Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 1-3) (11/5/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 1-3) (11/5/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 dive into
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: that Kathy Rumler transcript from her meeting with Congress. And
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: like usual, we're just going to skip all the nonsense
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: at the beginning where they're talking about who's there and
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: who is going to be taking part in the transcribed
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: interview with Ms. Rumler. And instead, we're going to pick
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: up with her opening statement. Kathy Rumler, thank you very much.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Thank you all for the opportunity to appear before the committee.
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: I have been a practicing lawyer for 30 years as
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: a federal prosecutor, as a defense attorney, and as general counsel.
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: I first met Jeffrey Epstein in July of 2014 when
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: I was restarting my legal practice after having served several
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: years in government. Although Epstein was never my client, I
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: got to know him when he referred a financial institution
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: client to me for which he was the primary advisor.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: There are two important points that I want to make
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: up front. I didn't see any evidence of an ongoing
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: criminal conduct or misconduct of any kind by Mr. Epstein
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: during the time I dealt with him. Second, if I
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: had seen or heard any evidence suggesting that he was
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: abusing women or girls, I would have immediately reported him
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: to law enforcement. If I knew then what I know
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: now about Epstein and what he really was, I never
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: would have accepted an initial meeting with him. It was
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: a mistake to deal with him, and I regret it.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: But many people assume that, given everything we know about Epstein,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: everyone who dealt with him before his 2019 indictment must
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: have known everything then. In my case, that assumption is
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: completely wrong. When Epstein cold called me at my law
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: firm in July of 2014, I had never heard of
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: him and I knew nothing about him. He told me
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: that he was working with Bill Gates to set up
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: a large donor advised fund and that he and Mr.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: Gates were looking for someone to quarterback the myriad legal
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: issues involved and establishing and administering his fund. Though the
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: donor-advised fund ultimately did not materialize, within weeks Epstein referred
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: another important client, which did retain me, and which I
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: represented until I left my law firm in 2020. Epstein
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: was already a primary advisor to that client, a role
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: he maintained throughout my time in private practice, and I
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: had substantial dealings with him as a result. He also
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: referred other clients to me, and even though I wasn't
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: his lawyer, he sought my advice from time to time,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: as many people do. I was friendly with him in
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: that context, and I dealt with him in my ordinary
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: course casually, informally, and sometimes irreverently. Shortly after meeting Epstein,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: I came to understand that he had pleaded guilty six
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: years earlier to two prostitution-related offenses, including solicitation of a
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: minor for prostitution, and had received a non-prosecution agreement from
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. I learned from him that he
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: had received an 18-month sentence, of which he served 13 months,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: much of that time, on work release. Epstein told me
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: that while a small number of women he had solicited
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: for prostitution turned out to be under the age of consent,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: he had not known that any of them were underage.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Epstein appeared to be quite open about the conduct leading
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: to his conviction, or so he led me to believe.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: He expressed remorse, embarrassment, and regret for his conduct which
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: he described as paying money for sex to women he
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: believed to be over the age of 18. Notwithstanding his
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: conviction by the time I met him, he had active
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: relationships with extensive groups of respected professionals in business, academia, politics,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: and the arts. And given the nature of my law practice,
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: I routinely dealt with compromised or controversial people, including those
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: facing criminal or other allegations of wrongdoing. To be clear,
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: at no time did I endorse or excuse the conduct
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: for which Epstein had pleaded guilty in 2008. As a
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: former prosecutor, I relied on a resolution reached by federal
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: and state prosecutors and validated by a judge as being
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: a proportionate and final resolution to his criminal conduct. In
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: light of everything that we know now, that resolution was
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: deeply flawed. But at the time, given my experience, the
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: resolution seemed consistent with his description of that he was
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: a customer or a john, and had never intentionally targeted minors.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: Epstein also provided me with a letter that one of
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: his attorneys in the matter, Stephanie Thacker, had written to
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: the Deputy Attorney General's office at DOJ in 2018, appealing
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney's requirement that Epstein enter a non-prosecution agreement.
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: Although I did not know Ms. Thacker personally, I know
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: of her reputation as a judge on the U.S. Court
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: of Appeals, and as a respected an experienced former supervisory
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: prosecutor in DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity section. Ms. Thacker's
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: lengthy and substantive letter stated that the evidence gathered by
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: the state and federal investigators showed that Epstein saw commercial
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: sex only from people who were of age. As we
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: know now, his conduct was much worse and more sinister,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: but at the time I reviewed Ms. Thacker's letter, I
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: strongly supported and corroborated Epstein's explanations to me. And based
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: on my experience as a former senior DOJ official, I
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: also knew that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami had
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: a reputation for aggressive, hard-nosed prosecution. I believe that the
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: prosecutors would have charged them with targeting minors for commercial
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: sex if they had sufficient evidence to support the charges.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: My communication with Epstein ended in July of 2019 after
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: he was indicted for sex-trafficking minors. I was shocked by
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: the indictment, which alleged that Epstein had intentionally enticed and
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: recruited minor girls to engage in sex acts with him
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: in exchange for cash. Those horrific allegations, which covered conduct
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: that had occurred almost 10 years before I met Epstein,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: contradicted what I understood about the nature and scope of
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: the prior conduct. There has been so much media attention
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: around my email communication with Epstein and the gifts that
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: he gave me. Many of my emails with Epstein have
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: been taken out of context, or do not mean what
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: some have speculated or suggested. With that said, given what
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: I know about him now, I wish that I would
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: have dealt with him at all, much less emailed with him.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: With respect to gifts, I didn't ask for them, I
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: didn't need them, and I didn't view them as a
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: particularly personal or consequential. I accepted them graciously, as I
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: saw no reason not to, but the gifts weren't important
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: to me, and I declined to accept some of them.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: In any event, nothing he gave me caused me to
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: deal with him any differently than I otherwise would have.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: Epstein was a masterful liar, and he clearly lied to me.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: I can see now that he used me and other
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: respectable people to legitimize his standing, and I know now
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: that he often exaggerated his relationship with me to others.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: I understand how frustrating and hurtful it must have been
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: for anyone victimized by Epstein, so to see him going
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: about his life without facing the type of accountability that
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: and consequences he deserved. I'm angry that he hurt so
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: many people, and I regret ever having anything to do
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: with him. I look forward to answering the committee's questions. Mr. Grant,
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: thank you, Ms. Rumler. The time reads 1023, and the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: majority's time will begin now. Mr. Grant, question, thank you
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: for that opening statement. Of course, just to make sure
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: that we have a thorough transcript of today's interview, some
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: of these questions will, of course, elicit what you just
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: brought up in your opening statement. So I want to
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: apologize in advance for that. Answer, understood. Question, I want
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: to briefly begin with discussing your background. So where did
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: you attend undergraduate school? Answer, the University of Washington in Seattle. Question,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: and what degree did you graduate with? Answer, a Bachelor
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: of Arts degree in English. Question, and where did you
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: attend law school? Answer, Georgetown University Law Center. Question, and
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: when did you graduate from Georgetown? Answer, 1996. Question, when
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: were you admitted to practice law? Answer, 1998. Question, and
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: what jurisdiction do you currently hold a bar license? Answer,
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: the District of Columbia, the State of Virginia, and State
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: of New York. Answer, are your licenses currently in good standing? Answer, yes. Question,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: and can you briefly just go through your professional background
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: from when you graduated law school until current day? Answer, sure.
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: Right after law school, I clerked on the United States
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Then, I worked
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: at a litigation boutique here in D.C., where I specialized
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: in white-collar criminal defense. From there, I went to the
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: White House, where I worked as an associate counsel to
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: the president for President William Jefferson Clinton. From there, I
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: worked briefly at a law firm in Washington, D.C., the
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: law firm of Latham & Watkins. And I left Latham
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: & Watkins when I had the opportunity to go and
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: work at the U.S., attorney's office in D.C. as an
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: assistant U.S. attorney. I worked in that office for a
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: few years and then I had the opportunity to go
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: on detail to Maine Justice where I spent close to
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: four years on the investigation and prosecution of executives at
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: Enron after its collapse. I then returned to the private
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: practice as a partner to the law firm of Latham
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: Watkins where I again specialized in white-collar criminal defense. I
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: was there for two years. and then I returned to
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: the government in January of 2009 in a senior management
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: role at the Justice Department. I served as Principal Associate
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General until 2010. In 2010, I moved to
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: the White House, where I became Principal Deputy White House
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Counsel for President Barack Obama. In June of 2011, I
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: was promoted to White House Counsel for President Barack Obama.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: I served in that role until May of 2014, and
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: I returned to private practice at Latham & Watkins in
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: July of 2014, where I became the Global Chair of
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: the White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice at Latham. I
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: worked in private practice in the capacity until April of
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: 2020 when I moved to go to Goldman Sachs. My
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: first position at Goldman Sachs was Global Head of Regulatory Affairs.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: I then, I moved to, become, or was promoted to
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: become the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of Goldman
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: Sachs in March of 2021. And in February of 2026,
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: I announced that I'd be stepping down from those roles
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: at the end of June. And I currently am in
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: an advisory role at Goldman Sachs. Question, thank you. A
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: very illustrious career. Answer, thank you. Question, what were your
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: primary responsibilities when you were at the White House and
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: you were the White House Counsel? Answer, you know, the
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: very first White House Counsel was appointed by then President
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And he was asked, this is, I
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: don't know if this is apocryphal, but this is the story.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: He was asked by a member of the media what
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: his White House Counsel was going to do. And he
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: said legal stuff. and I think that's still a pretty
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: apt description of the job. As White House Counsel, there's
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: a number of responsibilities that I think are very particularized
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: to the role. You're responsible for judicial nominations, making recommendations
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: to the President for judicial nominations, and shepherding those, along
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: with the Office of Legislative Affairs, through the Senate confirmation process.
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: You are, at least when I was working for President Obama,
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: I had the responsibility for making clemency recommendations to the
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: President advising on legality of matters relating to domestic policy,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: national security, and congressional oversight. It's been quite a few
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: years since I've been up there with the White House committee.
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: I've typically always been a lawyer, so this is my
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: first go-around as a witness and not being a lawyer here.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: But that was a significant part of my responsibility, responding
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: to Congress and communicating with general counsels of the other agencies. So,
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: it's a very broad portfolio. All right, folks, we're going
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: to wrap up episode one right there. And in the
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: next episode, dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: right where we left off with Kathy Rumler and her
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: transcribed interview with Congress. Question, Mr. Emmer. We've had another
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: member join. Can he please announce himself for the record? Mr. Walkinshaw,
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: Virginia's 11th District. Ms. Stansbury, New Mexico's 1st Congressional District.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: Question by Mr. Grant. Ms. Rumler, when did you first
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: meet Jeffrey Epstein? Answer, I first met him in July
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: of 2014 when he cold called Latham and Walkins and
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: asked to speak to me. Question, and prior to that
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: cold call, you had no other interactions with him? Answer, none. Question.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: No in-person meetings? Answer. No, I had not. I didn't
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: know who he was prior to receiving the message that
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: this person named Jeffrey Epstein had called and asked for
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: me to return his call relating to a potential legal matter. Question.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: And at this time, were you aware of his previous
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: legal trouble? Answer. At that time, no. Question. And what
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: was the reason for this cold call? Answer. What he said.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: So I returned the call. What he said was that
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: he was working with Bill Gates to put together a
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: large donor advised fund. that would allow people to pool
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: their resources for philanthropy and therefore be, you know, sort
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: of potentially have a greater impact. This was an idea
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: that he told me he'd been working on with Mr.
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: Gates and that there were a number of legal issues
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: that would be involved. There would be tax issues and
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: securities issues and there would be the establishment of the fund.
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: And while I didn't have any particular expertise in, you know,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: these particular legal subjects, what he said was, I understand
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: that you are, you know, an excellent generalist lawyer, and
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: we need someone to quarterback these various legal issues that
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: will come into play. Question, and are you aware of
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: somebody referring him to you? Answer, I didn't know that. No,
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: I didn't know why he was reaching out to me. Question,
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: have you subsequently learned if someone referred him to you? Answer,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: when I met him in the first meeting. So he
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: asked me in that first phone call if I would
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: meet with him to discuss it further. And in that
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: first meeting, to the best of my recollection, he mentioned
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: a couple of people who we knew in common. Question,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: and who were those people? Answer, Larry Summers, I recall
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: him mentioning, and Reed Weingarten, who was a prominent criminal
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: defense attorney. Question, and for the first phone call you mentioned,
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: the cold call, I'll refer to it. Was anyone else
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: present on this call with you? Answer, no. Question, and
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: in this first person meeting with Mr. Epstein, Was there
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: anyone else present at the meeting? Answer, not during the meeting, no. Ms. Tolan,
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: and you said you had started working at Latham Watkins
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: in July of 2014. Is that correct? Rumler, yeah. In fact,
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: when he called the law firm, I hadn't actually started
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: working yet. It was in the public that I was going.
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: I was leaving the White House and I was going
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: to return to Latham Watkins, but I actually hadn't formally
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: started yet. And so when he called the main receptionist
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: in New York It was routed to somebody else. And
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: then the person said, hey, this person has a potential
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: new matter. So it was right before I started, but
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: actually I hadn't technically started yet. I didn't have an
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: office yet. I didn't have a computer. I didn't have
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: a Latham Watkins email. I didn't have a phone number yet.
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: Miss Tolan. And it was just a few days or
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: a couple of weeks or... Rumler. It was when, when
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: I had the first meeting with him. I believe it
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: was the Friday before I started at the firm on
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: a Monday. Question by Ms. Grant, and between this cold
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: call and the first meeting that you had with Mr.
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: Epstein in person, what did you know about Mr. Epstein
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: leading into that meeting? Answer, I don't remember knowing anything
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: about him. I had never, I had never heard of
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: him before, and so you know, walking into that meeting,
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: I just don't have any specific recollection of knowing much
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: about him at all. I remember the first meeting, you know,
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: there was a number of things that were striking about
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: that first meeting that I remember quite well. Question, and
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: what were those things? Answer, he, so he held, you know,
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: his meetings at his townhouse that he lived in New York.
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: And it was a very large townhouse, extremely large. And,
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: you know, imposing from the street. And I recall that
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: there was, you know, at the outside of the townhouse,
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: it had two initials. It was a bit strange, but
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: a bit unusual to me. I hadn't seen that before.
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: People typically have their house numbers, but the initials were J.E.
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: And when I went into the townhouse, I was asked
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: to go meet him in his office. and the office
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: was enormous. It took up the entire front, you know,
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: the street front of the mansion. And there was this
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: enormous taxidermy tiger on the floor, so that was, I thought,
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: was something I remember quite well. Question, and when you
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: arrived for this meeting, did someone invite you into the house?
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: Was it Mr. Epstein or someone else? Answer, there was
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: a buzzer outside, so like, you know, announcing your arrival.
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: And I believe someone opened, someone on the staff, opened
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: the door for me. And then there was a small
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: office on the first floor. And that was sort of,
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: if you think about it, like a secretarial office. And
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: he had an executive assistant who sat there. So I
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: believe I sat there waiting for the appointment, if you will.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: And then I was told, you know, the meeting would start.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: And I asked to walk up a set of stairs
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: to his office. Question, do you recall who the secretary
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: was at that time? Answer, I believe it was Leslie Groff. Question,
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: what did you? Gets cut off by... Roomler, but I
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: certainly came to see her, you know, several times when
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: I would have meetings at the townhouse. Question, that was
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: her office, was my understanding. Question, understood. And so you
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: mentioned some of the impressions you got from the first
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: meeting at Epstein's New York home. What were your first
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: impressions of Mr. Epstein from the meeting? Answer, he struck
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: me as extremely arrogant. He was a high energy person.
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: You know, he was, he struck me as eccentric. I
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: don't think I'd ever seen anyone's office that size. It
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: was probably three times the size. I mean, it was
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: bigger than the Oval Office. And you know, I thought
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: to myself, who has this stuffed tiger, like, sitting on
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: their office floor? The rest of, well, I'll let you
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: ask the question. Question, what did you, you've mentioned that
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: the cold call was about setting up this fund with Mr. Gates.
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Is that the only time or the only thing that
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: you brought up during this in-person meeting as well? Or
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: were there other things discussed? Answer, the meeting was like
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: an interview. That's how it felt to me. He was
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: interviewing me for a potential role. It was a role
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: that had materialized, would have been, you know, a great
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: role for a lawyer, and it would have been great.
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: It would have been great matter for my law firm
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: because my law firm, you know, it's one of the
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: largest today, but even then, one of the largest law
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: firms in the world. And so you have lots of
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: different lawyers with very specific types of subject matter expertise.
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: And so given the size of the project as being described,
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: It would have required a lot of different lawyers to
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: be involved. And those are, those are the kind of
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: matters that law firms tend to really like. Question understood.
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: And what did you understand Mr. Epstein's job to be
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: at this time? Question, I understood, you know, just generally
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: that he was someone who had a lot of financial
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: expertise and expertise. and acted as an advisor to, you know,
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: wealthy people and families. Question, and obviously, he had a
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: gigantic mansion that you went to, but did you already
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: understand that Mr. Epstein to be a wealthy man when
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: you first met him? Answer, I didn't know anything other
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: than the size of his home and no normal person
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: lives in a house like that. Question, understood. And you
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: mentioned that he had done some sort of, or it
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: was your impression, he had done some sort of financial
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: work for families or other individuals. Did you know how
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: he acquired his money? Answer, I didn't. Question, at the
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: time of your first meeting with him, did you learn
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: who any of his clients were or purported to be? Answer, no. Question,
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: when did you first learn who his clients were? Answer,
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: I knew. I don't remember exactly when I learned, you know,
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: over the course of time. And I didn't know the
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: exact nature of the client relationship. Other than what I
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: observed about my own, the client did come to represent
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: who he was the primary advisor for. But I didn't.
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: I didn't have any insight, if you will, into the
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: relationship with other clients. Answer. And who was the mutual
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: client of yours? Answer. It was the Edmund Rothschild Bank. Question.
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: Switching gears a little bit. Mr. Emmer, we've had another
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: member join. Can you please announce himself for the record? Sure.
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: Ranking member, Robert Garcia. Switching gears a little bit, can
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: you just briefly describe the nature and extent of your
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: relationship with Mr. Epstein over the years? Answer, sure. I
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: know him professionally as a lawyer. The foundation of my
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: relationship and interaction and dealings with Epstein were as a lawyer.
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: As I said within the first few minutes or few
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: weeks of meeting him, he asked whether I was available.
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: or whether I could be available to work on a
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: representation for a client of his, which was Swiss Bank that,
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: like every other Swiss bank, had a problem with U.S.
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: Justice Department, and he was in a primary advisory role
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: with that client throughout my period of time in private practice,
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: and I continue to represent that client throughout my private practice.
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: In addition, he referred other clients to me over the years,
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: and I was friendly with him in the context of
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: a business relationship. Question, roughly how many other clients Did
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: he refer to you over the years? Answer, I don't
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: remember exactly. It was probably three or four. Question, and
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: who were those clients? Answer, there were two matters. There
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: were two matters that he referred to me. I had
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: a conflict at the law firm, so I was not
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: able to do them. One was a matter that it
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: was a civil dispute for Apollo, the hedge fund. The
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: second one relates to an individual. So I would respectfully
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: prefer not to identify the individual's name because that I
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: think is probably confidential in the context, you know, of
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: legal representation. Mr. Emmer, we've had more members join. Can
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: they please announce themselves for the record? I'm Congressman Eric
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: Burleson from Missouri. And also, I'm Congressman Suhas Submaranium from Virginia.
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: Question by Mr. Grant. How frequently would you say that
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: you communicated with Mr. Epstein? Actually, let me back up
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: for a second. The relationship started, I believe you said,
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: July 2014, roughly. Answer, that's right. Question, And when did
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: your relationship with Mr. Epstein end? Answer, in July of 2019,
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: when he was indicted on sex trafficking charges by the U.S.
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. Question,
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: and through this time period of July 2014 to July
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: of 2019, how frequently did you communicate with Mr. Epstein roughly? Answer,
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: it's hard to say. It was sort of, it seemed
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: to me, that he spent kind of all day every
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: day calling people and emailing people, you know, sort of
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: connecting people. So, you know, he was someone who was
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: very pushy and insinuating and I think was always trying to,
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: my impression, was he was always trying to make stuff
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: happen and sort of put people together and, you know,
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: see if he can make deals happen and, you know,
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: somehow figure out how to monetize that activity of putting
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: business people together. Question. So would you say that your
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: personal communications with Mr. Epstein, were they daily, weekly, monthly,
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: depending on what you guys were working on? Answer I
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: couldn't say. I mean, he communicated with me a lot.
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: He emailed me a lot. And you know, he was
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: just a very, very kind of persistent guy in that way.
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: And by nature, I'm a responsive person. And so I
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: generally tried to be responsive. He was such a sort
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: of relentless person. It was frankly hard to be responsive
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: all the time, particularly because throughout the period of time,
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: I had very active law practice that had practically or
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: absolutely nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. So, you know,
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: but yes, I mean, I emailed him with frequently. I
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: would say, you know, throughout the five-year period that I
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: knew him. Question, and was the email the primary method
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: of communication? Answer, yes. Question, would you have phone calls
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: with Mr. Epstein? Answer, yes. Question, did you take in-person
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: meetings often with Mr. Epstein? Answer, I did, but I
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: would not characterize those as often because he did not
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: live in New York. And so like a lot of
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: people who maintain a residence in New York, but don't
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: live in New York, They had to count their days.
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: And so he would come to New York, you know,
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: every couple of months was my impression. And when he did,
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: he would ask people, you know, he would reach out
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: to people and ask them to come and have meetings.
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: And so if I met with him in person, it
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: would be at his typically in the dining room of
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: his Manhattan townhouse. Question, and can you estimate how many
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: in-person meetings you had with Mr. Epstein? Answer, I really can't.
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: But again, just knowing, just knowing his general frequency of
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: coming to New York, Like, let's say he came, you know,
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: six times a year. If I happen to be in
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: New York, which I wasn't always, and he asked me
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: to come for a meeting, you know, I typically would
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: do that. And so, you know, this is just a guess,
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: but I'd say, you know, I maybe met with him
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: in person like 20 times over the five years. All right, folks,
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: next episode, dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: where we left off with Kathy Rumler and her transcribed
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: interview with Congress. Question. During your relationship with Mr. Epstein,
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: was there any point in time where you communicated with
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: him more frequently? Answer. I think that I communicated. I
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: haven't done an analysis of that. but certainly during the
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: first couple of years that I knew him, when I
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: was actively working on the Rothschild representation, and again, you know,
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: he was primary advisor. So he was sort of, if
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: you think about it, he was sort of the primary
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: relationship conduit, and I was sort of the secondary, if
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: you will. And over time, I developed an independent relationship
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: with the bank and the client, but you know, he
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: was always there. In the later years, in the later years,
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: my recollection is that I became less responsive because he
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: became pushier, And I had an independent relationship with a
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: Rothschild client at that point. And I was busy doing
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: a lot of other legal work. Question. At any point
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: during your association with Mr. Epstein, would you consider him
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: to be a friend? Answer. I considered him. I was
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: friendly with him. But I considered my relationship with him
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: to be based on the fact that I was a
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: lawyer in private practice. And if I hadn't been a
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: lawyer in private practice, I would have no reason to
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: deal with him. And he would have had no reason
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: to deal with me. Question. And you've referred in emails
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: released by the Department of Justice, you've referred to Mr.
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: Epstein as sweetie, older brother, Uncle Jeffrey. Was your relationship
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: ever romantic with Epstein? Answer, absolutely not. Question, did you
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: ever have a sexual relationship with Mr. Epstein? Answer, absolutely not. Question,
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: if there wasn't a romantic relationship, why did you refer
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: to him in these terms? Answer, well, we can take
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: them one by one if you'd like. Question, okay. So
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: the first one I mentioned was Sweetie. Answer, yeah. So
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: the context I remember, there's an email in which I
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: call him Sweetie. The context of that is that he
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: sent me an email comparing his prior criminal conduct to
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: the conduct that had been alleged publicly right around the
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: time against Harvey Weinstein. And he said something to the
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: effect of my conduct was money in exchange for sex.
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: This guy was dangling jobs over people and, you know,
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: basically pretending as if, again, this is his reference. I'm paraphrasing.
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: but this is what I understood him to be saying,
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: and it is not very grammatically correct email to me, okay?
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: That Harvey Weinstein, like what's being said about him, is
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: really bad, because these are women who are coming forward
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: and saying he was sort of dangling these opportunities to
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: be in movies and young actresses, and he was deceptive.
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: It was this element of like deceptiveness, and he was
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: using his power within the movie industry to sort of
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: coerce or assault, you know, assault women. But by contrast,
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: All I did was pay for sex. And this was
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: just kind of strictly a commercial transaction and everybody was consenting.
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: And so what I did wasn't so bad. And so
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: I responded and I said in a very, in a
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: way that was designed to tell someone something that they
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: didn't want to hear in a patronizing way. The court
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: reporter is not going to get this, but my tone
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: was sweetie. Like I was patting him on the head. Hey, sweetie,
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: your conduct involved abusive power too. So it was far
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: from an indication of affection. It was me speaking to
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: him and correcting him from trying to minimize his own
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: prior criminal history against Mr. Weinstein's. And I said it
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: in a way, over email, that was designed to make
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: the medicine go down a little bit easier. Question understood,
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: thank you for that. The next term I mentioned was
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: older brother. Answer, yeah. So that was an email that
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: I sent to a executive assistant. At the time that
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: I sent it, that I used those words, I didn't
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: know Epstein. I'd only known him for a couple of months.
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: He'd referred, as I said, he referred to this important
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: client to me. And it was a big matter. It
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: was a good matter. We did great work for that,
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: for that bank. And I was traveling and I think
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: for the first time is my recollection from New York
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: to Geneva, which is where the bank was based. And again,
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: he was the primary advisor. And if I'm recalling this
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: email correctly, he asked for his executive assistant to upgrade
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: me on the flight. And I said, or it was
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: something other or some other thing that he was asking.
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: It was something involving my flying to Geneva, or he
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: was asking his executive assistant to do for me. And
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: to show my appreciation, which again, I didn't ask for,
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: I didn't need it. He knew I was traveling there
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: because he had this primary advisory relationship with a client.
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: And I was saying, you know, he doesn't really need
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: to do this. And she was like, no, he just
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: wants to be nice. And I was like, oh, yes.
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: And I think it was something like I adore him.
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: He's like my older brother. Again, I didn't need any
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: of those things from him. What I thought at the
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: time was that he was being nice. This was insignificant
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: to him in terms of value. I wasn't paying for
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: the flight anyway because it was a business trip. And
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: that was the context in which I made that reference. Question,
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: thank you for that explanation. And the third term I
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: mentioned to you was Uncle Jeffrey. Answer, yes. So Mr. Epstein,
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: as I said a few minutes ago, he was extremely arrogant.
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: He was a mansplainer. He was pushy. He was avuncular.
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: And as a joke, and frankly, to poke fun at
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: those qualities, you know, again, at this point in time,
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: you know, it's 10 years ago, 12 years ago. I'm in,
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: you know, my early 40s. I'm a relatively accomplished professional, okay?
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: And he's constantly offering me all sorts of unsolicited advice,
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: you know, about the way I, about how to hold
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: a whole host of things that even frankly, he really
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: didn't know much about. That didn't stop him from offering opinions.
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: And in that context, I think it was response to,
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: you know, again, something that he had sent me, you know,
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: as a gift. And I sort of, in a teasing way,
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: referred to him, you know, as Uncle Jeffery. in a
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: way not to be, to sort of call him out
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: for the way that he could be quite patronizing. You know,
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: we all sometimes have relatives like that, and that's what
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: I meant. Question, and then did Mr. Epstein ever meet
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: any of your family members? Answer, no. Question, are you
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: aware of Mr. Epstein having children of his own? Answer,
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: not that I'm aware of. Question, apart from your in-person
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: meetings with Mr. Epstein that you mentioned, did you ever
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: socialize with him in any other context? Miss Rumler, no.
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: Question by Mr. Grant. And you mentioned that the relationship
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: ended in July of 2019. Answer, yes. Question, when was
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: the last time you communicated with Mr. Epstein? Answer, the
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: last time I communicated with him was when he called
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: me after he was arrested. Question, and what was the
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: nature of that conversation? Answer again, to the best of
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: my recollection, it was a very short conversation. Probably less
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: than a minute. And to the best of my recollection,
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: the only thing that he said was that he'd been arrested.
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: And my response was, you obviously need to call your lawyer. Question,
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: he didn't ask for legal advice at that time? Answer,
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: not at that time. Mr. Emmer, were you aware that
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: he had been arrested prior to the phone call? Rumler, no.
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: That was what alerted me to the fact that he
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: was arrested, was his call. Question, any described any facts
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: surrounding why he'd been arrested on the call? Answer, not
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: that I remember. I don't believe so. Question, did he
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: ask you to call or reach out to anyone on
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: his behalf? Answer, no. Question, when was the last time
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: you saw Mr. Epstein in person? Answer, it was his
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: arraignment in July of 2019. Question, and where did that occur? Answer,
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: it was at the federal courthouse in Manhattan. Question, and
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: why did you decide to go to his arraignment? Answer,
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: I wanted to understand what was going on. You know,
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: this is someone who I had dealt with over the
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: prior five years. I was absolutely shocked that he had
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: been arrested. It was, you know, you could have knocked
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: me over with a feather. I was so shocked by it.
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: And I didn't understand, you know, what he was being
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: charged with. And, you know, in federal court, there aren't
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: any cameras allowed in court. And I knew, obviously, I
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: was still representing the Rothschild Bank. I had come to
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: have a personal relationship with Ariane the Rothschild, so I
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: knew that she would want to know, like, what exactly
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: was going on. And so the way to find out
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: exactly what was going on is to actually be in
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: the courtroom. And so I went with a partner of
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: mine from the law firm and we sat in the
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: back of the courtroom to watch, just, you know, to
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: see the proceedings and to see exactly what the nature
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: of the charges were. Question, and who was that partner
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: from the law firm? Answer, Chris Clark. Question, did you
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: get the opportunity to have a conversation with Mr. Epstein
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: before or after his arraignment proceedings? Answer, I did not
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: have the opportunity to talk to him in the courtroom.
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: And I don't believe that he saw me in the
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: courtroom because I only saw the back of his head. Question,
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: and did you have any other conversation with Mr. Epstein
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: after the arraignment proceeding? Answer, I did not. Question, did
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: he ever try to reach out to you that you're
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: aware of? Answer, did he try to reach out to
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: me to communicate with me? No. At some point in
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: the days after arraignment, I was asked whether or not
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: I would consider joining the defense team. Question, and who
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: asked you that? Answer, my best recollection is that Mr. Indyke,
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: Darren Indyke, who was Epstein's lawyer, asked me. Question, and
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: what did you say? To Mr. Indyke about the ask. Answer,
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: I declined to join the defense team. Question, and why
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: did you decline? Answer, well, I had no interest in
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: being involved in that defense. Question, and why is that? Answer,
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: at the time, I had now seen the indictment. The
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: charges were, the charges covered the time frame of 2002
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: to 2005, so a good, you know, decade plus since
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: I had met him. So it covered, you know, a
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: period of time that I believed had been investigated thoroughly
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: by the state of Florida and federal prosecutors. And again,
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: my understanding is that the conclusion reached as a result
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: of the investigation was that Mr. Epstein did not intentionally
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: recruit minors for commercial sex. And the Southern District of
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: New York indictment specifically alleged that he had intentionally enticed
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: and recruited minors. That was something that they had evidence
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: that they had presented to a grand jury. And that
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: was a wholly different, worse, and more sinister conduct than
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: I had understood. I had no interest in being involved
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: in the defense. Question, and you mentioned you saw the
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: 2019 indictment. You had re-seen the facts of the 2002-2005
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: time frame, the state investigation in Florida, the federal investigation then,
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: which led to his incarceration in Florida. You had talked
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: to him about his previous legal issues, as you mentioned earlier.
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: What did Mr. Epstein convey to you about what happened
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: in his first Florida legal issue? What were your impressions
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: of what had happened? Answer, well, I can tell you
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: what he told me. And then I can tell you, well,
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: let me tell you what he told me. And again,
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: this is something that he told me to the best
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: of my recollection. I don't believe it was the first meeting,
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: but it was certainly the second or third. He told
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: me that he had at his home in Palm Beach,
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: that he arranged for women to come to his home
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: to provide massages to him. And that some of those
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: massages were sexual in nature. And that he had, you know,
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: paid for each of these massages. He paid cash to
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: each of the massages. And that some of the small
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: number of the masseuses or the women who were coming
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: to his home were, turned out to be, under the
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: age of 18, but he didn't know that or have
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: knowledge of that, and that the women, as he described
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: to me, you know, many of them worked in local
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: massage parlors in Florida. Question by Mr. Grant, and did
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: you believe this story? Answer, I believed it, not because
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: that's what he told me. I believed it based on
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: my experience as a federal prosecutor. I knew that the state,
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: the state attorney's office in Florida, and in particular the
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: chief of sex crimes division there, had led the investigation
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: into Epstein, and that the conclusion of the investigation was
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: a single, an indictment, for a single count of solicitation
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: of prostitution, and the federal government, the U.S. Attorney's Office
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: in Miami, which based on my experience, my long experience,
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: in the department, and in particular my service, as a
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, the Miami office, reputationally, was
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: very aggressive office, and in fact particularly, during this period
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: of time, that I was working on the Enron investigation,
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: The main justice was frequently recruiting people from Miami to
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: come up to main justice because it was viewed as like,
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: you know, the hard charging office. And I understood that
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: they had investigated the case, you know, for a lengthy
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: period of time. And with all the tools available, the prosecutors,
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: you know, search warrants. I didn't know whether they used
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: wiretaps or whatever, but you know, and the result of
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: that investigation, the outcome of that investigation was a decision
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: not to prosecute Epstein and to, and you know, require
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: him to enter into a non-prosecution agreement. And then he
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: told me, which I, you know, knew through factual sources,
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: I mean through the record in the matter, that he
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: received an 18-month sentence. He received 12 months on one count,
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: six months on another count, and he served 13 months
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: on that sentence, and most of that 13 months, it
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: had actually been served on work release. So what he
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: told me about the case was consistent with the outcome,
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: and then, in addition, I should say this, what he
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: told me about his conduct in the case, and the
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: key issue in my mind being, did this guy intentionally
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: target minors, you know, for commercial sex, or was he
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: more like a customer or a John? And this is
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: a prostitution case where some of the individuals were underage,
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: but he didn't know that. And importantly, he provided me
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: with this letter that was lengthy, a lengthy submission by
• 39:24
  Speaker 1: an attorney named Stephanie Tucker, who I knew to be
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: a sitting, at the time I read the letter, I
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: knew to be a sitting federal court appeals judge. And
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: the importance to me about the letter, which I read
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: at the time, was that it was just, or it
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: wasn't just, an advocacy piece that a defense lawyer submitted,
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: but it was written by the Deputy Attorney General's office,
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: and it was an analysis, and about evidence that had
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: been uncovered in the case. And just to interject real quick,
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: Mark Philippe. What have I told you guys from the beginning?
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: This wasn't Acosta. It was Mark Philippe. And she stated
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: unequivocally that there was not evidence that Epstein had targeted
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: minors for sex. And she wouldn't. You have to remember,
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: you know, I was a principal associate deputy attorney general.
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: And so those kinds of letters came to me when
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: I sat in that seat. Those types of letters. Obviously
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: not this letter. I wasn't there then. But the last
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: thing a lawyer would do is go to the Justice
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: Department and say, the evidence shows this to the people
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: who know what the evidence actually is. Because if you
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: did that and you were misstating the evidence, you would
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: have zero credibility. So that letter was really formed the
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: basis of my understanding of what his prior conduct in
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: Florida was. And that letter was consistent with what he
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: told me and corroborated what he told me. All right, folks,
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: next episode, dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 40:44
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.