Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get back
Speaker 1: to the Kathy Ruemler transcript from her trip to Congress,
Speaker 1: Miss Toland. Question, I just want to circle back for
Speaker 1: a moment to a few more questions about the meeting
Speaker 1: between you, mister Epstein mister Putnam about legal stuff that
Speaker 1: was discussed prior. Answer, Uh huh. Question you said that
Speaker 1: mister Avenaughti had threatened a legal case against Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Is that answer? That's what that's my best memory is
Speaker 1: that it was from the form of a tweet. Question
Speaker 1: and that's what you were going to be meeting about.
Speaker 1: Answer yes, question and did this have anything to do
Speaker 1: with the allegations against or the criminal activity committed by
Speaker 1: mister Epstein. Answer. I don't remember whether there was even
Speaker 1: specificity in whatever Avenaughtie put out, But mister Putnam is
Speaker 1: a civil litigator. He doesn't do criminal work at all,
Speaker 1: and so it was really about if there was some
Speaker 1: law suit that were to come to pass, some lawsuit
Speaker 1: that was filed by mister Avenatti, was mister Putnam interested
Speaker 1: in defending that litigation? That was about it? Question? And
Speaker 1: I can read the tweet from mister AVENAUGHTI to refresh
Speaker 1: your recollection. Answer, okay, oh you found it. That's amazing.
Speaker 1: Question on March first, twenty nineteen is the date he says,
Speaker 1: I can confirm that I've been retained by two victims
Speaker 1: of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. We intend to ensure that
Speaker 1: no stone is left unturned in connection with our investigation
Speaker 1: and that all of those connected to his perverse conduct
Speaker 1: are held fully accountable. If that sheds any more light
Speaker 1: on gets cut off by Rumler. Answer, that's consistent with
Speaker 1: my recollection that he had tweeted something out and said
Speaker 1: that he had clients and was intending to file a suit. Question,
Speaker 1: and we're just trying to understand the extent of the
Speaker 1: knowledge you had surrounding the allegations against mister Epstein. Why
Speaker 1: would you later be shocked that he was indicted that
Speaker 1: same year for crimes against him? Answer? Well, because, again,
Speaker 1: my understanding is that he had been investigated over a
Speaker 1: multi year period by both the State Attorney's office in
Speaker 1: Florida and the US Attorney's Office in Miami, and that
Speaker 1: had resulted in a final resolution of any criminal activity
Speaker 1: of Epstein. That he had accepted responsibility, he had served
Speaker 1: his time, complied with all of his obligations, and was
Speaker 1: lack for a better word to say it, living in
Speaker 1: law abiding life. And so that tweet is not all
Speaker 1: that inconsistent with my state of mind at the time.
Speaker 1: And in fact, when Epstein was indicted in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: again the conduct period that was covered by the indictment
Speaker 1: was two thousand and two to two thousand and five,
Speaker 1: And I think that's something that sometimes gets misunderstood in
Speaker 1: the public domain, that the twenty nineteen indictment related back
Speaker 1: to almost as much much prior period, and that prior
Speaker 1: period of time that conduct was covered by the twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen indictment actually pre day did the guilty plea and
Speaker 1: the non prosecution agreement. So nothing about the twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: indictment said anything to me about Epstein engaging and ongoing
Speaker 1: criminal conduct. And certainly, as I stated at the outset,
Speaker 1: I never saw or heard any indication of any criminal
Speaker 1: conduct on behalf of Epstein during the period of time
Speaker 1: that I dealt with him. Question in the first sentence
Speaker 1: of the tweet, mister AVENAUGHTI says he can confirm we
Speaker 1: have been retained by two victims of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: That tweet was March first, twenty nineteen. The meeting you
Speaker 1: later had with Epstein and Putnam was two months later,
Speaker 1: May twenty nineteen. Do you recall were there any conversations
Speaker 1: between you and mister Epstein or you and mister Putnam
Speaker 1: in those two months after the tweet was made? Answer
Speaker 1: not that I recall. Again, as I stated, I don't
Speaker 1: believe mister AVENAUGHTI ever filed any complaint on behalf of
Speaker 1: any victims. I don't remember when he got indicted for
Speaker 1: his own criminal conduct. Maybe he got waylaid. I don't know,
Speaker 1: mister Grant. Question I'm going to ask you another long
Speaker 1: list of names questions. Answer okay. Question that's become part
Speaker 1: of the repertoire of the Oversight Committee Majority staff. The
Speaker 1: question is going to be have you ever communicated with
Speaker 1: any of the following individuals regarding the crimes and allegations
Speaker 1: of Jeffrey Epstein, Orglenn Maxwell. Answer okay. Question. You can
Speaker 1: answer it yes or no to the individuals. If you
Speaker 1: indicate yes, I'll come back to it. Answer the first
Speaker 1: name is at Hood Barock. Answer no, thorburn Yaglund answer no.
Speaker 1: Philip Levine answer no. Andrew mount Batt Windsor answer no,
Speaker 1: Woody Allen answer no. Soon Yee Previn answer no. Benjamin
Speaker 1: Lawski answer no. Gregory Poe answer yes. About mister Epstein's
Speaker 1: historical conduct question John Luke Burnel answer no, Leon Black
Speaker 1: answer no, Terry Rod Larson answer no. Yes Daly answer no,
Speaker 1: George Mitchell answer no. Glenn Dubin answer no, Eva Anderson
Speaker 1: Duben answer with respect to Glenn Duben and Eva Anderson Duben,
Speaker 1: I've had a conversation with them about my experience in
Speaker 1: dealing with the media scrutiny around my association with Epstein.
Speaker 1: So not about and that all relates to that all
Speaker 1: arises from the fact that he pled guilty to these
Speaker 1: sexual related offenses back in two thousand and eight. But
Speaker 1: other than that, no question. Les Wexner answer no question.
Speaker 1: Stephen Sinofsky answer no question. Harvey Weinstein answer no question.
Speaker 1: Bill Gates answer no question. Arian the Rothschild answer yes.
Speaker 1: Question any other member of the Rothschild family answer I've
Speaker 1: spoken generally. Again in the same I've spoken generally with
Speaker 1: some of her daughters about the experience with her, the
Speaker 1: experience that I've had with and that she has with
Speaker 1: the media attention around anybody who has ever associated or
Speaker 1: had any meetings or community occasions with Jeffrey Epstein. But
Speaker 1: otherwise no, I just have to interject real quick, Could
Speaker 1: this lady be any more smug if you just started
Speaker 1: a meeting with Jeffrey Epstein? Listen here, skuffuzza. You've had
Speaker 1: a lot more than meetings, okay, And in fact, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have a monologue about that very soon. Question President
Speaker 1: Clinton answer no, Secretary Hillary Clinton answer no. Doug Band
Speaker 1: answer no, Ted Waite answer no. Any other elected official
Speaker 1: politician or world leader answer no. Question. Going back to
Speaker 1: mister Poe, you indicated yes for I believe you said
Speaker 1: historical conduct. Is that just talking about mister Epstein's previous
Speaker 1: crimes that he had already served jail time for. Answer yeah.
Speaker 1: Question And then you said yes to Ariander Rothschild, What
Speaker 1: specifically did you talk to mister Rothschild about regarding Epstein's
Speaker 1: crimes or the allegations. Answer again, not about directly about
Speaker 1: his crimes per se, but about the effect that the
Speaker 1: media environment has how on people, including myself, because having
Speaker 1: any association with Epstein. So that's what I spoke to
Speaker 1: her about. Question. Thank you, we're approaching the end of
Speaker 1: the hour. I have just a couple more questions. Answer.
Speaker 1: I should say I probably spoke with her to explain
Speaker 1: to her what I understood about the criminal charges in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, after I attended the arraignment and read the
Speaker 1: charges in the indictment. Question. I may have missed it earlier,
Speaker 1: so I apologize if you've already said it. When did
Speaker 1: you learn of mister Epstein's status as a sex offender? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't recall specifically, but I knew that a condition
Speaker 1: of the non prosecution agreement was that mister Epstein go
Speaker 1: to the state. This is actually set forth in the
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement, which at some point I did see.
Speaker 1: I don't remember one exactly, but at some point I
Speaker 1: did see that the non prosecution agreement itself required mister
Speaker 1: Epstein to go to the state Attorney's office and tell
Speaker 1: the state attorney's office that they needed to file an
Speaker 1: additional charge against them that would require him to register
Speaker 1: as a sex offender. So that was just my experience.
Speaker 1: One of the many unusual features of the non prosecution agreement. Question,
Speaker 1: But you never had any direct conversation with mister Epstein
Speaker 1: about his need to register as a sex offender? Answer
Speaker 1: his need to, I mean, I just understand that that
Speaker 1: was an outcome of the criminal resolution that predated my
Speaker 1: knowing him by six years. Question, But he didn't explicitly
Speaker 1: tell you, Miss Rumler, I would need to I'm registered
Speaker 1: as a sex offender. You learned it through your own means?
Speaker 1: Am I understanding? You correctly? Answer? I just don't remember.
Speaker 1: I certainly knew it when I knew it, and how
Speaker 1: I came to know it, I couldn't tell you. Question understood.
Speaker 1: In November of twenty eighteen, the Miami Herald came out
Speaker 1: with an explosive article detailing Epstein and Maxwell's trafficking ring.
Speaker 1: Did that article not cause any concern from you at
Speaker 1: the time? Answer? My recollection of the article was that
Speaker 1: it was a criticism of the Miami US Attorney's Office
Speaker 1: decision to decline to prosecute mister Epstein, and that the
Speaker 1: premise of the story was that it was sweetheart deal
Speaker 1: and that the deal had been the product of some
Speaker 1: undue influence or something untoward, some kind of collusion between
Speaker 1: mister Epstein's defense team and the prosecutors. So my recollection
Speaker 1: of the article was that it was all about whether
Speaker 1: or not the resolution was adequate, not adequate, whether it
Speaker 1: was somehow corrupt in some way. Question and my final
Speaker 1: question to you, notwithstanding the need to ask any related
Speaker 1: follow ups, you of course said here multiple times today
Speaker 1: that Jeffrey Epstein was arrogant, He was patronizing, he was
Speaker 1: an overt mansplainer, he became pushy at times. Knowing all
Speaker 1: of that, and understanding that you've had, by all accounts,
Speaker 1: a very powerful and prominent legal career, why did you
Speaker 1: keep dealing with Jeffrey Epstein for all these years? Answer again,
Speaker 1: He remained a primary advisor to my client, who remained
Speaker 1: my client until I left the law firm, at least
Speaker 1: to me. I mean, he wasn't. He wasn't all of
Speaker 1: those things. He was also nice, and I was nice
Speaker 1: in return, and I try to be nice with everybody,
Speaker 1: and in busy this and particularly in the private practice
Speaker 1: of law, you deal with all sorts of people, with
Speaker 1: all sorts of different kinds of personalities, and he was
Speaker 1: on sort of one end of the extreme in terms
Speaker 1: of his arrogant self important manner. But he certainly wasn't
Speaker 1: the only person that I dealt with like that. But again,
Speaker 1: had I known at the time everything that we know now,
Speaker 1: most importantly that there was enough evidence to indict him
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, that this is someone who had intentionally
Speaker 1: gone out and sought minors for sex, for commercial sex.
Speaker 1: Had I known that, I would have dealt I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have dealt with them. It's just a very And I
Speaker 1: don't mean to sound too clinical, but as a lawyer
Speaker 1: of these concepts of intent and distinctions about one type
Speaker 1: of conduct versus another type of conduct, they matter. They
Speaker 1: matter in the law, and they matter in the law
Speaker 1: for a reason because the law says this type of
Speaker 1: behavior should be punished in this way, and this type
Speaker 1: of behavior should be punished in that way. And I
Speaker 1: think I said at the outset, and I'll say it again,
Speaker 1: I regret that I did deal with them, and it
Speaker 1: was a mistake. I wish I never had as love
Speaker 1: as today has been. I wish we weren't here talking
Speaker 1: to you all about it. He was a very He
Speaker 1: was not a very big part of my life. He
Speaker 1: was not a big part of my legal practice, and Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: given the intense public interest in the story, which I
Speaker 1: understand and I don't disagree, is justified, and the important
Speaker 1: work that the committee is doing, it's sort of taken on,
Speaker 1: at least for me an outsize, disproportionate view as to
Speaker 1: how I felt about the dealings with them at the time.
Speaker 1: Mister Grant, thank you. I apologize to our minority colleagues.
Speaker 1: I went seven minutes over our hour. We can go
Speaker 1: off the record, all right, folks. We're going to wrap
Speaker 1: up right here too, and in the next episode dealing
Speaker 1: with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box.