Rupert Murdoch.Kana, did you ever see any recordings?Lutnik, no.Do you have any reason to know other than speculation that there were videos taking place?

No, I was just speculating for a podcast.Well, what was the speculation based on?Just raw speculation, nothing.He also said that Epstein was the greatest blackmailer ever.That's how he made his money.Let's show the clip of him saying exactly that on the podcast.

Play the clip.

people.That's how he had money.

Conor, what was the premise behind that?I mean, how did you know that?Lutnick, I was just speculating for a podcast, but what was, I mean, you speculate, speculate on a lot of things.There is a reason you speculate.What was the reason?Why did you believe that to be true?

He seemed to have a lot of money, Lutnick said.That's, that was why I was speculating.I was just speculating.Do you know anyone that had, thathad blackmailed or heard anyone that he blackmailed?No.

Have you heard anyone say that they felt pressure with him and had to pay him?No.Did you believe that he engaged in blackmail?It was just my speculation at the time.Is it still your belief?No.

Now you believe he didn't engage in blackmail.Yes, I don't believe he did.You said that he had a different view of it.that you have a different view of it than you did on the podcast now.I do.And why is that?

Lutnick.Because there have been people from the administration who have all of the details who have said so, and I credit what they've said.That's interesting.There's a whole bunch of people in the administration who have details about Epstein.Who would that be?Donald Trump?

Mr. Khanna, First Lady Melania Trump said that each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public.Then and only then will we have the truth.Do you agree with the First Lady?See, I wouldn't have let him off the hook with the, I would have said, who in the administration Gave you the details.What were the details and How did you credit them?I'm surprised actually that Ro Khanna missed on that.

That was a swing and a miss there Do you agree with the first lady?I support the first lady.Sure.Do you agree with the statement?I don't agree or disagree I just support her he can't even say that every woman should have her day in court to tell her public story and then Only then will we have the truth.She also said Khanna says to let that she supports the full investigation and release of the remaining Epstein files.

Do you support her on that?I'll leave that to the administration.You're in the administration.I don't have an opinion one way or the other.How do you not have an opinion about whether justice should be done for the victims?He started off the testimony by saying that there should be justice for the victims.

And now he's backpedaling in response to questions from Kana.Kana, well, I mean, do you support her on the fact that she's calling for an investigation?I'll leave it to the administration.You don't have an opinion on whether you support the first lady's call.I think the question's been asked several times and answered.You said that technically you were accurate in this podcast about never wanting to be in the room with Epstein.

as a matter, not as a legal matter or as a matter of legality, but do you have some regret that you should have been more forthcoming?No, this was a podcast.I actually believe you, that you didn't go and try to do with some other disgusting men with Epstein what was been revealed, but you don't have some sense that maybe you should have been more forthcoming?I'm not saying it's sort of career -ending.I'm just saying you now see that a lot of people are saying that you weren't fully transparent Would you have said the same thing or do you have some sense of maybe I should have mentioned a couple of more things?No for the podcast I made the point Kana, you acknowledge the fact that you had these things that came out in the files.

Do you think you should have said something at some point, whether it was for a podcast or not?I thought I described an informal conversation with my wife 20 years ago to make a point.I tried to make it reasonably.Oh, I mean, you could see why afterwards Ro Kana and others had this to say about Howard Lutnick's testimony.And this again is before they knew.Because I'm sure there would have been a different set of questions before they knew that a $5 million donation had been made by Howard Lutnick to his cross -examiners, to his inquisitors in the House Republicans.

Play the clip.

I mean, he said that he would never see Epstein again in 2005.And everyone knows that he took his wife and kids to see Epstein in 2012.And yet it was just contortions and lies and no acknowledgement that he misled the American public.And if you saw the exchanges that my colleagues had with him, you would see he made a farce of the English language.He was trying to define high as if saying that what he really meant is that he would not see Epstein alone, but would be totally fine with having his wife and kids see Epstein.It made no sense.

He originally had said that Epstein engaged in blackmail.Now he's saying, well, he was wrong.He was just speculating, and Epstein actually didn't engage in blackmailing.This raises the question of what the cover up is.Did someone tell him to say that?Why is Howard Lutnick changing his testimony, changing his story?

He's lost all credibility.And really, it's a shame that the American people don't get to see what he did there.Total lack of truth and lack of honesty.

So we'll continue to follow all of the Jeffrey Epstein trail wherever it leads.I don't think that Howard Lutnick acquitted himself at all in this transcript of his testimony and now raises whole new questions that will be asked of him when he comes back as Commerce Secretary to the various Senate and House committees that oversight him.period.I'm Michael Popock.Take a minute, if you like this kind of content, hit the free subscribe button.Help us to continue to grow our pro -democracy channel.

And you can get the federal filing showing the donation and the transcript up on Legal AF Substack for paid members.So until my next report, this is Michael.

I'm Michael Popock, and I got some big news for our audience.

Most of you know me as the co -founder of Midas Touch's Legal AF and the Legal AF YouTube channel, or as a 35 -year national trial lawyer.Now, building on what we started together on Legal AF, I've launched a new law firm, the Popock Firm, dedicated to obtaining justice through compassionate and zealous legal representation.At the Popak firm, we are focused on obtaining justice for those who have been injured or damaged by a life -altering event by securing the highest dollar recoveries.I've been tirelessly fighting for justice for the last 35 years.