Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
Speaker 1: where we left off with the Kathy Rumler transcripts. Question understood.
Speaker 1: I will now mark as majority Exhibit three. Another email
Speaker 1: bates stamp EFTA zero two three eight three four nine.
Speaker 1: One question while is getting passed around and you review it.
Speaker 1: This is at the top from yourself, Kathy Rumler to
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein on Thursday October twenty third, twenty fourteen. And
Speaker 1: I'll give you a second to review it. Answer, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm ready. Question. So this appears to me to be
Speaker 1: your statement declining to be considered a candidate for the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the United States? Is that correct? Answer?
Speaker 1: It was something that I was contemplating. Ultimately, I didn't
Speaker 1: provide a statement. The White House issued a statement. Question, okay,
Speaker 1: thank you. So, notwithstanding that you did not ultimately provide
Speaker 1: a statement, as you mentioned, at this point, you've been
Speaker 1: engaged with mister Epstein for three or so odd months.
Speaker 1: You've been engaged with mister Epstein four three or so
Speaker 1: odd months. Obviously he had an interest in your next
Speaker 1: role due to the client you were potentially going to
Speaker 1: be representing that was mutual to him. Is it not
Speaker 1: odd that you're providing a draft statement of declining to
Speaker 1: be Attorney General of the US to someone you met
Speaker 1: three months ago? Answer not, Given his relationship with the client.
Speaker 1: That again, he was really the primary adviser to the client,
Speaker 1: and I was the secondary. I mean I was a lawyer,
Speaker 1: but he was the primary advisor. And I believe I
Speaker 1: was actually in Geneva at the time when I sent this.
Speaker 1: And so the client has gone through the not easy
Speaker 1: thing to do, which is to transfer a very significant matter.
Speaker 1: There had already been a ton of work done by
Speaker 1: a prior law firm in the United States and a
Speaker 1: Swiss law firm. Millions of dollars in legal fees had
Speaker 1: been spent. They had gone through the process of basically
Speaker 1: telling those law firms you're no longer working on this matter,
Speaker 1: transferring the whole file over to Latham Watkins. I was
Speaker 1: in Geneva at the time. It was an intense period
Speaker 1: of time for me because I was trying to decide
Speaker 1: what the right thing to do was, whether or not
Speaker 1: I should go ahead and say yes, I'm willing to
Speaker 1: be nominated or as I ultimately decided was to decline,
Speaker 1: and so it was very natural to give me this
Speaker 1: role with the client. And the fact I literally was
Speaker 1: in Geneva with the client at the time. I think
Speaker 1: I can say this because it's in the draft statement
Speaker 1: I said, I was so informed the president when I
Speaker 1: did that. When I informed the President, I actually did it.
Speaker 1: I was in Geneva, and so I didn't think that
Speaker 1: was unnatural at all. Question. I understand that. However, I
Speaker 1: think where my confusion lies in this is that you
Speaker 1: could have simply just told mister Epstein or the client
Speaker 1: at the time. I'm weighing this, I'll let you know
Speaker 1: what I decide. But it seems like sending a draft
Speaker 1: statement of in this case declining the role, but even
Speaker 1: if it was in the inverse of accepting the role
Speaker 1: to someone you just met three months ago, strikes me
Speaker 1: as odd. And don't you find that odd? Answer? Well, again,
Speaker 1: this was not something that was confidential. It was all
Speaker 1: over the press. Question understood answer. There was massive speculation
Speaker 1: about who who was going to succeed Eric Holder, who
Speaker 1: could be confirmed. There were members of the Senate who
Speaker 1: are making comments, well, this person, I wouldn't support this
Speaker 1: person I would support. This was not like this was
Speaker 1: a very public matter. And again, within the first six
Speaker 1: weeks or so of restarting my legal practice, I had
Speaker 1: gotten this engagement for a very significant for a big
Speaker 1: Swiss bank in a very significant matter, and I think
Speaker 1: that it was important. It was very important to the bank,
Speaker 1: but it was also important to me because it was
Speaker 1: one of my first new matters after coming back into
Speaker 1: private practice, and so I wanted to make sure that,
Speaker 1: given the Epstein was a primary advisor, that he was
Speaker 1: informed in what was going to happen. So I could
Speaker 1: have done it that way, the way you described it,
Speaker 1: but I didn't. If Jeffrey Epstein weren't the notorious Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 1: that's causing you guys to have spent countless hours going
Speaker 1: through my emails, which I apologized for. You wouldn't even
Speaker 1: be asking me about this, right And so it's like,
Speaker 1: but at the time when I'm dealing with them, I
Speaker 1: don't think that he's in prison or the person who's
Speaker 1: who the world understands him now to be question understood.
Speaker 1: Switching gears just a little bit. Have you ever maintained
Speaker 1: an account with JP Morgan Chase Bank answer yes. Question,
Speaker 1: and when did you first open an account at JP
Speaker 1: Morgan Chase Bank? Roughly answer while I was working at
Speaker 1: Latham and Watkins, so twenty sixteen seventeen. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: But in that twenty sixteen seventeen eighteen kind of frame question,
Speaker 1: are you aware of mister Epstein reaching out to JP
Speaker 1: Morgan on your behalf? Answer? I am now, yes question,
Speaker 1: and you're aware now because they're reviewing documents released by
Speaker 1: the DOJ or other means. Answer, I've seen the documents
Speaker 1: that show that he asked his executive assistant to reach
Speaker 1: out to JP Morgan on my behalf and those were
Speaker 1: not documents that I would have seen at the time questions. So,
Speaker 1: to be clear, you didn't ask mister Epstein to reach
Speaker 1: out to JP Morgan on your behalf answer, I did not.
Speaker 1: In fact, what happened. What I did ask him about
Speaker 1: was I had a banking relationship at Merrill Lynch, and
Speaker 1: having spent the vast majority of my career in public service,
Speaker 1: I candidly just never really paid much attention. I certainly
Speaker 1: didn't pay attention to investments because I didn't have any
Speaker 1: money to invest, and so after a couple of years
Speaker 1: at Latham, I had some money to invest, and I
Speaker 1: didn't know whether or not my investment performance was good
Speaker 1: or bad. And mister Epstein was a finance genius and
Speaker 1: so allegedly and so and he certainly was. My belief
Speaker 1: was that he was advising people billionaires right, certainly of
Speaker 1: the roth Child's. And so I asked him, do you
Speaker 1: think this performance is good basically from my portfolio? And
Speaker 1: he said, in essence, it sucks. The market's been up
Speaker 1: this amount and you've only been up this amount, and
Speaker 1: you're paying these really high fees and this is ridiculous,
Speaker 1: and you didn't pay attention to it. And man's plain,
Speaker 1: man's plain, man's plain. In his circumstance, it was appropriate
Speaker 1: man's planning. And so he said, you need a real bank,
Speaker 1: I know, the head of the private banker, the head
Speaker 1: of the asset and wealth management or something at JP Morgan,
Speaker 1: and I'll have her call you. And I was like,
Speaker 1: that ridiculous, because I'm a little tiny peon with I'm
Speaker 1: not even sure whether I qualify. I don't even know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what their threshold was. But I like
Speaker 1: the idea that someone at that level of seniority was
Speaker 1: going to pay attention. It was sort of insulting. I
Speaker 1: thought to even ask to pay attention to me, but
Speaker 1: he took it upon himself to do that, and ultimately
Speaker 1: I did meet with a lovely young woman banker at
Speaker 1: JP Morgan and I opened an account with JP Morgan. Question.
Speaker 1: Were you aware at the time that mister Epstein otherwise
Speaker 1: rocky relationship with JP Morgan Chase Bank? Answer? I had
Speaker 1: no idea about that, mister Grant. Have you subsequently become
Speaker 1: aware of that rocky relationship? Ms? Rumer? I subsequently became
Speaker 1: aware at some point that he had been a client
Speaker 1: at the bank, which I didn't know, and that he
Speaker 1: had been exited from the bank where they had told
Speaker 1: him that they were going to close his accounts. I
Speaker 1: don't know either of those things. Question, mister Grant. I'll
Speaker 1: now mark as majority. Exhibit four. Another email from the
Speaker 1: Epstein files Transparency Act bates stamped EFTA zero two, five, one, three, seven,
Speaker 1: three to two while it's being passed around. The top
Speaker 1: of the email is from Jeffrey Epstein to yourself, Kathy
Speaker 1: Rumler on Tuesday, January twentieth, twenty fifteen. I'll give you
Speaker 1: all a moment to review. Answer. This didn't take long
Speaker 1: to review, so I'm ready whenever you are. Question. The
Speaker 1: middle of the message is to yourself sending mister Epstein
Speaker 1: a birthday message to say, happy birthday. I hope you
Speaker 1: enjoy the day with your one true love. Who are
Speaker 1: you referring to as is one true love? Answer himself?
Speaker 1: Question and as a response to you, was they say
Speaker 1: that men usually give a nim to their penis, as
Speaker 1: it would be inappropriate to make love to a total stranger.
Speaker 1: Answer yes, Question What was the point of this response
Speaker 1: to your knowledge or understanding? Answer? Idiocy? Question and do
Speaker 1: you understand what mister Epstein was trying to make a
Speaker 1: reference to or talk about. Answer he was making a
Speaker 1: stupid joke. And I actually responded to this email. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you have the response, but I do
Speaker 1: have the response. I remember what I said to him.
Speaker 1: Question what was your response? Answer? In essence, I said,
Speaker 1: it's hard to believe that there's still a debate that
Speaker 1: men are the inferior gender. I stand by that response,
Speaker 1: particularly in response to this email. Question understood, do you
Speaker 1: have any other conversations of a similar nature with mister
Speaker 1: Epstein where he's bringing up graphic words more specifically, is genitulia. Answer?
Speaker 1: While he's not referring to his genitallia, he's making a
Speaker 1: dumb joke about men, and I responded. I responded in kind,
Speaker 1: basically saying this is a dumb joke. Question understood, switching
Speaker 1: gears completely, mister Fishman, as you should. Question. Have you
Speaker 1: ever traveled with Jeffrey Epstein? Answer? I have not question,
Speaker 1: and I believe you stated earlier. But just to be clear,
Speaker 1: did you not take that twenty fifteen trip to Paris
Speaker 1: with mister Epstein? Answer? I did not question. And did
Speaker 1: you take a twenty seventeen trip to the US Virgin
Speaker 1: Islands with mister Epstein? Answer no question. Have you been
Speaker 1: to any of mister Epstein's other New York apartments, not
Speaker 1: including his townhouse? Answer no question. Have you been to
Speaker 1: mister Epstein's Palm Beach House, answer no question. Have you
Speaker 1: been to the New Mexico otherwise known as the Zoro Ranch?
Speaker 1: Answer I have not question. Have you been to Little
Speaker 1: Saint James Island? Answer no question. Have you been to
Speaker 1: Great Saint James Island? Answer no question. Have you been
Speaker 1: to mister Epstein's Paris apartment. Answer yes. Question when did
Speaker 1: you visit mister Epstein's Paris apartment. Answer I don't remember
Speaker 1: the exact date, but Miss Rothschild and I attended a
Speaker 1: lunch meeting together with Epstein in his dining room in
Speaker 1: the Paris apartment. Question is that the only time that
Speaker 1: you went there? Answer yes. Question was anyone else there
Speaker 1: other than you and Miss Rothschild? Answer? I believe youata
Speaker 1: chef and the chef was there, and my recollection is
Speaker 1: that the ye also served the food and there was
Speaker 1: some fanfare. Whatever was served. I don't remember what it was,
Speaker 1: but whatever the food, I believe the chef was French
Speaker 1: and it was French cuisine of some type. Question and
Speaker 1: have you ever been to a Boston rental apartment owned
Speaker 1: release by mister Epstein? Answer no. Did you ever observe
Speaker 1: any massage tables at any of mister Epstein's properties that
Speaker 1: you have visited? Answered no. Question Did you notice any
Speaker 1: unusual photographs in mister Epstein's homes or apartments? Answer photographs
Speaker 1: questions such as nude paintings, nude photos displayed anywhere? Answer no.
Speaker 1: Question in the time that you knew and dealt with
Speaker 1: mister Epstein. Do you know how many assistants that he had? Answer?
Speaker 1: I didn't know. I knew that he had a number
Speaker 1: of staff who did different things exactly what they did,
Speaker 1: I wasn't sure I observed the number of personal staff
Speaker 1: and when I say personal staff, staff who were present
Speaker 1: at the town home in New York. Question I think
Speaker 1: this was also covered earlier. But have you ever traveled
Speaker 1: on any aircraft with mister Epstein, including the ones owned
Speaker 1: and operated by the Answer? No, question, switching gears completely again,
Speaker 1: did you ever visit mister Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional
Speaker 1: Center in twenty nineteen? Answer? No, I did not question,
Speaker 1: and this was also I think I mentioned a couple
Speaker 1: of different times in an earlier hour, but just to
Speaker 1: have it clearly in one place on the transcript, in
Speaker 1: one form, not the final form of mister Epstein's Last
Speaker 1: Will and Testament, you were listed as a successor executor.
Speaker 1: Is that correct? Answer my understanding. I was a backup
Speaker 1: executor on a draft a draft will. Question and you
Speaker 1: know why you were listed as the backup executor? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't question. Were you ever informed of your designation
Speaker 1: into the Last Will and Testament? Answer? I don't believe so.
Speaker 1: Question and can you remind us when you were first
Speaker 1: hired at Goldman Sachs. Answer, I accepted the offer, I
Speaker 1: believe in February of twenty twenty, and I started at
Speaker 1: the firm. I started at Goldman Sachs in April of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. Question and as part of your hiring and
Speaker 1: or onboarding at Goldman Sachs, did you have to disclose
Speaker 1: any part of your prior relationship with mister Epstein? Answer?
Speaker 1: I did not have to. Question did you answer? I
Speaker 1: chose to disclose it. Question and what did you disclose? Answer?
Speaker 1: I disclosed that before I accepted the offer, I told
Speaker 1: the firm. I told Goldman Sachs that while I was
Speaker 1: the White House counsel, I was in charge of vetting.
Speaker 1: That was one of my responsibilities that we didn't talk
Speaker 1: about earlier. So I was responsible for vetting Cabinet secretaries
Speaker 1: and other senior officials. And I told them that before
Speaker 1: I accept the offer, I've done my own vet and
Speaker 1: I've had an active practice, an active criminal practice. And
Speaker 1: so here are some of the representations that I think
Speaker 1: the representations or associations, etc. That I think could cause
Speaker 1: media attention Goldman Sachs was a high profile firm, and
Speaker 1: so I said that I knew Epstein, that I had
Speaker 1: communicated with Epstein, that I had dealt with Epstein. He
Speaker 1: was not my client, but that he was a primary
Speaker 1: adviser to my client, and that he had asked my Well,
Speaker 1: he wasn't my client, he would certainly ask my views
Speaker 1: on things from time to time. So I basically described
Speaker 1: in essence what I described for you today. Question, thank you?
Speaker 1: When we're concerns if your ties to mister Epstein first
Speaker 1: raised internally at Goldman Sachs. Answer by whom? Question anyone
Speaker 1: internal to Goldman Sachs, Miss Fishman, anyone that you might
Speaker 1: know question correct, anyone that you might know about that
Speaker 1: would have raised concerns internally. I can ask more specifically,
Speaker 1: when were concerns expressed to you from the chief executive
Speaker 1: officer about your ties with mister Epstein. Answer, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: characterize it as concerns. I'd characterize it. So I believe
Speaker 1: before I accepted the offer, I said, this is the vet.
Speaker 1: I did my own vet. Also, there were some other
Speaker 1: client representations that were the kind of things that either
Speaker 1: had been or could be the subject of media attention.
Speaker 1: That was the sort of nature of my practice. Again,
Speaker 1: as I work with I worked in controversy with controversial people,
Speaker 1: and of course on some of those some of those
Speaker 1: matters intersected with this building and with Congress, etc. And
Speaker 1: so became contentious, politicized, etc. And so then that was appreciated.
Speaker 1: In fact, I was told that no one else would
Speaker 1: have done that before at Goldman. And then the next
Speaker 1: time it came up was when the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: published the story at the end of April in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three, and the Wall Street Journal reported based on
Speaker 1: I gather based on documents that they had come into
Speaker 1: possession of that showed meetings that Epstein had with people
Speaker 1: and calendar entries and things like that, and so I
Speaker 1: was listed along with a number of other people as
Speaker 1: being people that he had met with. Question, did anyone
Speaker 1: bring those concerns to you after the story broke internally
Speaker 1: at Goldman? Answer? Well, what happened is is the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal sent a bunch of questions and I discussed
Speaker 1: them with the right senior people. We sat down and
Speaker 1: went through the mall. Question in to your knowledge, has
Speaker 1: Goldman performed any internal investigat about your ties with Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein outside of the cell vetting process you've already described.
Speaker 1: Answer without getting into substance. Yes, question when did those
Speaker 1: internal investigations occur? Answer? I wouldn't characterize it as investigation,
Speaker 1: but there were reviews done in questions asked, and that
Speaker 1: occurred in twenty twenty three, that occurred again in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. In twenty twenty six, as there was increasing
Speaker 1: media scrutiny around anybody who had ever sat in the
Speaker 1: same room with Jeffrey Epstein. All right, folks, we're going
Speaker 1: to wrap up right here. All the information that goes
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.