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 right
Speaker 1: back to Kathy Rumler and her interview with Congress. Question
Speaker 1: I'd like to there's an email I'd like to discuss
Speaker 1: with you. We'll enter it as Exhibit H. It's an
Speaker 1: email on November sixteenth, twenty fourteen, email between you and
Speaker 1: mister Epstein regarding a lawyer named greg Poe. Just let
Speaker 1: me know when you've had a chance to review it.
Speaker 1: Answer okay. Question, So this is an email where you
Speaker 1: forwarded mister Epstein the biography of Gregory Poe, who criminal
Speaker 1: defense attorney Poe and Burton. Answer yes, question, and mister
Speaker 1: Epstein wrote we should move forward. You wrote that Poe
Speaker 1: will quote we'll do its subject to my direction and conditions,
Speaker 1: and we don't have to deal with Latham, Bs, etc.
Speaker 1: Answer yes question. Can you explain to me what's going
Speaker 1: on in the email? Answer he had asked me for
Speaker 1: a referral. So that's what this is about. And you know,
Speaker 1: so this is November of twenty fourteen. You know I
Speaker 1: had known Epstein for four months at this point. And
Speaker 1: again you know he had referred this client to me
Speaker 1: who he was the primary advisor to, and he wanted
Speaker 1: without getting into the substance, he wanted an analysis done
Speaker 1: that related to his historical case. Question his historical case
Speaker 1: being answer being the Florida case, not the CVR case,
Speaker 1: the criminal case, the Florida criminal case. And I was
Speaker 1: essentially he asked me for a referral. I made a recommendation.
Speaker 1: He said he wanted to move forward. He went on
Speaker 1: to engage that lawyer, and I was I was offering
Speaker 1: to be at the inception, I was offering to be
Speaker 1: the legal translator, if you will, the analysis that Epstein
Speaker 1: wanted done and to translate that to the lawyer who
Speaker 1: he had retained to do it. Question. So when you
Speaker 1: said I'll get together with him this week, it was
Speaker 1: in that role as a legal translator as you put it,
Speaker 1: answer correct. It was in the vein of here's the
Speaker 1: analysis that he wants done. You know, here's a little background,
Speaker 1: as I understand it, you know, the case, these are
Speaker 1: the sort of kind of issues that he wants you
Speaker 1: to look at. And so I made the connection, and
Speaker 1: I understand that there was an attorney client relationship that
Speaker 1: was thereafter established between you know, mister Poe and mister Epstein. Question,
Speaker 1: So what did you mean when you wrote he will
Speaker 1: do it subject to my quote, direction and conditions. Answer.
Speaker 1: I don't recall specifically, but again that's just me saying
Speaker 1: that I'll tell him what to do. I will tell
Speaker 1: him what analysis you want done? Question in that as
Speaker 1: that translator at the inception, answer yes, question okay, and
Speaker 1: then the second part of that sentence, and then we
Speaker 1: don't have to deal with Latham Bs, et cetera. Answer, Yeah,
Speaker 1: question Latham refers to Latham and Watkins. Presumably what is
Speaker 1: Latham bs that you didn't want to deal with? Answer?
Speaker 1: So my recollection is he actually was like, can Latham
Speaker 1: do this analysis? And I didn't want Latham to be
Speaker 1: representing Jeffrey Epstein. And so rather than saying I don't
Speaker 1: want Latham to represent you, and I don't want I
Speaker 1: don't want to deal with this analysis, I don't want
Speaker 1: to do it. Remember, I have a client that he
Speaker 1: referred me to. That was very clear, and this is
Speaker 1: like the work that I do, and it's my expertise,
Speaker 1: and that's what I'm doing. But he's an important you know,
Speaker 1: he's a primary adviser to the client, and so I'm
Speaker 1: trying not to alienate him. So I'm trying to be helpful.
Speaker 1: I'll refer a lawyer to you who can do this
Speaker 1: analysis for you. And then, as you know, I'm characterizing
Speaker 1: it as then we don't have to deal with LATHAMBS
Speaker 1: as opposed to saying I don't want you to be
Speaker 1: a client of Latham and Watkins. That was a more
Speaker 1: diplomatic way of saying that question. Did you ever talk
Speaker 1: to Latham and Watkins about having Jeffrey Epstein as a client?
Speaker 1: Answer in twenty fourteen, no, question later answer not for me.
Speaker 1: I never wanted to represent I didn't represent him. I
Speaker 1: had a clear relationship with the Rothchild Bank, but that
Speaker 1: was my client relationship. He had a separate relationship with
Speaker 1: the bank, but was a primary advisor, and that's the
Speaker 1: legal representation that I wanted to do and I wanted
Speaker 1: to continue. It. Sounds like your relationship with the bank
Speaker 1: the shared client that had begun at this point by
Speaker 1: November sixteenth, twenty fourteen. Answer Yeah, it had begun September
Speaker 1: of twenty fourteen. Question and that was through Latham? Answer? Yeah,
Speaker 1: The client was a client of Latham's and I was
Speaker 1: a principal partner on the engagement question. So at this point,
Speaker 1: it's not like your law firm. Did anyone at your
Speaker 1: law firm say, miss Rumler, do not have Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: as a firm client? Answer? No, I made that. I
Speaker 1: made that decision myself. I didn't need to talk to
Speaker 1: anybody at Latham about that question at the time. I
Speaker 1: believe still now, there is a partner at Latham Watkins
Speaker 1: who was their own separate involvement in mister Epstein's underlying
Speaker 1: Florida case. Person was that Department of Justice, and I
Speaker 1: believe reviewed some portion of the non prosecution agreement. We
Speaker 1: can if we need to, and in the next hour
Speaker 1: some emails regarding that I believe between you and Epstein.
Speaker 1: But for now, let me just represent it to you.
Speaker 1: And I just want to ask you this, Latham BS,
Speaker 1: we don't have to deal with. LATHAMBS had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with this person's presence at the law firm or
Speaker 1: how it might complicate representation question. Okay, so let's move.
Speaker 1: Let's do another exhibit. This one is going to be
Speaker 1: Exhibit one. Question by redacted. While this exhibits being passed out,
Speaker 1: can the members who have arrived. Please identify themselves. Emily Randall,
Speaker 1: Washington State, Raja Krishna Morthy, Illinois, Dave Minn, California, forty
Speaker 1: seven redacted. This exhibit is Bates number EFTA zero one
Speaker 1: one nine six six zero four. It's a June twenty second,
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen email from Darren Endyke to mister Epstein. So
Speaker 1: please take the time to read it. You're not on
Speaker 1: the email. The email references invoices from mister Poe for
Speaker 1: approximately fifty thousand dollars in legal services he provided to
Speaker 1: mister Epps, including quote, communicating with Kathy and Marty. Let
Speaker 1: me know when you've had a chance to review it.
Speaker 1: Miss Cotton, is this I just want to make sure
Speaker 1: goes off the record for a second. Comes back on question. So,
Speaker 1: as I said before we went off the record, this
Speaker 1: email references in voices from Greg Poe, including billing for
Speaker 1: communicating with Kathy and Marty. Were you communicating with Greg
Speaker 1: Poe about whatever case this was? Miss Cotton? Can we
Speaker 1: go off the record for one more second? Redacted? Can
Speaker 1: she answer the question please? Mister Fishman, Well, the question
Speaker 1: is were you communicating with her about whatever case this is?
Speaker 1: Is not a question I think that we want to
Speaker 1: answer redacted so we can clarify, Phishman, if you want
Speaker 1: to try it different, cut some off. So what case
Speaker 1: was Greg Poe working on for mister Epstein or a cases? Answer?
Speaker 1: I didn't. My understanding was that mister Poe was engaged
Speaker 1: to do analysis questions. So in the previous exhibit, the
Speaker 1: email about doing it at your direction and conditions, avoiding
Speaker 1: quote Lathan Bs, that was about engaging Greg Poe to
Speaker 1: do analysis. Answer that was that was my recollection about
Speaker 1: why you was engaged. Question by miss Cotton. Now can
Speaker 1: we go off record before you ask another question? They
Speaker 1: go off the record back on, mister Fishman. Okay, So
Speaker 1: this document appears to be labeled privileged and confidential, and
Speaker 1: Miss Rumler was not copied on this, and as a result,
Speaker 1: we have concerns about whether the questions you were going
Speaker 1: to ask her, or the answer she might have given
Speaker 1: be subject to a privilege that she can't assert and
Speaker 1: she can't waive. Privilege belongs to the estate of mister Epstein.
Speaker 1: And as you may know, in other civil litigation, they
Speaker 1: have asserted privilege over certain documents. And so if you
Speaker 1: can ask her the question about without referring to the
Speaker 1: document itself. That might actually make it possible for her
Speaker 1: to answer question. I think we can do that. I
Speaker 1: will also note for the record that this document is
Speaker 1: from the Department of Justice's release. The whole wide world
Speaker 1: has this document now for the record, the whole world
Speaker 1: has this document. Question. The other item to note is
Speaker 1: that one thing that Jeffrey Epstein did to anyone who's
Speaker 1: read any of these documents the Department of Justice has
Speaker 1: released to the whole wide world is put privileged and
Speaker 1: confidential on literally everything. With that said, let's see if
Speaker 1: we can ask her questions without having the bought up
Speaker 1: against that. This is also a transcribed interview. There may
Speaker 1: be points where you simply refuse to answer. That's how
Speaker 1: it goes Fishman. We're trying to avoid that Cotton, and
Speaker 1: it's a lawyer who wrote privileged and confidential, not Epstein,
Speaker 1: which puts our radars up. Question, did you talk to
Speaker 1: Gregory Poe at any point between that previous exhibit the
Speaker 1: previous year when you met with them to set up
Speaker 1: at your quote, direction and condition until regarding Epstein answer,
Speaker 1: I don't remember any specific conversation with mister Poe. Mister
Speaker 1: Poe is someone who was known to me, who I've
Speaker 1: worked with and probably I don't remember specifically, but probably
Speaker 1: with working a lot in this period of time. Was
Speaker 1: extremely respected defense attorney and again someone who we work
Speaker 1: with pretty frequently. When I say we, I mean my
Speaker 1: partners and I at Latham Watkins. Oftentimes we would have
Speaker 1: corporate representation. We are representing a corporate client, and you know,
Speaker 1: mister A. Poe's specialty was representing individuals, and he had
Speaker 1: spent many years at the Federal Public Defenders Service, So
Speaker 1: I had a lot of communication with mister Poe. I
Speaker 1: don't have a specific recollection about talking to him on
Speaker 1: matters relating to Epstein or other than making the initial
Speaker 1: you know, making the referral. It's possible I did. Just
Speaker 1: sitting here today, I don't remember. Question. Can you say
Speaker 1: with confidence that, aside from the meeting that you mentioned
Speaker 1: the previous exhibit, you never talk with mister Poe about
Speaker 1: matters regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Answer? No, I certainly can't say
Speaker 1: that I never spoke to him, but I just don't remember,
Speaker 1: you know, any specific occasion that I did. Question. Sometimes
Speaker 1: when we talk to people ca can't remember specific communications,
Speaker 1: but we can generally remember the nature of the ongoing
Speaker 1: dialogue or periodic communication. So putting aside whether you remember
Speaker 1: any specific communication, were you communicating with Gregory Poe about
Speaker 1: anything regarding Jeffrey Epstein from the meeting that was referenced
Speaker 1: in the previous exhibit, Say for now, let's say till
Speaker 1: June twenty fifteen, six months later. Answer, this is twelve
Speaker 1: years ago. I very well may have. I just don't.
Speaker 1: I just sitting here lay nothing springs to mind. Question
Speaker 1: did you ever become aware that mister Poe was working
Speaker 1: on something different than whatever analysis? To use your words
Speaker 1: you had initially set them up with? Answer, putting aside
Speaker 1: any conversations with mister Poe that I recall, what I
Speaker 1: recall thinking about and being I don't know whether I
Speaker 1: was asked about it, what I remember thinking about. In
Speaker 1: the context of the legal issues that were in the
Speaker 1: CVR case, as we talked about before, there were two
Speaker 1: there were sort of two major issues. One did the
Speaker 1: Justice Department violate the notification obligations? And two if the
Speaker 1: answer to the question was yes, what was the remedy
Speaker 1: On the second part, there had been indulge me for
Speaker 1: a second. The use of a non prosecution and deferred
Speaker 1: prosecution agreement question cuts her off. I'll indulge you for
Speaker 1: a second, she responds. While I'm trying to explain, and
Speaker 1: you're asking me follow up questions. The use of the
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement and deferred prosecution agreement was still at
Speaker 1: that point in time, you know, relatively uncommon, even with
Speaker 1: the respect to corporate resolution. Now we see that much
Speaker 1: more commonly, but it was at the time quite uncommon,
Speaker 1: quite uncommon to use a non prosecution agreement or a
Speaker 1: deferred prosecution agreement with respect to an individual prosecution. And
Speaker 1: there were questions about it in the court system in
Speaker 1: this sort of twenty fifteen twenty sixteen timeframe, and whether
Speaker 1: or not courts could get behind the prosecution a prosecutor's
Speaker 1: decision to resolve a criminal case, either through a non
Speaker 1: prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement. And there was
Speaker 1: sort of a seminal case that, as I recall, was
Speaker 1: decided by the DC Circuit. I think it was in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, but the lower court decision had been much
Speaker 1: earlier than that. Question is this are you describing what
Speaker 1: mister Poe was originally working on. Answer No, I'm responding
Speaker 1: what was in my mind about the issues during that
Speaker 1: period of time? Question what was mister Poe working on?
Speaker 1: Answer again, I can't say specifically what he was working on.
Speaker 1: He was doing analysis and in my memory of my
Speaker 1: mind the things that I was thinking about. By the way,
Speaker 1: question Sorry, you can't say because that's a potential privilege issue,
Speaker 1: or you can't say because you don't remember. Answer I
Speaker 1: don't remember. Question okay, just checking answer Yeah, I don't remember.
Speaker 1: But at that period of time, these legal questions were
Speaker 1: present in mister Epstein's case, but they were also present
Speaker 1: in other cases in the country, and the legal questions
Speaker 1: were very relevant to my practice. Question So you could
Speaker 1: have been talking to mister Poe about those issues periodically. Answer.
Speaker 1: I don't remember, but I'm saying at that point in time,
Speaker 1: in that twenty fifteen twenty sixteen timeframe, in my mind,
Speaker 1: there were issues in mister Epstein in the CVRA litigation
Speaker 1: which he was not a party to, that were also
Speaker 1: that were issues in the courts in general. Question let
Speaker 1: me stop. Can you say tell me with confidence that
Speaker 1: you never gave mister Poe any directions about whatever work
Speaker 1: he was doing for mister Epstein. Answer, I describe what
Speaker 1: I recall doing, which is acting as a person who
Speaker 1: connected mister Ebstein to mister Poe and trying to translate
Speaker 1: to mister Poe what legal work mister Epstein wanted someone
Speaker 1: to do. Question. I think we'll come back to this,
Speaker 1: but for now, you also mentioned that you worked you
Speaker 1: were doing for him for mister Epstein was more in
Speaker 1: PR in the media space, So I'd like to turn
Speaker 1: to that at this point. Answer, just to be clear,
Speaker 1: I wasn't doing work for mister Epstein. Question Remind me
Speaker 1: again and how you characterize whatever it was you were
Speaker 1: doing for mister Epstein regarding PR and media. Answer. He
Speaker 1: asked my views from time to time, and I think
Speaker 1: he asked others as well, and I tried to be
Speaker 1: responsive and give my views. But again, he wasn't my client.
Speaker 1: I didn't work for him, he wasn't paying me. Wasn't
Speaker 1: my responsibility. It was somebody else's responsibility. Question. But earlier
Speaker 1: in this hour, you wouldn't say whether whatever it is
Speaker 1: you were rendering him was in a legal capacity or
Speaker 1: a personal capacity. So can you say it now? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that's the question that you asked me. Question,
Speaker 1: so well, I'll ask it now. Answer. I'm a lawyer
Speaker 1: and people ask me questions all the time that touch
Speaker 1: on I'm a lawyer, not a doctor. So people don't
Speaker 1: come to me and ask me what they should do
Speaker 1: when they're back hurts, But they do come to me
Speaker 1: to ask me about all sorts of questions that touch
Speaker 1: on the law. Question, but not every piece of advice
Speaker 1: you give to anyone who asked you about the law
Speaker 1: is rendered in a professional capacity as opposed to a
Speaker 1: personal one. Right answer, I don't understand this, this distinction that
Speaker 1: you're trying to make. Question. You are not mister Epstein's lawyer,
Speaker 1: you said, again and again and again. Answer No, I
Speaker 1: was a lawyer who he asked questions to question. That's right.
Speaker 1: You are a lawyer who he asked questions to question.
Speaker 1: Was he asking you questions as a friend? Was it informal?
Speaker 1: Was he asking questions to you as his lawyer, regardless
Speaker 1: of not whether there was some sort of attention agreement
Speaker 1: or you were paying him? What was it? Answer? I
Speaker 1: can't speak for what was in mister Epstein's mind. In
Speaker 1: my mind, I was responding to him the way I
Speaker 1: respond to people who ask me questions about media issues
Speaker 1: that touch the law. All right, folks, we're going to
Speaker 1: wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're
Speaker 1: going to pick up where we left off. All the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box.