Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 12-14) (11/8/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 12-14) (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 get right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back to Kathy Rumler and her interview with Congress. Question,
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: I'd like to, there's an email I'd like to discuss
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: with you. We'll enter it as Exhibit H. It's an email,
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: a November 16th, 2014 email between you and Mr. Epstein
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: regarding a lawyer named Greg Poe. Just let me know
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: when you've had a chance to review it. Answer, okay. Question,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: so this is an email where you forwarded Mr. Epstein
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: the biography of Gregory Poe, who criminal defense attorney Poe
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: and Burton. Answer, yes. Question, and Mr. Epstein wrote, we
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: should move forward. You wrote that Poe will quote, we'll
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: do it subject to my direction and conditions, and we
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: don't have to deal with Latham BS, etc. Answer, yes. Question,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: can you explain to me what's going on in the email? Answer,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: he had asked me for a referral, so that's what
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: this is about. And you know, so this is November
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: of 2014, so you know, I had known Epstein for
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: four months at this point, and again, you know, he
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: had referred this client to me, who he was the
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: primary advisor to, and he wanted, without getting into the substance,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: he wanted an analysis done that related to his historical case. Question,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: his historical case being? Answer, being the Florida case, not
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: the CVRA case. The criminal case, the Florida criminal case.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: and I was essentially, he asked me for a referral.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: I made a recommendation. He said he wanted to move forward.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: He went on to engage that lawyer, and I was,
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: I was offering, to be at the inception, I was
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: offering to be the legal translator, if you will. The
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: analysis that Epstein wanted done, and to translate that to
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: the lawyer who he had retained to do it. Question,
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: so when you said, I'll get together with him this week,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: it was in that role as a legal translator, as
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: you put it? Answer, correct. It was in the vein of,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: here's the analysis that he wants done. You know, here's
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: a little background. As I understand it, you know, the case.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: These are the sort of kind of issues that he
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: wants you to look at. And so I made the connection.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: And I understand that there was an attorney-client relationship that
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: was thereafter established between, you know, Mr. Poe and Mr. Epstein. Question,
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: so what did you mean when you wrote, he will
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: do it subject to my, quote, direction and conditions? Answer,
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: I don't recall specifically, but again, That's just me saying
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: that I'll tell him what to do. I will tell
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: him what analysis you want done. Question, in that, as
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: that translator at the inception? Answer, yes. Question, okay. And
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: then the second part of that sentence, and then we
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: don't have to deal with Latham, BS, etc. Answer, yeah. Question,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: Latham refers to Latham and Watkins. Presumably, what is Latham
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: BS that you didn't want to deal with? Answer, so
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: my recollection is he actually was like, can Latham do
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: this analysis? And I didn't want Latham to be representing
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. And so rather than saying, I don't want
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: Latham to represent you. And I don't want, I don't
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: want to deal with this analysis. I don't want to
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: do it. Remember, I have a client that he referred
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: me to. That was very clear. And this is like
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: the work that I do. And it's my expertise. And
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: that's what I'm doing. But he's an important, you know,
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: he's the primary advisor to the client. And so I'm
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: trying not to alienate them. So I'm trying to be helpful.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: I'll refer a lawyer to you who can do this
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: analysis for you. And then, as you know, I'm characterizing
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: it as then we don't have to deal with Latham
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: BS as opposed to saying, I don't want you to
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: be a client of Latham and Watkins. That was a
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: more diplomatic way of saying that. Question, did you ever
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: talk to Latham and Watkins about having Jeffrey Epstein as
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: a client? Answer, in 2014, no. Question later, Answer, not
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: for me. I never wanted to represent. I didn't represent him.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: I had a clear relationship with the Rothschild Bank, but
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: that was my client relationship. He had a separate relationship
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: with the bank, but was a primary advisor. And that's
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: the legal representation that I wanted to do, and I
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: wanted to continue. Question, it sounds like your relationship with
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: the bank, the shared client, that had begun at this
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: point by November 16th, 2014? Answer, yeah. It had begun
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: September of 2014. Question, and that was through Latham? Answer, yeah.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: The client was a client of Latham's, and I was
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the principal partner on the engagement. Question, so at this point,
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: it's not like your law firm. Did anyone at your
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: law firm say, Ms. Rumler, do not have Jeffrey Epstein
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: as a firm client? Answer, no. I made that. I
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: made that decision myself. I didn't need to talk to
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: anybody at Latham about that. Question, at the time, I
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: believe still now, there is a partner at Latham Watkins
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: who was their own separate involvement in Mr. Epstein's underlying
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: Florida case. Person was at Department of Justice and I
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: believe reviewed some portion of the non-prosecution agreement. We can,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: if we need to, in the next hour, find some
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: emails regarding that, I believe between you and Epstein. But
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: for now, let me just represent it to you. And
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: I just want to ask you this Latham BS, we
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: don't have to deal with Latham BS, had nothing to
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: do with this person's presence at the law firm or
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: how it might complicate representation. Question. Okay, so let's move.
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: Let's do another exhibit. This one is going to be
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: Exhibit 1. Question by Redacted. While this exhibit's being passed out,
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: can the members who have arrived please identify themselves? Emily Randall,
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: Washington State. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois. Dave Min, California, 47. Redacted.
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: This exhibit is Bates number EFTA 011-96604. It's a June 22,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: 2015 email from Darren Indyk to Mr. Epstein. So, please
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: take the time to read it. You're not on the email.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: The email references invoices from Mr. Poe for approximately $ 50, 000
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: in legal services he provided to Mr. Epstein, including, quote,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: communicating with Kathy and Marty. Let me know when you've
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: had a chance to review it. Ms. Cotton is this.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: I just want to make sure. Goes off the record
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: for a second. Comes back on. Question, so as I
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: said before, we went off the record. This email references
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: invoices from Greg Poe, including billing for communicating with Kathy
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: and Marty. Were you communicating with Greg Poe about whatever
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: case this was? Ms. Cotton, can we go off the
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: record for one more second? Redacted, can she answer the question, please? Mr. Fishman, well,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: the question is, were you communicating with her about whatever
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: case this is, is not a question I think that
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: we want to answer. Redacted, so we can clarify. Fishman,
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: if you want to try it different, cut some off.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: So what case was Greg Poe working on for Mr.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: Epstein or cases? Answer, I didn't. My understanding was that Mr.
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: Poe was engaged to do analysis. Question, so in the
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: previous exhibit, the email about doing it at your direction
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: and conditions avoiding quote Latham BS, that was about engaging
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Greg Poe to do analysis? Answer, that was my recollection
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: about why he was engaged. Question by Ms. Cotton. Now,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: can we go off record before you ask another question?
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: They go off the record, back on. Mr. Fishman. Okay,
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: so this document appears to be labeled privileged and confidential,
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: and Ms. Rumler was not copied on this, and as
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: a result, we have concerns about whether the questions you
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: were going to ask her or the answers she might
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: have given be subject to a privilege that she can't
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: assert and she can't waive. Privilege belongs to the estate
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Epstein, and as you may know, In other
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: civil litigation, they have asserted privilege over certain documents. And
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: so if you can ask her the question about without
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: referring to the document itself, that might actually make it
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: possible for her to answer. Question, I think we can
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: do that. I will also note for the record that
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: this document is from the Department of Justice's release. The
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: whole wide world has this document now. For the record,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: the whole world has this document. Question, the other item
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: to note Is that one thing that Jeffrey Epstein did
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: to anyone who's read any of these documents? The Department
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: of Justice has released to the whole wide world is
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: put privileged and confidential on literally everything. With that said,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: let's see if we can ask her questions without having
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: to butt up against that. This is also a transcribed interview.
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: There may be points where you simply refuse to answer.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: That's how it goes. Fishman, we're trying to avoid that. Cotton,
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: and it's a lawyer who wrote privileged and confidential, not Epstein,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: which puts our radars up. Question, did you talk to
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: Gregory Poe at any point between that previous exhibit the
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: previous year when you met with him to set up
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: at your, quote, direction and condition until regarding Epstein? Answer,
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: I don't remember any specific conversation with Mr. Poe. Mr.
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: Poe is someone who was known to me, who I've
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: worked with, and probably, I don't remember specifically, but probably
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: was working a lot in this period of time, was
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: extremely respected defense attorney. And again, someone who we work
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: with pretty frequently. When I say we, I mean my
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: partners and I at Latham Watkins. Oftentimes we would have
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: corporate representation. We are representing a corporate client. And you know, Mr.
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Poe's specialty was representing individuals. And he had spent many
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: years at the Federal Public Defender Service. So I had
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: a lot of communication with Mr. Poe. I don't have
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: a specific recollection about talking to him on matters relating
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: to Epstein or other than making the initial, you know,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: making the referral. It's possible I did. Just sitting here today,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: I don't remember. Question. Can you say with confidence that
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: aside from the meeting that you mentioned in the previous exhibit,
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: you never talked with Mr. Poe about matters regarding Jeffrey Epstein? Answer. No,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: I certainly can't say that. I never spoke to him.
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: But I just don't remember, you know, any specific occasion
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: that I did. Question. Sometimes when we talk to people,
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: we can't remember specific communications, but we can generally remember
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: the nature of the ongoing dialogue or periodic communication. So
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: putting aside whether you remember any specific communication, were you
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: communicating with Gregory Poe about anything regarding Jeffrey Epstein from
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: the meeting that was referenced in the previous exhibit, say,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: for now? Let's say till June 2015, six months later. Answer,
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: this is 12 years ago. I very well may have.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: I just don't. I just sitting here today. Nothing springs
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: to mind. Question, did you ever become aware that Mr.
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: Poe was working on something different than whatever analysis, to
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: use your words, you had initially set him up with? Answer,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: putting aside any conversations with Mr. Poe that I recall,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: what I recall thinking about and being, I don't know
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: whether I was asked about it, What I remember thinking
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: about in the context of the legal issues that were
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: in the CVRA case, as we talked about before, there
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: were two. There were sort of two major issues. One,
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: did the Justice Department violate the notification obligations? And two,
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: if the answer to the question was yes, what was
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: the remedy? On the second part, there had been, indulge
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: me for a second, the use of a non-prosecution and
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: deferred prosecution agreement. Question, cuts are off. I'll indulge you
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: for a second. She responds while I'm trying to explain.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: And you're asking me follow-up questions. The use of the
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement and deferred prosecution agreement was still at that
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: point in time, you know, relatively uncommon. Even with the
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: respect to corporate resolution, now we see that much more commonly.
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: But it was at the time quite uncommon, quite uncommon
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: to use a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: with respect to an individual prosecution. And there were questions
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: about it. in the court system in this sort of
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: 2015-2016 time frame, and whether or not courts could get
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: behind the prosecution, a prosecutor's decision to resolve a criminal case,
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: either through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: And there was sort of a seminal case that, as
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: I recall, was decided by the DC Circuit. I think
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: it was in 2016. But the lower court decision had
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: been much earlier than that. Question, is this, are you describing,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: what Mr. Poe was originally working on? Answer, no, I'm responding,
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: what was in my mind about the issues during that
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: period of time? Question, what was Mr. Poe working on?
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: Answer again, I can't say specifically what he was working on.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: He was doing analysis. And in my memory of my mind,
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: the things that I was thinking about, by the way, question, sorry,
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: you can't say because that's a potential privilege issue, or
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: you can't say because you don't remember. Answer, I don't remember. Question, okay,
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: just checking. Answer, yeah, I don't remember. But at that
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: period of time, these legal questions were present in Mr.
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: Epstein's case, but they were also present in other cases
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: in the country. And the legal questions were very relevant
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: to my practice. Question, so you could have been talking
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: to Mr. Poe about those issues periodically? Answer, I don't remember.
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: But I'm saying at that point in time, in that
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: 2015-2016 time frame, in my mind, There were issues in Mr.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: Epstein in the CVRA litigation, which he was not a
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: party to, that were also that were issues in the
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: courts in general. Question, let me stop. Can you say,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: tell me with confidence, that you never gave Mr. Poe
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: any directions about whatever work he was doing for Mr. Epstein? Answer,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: I describe what I recall doing, which is acting as
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: a person who connected Mr. Epstein to Mr. Poe and
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: trying to translate to Mr. Poe what legal work Mr.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: Epstein wanted someone to do. Question, I think we'll come
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: back to this, but for now, you also mentioned that
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: you worked, you were doing for him, for Mr. Epstein,
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: was more in PR, in the media space, so I'd
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: like to turn to that at this point. Answer, just
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: to be clear, I wasn't doing work for Mr. Epstein. Question,
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: remind me again how you characterized whatever it was you
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: were doing for Mr. Epstein regarding PR and media. Answer,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: he asked my views from time to time, and I
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: think he asked others as well, and I tried to
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: be responsive and give my views. But again, he wasn't
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: my client. I didn't work for him. He wasn't paying me.
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: Wasn't my responsibility. It was somebody else's responsibility. Question, but
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: earlier in this hour, you wouldn't say whether whatever it
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: is you were rendering him was in a legal capacity
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: or a personal capacity. So can you say it now? Answer, no,
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: I don't believe that's the question that you asked me. Question,
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: so well, I'll ask it now. Answer, I'm a lawyer.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: And people ask me questions all the time that touch on,
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: I'm a lawyer, not a doctor, so people don't come
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: to me and ask me what they should do when
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: their back hurts. But they do come to me to
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: ask me about all sorts of questions that touch on
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: the law. Question, but not every piece of advice you
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: give to anyone who asks you about the law is
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: rendered in a professional capacity as opposed to a personal one, right? Answer,
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: I don't understand this distinction that you're trying to make. Question,
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: you are not Mr. Epstein's lawyer. You've said again and
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: again and again. Answer, no, I was a lawyer who
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: he asked questions to. Question, that's right, you were a
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: lawyer who he asked questions to. Question, was he asking
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: you questions as a friend? Was it informal? Was he
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: asking questions to you as his lawyer? Regardless of not,
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: whether there was some sort of retention agreement or you
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: were paying him, what was it? Answer, I can't speak
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: for what was in Mr. Epstein's mind. In my mind,
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: I was responding to him the way I respond to
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: people who ask me questions about media issues that touch
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: the law. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode, we're going to
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: pick up where we left off. All the information that
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: where we left off with Kathy Rumler and her conversation
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: with Congress. Redacted, all right. Let's enter Minority Exhibit J.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: Bates number EFTA 012- 03719. It's an April 21st, 2015
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein forwarded
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: you an inquiry from ABC News regarding an interview with,
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: gets cut off by Mr. Fishman, I'm sorry, do you
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: want her to read the document first before you summarize it? Redacted, sure. Fishman, okay. Question,
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: so before we discuss this particular exhibit, we're going to
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: have the members ask some questions. Mr. Krishnamoorthy. Ms. Rumler, okay.
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: Christian Amorthy. Okay, thank you. Miss Rumler, my first question is,
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: did you say before that Leon Black, or was Leon
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: Black someone that was referred to you as a client
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: by Mr. Epstein? Miss Rumler, not Leon Black. It was,
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: as I recall, there was a commercial dispute with Apollo. Question,
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: so Apollo the firm. Answer, Apollo the firm, correct. Question, okay.
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: And how much in billing did Apollo accrue with Latham
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: and Watkins at the time that you were with Latham
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: & Watkins, because of that referral. Rumler, oh, zero. We
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: had a conflict, so we were unable to do the case. Question,
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: were any other clients referred to Latham by Epstein? Rumler, yes. Question,
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: through you? Answer, yes. There was another person who he
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: referred to me that was an individual who had been
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: indicted in California in connection with corporate acquisition. Question, was
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: it just one other client that was referred to you
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: by him? Answer, well, of course, the Rothschild client was
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: referred to me. Question, okay. Answer, originally, when he called me,
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: it was about a referral relating to this donor advised
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: fund that he was working on with Mr. Gates. Question,
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: any others? Answer, directly, not that I can remember sitting here. Question,
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: and how much in billing did those clients referred to
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: you by Epstein accrue for Latham and Watkins? Answer, I
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: don't remember the specific amount. Question, tens of thousands. Hundreds
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: of thousands? Millions? Rumor again, I don't remember the specific
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: amount for the Rothschild representation. My best recollection is that
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: it was in the single digit millions. Question, okay, did
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: Epstein ever help you in attaining your position at Goldman
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: in 2020? Answer, no he did not. Question, did he
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: ever try to help you with landing any position at
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: any other firm, including Facebook, not limited to Facebook? Answer,
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: not to my knowledge at the time, when Mr. Epstein Mr.
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: Epstein had nothing to do at all with the outreach
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: that I got from Facebook. I had known for many
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: years the retiring general counsel, and he reached out to me.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: I made the mistake, I think, of mentioning it to Mr. Epstein,
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: and then, as was his typical fashion, what I've now
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: seen is that he wanted to make himself relevant, and
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: so he would offer all sorts of suggestions about negotiations
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: around any offer. Question I understand, Rumler. I didn't ultimately
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: didn't want an offer from Facebook. And I didn't receive one.
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: So his musings about that were not relevant. Question. I
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: have an email here. It's EFTA R101333849. Bait stamp. If
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: you can share that with the witness, please. Fishman. How
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: would you like this marked? Redacted. It's going to be
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: Exhibit K. Minority Exhibit K. Question. And this is, as
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: you can tell, this is an email that was originally
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: from Cheryl Gould to you. which you then forwarded to Mr.
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: Epstein later on. Rumler, yeah. Question, okay. We can all
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: read the substance of the email, but the first sentence
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: of that email says, I certainly do hope, at this time,
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: you understand the finality of your relationship with my husband.
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: She's referring to Reed Weingarten. Rumler, yes. Question, I hope so.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: now you can find true happiness without having a relationship
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: with somebody else's husband. Was Mr. Epstein aware of this
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: relationship before Cheryl Gould became aware of this relationship? Rumler,
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: is this relevant to your inquiry? Question, yes, absolutely, 100%. Rumler, okay.
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: I'm happy to answer the question. Fishman, yes. Happy may
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: not be the right word. Rumler, it's surprising to me
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: that this is something that you would spend your time on,
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: but let's go ahead with it. So, unbeknownst to me,
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: or inexplicably, I came to learn that Mr. Epstein, Mr. Weingarten,
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: had said something to Mr. Epstein about his feelings for me.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: I did not raise those. I didn't raise those with Mr. Epstein. Mr.
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: Epstein raised it with me. Question? I guess my question
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: is this. My question is, were you aware that Epstein
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: knew about the relationship prior to the time That you
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: became aware that Gould became aware of the relationship? Rumler,
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: the answer is, I think I understand what you're asking.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: The answer is yes. And that's why I forwarded this.
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: And to be clear, to be very clear, my relationship
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: with Mr. Weingarten was, which has absolutely nothing to do
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: with Mr. Epstein whatsoever. Question, he didn't introduce you or
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: anything else like that? Answer, no. As I, with apologies,
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: I don't think you were here, Congressman. When I said this,
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: he cold called me at my law firm. I was
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: an unmarried person and Mr. Weingarten was an unmarried person.
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: When I received this email, it was out of the blue.
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: I was shocked and mortified among other reactions and the
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: reason that I forwarded it to Epstein is because Epstein
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: had raised with me that Mr. Weingarten had raised with
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: him his feelings toward me. Question, last question. In an
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: earlier email, and we can share this with you, you basically,
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: he said to you, on July 9th, 2017, can you
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: and I have a coffee or a meal with John Brennan? Rumler, yes. Question,
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: and in response, you said that would be fun. I
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: think you would be scared off because of your Google history.
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: That was July 9th, 2019. When did you become aware
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: of Jeffrey Epstein's conviction for child prostitution? Rumler, I became
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: aware of it when he pled guilty to two prostitution-related offenses,
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: including solicitation of a minor for prosecution in or around
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: July of 2014. Question, thank you. Mr. Krishnamoorthy cedes to
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: Representative Randall. Question, thank you, Ms. Rumler. Earlier this year,
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: the Miami Herald published a story describing how you work
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: with Steve Bannon and others in 2018 and 2019 to,
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: I'm going to use quotes here, to help counter the
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: public narrative that was forming against Mr. Epstein after the
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: Herald's perversion of justice investigation was published. What work did
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: you do with Mr. Bannon? Answer, I didn't do any
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: work with Mr. Bannon. Mr. Bannon was someone who I
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: met on one or two occasions at business meetings, and
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: I didn't work with him on anything. Ms. Randall, what's
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: your understanding of Mr. Epstein's relationship with Mr. Bannon? Answer,
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: I didn't know. I mean, they seem to be friendly,
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: but I didn't know like beyond that. Question, so do
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: you have any knowledge of Mr. Bannon ever acting as
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: an intermediary between Epstein and Donald Trump? Answer, I don't. Question,
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: in text messages... From August of 2018, between Mr. Epstein
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: and Mr. Bannon, Mr. Epstein wrote, your girlfriend Rumler is
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: coming over. Do you know why Epstein would refer to
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: you in the manner even jokingly? Rumler, Lord knows, I
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: have no idea. Question, I'm going to list some names.
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: And for these individuals, I would like to know if
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: you were ever aware of Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: introducing them to any minor girls or young women for
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. Kimball Muske. Answer,
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: I'm not familiar with that name. Randall, Elon Musk's brother?
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: Martin Nowak? Rumler, I'm sorry, would you mind repeating the
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: preface of the question? Randall, yeah, if you have any
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: knowledge of Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell introducing them to
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: any minor women or girls. Rumler, okay, thank you. Question?
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: I think you can answer the question as a whole, though. Rumler, yeah,
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: I can answer them. The answer with respect to Mr.
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: Nowak is no with respect to both Epstein and Maxwell.
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: Randall Richard Branson, answer no. David Copperfield, answer no. David Blaine,
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: answer no. Larry Summers, answer no. Paolo Zampolli, answer no.
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: Peter Mandelson, answer no. Henry Jarecki, I'm sorry? Henry Jarecki,
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: answer no. Stephen Hansen, answer no. Alan Dershowitz, answer no.
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: Glenn Dubin, answer no. Tom Pritzker, answer no. And Ehud Barak,
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: answer no. Question, thank you. I appreciate you answering. Roomler, yeah,
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: and just to clarify the record, I'm unaware of any
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: of that activity with respect to anyone at the time. Again,
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: as I understand the allegations that have been put forth
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: by the Justice Department, is that the activities involving Mr.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: Epstein and Ms. Maxwell predated my knowing of Mr. Epstein
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: by ten years at least. So that's I have no
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: knowledge of anything, anything relating to those types of activities. Mr. Randall,
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: thank you. Mr. Min, thank you. So now we have Mr.
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: Min asking the questions. Miss Rumler, I know it's been
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: a long day. Fishman, that means it sounds like it's over, Congressman.
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: That's fine. That would be great. Min, I don't know
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: how much longer, but I wanted to switch to Brad
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: Karp and your relationship with him. How long have you
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: known Mr. Karp? Rumler, probably 15 years. Question, 15 years.
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: So around 2011, 2010? Rumler, yeah. Min, and how did
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: you first meet him? Was it professional, personal? Rumler, professional. Question,
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: working on a case together, interacting? Rumler? Mr. Karp is
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: a very prominent member of the legal community, and he
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: was the chairman of Min Paul Weiss, Rumler Paul Weiss,
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: and I had multiple friends who were partners at Paul
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: White also. Min, can you remind me where you were
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: again in 2011-2010? I apologize. Answer, I was working at
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: the White House at the time. Mr. Min at the
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: White House. Okay, got it. And like, how often did
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: you interact with him over that time? Rumler, I knew Brad,
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: but I came to... The only memory I have of
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: interaction with him is when I was leaving the White
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: House to go back to the private sector. I spoke
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: to a couple of law firms, and Paul Weiss was
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: one of them. And Paul Weiss was recruiting me to
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: join the law firm, and I spoke with him quite
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: a bit in that context. Min, and did you continue
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: to speak with him after that point in time? Rumler, yeah. Question, professionally, or? Rumler, professionally. Question,
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: did you have any discussion or interaction relating to Jeffrey
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: Epstein with Mr. Karp? Answer, yeah. I was aware that
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: Brad Karp knew Epstein in a very similar way that
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: I knew Mr. Epstein, in the sense that he had
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: a client in the form of Apollo. Mr. Black was
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: the chairman and CEO of Apollo, and Mr. Epstein had
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: a business relationship with Mr. Black. Similarly, I had a
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: client relationship with the Rothschild Bank, and Mr. Epstein had
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: a separate business relationship with the bank. That was my
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: understanding of how Mr. Karp knew Mr. Epstein. Mr. Min
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: And in 2014, there's an email from Jeffrey Epstein saying
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: that he was introduced to you by Mr. Karp. Is
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: that something that you would agree with? Rumler, that? Gets
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: cut off by Min. Mr. Epstein introduced you to Mr. Karp? Rumler, no. Mr.
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: Epstein just cold called my firm. Min, he cold called
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: your firm? Rumler, if Mr. Karp had recommended me in
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: some way, shape, or form, I didn't know that. Min,
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: but you were introduced. Gets cut off by Rumler. No,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: we were not introduced. No. Min? And so after that time,
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: when you were introduced, or when Mr. Epstein called you
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: over the next, I guess, what, five, six years, how
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: often would you and Mr. Karp discuss Epstein? Like once
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: a week, once a month, once a year? Rumler, oh gosh, no.
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: I would say very rarely. At some point in time,
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: I think I mentioned earlier, Congressman, when you weren't in
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: the room, that my observation was Epstein tried to make
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: himself relevant. Min, I heard you say that. Rumler, okay,
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: connecting people. And at that point, or some point, I
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: think he tried to make himself relevant by talking to Mr.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: Karp about recruiting me to leave Latham and go to
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: Paul Weiss. Mr. Min, just the last couple questions here.
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: Did you communicate with Mr. Karp? Actually, I'll preface this
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: by saying I have at least three emails saying I
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: don't have the documents here, so would you have to
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: take my word on this? But on February 22nd, 2019,
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: you were on an email with Mr. Karp that sent
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: by Mr. Epstein updating you and Mr. Karp on developments
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: in a lawsuit with one of his alleged victims. And
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: on March 3rd, 2019, email, you are copied Mr. Karp
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: provided legal advice to Epstein including regarding protecting his 2008
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: plea deal. And in March 31st of 2018, email exchange,
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: you advise Mr. Epstein on certain steps he might take.
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: Consider taking following a lawsuit against him. How often did
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: you and Mr. Karp communicate about Epstein and in particular
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: about legal strategy or legal advice during the period? Is
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: that the entirety of it or was there more? Rumler,
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: my again, my observation was that Epstein would ask me
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: and other lawyers who he knew their views. It was
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: sort of like a shotgun approach. It's one of the
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: reasons I would have thought if he were my client,
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: he would have been a maddening client because he shopped around. Okay,
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: you knew Brad. Let me ask Brad what he thinks.
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: I know Kathy. Let me ask Kathy what she thinks.
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: That was my observation of the way that he engaged
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: with Mr. Karp and the way that he engaged with me. Mr. Min,
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: I'm told we're out of time. So thank you for
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: your time. Redacted, we'll go off record. All right, folks,
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: back into the Kathy Rumler testimony that she gave to Congress. Mr. Grant,
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: we'll go back on the record. It's 325. Question, Ms. Rumler.
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: I'm going to start with a meeting that was scheduled
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: on May 6th of 2019. It was a dinner meeting
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: between yourself, Woody, and Steve, and Marvin. Would Woody be
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: Woody Allen? Answer, yeah. Answer, and Steve would be Steve Bannon? Answer, yeah. Question,
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: and who is Marvin? Answer, Marvin was a partner of
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: mine at Latham Watkins. Question, is that Marvin Putnam? Answer, yes. Question,
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: And this meeting was to have a dinner and discuss
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: quote legal stuff with Mr. Epstein? What specific legal stuff
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: would you have discussed with Mr. Epstein at this time?
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: Answer my recollection of this meeting was that there was
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: a prominent plaintiff's lawyer whose name is Michael Avenatti. You
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: may be aware of him because he subsequently went to
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: prison and also I believe represented Stormy Daniels at some point.
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: But in any event, he went to prison and he
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: had tweeted something about having a threatening legal case against Epstein.
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: And Epstein had asked for a referral, a legal referral,
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: and so I asked around the law firm whether anybody
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: had any dealings with Mr. Avenatti. And Mr. Putnam, as
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: I recall, did. He had a case or two, maybe,
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: have even been dealing with him at the time, and
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: so I suggested that if he had any interest in
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: meeting Epstein, to see whether there was, if such a
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: case were filed, whether he wanted to take it on
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: as a legal matter. So that was what that was
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: in reference to. Question and Briefly What was the legal issue,
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: if you recall? Answer, I don't remember exactly. My best
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: recollection is there was a tweet that Avenatti had sent
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: out saying something along the lines of, I have some
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: client and the client's going to sue, going to sue Epstein.
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: That never happened. I can't remember the timeline, whether it
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: was because he got indicted before he could do it,
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: or whether sometimes what I've seen some lawyers do is
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: tweet or make public statements or something like that in
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: an effort to attract clients. And I wasn't sure whether
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: that's what was going on. but in any event, it
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: didn't come to pass. Question, and so just to be clear,
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: for the sake of the record, SDNY's investigation into Mr.
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: Epstein began in 2018. This meeting was in 2019. This
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: meeting was, quote, about legal stuff, was not in reference
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: to any investigation of Mr. Epstein. Is that correct? Answer,
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: that's right. I have no knowledge of any investigation of Mr.
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: Epstein in that time frame. Question, I believe you mentioned
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: in a previous hour, that you've had at least some
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: interaction with Darren Indyke, who is Mr. Epstein's personal attorney.
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: How often would you say that you interacted with Mr. Indyke? Answer, infrequently.
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: I believe I only met Mr. Indyke once in person. Question,
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: and how often would you have any type of other
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: correspondence with Mr. Indyke? Answer again, infrequently is my best recollection.
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: I don't remember having, again, during this time frame, that
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: I was dealing with Epstein. I don't remember having much
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: engagement with Mr. Indyke. And to the extent that you
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: can remember the engagement with Mr. Indyke, what did it
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: pertain to? Answer, I don't really remember. I knew that Mr.
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: Indyke was his kind of in-house lawyer, if you will.
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: And again, he had external counsel, Mr. Weinberg. And I mean,
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: I certainly knew who he was, but I just don't
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: have any real memory of having much in terms of
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: substantive conversations with him. Question and switching gears just for
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: a little bit. Recognizing you said multiple times today, You
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: did not have any formal legal engagement with Mr. Epstein.
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: Did you ever provide legal services to associates of Mr. Epstein?
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: Answer no, other than the Rothschild Bank, as we've talked
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: about at length. And that was a client relationship that
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: he had separately. Question, and I'll ask about a list
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Epstein's employees. Did you ever have? So the
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: same questions will apply. Did you ever have or provide
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: any legal services to any one of the following individuals?
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: You can answer with a simple yes or no. If
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: you do say yes, I will come back to them. Answer. Okay.
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: And just, I'm sorry, can you repeat the preface? Just
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: because I want to make sure that I have that
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: in my mind. Answer. Yeah. Did you ever provide legal
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: services of any kind to the following individuals? Answer. Okay. Question.
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: Richard Kahn. Answer. No. Bella Klein. Answer. No. Harry Beller. Answer. No.
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: Leslie Groff. Answer. No. Sarah Kellen. Answer. No. Redacted. No. Redacted, no.
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: And Ms. Maxwell, no. Question. In previous testimony before the committee,
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: the committee has learned that there were five fee-paying clients
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: of Mr. Epstein's. Obviously, we discussed the Rothschild family at
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: great length today, so I won't ask about them further.
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: But have you ever performed any type of legal work
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: or other services for Les Wexner? Answer, no. Leon Black? Answer, no.
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: Steven Sanofsky? Answer, no. Glenn Dubin? Answer, no. Eva Anderson Dubin? Answer, no. Question,
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: did you ever provide advice or counsel to any young
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: woman or girl associated with Mr. Epstein? Answer, no. Question,
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: did Mr. Epstein ever offer you employment? Answer, no. Question,
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: did he facilitate employment opportunities on your behalf? Answer, other
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: than the referrals that I mentioned earlier, the legal referrals, no. Question,
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: there's an email. I'm happy to provide it to you
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: if you would like it. I will simply say it's
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: about your offer to go to Hogan. and about getting
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: compensated $ 6 million per year. Are you familiar with what
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: I'm referencing? Answer, yes I am. Question, what was this
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: Hogan offer? Answer, it's common, even more common today than
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: it was back then. In competition among law firms to
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: try to recruit a lawyer from one law firm to another,
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: particularly if one law firm feels like they need more
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: legal talent in one particular practice area or another, or
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: they need more business generators, or they need particular expertise,
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: or something like that. And Hogan Lovells had reached out
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: to me to see if I'd be interested in a
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: conversation about leaving Latham and going to Hogan Lovells. Question,
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: and as part of that email chain, Mr. Epstein wants
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: to be reminded of this offer. And why did you
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: discuss this offer with Mr. Epstein? Answer, Mr. Epstein and
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: I shared a client. As I said, I don't remember
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: the time frame of the email you're referring to. Question,
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: this would have been in October of 2015. Answer, okay,
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: so I had now been working with him on the
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: Rothschild representation for about a year. And I believe that
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: he was, he thought, I was a good lawyer and
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: I was doing good work for the bank. And in fact,
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: we got a very favorable outcome for the bank just
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: shortly thereafter. And he believed, he expressed his belief, whether
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: he believed it or not, who knows, he expressed his
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: belief to me that I was being undercompensated at Latham
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: and that I should, that the firm should be paying
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: me more. They weren't paying me enough. That was his
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: general view. Question, and why did you feel that you
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: could trust Mr. Epstein with professional advice on your career? Answer,
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: I didn't ask for his professional advice on my career.
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: He was sort of a self-described hard-nosed negotiator around financial issues.
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: From time to time, I would ask him, I think
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: I'm a good negotiator on behalf of my clients. I
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: tend not to be such a great negotiator on my
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: own behalf, particularly when it comes to issues like compensation,
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: which I think are tough for people, some people. Trust me, Mr.
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: Epstein had no issues in that regard whatsoever. He was
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: quite assertive. But so he was someone who pushed me,
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: whether I wanted him to or not, to be more
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: assertive on my own belief in terms of compensation discussions. Question,
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: I will now enter as Majority Exhibit 1. Question, while
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: it's getting passed around, I'll just read the bare minimum details.
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: It's bait-stamped EFTA 02631933, and it's from Jeffrey Epstein to yourself.
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: on Monday, March 4th, 2019, and I'll give you a
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: second to review it. I'm only going to focus on
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: the very top of the message. Answer, okay, I'm ready
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: when you are. Question, so it says, this is Mr.
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: Epstein writing to you. Send her the 10K, or tell
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: her that since your White House days, your comp has
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: been negotiated by your advisor, Richard Kahn. I'll listen first,
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: of course. What was the 10K, which I would imagine
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: means 10,000, that that was in relation to? Question, yeah,
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: that's not a reference to 10. It's to a securities filing,
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: a company's 10K. Question, thank you for the clarification. Answer, sure. Question,
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: second part of that is, since your White House days,
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: your comp has been negotiated by your advisor, Richard Kahn. Answer, yeah. Question,
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: Richard Kahn is known to be Mr. Epstein's financial tax guy.
• 38:37
  Speaker 1: Did he ever negotiate compensation on your behalf? Answer, no.
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: That is very vintage Epstein. He's injecting himself with this
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: kind of kooky, kooky idea, which he even acknowledged because
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: he says, I'll listen first, of course, because he knows
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: I'm going to say that that's ludicrous. And so that
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: he's even predicting that my reaction to what he's suggesting
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: here is that I'm going to say that it's so dumb.
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: But the context of this is, as I said, he
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: was someone who was very pushy and insinuating in a
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: patronizing way, but also in a way that he thought
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: he was trying to be helpful and In this circumstance,
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: it was with a large tech company that I was
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: in pretty serious discussions about potentially going and becoming the
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: general counsel. Question, and just so the record's clear, Richard
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: Kahn never negotiated compensation on your behalf? Answer, no, I
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: don't believe I've ever met Mr. Kahn. Question, you mentioned
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: that this was full context of the email that was
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: about your potential position or applying to go towards a
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: tech company. In this case, it looks like Google. Why
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: did you forward this information to Mr. Epstein in the
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: first place? Answer, I wasn't applying for the job. They'd
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: reached out to me for the job. Again, so we're
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: continuing to advise the same client through this timeframe. And
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: for whatever reason, Epstein was interested as to whether or
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: not I was going to do something different with my
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: career at that point. And I received outreach over the
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: course of my time at Latham and even going back
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: to the time when I was still at the White House,
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: but contemplating leaving the White House. I'd been approached by
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: many companies about potentially going and working in-house as general
• 40:18
  Speaker 1: counsel And so just in the course of normal conversation,
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: I had to tell him. And again, he would insert
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: himself and try again to tell me, you should say
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: that you want to be paid X. You should say
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: you want to be paid Y. That kind of thing.
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: And again, he had a very different style than I do.
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: And I listened to him, of course, but I wasn't
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: following his advice because it would be completely counter to
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: just how I am. But it was, that's what this was.
• 40:44
  Speaker 1: It's just really nothing more than that. Question, and just
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: to be clear, Did Darren Indyk ever negotiate a job
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: offer or compensation on your behalf? Answer, no. Question, shortly
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: after you left the White House, were you under consideration
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: for any other high-level government position? Answer, there was public
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: reporting shortly after the Attorney General at the time announced
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: his resignation. He had been serving in the position for
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: about six years. It's a very, very tough job. And
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: there was almost immediate speculation in the press that I'd
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: be considered to succeed him in that position. Question, were
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: you formally considered? Answer, I don't want to get into
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: conversations that I had about it just because I think
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: those are conversations that are confidential. Question, that's fine. You
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: can just give me a yes or no. Answer, yeah,
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: I was considering it, yes. Question, I'll introduce majority exhibit
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: number two. I will, of course, allow you to review,
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: but while you're reviewing, the bait stamp is in the
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: bottom right corner. Is EFTA 02364352? At the top of
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: the email, it's from yourself, Kathy Rumler, sent to Jeffrey
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: Epstein on Wednesday, October 15th, 2014. I'll give you a
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: minute to review. Answer, okay, I'm ready. Question, it seems
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: as though you forwarded a Bloomberg link about the rumblings
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: of you being considered to be Attorney General of the U.S.
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: You forwarded this to Mr. Epstein. It sounds like there
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: was a call to be had. Did you in fact
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: have a call about this article with Mr. Epstein? Answer,
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: that I have no idea. I mean, again, this is
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: 12 years ago. I don't know. Question, moving up the
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: middle of the front page. Mr. Epstein has some suggestions
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: for you. I'll read them. I have some concrete suggestions
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: for moving forward. One, let's hire a video coach. You
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: need to be trained. Samantha is terrible. No hand movement
• 42:33
  Speaker 1: or head tilting or nodding, blinking. You will need to
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: get the right glasses. You have two months from today.
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: Have someone from your office videotape the Ford presentation. so
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: that it can be reviewed for all of the above.
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: It seems to me like Mr. Epstein was trying to
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: give you advice for potentially accepting the nomination. Is that
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: what was happening here? Answer, do you recall my reference
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: earlier to mansplaining? Answer, I do, yes. Answer, that's what's
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: going on in the email. He's mansplaining to me on
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: something that he literally knows absolutely nothing about, and telling,
• 43:06
  Speaker 1: and as you see my response, would a man need
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: a video coach? So I'm calling him out on the mansplaining. Question,
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: so based on this email, it seems like Mr. Epstein
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: had some sort of knowledge into your thought process around
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: potentially becoming the Attorney General of the U.S. Did you
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: have discussions with him about the potential for taking that position? Answer,
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: the context to me having a conversation with Mr. Epstein
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: during the time, remember, I had just met him for
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: the first time in mid-July of 2014. So we're now, what,
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: three months later or something? I had just been engaged weeks,
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: maybe three weeks before, by the Rothschild Bank for a
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: that I understood to be quite significant, if not existential
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: for them, and he was a primary advisor, and he
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: had just referred the client to me. So let's just
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: say that the timing of this media speculation that the
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: article says Obama favoring former White House counsel Catherine Rumler
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: to succeed Holder as Attorney General was certainly awkward timing
• 44:01
  Speaker 1: for a client that had just engaged me on their very,
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: their most important matter. So whether or not I would
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: be available to handle the matter, or I would be
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: unavailable because I was going off to run the gauntlet
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: through the U.S. Senate, which Mr. Blanche is doing today,
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: was a question of intense interest of Mr. Epstein. Question,
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: and was the intense interest just because he wanted you
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: to represent the Rothschilds, and you could not be doing
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: so by taking the position? Answer, that's what I believed
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: at the time. Again, my whole reason for engaging with
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: them during this period was is just because of the
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: Rothschild representation. Question understood. Alright folks, we're going to wrap
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: the topic we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.