Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 11) (8/6/26)

Transcript

Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 11) (8/6/26) · 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 get right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back to Kathy Rumler and our conversation with Congress redacted.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: We'll go back on record question by redacted. So, Miss Rumler,
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: you did mention in your opening statement you gave, but
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: I don't think we have a copy that feels like
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: a long time ago. Can you talk a little bit
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: more about how you helped mister Epstein with his legal issues? Answer?
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: I was not his lawyer. Question right answer, But as
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: a distinguished congressman who was here earlier said, you know,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: he said when I was a defense lawyer, everyone, every
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: time someone called, they asked me for advice. That's very
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: similar to my life and my experience. And certainly mister
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: Epstein did that, you know from time to time. I
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: knew he did it with others as well. And the
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: issues that he typically would ask me about were related
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: to media scrutiny or media allegations, and on occasion he
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: would ask me questions that were legal questions of points
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: of law, is how I would say it. Arising from
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: the litigation in Florida, and I understand that a couple
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: of victims had brought against the Justice Department, which I
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: will refer to as the CVR A litigation, the Crime
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Victims Rights Act litigation question got it, and then as
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: time went on there was no more. There was more litigation.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: He faced an increasing amount of litigation or not answer.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: I don't recall. I don't really remember other litigation that
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: he was involved in or that he was a party to.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: To this CVR case, it obviously involved his non prosecution agreement,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: and in particular, as I understood the issue, the legal
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: issue before the court there was whether or not the
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: Justice Department had violated the notification rights of the plaintiffs
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: in that case, and that there was a legal issue.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: I was actually familiar with this legal issue. The legal
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: issue as I understood it that was before the court
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: was the Crime Victim's Rights Act, among other things, requires
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: prosecutors to provide notice to victims of crimes. And the
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: question in a decision not to prosecute, which is what
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: a non prosecution agreement, is whether or not those notification
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: requirements had kicked in and whether or not the Justice
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Department the US Attorney's Office had provided notice and adequate
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: notice at the same time that was my general understanding
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: of the issue that was before the court, and I
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: knew that the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Department had actually issued a formal opinion on that question,
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: not directly related to this lawsuit, but just in general,
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: that question when does the Justice Department have to provide
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: notification to victims? And that Office of Legal Council opinion
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: had stated that those notification obligations only attached or kicked
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: in when a charging decision, when someone had been charged. Well,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: she's wrong about that, because the court already admonished the
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: federal government for the CVRA violations. As you learn more
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: about the case, did the cause or did that cause
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: you to reevaluate your understanding of the circumstance of his
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement? Answer? I don't remember. There are being
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: many facts in the case in the sense I remember
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: that it was a legal issue, and that was the
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: legal issue before the court, and the question was you know,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: there were sort of two questions. One is did the
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: Justice Department not fulfill its obligation under the CVRA, and
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: then second, if they hadn't, what was the remedy? But
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: I don't remember their being you know, I don't remember
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: having much knowledge about their being facts because the facts
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: are a little bit subsidiary to the legal question. Question. Well,
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: one set of facts was whether the CVRA remedy aside
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: had been violated at all? Answer, that's right question, and
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: that would be because the plaintiffs are potentially other survivors
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: or victims had not been afforded the rights under the CVRA.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: Is that right answer? My recollection of the Justice Department's
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: position in that litigation was that they had complied. I
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: should say it as opposed today, But the prosecutors complied
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: because there was they made a decision to not prosecute.
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: So if there had been a decision to prosecute where
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: an indictment had been returned, then a bunch of notification,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: you know, provisions would kick in. Question the plaintiffs were Jane,
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: does the people who were survivors who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims?
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: Were they not? Answer? My understanding is that they were
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: people who said, you know, we believe that were victims
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: of this conduct, and the Justice Department owed us certain
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: notifications and we didn't get them. Question did you believe
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein? Answer? I certainly didn't
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: have any reason to doubt it. Clearly were victims of
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: mister Epstein's conduct. That was resolved with the non prosecution
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: agreement and the legal question. What I understood it to
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: be the reason that the prosecutors chose not to prosecute
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: them federally was that they did not have sufficient evidence
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: that he knew that anyone was in fact under age.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean they weren't. Question. It doesn't mean
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: they weren't. It means that you believed that he had
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: more underage victims than were reflected in the two counts
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: that he ended up pleading guilty to answer. In one count,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: there were no underage victims at all. That was a
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: solicitation of prostitution count. And again in law enforcement slash
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: prosecutor state of mind, the crime of prostitution has two
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: participants question, and you've already we've already discussed that question
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: at times. You reminded mister Epstein that if she's a miner,
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: then that's not legally prostitution. Answer. A minor can't consent
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: question right answer to engage in a commercial sex act
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: in the way that someone who is legally of age
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: ken and the law treats those people very different, without
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: opining as to whether that's a good policy or whatever.
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: That's what the law does. Question. I think you understand
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: what I'm asking here is that working on this CVR case,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: you became aware of a number of plaintiffs. Mister Fishman
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: jumps in, I'm sorry she didn't testify that she was
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: working on the CVR case. Questions are you're right? We'll
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: get to that question. In becoming familiar with this CVR
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: A case, you also became familiar that there were a
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: number of plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs alleged to be Jeffrey Epstein's
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: victims survivors at the time, those additional victims, whether or
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: not he was chargeror pled guilty to his offense against them,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: and you were aware of that, right answer. What I
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: was aware of with respect to the CVRA A litigation
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: is that there were and again that this was this
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: was public litigation, and that there were two different plaintiffs
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: who identified as Jane Do one and Jane do two.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: And at some subsequent point there was a motion file
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: by lawyers who were representing the two Jane Doe victims
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: who said that their rights had been violated by the
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: Justice Department, and the motion was seeking to add to
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: additional Jane Doe plaintiffs, and I came to learn that
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: through public reporting the name of the third Jane Doe plaintiff.
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: That's what I knew. Question do you recall mister Epstein
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: ever filed any motions in the CVRA case at all? Answer?
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: I don't remember specifically whether anything was filed. I have
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: a vague recollection that there was. Well, I shouldn't say
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: I don't remember. I don't remember. I knew that he
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: wasn't any party to it. Question what kind of work
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: did you do or advice did you provide to mister
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: Epstein regarding CVR case? Answer again, I wasn't his lawyer.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: He had a lawyer. Question and just to be clear
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: on that, you never represented him? Answer I did not
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: represent him. Question you were not his lawyer. Answer I
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: was not his lawyer. Question when you give him advice?
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: You were never giving him his advice in a legal capacity.
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: Answer that's not what I said. Question I'm asking that
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: is what I'm asking you. Answer. He asked my opinion
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: or my views on a number of occasions. Those views
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: typically he asked me let me rephrase it or phrase
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: it differently. There was a lot of media reporting that
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: arose from the CVRA litigation because of a motion that
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: had been filed and allegations that were made in that
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: motion that were quite that were the kinds of act
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: dellegations that would that attracted that did in fact attract
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: a lot of media attention. And so there were things
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: that happened as a result of that, and a whole
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: bunch of collateral litigation that spun out of that filing.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: And he asked me about that, you know, from time
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: to time, and I would, you know, give him my
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: best response, you know, based on my understanding of the
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: facts at the time. Question, would you ever perform a
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: similar role to his lawyers? Directly? Answer? Sure? If asked question?
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: Were you asked? Answer, I don't not that I sitting
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: here today, I don't have any specific recollection of anything.
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: But you know, you know, one of one of the
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: things about being a lawyer is that lawyers like to
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: talk to each other about cases. And certainly, you know,
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: again he had counsel, a very quite competent, really good
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: counsel who was representing him, and so you know, again
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: we had a shared client he knew me. He seemed
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: to me to have a practice of kind of wanting
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: to get a lot of people's perspective, particularly on things
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: that were, you know, in the media. And again I
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: remember at this time that there were some, you know,
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: some allegations that had been made in this filing that
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: were quite you know, that were quite media got the
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: media going. Q. How did you react to those allegations? Answer, well,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I remember that there were
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: allegations that I found to be I thought seemed implausible.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: That's not the right. I was skeptical of some of
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: the allegations just based on the nature of the allegations,
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: without having any facts, based on my training, my experience
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: as a prosecutor. There were allegations that seemed unlikely to
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: me based on my I didn't have a lot of
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: indica or credibility. I would say, question, you were skeptical
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: that whether the person whose stories Deal's allegations drew from
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: was herself a victim of mister Epstein and Maxwell. Answer.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: I didn't reach a conclusion about that, but I certainly
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: had no reason to disbelieve that. Question did you ever
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: inquire whether she was or wasn't a victim. Answer inquire
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: of whom? Question, Well, that's a very good question. Did
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: you ever ask mister Epstein? Answer? I don't believe I
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: have asked him, but he told me he made an
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: assertion to me on more than one occasion. His consistent
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: assertion with respect to that the allegations of that individual
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: was that those allegations were not true. Did you ever
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: talk to his lawyers about that? Answer? I may have,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: I don't remember. Question So you mentioned that litigation spun
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: off from that. Can you just describe what that litigation
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: environment was like, what was happening, what does that mean
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: to have it spin off? And can you tell me
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: what you were working on how you worked on those
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: sort of collateral litigation issues. Answer, I wasn't working on
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: any of those things. Question were you providing advice on them? Answer? Again,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: he would ask my opinion on things that were happening
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: kind of in the media landscape. I can give you
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: an example. One of the allegations in the filing that
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: I'm referring to was made against Professor Alan Dershowitz, and
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: the allegations were that were made against him, if you're him,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: If you were him, they were highly inflammatory allegations, and
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: he responded to those allegations that were made in the
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: court filing and immediately reported on extensively in the media.
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: His response was to respond in the media in a
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: way that was disparaging of the affian and the affian's
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: lawyers in turn, at least the lawyers I remember the lawyers.
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: In turn, the lawyer sued mister Dershowitz for defamation. So
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: that's an example of collateral litigation. Question, and mister Epstein
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: would ask for your advice regarding that collateral litigation answer.
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: I remember he asked my opinion, and that I do
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: remember he asked my opinion, and I thought that, you know,
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: if it were me, and it wasn't me, But if
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: I had been advising mister Dershowitz, the more appropriate that
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: the better legal course then going on TV and denying
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: and making accusations right, would be to go to court
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: file emotion to strike the pleading and say why you
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: thought the pleading should be struck. Question. Did you ever
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: talk with mister Epstein about whether your communications with them
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: about his legal issues or related items were subject to
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: some kind of privilege. Answer? I don't recall having any
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: conversation with them about that one way or the other.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Question the same with same question for his lawyers. Well, again,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: remember what I recall him asking was about matters that
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: were in the media, because again he was represented by Council, right,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: and so his counsel to the extent that there were
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: issues relating to this CVRA, you know that Council was
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: monitoring the litigation, was ensuring that, you know, whatever should
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: be done or responses if they were acquired. You know,
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: he was responsible for those things, not me. Typically, what
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: Epstein would ask me about again were things that were
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: in the media, you know, for better or for worse.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: In the course of my career, I've worked on many,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: many matters that were the legal issue and the media
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: issues are combined. Question, this was not a typical fact
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: pattern for you in that regard, is what you're saying. Answer, Well,
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: there's nothing about the whole fact pattern that was typical.
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: But those types of matters, those types of matters where
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: there was a court proceeding that had a lot of
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: media attention. Many, I would say, most court proceedings don't
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: get any media attention whatsoever. I happen to have spent
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: some time in my career working on cases that have
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: a lot of media attention. All right, folks, we're going
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: left off. All the information that goes with this episode
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.