Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 15-18) (11/8/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 15-18) (11/8/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with the Kathy Rumler transcripts. Question understood.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: I will now mark as majority exhibit 3. Another email
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: bait stamp. EFTA 02383491. Question. While it's getting passed around
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: and you review it, this is at the top from
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: yourself Kathy Rumler to Jeffrey Epstein. On Thursday, October 23rd, 2014.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: And I'll give you a second to review it. Answer. Okay,
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: I'm ready. Question. So this appears to me to be
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: your statement declining to be considered a candidate for the
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States. Is that correct? Answer.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: It was something that I was contemplating. Ultimately, I didn't
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: provide a statement. The White House issued a statement. Question. Okay,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: thank you. So notwithstanding that you did not ultimately provide
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: a statement, as you mentioned at this point, you've been
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: engaged with Mr. Epstein. for three or so odd months.
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: You've been engaged with Mr. Epstein for three or so
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: odd months. Obviously, he had an interest in your next
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: role due to the client you were potentially going to
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: be representing that was mutual to him. Is it not
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: odd that you're providing a draft statement of declining to
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: be Attorney General of the U.S. to someone you met
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: three months ago? Answer, not given his relationship with the
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: client that again, he was really the primary advisor to
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: the client and I was the secondary. I mean, I
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: was the lawyer, but he was the primary advisor. And
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: I believe I was actually in Geneva at the time
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: when I sent this. And so the client has gone
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: through the not easy thing to do, which is to
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: transfer a very significant matter. There had already been a
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: ton of work done by a prior law firm in
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: the United States and a Swiss law firm, millions of
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: dollars in legal fees had been spent. They had gone
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: through the process of basically telling those law firms, you're
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: no longer working on this matter, transferring the whole file,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: over to Latham Watkins. I was in Geneva at the time.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: It was an intense period of time for me because
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: I was trying to decide what the right thing to
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: do was, whether or not I should go ahead and
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: say yes, I'm willing to be nominated, or as I
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: ultimately decided, was to decline. And so it was very
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: natural to give me this role with the client and
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: the fact I literally was in Geneva with the client
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: at the time. I think I can say this because
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: it's in the draft statement. I said I was so
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: informed the president, When I did that, when I informed
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: the president, I actually did it. I was in Geneva.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: And so I didn't think that was unnatural at all. Question,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: I understand that. However, I think where my confusion lies
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: in this is that you could have simply just told Mr.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Epstein or the client at the time, I'm weighing this.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: I'll let you know what I decide. But it seems
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: like sending a draft statement of, in this case, declining
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: the role, but even if it was in the inverse
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: of accepting the role, to someone you just met three
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: months ago strikes me as odd. And don't you find
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: that odd? Answer, well, again, this was not something that
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: was confidential. It was all over the press. Question understood. Answer,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: there was massive speculation about who was going to succeed
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: Eric Holder, who could be confirmed. There were members of
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: the Senate who were making comments, well, this person, I
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: wouldn't support this person. I would support. This was not like,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: this was a very public matter. And again, within the
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: first six weeks or so of restarting my legal practice,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: I had gotten this engagement. for a very significant, for
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: a big Swiss bank, in a very significant matter. And
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: I think that it was important, it was very important
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: to the bank, but it was also important to me,
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: because it was one of my first new matters after
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: coming back into private practice. And so I wanted to
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: make sure that given the Epstein was a primary advisor,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: that he was informed in what was going to happen.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: So I could have done it that way, the way
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: you described it, but I didn't. If Jeffrey Epstein weren't
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: the notorious Jeffrey Epstein that's causing you guys to have
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: spent countless hours going through my emails, which I apologize for,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: you wouldn't even be asking me about this, right? And
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: so it's like, but at the time when I'm dealing
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: with him, I don't think that he's in prison. Or
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the person who the world understands him now to be.
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: Question understood. Switching gears just a little bit. Have you
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: ever maintained an account with JPMorgan Chase Bank? Answer yes.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Question no. And when did you first open an account
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: at JPMorgan Chase Bank, roughly? Answer, well, I was working
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: at Latham & Watkins, so 2016-17, I'm not sure, but
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: in that 2016-17-18 kind of frame. Question, are you aware
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Epstein reaching out to JPMorgan on your behalf? Answer,
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: I am now, yes. Question, and you are aware now
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: because of reviewing documents released by the DOJ or other means? Answer,
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: I've seen the documents that show that he asked his
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: executive assistant, to reach out to J.P. Morgan on my behalf.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: And those were not documents that I would have seen
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: at the time. Question, so to be clear, you didn't
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: ask Mr. Epstein to reach out to J.P. Morgan on
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: your behalf? Answer, I did not. In fact, what happened,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: what I did ask him about, was I had a
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: banking relationship at Merrill Lynch. And having spent the vast
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: majority of my career in public service, I candidly just
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: never really paid much attention. I certainly didn't pay attention.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: to investments because I didn't have any money to invest.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: And so after a couple of years at Latham, I
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: had some money to invest, and I didn't know whether
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: or not my investment performance was good or bad. And Mr.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Epstein was a finance genius, and so allegedly, and so,
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: and he certainly was, my belief, was that he was
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: advising people, billionaires, right? Certainly the Rothschilds. And so I
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: asked him, do you think this performance is good, basically,
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: from my portfolio? And he said, in essence, it sucks.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: The market's been up this amount And you've only been
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: up this amount and you're paying these really high fees.
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: And this is ridiculous. And you didn't pay attention to it.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: And mansplain, mansplain, mansplain. In his circumstance, it was appropriate mansplaining.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: And so he said, you need a real bank. I
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: know the head of the private banker, the head of
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the asset and wealth management or something at JP Morgan.
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: And I'll have her call you. And I was like,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: that's ridiculous because I'm a little tiny peon with I'm
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: not even sure whether I qualify. I don't even know.
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: I don't know what their threshold was, but I liked
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: the idea that someone at that level of seniority was
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: going to pay attention. It was sort of insulting, I thought,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: to even ask to pay attention to me. But he
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: took it upon himself to do that. And ultimately, I
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: did meet with a lovely young woman banker at J.P. Morgan,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: and I opened an account with J.P. Morgan. Question, were
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: you aware at the time that Mr. Epstein otherwise rocky
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: relationship with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank? Answer, I had no
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: idea about that. Mr. Grant, Have you subsequently become aware
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: of that rocky relationship? Ms. Rumler, I subsequently became aware
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: at some point that he had been a client at
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: the bank, which I didn't know, and that he had
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: been exited from the bank, or they had told him
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: that they were going to close his accounts. I don't
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: know either of those things. Question, Mr. Grant. I'll now
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: mark as Majority Exhibit 4, another email from the Epstein
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: Files Transparency Act, bait-stamped EFTA 02513732. While it's being passed around,
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: the top of the email is from Jeffrey Epstein to yourself,
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: Kathy Rumler, on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015. I'll give you
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: all a moment to review. Answer, this didn't take long
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: to review, so I'm ready whenever you are. Question, the
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: middle of the message is yourself sending Mr. Epstein a
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: birthday message to say happy birthday. I hope you enjoy
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: the day with your one true love. Who are you
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: referring to as his one true love? Answer himself. Question,
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: and his response to you was, They say that men
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: usually give a name to their penis as it would
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: be inappropriate to make love to a total stranger. Answer, yes. Question,
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: what was the point of this response? To your knowledge
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: or understanding? Answer, idiocy. Question, and do you understand what Mr.
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Epstein was trying to make a reference to or talk about? Answer,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: he was making a stupid joke. And I actually responded
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: to this email. I don't know if you have the response,
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: but I do have the response. I remember what I
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: said to him. Question, what was your response? Answer, in essence,
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: I said, it's hard to believe that there's still a
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: debate that men are the inferior gender. I stand by
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: that response, particularly in response to this email. Question, understood.
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: Do you have any other conversations of a similar nature
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: with Mr. Epstein, where he's bringing up graphic words? More specifically,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: his genitalia? Answer, well, he's not referring to his genitalia.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: He's making a dumb joke about men. And I responded,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: I responded in kind, basically saying this is a dumb joke. Question, understood.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Switching gears completely, Mr. Fishman, as you should. Question, have
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: you ever traveled with Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, I have not. Question,
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: and I believe you stated earlier, but just to be clear,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: did you not take that 2015 trip to Paris with Mr. Epstein? Answer,
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: I did not. Question, and did you take a 2017
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands with Mr. Epstein? Answer, no. Question,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: have you been to any of Mr. Epstein's other New
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: York apartments, not including his townhouse? Answer, no. Question, have
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: you been to Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach House? Answer, no. Question,
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: have you been to the New Mexico, otherwise known as
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: the Zorro Ranch? Answer, I have not. Question, have you
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: been to Little St. James Island? Answer, no. Question, have
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: you been to Great St. James Island? Answer, no. Question,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: have you been to Mr. Epstein's Paris Apartment? Answer, yes. Question,
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: when did you visit Mr. Epstein's Paris Apartment? Answer, I
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: don't remember the exact date, but Ms. Rothschild and I
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: attended a lunch meeting together with Epstein in his dining
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: room in the Paris apartment. Question, is that the only
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: time that you went there? Answer, yes. Question, was anyone
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: else there other than you and Ms. Rothschild? Answer, I
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: believe he had a chef and the chef was there.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: And my recollection is that the chef... also served the food.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: And there was some fanfare. Whatever was served, I don't
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: remember what it was. But whatever the food, I believe
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: the chef was French and it was French cuisine of
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: some type. Question, and have you ever been to a
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: Boston rental apartment owned or leased by Mr. Epstein? Answer, no. Question,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: did you ever observe any massage tables at any of Mr.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: Epstein's properties that you have visited? Answer, no. Question, did
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: you notice any unusual photographs in Mr. Epstein's homes or apartments? Answer, photographs. Question,
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: such as nude paintings, nude photos displayed anywhere? Answer, no. Question,
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: in the time that you knew and dealt with Mr. Epstein,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: do you know how many assistants that he had? Answer,
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: I didn't know. I knew that he had a number
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: of staff who did different things. Exactly what they did?
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: I wasn't sure. I observed the number of personal staff,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: and when I say personal staff, staff who were present
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: at the townhome in New York. Question. I think this
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: was also covered earlier, but have you ever traveled on
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: any aircraft with Mr. Epstein, including the ones owned and
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: operated by him? Answer. No. Question. Switching gears completely again,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: did you ever visit Mr. Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: Center in 2019? Answer. No, I did not. Question. No.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: And this was also, I think I mentioned a couple
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: of different times in an earlier hour, but just to
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: have it clearly in one place on the transcript. In
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: one form, not the final form of Mr. Epstein's last
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: will and testament, you were listed as a successor executor.
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: Is that correct? Answer. My understanding, I was a backup
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: executor on a draft, a draft will. Question. And do
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: you know why you were listed as the backup executor? Answer.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: I don't. Question. Were you ever informed of your designation? Answer.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: into the last will and testament? Answer, I don't believe so. Question,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: and can you remind us when you were first hired
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: at Goldman Sachs? Answer, I accepted the offer, I believe,
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: in February of 2020, and I started at the firm.
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: I started at Goldman Sachs in April of 2020. Question,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: and as part of your hiring and or onboarding at
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: Goldman Sachs, did you have to disclose any part of
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: your prior relationship with Mr. Epstein? Answer, I did not
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: have to. Question, did you? Answer, I chose to disclose it. Question,
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: and what did you disclose? Answer, I disclosed that before
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: I accepted the offer. I told the firm, I told
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: Goldman Sachs, that while I was the White House counsel,
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: I was in charge of vetting. That was one of
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: my responsibilities that we didn't talk about earlier. So I
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: was responsible for vetting cabinet secretaries and other senior officials.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: And I told them that before I accept the offer,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: I've done my own vet. And I've had an active practice,
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: an active criminal practice. And so here are some of
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: the representations that I think the representations or associations, etc.,
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: that I think could cause media attention. Goldman Sachs was
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: a high-profile firm. And so I said that I knew Epstein,
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: that I had communicated with Epstein, that I had dealt
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: with Epstein, and he was not my client, but that
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: he was a primary advisor to my client, and that
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: he had asked my, well, he wasn't my client, he
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: would certainly ask my views on things from time to time.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: So I basically described, in essence, what I described for
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: you today. Question, Thank you. When were concerns of your
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: ties to Mr. Epstein first raised internally at Goldman Sachs? Answer,
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: by whom? Question, anyone internal to Goldman Sachs? Ms. Fishman,
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: anyone that you might know? Question, correct. Anyone that you
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: might know about that would have raised concerns internally? I
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: can ask more specifically, when were concerns expressed to you
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: from the Chief Executive Officer about your ties with Mr. Epstein? Answer,
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't characterize it as concerns. I'd characterize it so
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: I believe, before I accepted the offer, I said, this
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: is the vet. I did my own vet. Also, there
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: were some other client representations that were the kind of
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: things that either had been or could be the subject
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: of media attention. That was the sort of nature of
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: my practice. Again, as I work with, I worked in
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: controversy with controversial people. And of course, on some of those,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: some of those matters intersected with this building and with Congress, etc.,
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: and so became contentious, politicized, etc., And so then that
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: was appreciated. In fact, I was told that no one
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: else would have done that before at Goldman. And then
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: the next time it came up was when the Wall
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: Street Journal published the story at the end of April
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: in 2023. And the Wall Street Journal reported based on,
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: I gather, based on documents that they had come into
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: possession of that showed meetings that Epstein had with people
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: and calendar entries and things like that. And so I
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: was listed along with a number of other people as
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: being people that he had met with. Question, did anyone
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: bring those concerns to you after the story broke internally
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: at Goldman? Answer, well, what happened is the Wall Street
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: Journal sent a bunch of questions and I discussed them
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: with the right senior people. We sat down and went
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: through them all. Question, into your knowledge, has Goldman performed
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: any internal investigation about your ties with Jeffrey Epstein outside
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: of the self-vetting process you've already described? Answer, without getting
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: into substance, yes. Question, when did those internal investigations occur? answer,
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't characterize it as investigation, but there were reviews
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: done and questions asked, and that occurred in 2023. That
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: occurred again in 2025. In 2026, as there was increasing
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: media scrutiny around anybody who had ever sat in the
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: same room with Jeffrey Epstein. All right, folks, we're going
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here. All the information that goes
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get back
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: to the Kathy Rumler transcript from her trip to Congress. Ms. Toland, question.
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: I just want to circle back for a moment to
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: a few more questions about the meeting between you, Mr. Epstein, Mr.
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: Putnam about legal stuff that was discussed prior. Answer. Uh-huh. Question.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: You said that Mr. Avenatti had threatened a legal case
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: against Jeffrey Epstein. Is that? Answer. That's what? That's my
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: best memory. Is that it was from? the form of
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: a tweet. Question, and that's what you were going to
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: be meeting about? Answer, yes. Question, and did this have
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: anything to do with the allegations against or the criminal
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: activity committed by Mr. Epstein? Answer, I don't remember whether
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: there was even specificity in whatever Avenatti put out, but Mr.
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: Putnam is a civil litigator. He doesn't do criminal work
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: at all. And so it was really about if there
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: was some lawsuit that were to come to pass, some
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Avenatti, Was Mr. Putnam
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: interested in defending that litigation? That was about it. Question.
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: And I can read the tweet from Mr. Avenatti to
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: refresh your recollection. Answer. Okay. Oh, you found it. That's amazing. Question.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: On March 1st, 2019 is the date. He says, I
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: can confirm that I've been retained by two victims of
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. We intend to ensure that no
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: stone is left unturned in connection with our investigation and
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: and that all of those connected to his perverse conduct
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: are held fully accountable. If that sheds any more light on,
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: gets cut off by Rumler. Answer, that's consistent with my
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: recollection that he had tweeted something out and said that
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: he had clients and was intending to file a suit. Question,
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: and we're just trying to understand the extent of the
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: knowledge you had surrounding the allegations against Mr. Epstein. Why
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: would you later be shocked that he was indicted that
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: same year for crimes against him? Answer, well, because again,
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: my understanding is that he had been investigated over a
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: multi-year period by both the state attorney's office in Florida
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: and the U.S. attorney's office in Miami. And that had
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: resulted in a final resolution of any criminal activity of
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: Epstein that he had accepted responsibility, he had served his time,
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: complied with all of his obligations, and was, lack for
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: a better word to say it, living a law-abiding life.
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: And so that tweet is not all that inconsistent with
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: my state of mind at the time. And in fact,
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: when Epstein was indicted in 2019, again, the conduct period
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: that was covered by the indictment was 2002 to 2005.
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: And I think that's something that sometimes gets misunderstood in
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: the public domain. That the 2019 indictment related back to
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: almost as much, much prior period. And that prior period
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: of time, that conduct was covered by the 2019 indictment.
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: actually predated the guilty plea and the non-prosecution agreement. So
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: nothing about the 2019 indictment said anything to me about
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: Epstein engaging in ongoing criminal conduct. And certainly, as I
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: stated at the outset, I never saw or heard any
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: indication of any criminal conduct on behalf of Epstein during
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: the period of time that I dealt with him. Question,
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: in the first sentence of the tweet, Mr. Avenatti says
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: he can confirm, we have been retained by two victims
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. That tweet was March 1st, 2019.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: The meeting you later had with Epstein and Putnam was
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: two months later, May 2019. Do you recall were there
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: any conversations between you and Mr. Epstein or you and Mr.
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: Putnam in those two months after the tweet was made? Answer,
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: not that I recall. Again, as I stated, I don't
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: believe Mr. Avenatti ever filed any complaint on behalf of
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: any victims. I don't remember when he got indicted for
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: his own criminal conduct. Maybe he got waylaid. I don't know. Mr. Grant, question,
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you another long list of names questions. Answer, okay. Question,
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: that's become part of the repertoire of the Oversight Committee
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: majority staff. The question is going to be, have you ever...
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: ever communicated with any of the following individuals regarding the
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: crimes and allegations of Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell? Answer okay. Question,
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: you can answer it yes or no to the individuals.
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: If you indicate yes, I'll come back to it. Answer,
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: the first name is Ahud Barak. Answer no. Thorburn, Yagland,
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: answer no. Philip Levine, answer no. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, answer no.
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: Woody Allen, answer no. Sunyi Previn, answer no. Benjamin Lossky,
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: answer no. Gregory Poe, answer yes about Mr. Epstein's historical conduct.
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: Question Jean-Luc Brunel, answer no. Leon Black, answer no. Terry
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: Rod Larson, answer no. Jess Daly, answer no. George Mitchell,
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: answer no. Glenn Dubin, answer no. Eva Anderson Dubin, answer,
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: with respect to Glenn Dubin and Eva Anderson Dubin, I
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: have had a conversation with them about my experience in
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: dealing with the media scrutiny around my association with Epstein.
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: So not about, and that all relates to, that all
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: arises from the fact that he pled guilty to these
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: sexual related offenses back in 2008. But other than that, no.
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: Question Les Wexner, answer no. Question Steven Sanofsky, answer no.
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: Question Harvey Weinstein, answer no. Question Bill Gates, answer no.
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: Question Ariane the Rothschild, answer yes. Question any other member
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: of the Rothschild family, answer I've spoken generally again in
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: the same. I've spoken generally with some of her daughters
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: about the experience with her, the experience that I've had
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: with and that she has with the media attention around
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: anybody who has ever associated or had any meetings or
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: communications with Jeffrey Epstein, but otherwise, no. I just have
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: to interject real quick. Could this lady be any more smug?
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: If you just had a meeting with Jeffrey Epstein, listen here, Scafusa,
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: you've had a lot more than meetings, okay? And in fact,
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: I'm going to have a monologue about that very soon.
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: Question President Clinton, answer no. Secretary Hillary Clinton, answer no.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: Doug Band, answer no. Ted Wade, answer no. Any other
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: elected official, politician, or world leader? Answer, no. Question, going
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: back to Mr. Poe. You indicated yes, for I believe
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: you said historical conduct. Is that just talking about Mr.
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: Epstein's previous crimes that he had already served jail time for? Answer, yeah. Question,
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: and then you said yes to Ariane Rothschild. What specifically
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: did you talk to Mr. Rothschild about regarding Epstein's crimes
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: or the allegations? Answer again. Not about directly about his crimes,
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: per se, but about the effect that the media environment
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: has had on people, including myself, because having any association
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: with Epstein, so that's what I spoke to her about. Question,
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: thank you. We're approaching the end of the hour. I
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: have just a couple more questions. Answer, I should say
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: I probably spoke with her to explain to her what
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: I understood about the criminal charges in 2019, after I
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: attended the arraignment and read the charges in the indictment. Question,
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: I may have missed it earlier, so I apologize if
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: you've already said it. When did you learn of Mr.
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: Epstein's status as a sex offender? Answer, I don't recall specifically,
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: but I knew that a condition of the non-prosecution agreement
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: was that Mr. Epstein go to the state. This is
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: actually set forth in the non-prosecution agreement, which at some
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: point I did see. I don't remember when exactly, but
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: at some point I did see that the non-prosecution agreement
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: itself required Mr. Epstein to go to the state attorney's
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: office and and tell the state attorney's office that they
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: needed to file an additional charge against him that would
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: require him to register as a sex offender. So that
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: was just my experience, one of the many unusual features
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: of the non-prosecution agreement. Question, but you never had any
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: direct conversation with Mr. Epstein about his need to register
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: as a sex offender? Answer, his need to? I mean,
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: I just understand that that was an outcome of the
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: criminal resolution that predated my knowing him by six years. Question,
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: But he didn't explicitly tell you, Ms. Rumler. I would
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: need to. I'm registered as a sex offender. You learned
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: it through your own means. Am I understanding you correctly? Answer.
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: I just don't remember. I certainly knew it. When I
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: knew it and how I came to know it, I
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: couldn't tell you. Question understood. In November of 2018, the
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: Miami Herald came out with an explosive article detailing Epstein
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: and Maxwell's trafficking ring. Did that article not cause any
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: concern from you at the time? answer my recollection of
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: the article was that it was a criticism of the
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: Miami US Attorney's Office decision to decline to prosecute Mr.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: Epstein and that the premise of the story was that
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: it was a sweetheart deal and that the deal had
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: been the product of some undue influence or something untoward
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: some kind of collusion between Mr. Epstein's defense team and
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: the prosecutors so my recollection of the article was that
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: it was all about whether or not the resolution was
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: adequate not adequate whether it was somehow corrupt in some
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: way Question, and my final question to you, notwithstanding the
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: need to ask, any related follow-ups? You, of course, said
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: here multiple times today that Jeffrey Epstein was arrogant. He
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: was patronizing. He was an overt mansplainer. He became pushy
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: at times. Knowing all of that, and understanding that you've had,
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: by all accounts, a very powerful and prominent legal career,
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: why did you keep dealing with Jeffrey Epstein for all
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: these years? Answer again. He remained a primary advisor to
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: my client, who remained my client until I left the
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: law firm. At least to me, I mean, he wasn't.
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: He wasn't all of those things. He was also nice,
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: and I was nice in return. And I try to
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: be nice with everybody. And in business, and particularly in
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: the private practice of law, you deal with all sorts
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: of people with all sorts of different kinds of personalities.
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: And he was on sort of one end of the
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: extreme in terms of his arrogant, self-important manner, but he
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: certainly wasn't the only person that I dealt with like that.
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: But again, had I known at the time... Everything that
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: we know now, most importantly that there was enough evidence
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: to indict him in 2019, that this is someone who
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: had intentionally gone out and sought minors for sex, for
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: commercial sex, had I known that, I wouldn't have dealt
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: with him. It's just a very, and I don't mean
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: to sound too clinical, but as a lawyer, these concepts
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: of intent and distinctions about one type of conduct versus
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: another type of conduct, they matter. They matter in the law,
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: and they matter in the law for a reason. Because
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: the law says this type of behavior should be punished
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: in this way. And this type of behavior should be
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: punished in that way. And I think I said at
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: the outset, and I'll say it again, I regret that
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: I did deal with him. And it was a mistake.
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: I wish I never had. As lovely as today has been,
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: I wish we weren't here talking to you all about it.
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: He was a very, he was not a very big
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: part of my life. He was not a big part
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: of my legal practice. And unfortunately, given the intense public
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: interest in the story, which I understand, and I don't disagree,
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: is justified, and the important work that the committee is doing,
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: it's sort of taken on, at least for me, an outsized,
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: disproportionate view as to how I felt about the dealings
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: with them at the time. Mr. Grant, thank you. I
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: apologize to our minority colleagues. I went seven minutes over
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: our hour. We can go off the record. All right, folks,
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, too. And in
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: pick up where we left off. All the information that
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found... in the description box.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're picking up where he
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: left off with Kathy Rumler and the transcript from her
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: trip to Congress. Question by Mr. Redacted. At the end
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: of the last hour my colleague Mr. Grant from the
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: majority asked about a series of articles that the Miami
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: Herald published in November of 2018. I think he asked
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: you something to the effect or after reading those articles
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: Did that change your mind about associating with Mr. Epstein
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: or something to that effect? When you replied, you said,
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: I remember those articles to be about a plea bargain
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: or a deal or something like that. I just want
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: to remind you that that was a series of articles,
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: many of which focused on Jeffrey Epstein's victims. It included
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: pictures of what they looked like at the time that
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: they were abused. Answer, uh-huh. Question, and the whole world
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: saw it. So with that, I think earlier in the day,
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: I believe it was majority's time, they asked you a
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: little bit about Ghislaine Maxwell. So I'll apologize if we
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: retread a little bit of that ground. It was a
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: long time ago of transcribed interview hours. What was your
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell? Answer, I didn't have a relationship
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: with Ghislaine Maxwell. I met her one time. Question, can
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: you say again? Please describe that one time you met
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: with her. Answer, her lawyer asked if she could use,
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: she meaning her lawyer, asked if she could use a
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: conference room at my law firm in New York in
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: connection with some legal work that was happening in New York.
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: I don't know what it was, but that's very common
• 28:55
  Speaker 1: in the private practice of law. If I have a case,
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: let's say I had a case in Denver and my
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: law firm didn't have an office in Denver, so it
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: would be very common to reach out to another law
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: firm and ask whether, as a courtesy, that you could
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: use a conference room there. That's what this was. Question,
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: so they reached out to? Gets cut off by a roomler.
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: Her lawyer reached out. Question, her lawyer, Laura Menninger? Answer, yes. Question,
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: is that right? Reached out and asked you if she
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: could use a conference room at your law firm, Latham
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: and Watkins in New York? Answer, yes. Question, did you
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: meet them? Answer, yeah. And so I arranged, you have
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: to reserve a conference room. Question, uh-huh. Answer, I reserve
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: the conference room. And I happen to be in the
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: office this day that they were in the office and
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: I went to the conference room to say hello and
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: introduce myself to miss manager who I had not met
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: question got it do you remember when this was at
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: all answer I don't question all right question can you
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: give me an approximation what year rumor I don't question
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: before 2020 Of course before 2020. Before 2018. Rumler, it
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: could have been. It could have been. It was some
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: time probably between 2015 and 2018. But I couldn't tell
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: you exactly when. Question, let's introduce Minority Exhibit L, Bates
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: number EFTA 02465272. This is April 19th, 2016. An email
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: exchange between Mr. Epstein and you. Do you think this,
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: this email says... Laura and Ghislaine here tomorrow. That's from you.
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: And then Mr. Epstein says, here where? Were you referring
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: to the meeting we were just talking about? Ms. Rumler, yeah. Question.
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: That's all you need for the document? Redacted. No answer. Question.
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: Just a few days later, Ghislaine Maxwell was deposed in
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: the defamation case. I think we talked about it earlier.
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: Between Virginia Roberts and Ms. Maxwell. Do you know if
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: that meeting between Ms. Maxwell... And Ms. Menninger at your
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: office was in any way related to that deposition? Answer,
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: I don't have any idea. Question, and you didn't talk
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: to either of them about the deposition or help them
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: prepare in any way? Answer, no. Question, did you recommend Ms.
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: Menninger to Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell? Answer, he asked
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: if I for a referral and I passed her name along.
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: But again, I didn't know her. Question, how did you
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: know her well enough to pass her name along? Answer,
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: because I didn't know her well enough to pass the
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: name along. I believe what happened, which is very common,
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: is someone asks you for a lawyer and you send
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: out an email at your law firm saying, does anyone
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: have a recommendation for a lawyer to handle this kind
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: of case? Question, I remember that too. I know what
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: you're talking about. Answer, yes, those happened all the time.
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: So someone in my law firm had recommended Laura, who again,
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: I didn't know and hadn't met. And I passed her
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: contact information along. Question, what was the extent of your
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: interaction with Ms. Menninger until this April 19th, 2016 meeting
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: that your office hosted? Answer, I believed either myself or
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: one of my colleagues had, I don't remember specifically. But
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: when she was contacted, I believe she was told that
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: the referral came from Latham. And so either I or
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: my colleague would have recommended her sort of spoke to her.
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: She probably called to thank us for the referral, which
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: again is common. Question, got it. All right. Let's introduce
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: Exhibit M. Two emails, Bates number EFTA 012-4924 and EFTA 017-89934. Answer, okay. Question,
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: the first email, which we should note for the record,
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: is an email from Jeffrey Epstein to Glenn Maxwell, which
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: you are not on, I believe reflects exactly what you
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: are describing. The underlying email is from you to Jeffrey
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: Epstein providing Laura Menninger's information. Answer, uh-huh, question, and then
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: he forwards it to Ms. Maxwell and says 50,000, retainer. Answer, uh-huh, question,
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: which in this case is not a 10K, it's a 50K. Answer, uh-huh, question,
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: the next email dated October 8th, 2015 is again at
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: the top of an email exchange between Maxwell and Epstein. Answer, uh-huh, question,
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: do you see halfway through the first page where Ms.
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: Maxwell says, called Laura? She had already requested an extension
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: per Kathy's instruction. She can meet with me on Monday
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: and with Kathy. Please call me. She thinks she has
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: good grounds for dismissal. Now, Kathy is spelled with a C. Answer, uh-huh. Question,
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: you spell your name with a K. Answer, uh-huh. Question,
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: do you understand this to be, this Kathy to be
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: you or somebody else? Answer, I don't know. Question, did
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: you instruct Ms. Menninger at all about what to do
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: in Ms. Maxwell's defamation case with Ms. Roberts? Answer, uh-huh.
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: I don't instruct other lawyers. Generally, lawyers don't like to
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: be instructed by other lawyers. I can't speculate on this
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: other than at this stage, one of the things when
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: a complaint is filed, assuming that it's been has been served.
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: I don't have any idea whether this was or not,
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: but under the federal rules, the civil procedure, there's an
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: amount of time you have to respond. And so given that,
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: I would have just asked to provide if I can
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: make a recommendation or make a referral, which I did.
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: It's possible that that's what it's referring to, but I
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: just don't remember. Question. You don't recall whether or not
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: you discussed filing for an extension with Ms. Manager? Answer again.
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been filing any extension. I wasn't involved
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: in the litigation other than to provide. Rumler gets cut off.
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: So when Ms. Maxwell says she can meet with me
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: on Monday and with Kathy, did you meet with Ms.
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: Maxwell and Ms. Menninger in October of 2015? Answer, no,
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: I don't believe I did. And the only time I
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: recall meeting Ms. Maxwell is the time that they asked
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: me to use the conference room in our office, which
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: was in 2016, per the email that you showed me. Question,
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: let's introduce Exhibit N, an email exchange between you and Mr.
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: Epstein dated April 23rd, 2016. Bates number EFTA 02463487. In
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: this email exchange, Mr. Epstein asked, quote, how does Laura
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: set a perjury trap? And you respond, quote, preparation. Let
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: her say things she has already said and then impeach
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: her with a document that proves otherwise. The age issue
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: is perfect for that. Do you remember what she was
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: referring to? What you were referring to when you said
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: the age issue is perfect for that? Answer he, Epstein
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: told me that she, Meaning Ms. Roberts was not being
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: truthful about her age. And that's all I remember about it.
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: He asked something about a perjury trap. That's not a
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: thing in my lexicon. That's not how I talk. I
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: don't think about things like that. And I gave him
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: a very generic response explaining sort of frankly cross-examination 101. Question.
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: Why were you giving Jeffrey Epstein any kind of response,
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: any type, informal legal advice or whatever this is, on
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: how Glenn Maxwell's lawyer should get one of his, Epstein,
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: and Maxwell's victims to be trapped in a deposition for perjury? Answer,
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: he was asking me a generic question. I understood him
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: to be asking a generic question. Question, but your answer
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: wasn't generic. Mr. Fishman, I'm sorry. Can you let the
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: witness finish, please? Redacted, your answer was not generic. Fishman,
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Mr. Robinson. Redacted, the age issue is perfect
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: for that. Fishman, if you want to argue with the witness,
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: we don't need to do that. Redacted, I don't want
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: to argue with the witness. Fishman, she's in the middle
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: of answering. Fishman gets cut off, and I'm definitely not
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: arguing with her. Fishman, she's in the middle of answering
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: that question. Redacted, you said that there was going to be.
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: We can go off the record, but we're definitely going
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: to keep going here. You said you gave a generic answer.
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: You said, actually... Had a specific detail that defies the
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: definition of the term generic. The age issue is perfect
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: for that. Answer again. He had told me that she
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: was not truthful about her age. So again, I'm just
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: going off of what he told me. And I'm giving
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: very generic. This is the most generic if you looked
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: up cross-examination for dummies. That's the response. Question. Do you
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: remember what age she said she actually was? Answer. I don't.
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: I don't remember. I don't remember the details about the issue.
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: I do remember Ms. Roberts' allegations that were made in
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: the CVRA case and subsequently made public, and there were
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: allegations in there that I was inherently skeptical of. Question,
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: were you inherently skeptical that Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: abused her when she was a minor? Answer, I didn't know.
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: But I recall that in the filing, that she said
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: she'd been forced to have sex with foreign presidents, plural,
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: and multiple American politicians with multiple business leaders, plural, All
• 37:46
  Speaker 1: that information, which was generic, it wasn't specific, but very
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: extreme allegations. Those allegations, again, were made in a declaration
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: in court, were inconsistent with anything that I had understood
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: about the evidence that the state attorney and the U.S.
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: attorney in Miami had uncovered. And I would have thought
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: that if the U.S. attorney's office in Miami had evidence
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: that Epstein had trafficked an underage minor, the multiple foreign
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: presidents or multiple world leaders or multiple American politicians, question,
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: like Prince Andrew, answer that would be Prince Andrew was
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: separately identified this was an allegation that was separate and
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: apart from Prince Andrew that said that she had been
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: trafficked to multiple foreign presidents and world leaders and American
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: politicians and a former prime minister hey stupid fuck Kathy
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: Rumler that's exactly who she was talking about Prince Andrew
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: and all these other degenerate fuck bags we've been talking
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: about people like you protected Epstein people like you kept
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: the abuse going And in fact, Kathy Rumler is one
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: of the most disgusting people that has gotten up there
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: and given us a bullshit excuse throughout this whole entire thing. Question,
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: so when Jeffrey Epstein then says accountability, please help, and
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: you say I will, so I wish we were doing it,
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: let's take it step by step. What did you mean
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: when you said I will when he asked you please help? Answer,
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: I don't specifically recall. Again, this is an email that's
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: over 10 years ago. At this time, But I, at
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: this point in time, in 2016, I had a very
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: active practice, including an active trial practice. I liked it.
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: I enjoyed it. As any trial lawyer does. If you
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: don't enjoy examining witnesses, you seem to be enjoying this
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: quite a lot, then you shouldn't be doing it. And
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: so again... my state of mind at the time was
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: based on the information that he told me and that
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: I understood from things that were in the public domain
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: that were the allegations that any good lawyer would want
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: to probe. Question, are you saying that any, you think
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: any good lawyer would want to depose one of Jeffrey
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's victims with the goal of somehow
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: trapping them? into committing perjury. And just to be clear,
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: the person who committed perjury was Ghislaine Maxwell. So maybe
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: Kathy Rumler is not as good of a lawyer as
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: she thinks she is. Answer, that's not what I said.
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: And that's not what I meant. Those are your words,
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: not mine. Question this email he's asking you how to
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: lay a perjury trap. You provide some advice. Part of it,
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: you call it generic. There are some very specific stuff.
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: He says, please help. You say, I will. I so
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: wish I were doing it. Answer to be clear. She
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: gets cut off. Help me understand this email differently than
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: exactly what it says. Answer to be clear. I was
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: not involved in this litigation. I was not counsel of record.
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: There were lawyers involved in the litigation. Question. All right. Answer.
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: He asked me what I understood to be basic layperson
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: question about how is it you cross examine a witness
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: when you think they're not being truthful about something. And
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: I told them that that's what it was. All right, folks,
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 40:58
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right back in
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: to the Kathy Rumler bullshit testimony she gave to Congress. Question,
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: I'm going to introduce an exhibit. We're going to go
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: back in time here. We were just talking about April 2016.
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: We're going to go back to September 2015. This is
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: going to be Minority Exhibit. Bates number EFTA 024-86838. Answer, yes. Question,
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: you're right. I want to think about whether there are
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: any counterclaims that could be brought against VR. He says, thanks. Answer, uh-huh. Question,
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: do you understand VR to mean Victoria Roberts? Answer, I
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: don't know who Victoria Roberts is. Question, Virginia Roberts? Answer, yes. Question,
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: Virginia Roberts Joffrey? Answer, yes. Question, why did you want
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: to think about whether there were any counterclaims for Ghislaine
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: Maxwell to bring about Virginia Roberts in the defamation case? Answer,
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: first of all, this says nothing about Ghislaine Maxwell in
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: the email at all. Question, was there another litigation? Answer,
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: she was an active litigation with, I believe, Alan Dershowitz
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: at the time. I don't recall whether there was litigation
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: with other people But again, he's sending me an email.
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: By the way, that's in reference, Kevin, that's in reference
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: to the DOJ prosecutor in the Rothschilds case. And he
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: must have asked me something again. My state of mind
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: at the time, I'm a defense attorney, and he's asking
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: me questions about someone who has made very extreme allegations
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: about having been sex trafficked to foreign presidents, to world leaders,
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: to a prime minister. And she had been forced to
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: have sex with Professor Alan Dershowitz on multiple claims. These
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: were claims that, to me, seemed to lack the indica
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: of credibility that one would expect, and most importantly, were
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: entirely inconsistent with the resolution of the case in Florida.
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: There it is again! Is it clear now? Are you
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: guys paying attention? Are you awake? Florida is the genesis
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: for all these problems. And until that NPA is dealt with,
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: we're going to have to deal with morons and idiots
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: like this. Entirely inconsistent with the summary of the evidence
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: in the letter, authored by Stephanie Thacker to the Deputy
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: Attorney General that I had read. And by the Deputy
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: Attorney General, she means Mark Philippe. You know, the guy
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: that signed off on this? The guy that negotiated it? Yeah,
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: that dude. And anybody who tells you that Alex Acosta
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: is the architect of this is either a moron or
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: they're leading you astray for whatever reason. Because the truth is,
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: this was never an Alex Acosta production. It was always
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: done by main justice. Question, I just want to quickly,
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: you pointed out, that there were possibly other cases with
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: Virginia related to what Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell had
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: done to her. Were you referring about, did you say,
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: you want to think about whether there were any counterclaims
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: that could be brought in another case that was active
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: at the time? Answer, I don't have any memory, but
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: what I specifically about the email. But Epstein was what
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: asked me my views, and he's in this email asking
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: me about something relating to the Rothschild matter. And I'm
• 44:08
  Speaker 1: sort of in a generic way trying to show that
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: I'm being somewhat responsive when he's asking my views. And again,
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: that was common way that I would respond to him.
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: I would say, hmm, let me think about it. Hmm,
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: let me get back to you. You know, he was,
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: as I said before, he was very insistent. He would ask,
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: you know, me and others, you know, frequently these things.
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: I didn't have any direct involvement in any of this. However,
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: there was a lot, particularly in sort of the more
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: tabloid media attention around these allegations that she had raised. Yo,
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to keep my composure here, but I really
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: have a problem when people start to frame my friend
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: Virginia as some kind of liar, especially in light of
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: everything we know. Don't you think you have a mea
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: culpa moment and say, you know what? I was wrong.
• 44:55
  Speaker 1: I read the whole situation wrong. Epstein was an animal
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: and I should have helped put him away. But instead,
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: she doubles down. Let's introduce Minority Exhibit P, Bates number
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: EFTA 0248-4285, an October 12th email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein. Answer, uh-huh, yes,
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: I see it. Question, Mr. Epstein says, seen as the
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: good friend that you are, might bring unhelpful criticism. Defense
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: counsel might create Clinton-Obama unnecessary implication. Either way, I appreciate
• 45:28
  Speaker 1: the help, but we should be extra thoughtful, as surrounded
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: by publicity, seeking lawyers, etc., Question, now, help me understand this,
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: because one way to read this case, this email, without
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: your knowledge, is that you had offered to appear as
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: defense counsel in some case related to Jeffrey Epstein or
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: his activities, and he's thanking you and saying no thank you. Answer,
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: that's not the way it reads. Question, tell me how
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: to read it. Answer, I don't know. I mean this again,
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: not entirely coherent, but I had a client who was
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: the primary advisor to during this period of time. I
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: don't believe that there was any active litigation with Epstein
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: that he was in that Epstein was party to at
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: this time, so I don't know. I was never offered
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: to enter an appearance. Again, he was represented by counsel.
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: That counsel was monitoring the CVRA litigation to which he
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: wasn't a party, and so I don't have any idea
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: what he's talking about. But I did not offer to
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: enter any appearance on his behalf in some case in
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: October of 2015. Question all right. and we'll just note
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: an earlier exhibit where Glenn Maxwell misspells almost certainly your
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: name with a C. Mr. Fishman, I'm sorry, are you testifying? Redacted,
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: oh no, I'm definitely not. Mr. Fishman, I'm pretty curious. Redacted,
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: we'll go to Exhibit M if you'd like. Mr. Fishman,
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: you said he misspelled her name. That's what you said. Rumler,
• 46:47
  Speaker 1: if you are, I'm curious to know what your views
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: are about the inherent credibility of Ms. Roberts' allegations. Can
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: you believe that this stupid skafooza, this heifer, has the audacity?
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: What a disgusting, vile person. Question, so you still haven't
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: actually been able. Do you believe Miss Roberts was a
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: survivor or a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Miss Maxwell? Answer,
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Question, do you believe that Virginia Roberts was
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell? Answer, I
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: don't know. Question, okay. After if she says that she was,
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: I don't have any reason to doubt it. However, there
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: were allegations that she made that were, I believe, based
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: on my experience as a former prosecutor and defense counsel,
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: that were of such a nature that they were, they
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: lacked inherent credibility. Typically, when someone says I was sex
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: trafficked to someone, they say who, when, where, not multiple
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: world leaders, multiple foreign presidents. She did say who, Ehud Barak. Okay,
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: there's your prime minister. How about Glenn Dubin? How about
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: George Mitchell? How about Bill Richardson? You catching on yet?
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: Kathy Rumler is a liar, okay? That's my opinion. She
• 47:59
  Speaker 1: lied to Congress, she should be charged with perjury, and
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: she should be arrested. Typically, when someone says I was
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: trafficked to someone, they say who, when, where, not multiple
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: world leaders, multiple foreign presidents. So my state of mind
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: at the time, and again, I didn't investigate the case.
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: You're sitting here talking to me. We've been going on
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: for however many hours we've been going, okay? Have you
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: sat down and spoken to the state prosecutor who was
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: in charge of the Epstein investigation to ask what evidence
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: she uncovered, to ask whether she interviewed Virginia? Question, we've
• 48:30
  Speaker 1: talked a bit about the advice, or whatever it is
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: we're calling it, you provided, Mr. Epstein, regarding public relations
• 48:36
  Speaker 1: or media items. Did you ever reach out to anybody
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: at a media organization about anything to do with Epstein? Answer,
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: not advocating on his behalf, I did not. I did
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: make one courtesy call to a friend and colleague of
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: mine because I saw something on air, that lawyer's media platform,
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: that I thought created a legal risk for the company. Redacted,
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: let's introduce Minority Exhibit Q. Bates number, EFTA 02462711, a
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: May 18, 2016 email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein.
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: Does this email reflect the courtesy contact that you just mentioned? Answer,
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: it reflects my expression of thinking about calling, calling that person, yes. Question,
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: you right I'm thinking about calling GC of NBC about
• 49:20
  Speaker 1: those Donnie Deutsch comments answer yes question thoughts answer yes
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: question did you call the general counsel of NBC answer
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: I believe I did I believe I did at this
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: time in May of 2016 it was really you know
• 49:34
  Speaker 1: an intense period in the presidential campaign in the 2016
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: presidential campaign And if Donald Trump at the time were
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: not the formal nominee, he was certainly the de facto nominee.
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: And my recollection in these comments were that I just
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: happened to see were the kind of comments that could
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: have attracted, you know, litigation, particularly from Mr. Trump, who
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: I understood to be, you know, pretty litigious around those times.
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: And there were people at the time who were trying to,
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: to the best of my recollection, they were trying to
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: connect Mr. Epstein to Mr. Trump. Hey, Kathy Rumler, guess what?
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: Nobody's scared of you. Nobody's scared of being sued by
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: any of your friends. I've been calling Leon Black out
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: from day one. I've been calling Les Wexner out from
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: day one. I've been calling Glenn Dubin out since day one.
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: None of them want the smoke. They don't want to
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: sue people over this because they know that they were guilty.
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: That's why. Question, I'm going to shift gears to a
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: topic that the majority covered in the prior hour. I
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: think we'll be able to efficiently go through it. You
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: talked a bit about when your communication with your employer,
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: Goldman Sachs, regarding your association with Jeffrey Epstein, Glenn Maxwell,
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: discussed how those communications evolved. Explained you keyed them to
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: different public events that were reported by the Wall Street Journal.
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: I think that is completely clear. I just want to
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: make sure that I'm understanding what happened. So when you
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: were hired or before you were hired, you proactively disclosed
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: that you had an association with Jeffrey Epstein and somebody
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: there told you that this is more than we usually
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: get from somebody else. At this level of disclosure, is
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: that right? Answer, yes. Question, is that what I heard? Answer, yes. Question, okay,
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: who was that? Answer, it was the secretary of the board. Question,
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: got it. Okay, then you mentioned the 2023 Wall Street
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: Journal article that may have prompted something else. Answer, yes. Question,
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: had you disclosed anything more to Goldman Sachs about your
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: association with Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell before that article
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: was published? Answer, no, I didn't see any reason to. Question,
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: got it. Answer, oh, actually, there was one other thing.
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: Sometime in 2020, there was an article in the Daily
• 51:42
  Speaker 1: Beast that stated that there were sources who said they
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: saw me in the courtroom at Epstein's arraignment. And there
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: were anonymous sources who suggested that he wanted me to
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: be on his defense team, but that was never going
• 51:52
  Speaker 1: to happen. And so when I learned, because the reporter
• 51:56
  Speaker 1: from the Daily Beast reached out to me, I went
• 51:58
  Speaker 1: to the head of the communications at Goldman Sachs and
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: said I got this outreach from the reporter. Question, Was
• 52:03
  Speaker 1: there a point where you disclosed to Goldman Sachs before
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: it became public that he called you when he was
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: arrested in 2019? Answer, no. Question, was there a point
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: where you disclosed any of the gifts you received from
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: him before they became public? Answer, I can't remember whether
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: there was anything in the Wall Street Journal article in
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: 2023 about that, but certainly I would have. If anyone
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: asked me, you know, any questions, I would have. It's
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: not something I would have felt the need to affirmatively
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: disclose as there was nothing improper, you know, whatsoever about
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: accepting gifts in the professional services context. Question, I believe
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: it's been reported that you chaired a set of risk-based
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: committees at Goldman Sachs, Firmwide Conduct Committee, Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee,
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: and maybe you remember of something called the Firm Ride,
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: Firmwide Enterprise Risk Committee. Is that right? Answer, I was
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: the chair of the Firmwide Conduct Committee. I was the
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: vice chair of the Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee. and I
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: was a member of the Enterprise, firm-wise, Enterprise Risk Committee. Question,
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: did you or anybody else at Goldman Sachs raise any
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: concerns about you continuing to be both committees after details
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: of your association with Epstein and Maxwell became public? Answer, no,
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: I can't imagine they would have. Question, I think it
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: was reported that you were helping find, I believe, the
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: search for your successor as general counsel. Is that right? Answer,
• 53:21
  Speaker 1: I'm involved in the search process, yes. Question, will you commit...
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: that you will not be recommending anyone with association to
• 53:28
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell as your successor as general
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: counsel at Goldman Sachs? Answer, I think that is not
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: a question for me. I think that the next general
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: counsel and the chief legal officer, you know, will be
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: selected by our CEO in consultation with our board of directors.
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: But let me say this. In the American legal system,
• 53:47
  Speaker 1: we hold people accountable for their conduct. We don't hold
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: people accountable for their associations. And you all here in
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: the context of performing a legislative function to inform policymakers.
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: And you haven't asked my opinion on this, but I'll
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: give it anyway. In my opinion, a very, very, very
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: bad policy to start imputing misconduct by people solely as
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: a virtue of their association. And I would think that
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: that would be particularly acute and top of mind to
• 54:12
  Speaker 1: a member, number of members on both sides of the
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: body and the Senate who publicly endorsed a candidate who
• 54:17
  Speaker 1: has been credibly accused of sexual assault. And so if
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: we start applying a standard that's somehow a mere association
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: with someone who's been accused of, you know, convicted of
• 54:26
  Speaker 1: criminal conduct, I think it's a very dangerous road to
• 54:28
  Speaker 1: go down. Question, have you provided Goldman Sachs with any
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: communication or documents pertaining to you, Epstein, or Maxwell that
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has not yet publicly released? Mr. Kravis, wait,
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: hold on. Fishman, yeah, don't. I'm not sure we can. Well,
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: I can. I can ask it. Fishman, that's a very
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: broad topic. Question, have you provided Goldman Sachs with any
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: documentation or communication pertaining to your association with Maxwell or Epstein? Kravis, no,
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: hold on, wait. Redacted, we'll go off the record. So
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: they come back on. Question, did you provide Goldman Sachs
• 55:03
  Speaker 1: with any communications or documents pertaining to your association with
• 55:07
  Speaker 1: Epstein or Maxwell? Answer, the answer to that question is no.
• 55:10
  Speaker 1: I don't have an association with Glenn Maxwell. Question, did
• 55:13
  Speaker 1: you communicate with Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell through other
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: means Then email or phone calls. Answer, I don't communicate
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: with Ms. Maxwell other than the brief introduction that we
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: talked about earlier. And with respect to Mr. Epstein, no.
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: My means of communication was email, telephone, in-person meetings. Question,
• 55:32
  Speaker 1: no other means. Answer, no other means. Question, have you
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: ever deleted any communication with Mr. Epstein? Answer, no. Question,
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: did you ever communicate with Mr. Epstein or Maxwell's attorneys
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: without Epstein or Maxwell being involved? Fishman, I'm not sure
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: what that means. Ruhmler, I'm sorry? Fishman, I mean, what
• 55:50
  Speaker 1: does that? I'm not sure I understood the question. Redacted, well,
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: I asked that. Did you ever email any of Epstein's
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: attorneys without Epstein on the email about Epstein's work matters? Ruhmler,
• 56:02
  Speaker 1: I don't recall. Redacted, all right, the last thing I'll
• 56:05
  Speaker 1: do is put into the record as minority exhibit R,
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: the minority's interim staff analysis, the price of non-prosecution, the
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: evolution of Epstein's trafficking network from Palm Beach to Paris
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: and beyond. Just have that for the court reporter. And
• 56:21
  Speaker 1: with that, the interview is adjourned. Yo, this lady is disgusting.
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: Holy shit. And you better believe we're going to have
• 56:29
  Speaker 1: a monologue discussing it. All the information that goes with
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.