WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.240 --> 00:00:03.240
<v Speaker 1>What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:03.240 --> 00:00:06.480
<v Speaker 1>Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get back

3
00:00:06.519 --> 00:00:10.640
<v Speaker 1>to the Kathy Ruemler transcript from her trip to Congress,

4
00:00:11.199 --> 00:00:14.279
<v Speaker 1>Miss Toland. Question, I just want to circle back for

5
00:00:14.320 --> 00:00:16.559
<v Speaker 1>a moment to a few more questions about the meeting

6
00:00:16.760 --> 00:00:21.079
<v Speaker 1>between you, mister Epstein mister Putnam about legal stuff that

7
00:00:21.199 --> 00:00:25.359
<v Speaker 1>was discussed prior. Answer, Uh huh. Question you said that

8
00:00:25.399 --> 00:00:28.960
<v Speaker 1>mister Avenaughti had threatened a legal case against Jeffrey Epstein.

9
00:00:29.480 --> 00:00:33.240
<v Speaker 1>Is that answer? That's what that's my best memory is

10
00:00:33.280 --> 00:00:36.359
<v Speaker 1>that it was from the form of a tweet. Question

11
00:00:36.759 --> 00:00:39.200
<v Speaker 1>and that's what you were going to be meeting about.

12
00:00:39.479 --> 00:00:42.560
<v Speaker 1>Answer yes, question and did this have anything to do

13
00:00:42.640 --> 00:00:46.240
<v Speaker 1>with the allegations against or the criminal activity committed by

14
00:00:46.280 --> 00:00:50.079
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein. Answer. I don't remember whether there was even

15
00:00:50.119 --> 00:00:54.719
<v Speaker 1>specificity in whatever Avenaughtie put out, But mister Putnam is

16
00:00:54.719 --> 00:00:57.799
<v Speaker 1>a civil litigator. He doesn't do criminal work at all,

17
00:00:57.880 --> 00:00:59.719
<v Speaker 1>and so it was really about if there was some

18
00:00:59.799 --> 00:01:02.920
<v Speaker 1>law suit that were to come to pass, some lawsuit

19
00:01:02.960 --> 00:01:06.519
<v Speaker 1>that was filed by mister Avenatti, was mister Putnam interested

20
00:01:06.560 --> 00:01:11.159
<v Speaker 1>in defending that litigation? That was about it? Question? And

21
00:01:11.239 --> 00:01:13.640
<v Speaker 1>I can read the tweet from mister AVENAUGHTI to refresh

22
00:01:13.680 --> 00:01:17.200
<v Speaker 1>your recollection. Answer, okay, oh you found it. That's amazing.

23
00:01:17.760 --> 00:01:21.879
<v Speaker 1>Question on March first, twenty nineteen is the date he says,

24
00:01:22.680 --> 00:01:25.519
<v Speaker 1>I can confirm that I've been retained by two victims

25
00:01:25.760 --> 00:01:29.359
<v Speaker 1>of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. We intend to ensure that

26
00:01:29.400 --> 00:01:32.920
<v Speaker 1>no stone is left unturned in connection with our investigation

27
00:01:33.599 --> 00:01:36.239
<v Speaker 1>and that all of those connected to his perverse conduct

28
00:01:36.239 --> 00:01:39.319
<v Speaker 1>are held fully accountable. If that sheds any more light

29
00:01:39.400 --> 00:01:43.480
<v Speaker 1>on gets cut off by Rumler. Answer, that's consistent with

30
00:01:43.519 --> 00:01:46.719
<v Speaker 1>my recollection that he had tweeted something out and said

31
00:01:46.719 --> 00:01:50.760
<v Speaker 1>that he had clients and was intending to file a suit. Question,

32
00:01:51.079 --> 00:01:53.159
<v Speaker 1>and we're just trying to understand the extent of the

33
00:01:53.200 --> 00:01:57.799
<v Speaker 1>knowledge you had surrounding the allegations against mister Epstein. Why

34
00:01:57.799 --> 00:02:00.319
<v Speaker 1>would you later be shocked that he was indicted that

35
00:02:00.359 --> 00:02:04.400
<v Speaker 1>same year for crimes against him? Answer? Well, because, again,

36
00:02:04.519 --> 00:02:07.680
<v Speaker 1>my understanding is that he had been investigated over a

37
00:02:07.719 --> 00:02:10.479
<v Speaker 1>multi year period by both the State Attorney's office in

38
00:02:10.479 --> 00:02:14.639
<v Speaker 1>Florida and the US Attorney's Office in Miami, and that

39
00:02:14.759 --> 00:02:18.319
<v Speaker 1>had resulted in a final resolution of any criminal activity

40
00:02:18.319 --> 00:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>of Epstein. That he had accepted responsibility, he had served

41
00:02:21.840 --> 00:02:25.400
<v Speaker 1>his time, complied with all of his obligations, and was

42
00:02:25.680 --> 00:02:28.319
<v Speaker 1>lack for a better word to say it, living in

43
00:02:28.560 --> 00:02:31.199
<v Speaker 1>law abiding life. And so that tweet is not all

44
00:02:31.199 --> 00:02:33.599
<v Speaker 1>that inconsistent with my state of mind at the time.

45
00:02:34.080 --> 00:02:37.360
<v Speaker 1>And in fact, when Epstein was indicted in twenty nineteen,

46
00:02:37.400 --> 00:02:40.639
<v Speaker 1>again the conduct period that was covered by the indictment

47
00:02:41.120 --> 00:02:42.879
<v Speaker 1>was two thousand and two to two thousand and five,

48
00:02:43.520 --> 00:02:46.599
<v Speaker 1>And I think that's something that sometimes gets misunderstood in

49
00:02:46.639 --> 00:02:50.879
<v Speaker 1>the public domain, that the twenty nineteen indictment related back

50
00:02:51.280 --> 00:02:54.840
<v Speaker 1>to almost as much much prior period, and that prior

51
00:02:54.960 --> 00:02:57.960
<v Speaker 1>period of time that conduct was covered by the twenty

52
00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:01.280
<v Speaker 1>nineteen indictment actually pre day did the guilty plea and

53
00:03:01.360 --> 00:03:04.800
<v Speaker 1>the non prosecution agreement. So nothing about the twenty nineteen

54
00:03:04.840 --> 00:03:08.759
<v Speaker 1>indictment said anything to me about Epstein engaging and ongoing

55
00:03:08.800 --> 00:03:12.120
<v Speaker 1>criminal conduct. And certainly, as I stated at the outset,

56
00:03:12.520 --> 00:03:15.599
<v Speaker 1>I never saw or heard any indication of any criminal

57
00:03:15.599 --> 00:03:18.599
<v Speaker 1>conduct on behalf of Epstein during the period of time

58
00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:21.599
<v Speaker 1>that I dealt with him. Question in the first sentence

59
00:03:21.639 --> 00:03:24.719
<v Speaker 1>of the tweet, mister AVENAUGHTI says he can confirm we

60
00:03:24.800 --> 00:03:28.400
<v Speaker 1>have been retained by two victims of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

61
00:03:28.879 --> 00:03:32.199
<v Speaker 1>That tweet was March first, twenty nineteen. The meeting you

62
00:03:32.280 --> 00:03:35.520
<v Speaker 1>later had with Epstein and Putnam was two months later,

63
00:03:35.680 --> 00:03:39.520
<v Speaker 1>May twenty nineteen. Do you recall were there any conversations

64
00:03:39.520 --> 00:03:43.400
<v Speaker 1>between you and mister Epstein or you and mister Putnam

65
00:03:43.599 --> 00:03:46.800
<v Speaker 1>in those two months after the tweet was made? Answer

66
00:03:46.879 --> 00:03:49.719
<v Speaker 1>not that I recall. Again, as I stated, I don't

67
00:03:49.719 --> 00:03:52.840
<v Speaker 1>believe mister AVENAUGHTI ever filed any complaint on behalf of

68
00:03:52.840 --> 00:03:55.639
<v Speaker 1>any victims. I don't remember when he got indicted for

69
00:03:55.719 --> 00:03:58.759
<v Speaker 1>his own criminal conduct. Maybe he got waylaid. I don't know,

70
00:03:59.439 --> 00:04:02.759
<v Speaker 1>mister Grant. Question I'm going to ask you another long

71
00:04:02.800 --> 00:04:07.439
<v Speaker 1>list of names questions. Answer okay. Question that's become part

72
00:04:07.479 --> 00:04:11.280
<v Speaker 1>of the repertoire of the Oversight Committee Majority staff. The

73
00:04:11.400 --> 00:04:14.439
<v Speaker 1>question is going to be have you ever communicated with

74
00:04:14.520 --> 00:04:18.240
<v Speaker 1>any of the following individuals regarding the crimes and allegations

75
00:04:18.439 --> 00:04:23.879
<v Speaker 1>of Jeffrey Epstein, Orglenn Maxwell. Answer okay. Question. You can

76
00:04:23.920 --> 00:04:26.920
<v Speaker 1>answer it yes or no to the individuals. If you

77
00:04:26.959 --> 00:04:30.439
<v Speaker 1>indicate yes, I'll come back to it. Answer the first

78
00:04:30.519 --> 00:04:35.519
<v Speaker 1>name is at Hood Barock. Answer no, thorburn Yaglund answer no.

79
00:04:36.079 --> 00:04:40.480
<v Speaker 1>Philip Levine answer no. Andrew mount Batt Windsor answer no,

80
00:04:40.800 --> 00:04:47.079
<v Speaker 1>Woody Allen answer no. Soon Yee Previn answer no. Benjamin

81
00:04:47.199 --> 00:04:51.839
<v Speaker 1>Lawski answer no. Gregory Poe answer yes. About mister Epstein's

82
00:04:51.839 --> 00:04:56.279
<v Speaker 1>historical conduct question John Luke Burnel answer no, Leon Black

83
00:04:56.439 --> 00:05:01.279
<v Speaker 1>answer no, Terry Rod Larson answer no. Yes Daly answer no,

84
00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:06.800
<v Speaker 1>George Mitchell answer no. Glenn Dubin answer no, Eva Anderson

85
00:05:06.879 --> 00:05:11.319
<v Speaker 1>Duben answer with respect to Glenn Duben and Eva Anderson Duben,

86
00:05:11.959 --> 00:05:14.600
<v Speaker 1>I've had a conversation with them about my experience in

87
00:05:14.639 --> 00:05:17.720
<v Speaker 1>dealing with the media scrutiny around my association with Epstein.

88
00:05:18.319 --> 00:05:21.000
<v Speaker 1>So not about and that all relates to that all

89
00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:23.560
<v Speaker 1>arises from the fact that he pled guilty to these

90
00:05:23.600 --> 00:05:26.879
<v Speaker 1>sexual related offenses back in two thousand and eight. But

91
00:05:26.959 --> 00:05:30.959
<v Speaker 1>other than that, no question. Les Wexner answer no question.

92
00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:35.920
<v Speaker 1>Stephen Sinofsky answer no question. Harvey Weinstein answer no question.

93
00:05:36.000 --> 00:05:40.240
<v Speaker 1>Bill Gates answer no question. Arian the Rothschild answer yes.

94
00:05:41.040 --> 00:05:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Question any other member of the Rothschild family answer I've

95
00:05:45.519 --> 00:05:48.639
<v Speaker 1>spoken generally. Again in the same I've spoken generally with

96
00:05:48.680 --> 00:05:51.600
<v Speaker 1>some of her daughters about the experience with her, the

97
00:05:51.680 --> 00:05:55.079
<v Speaker 1>experience that I've had with and that she has with

98
00:05:55.160 --> 00:05:58.800
<v Speaker 1>the media attention around anybody who has ever associated or

99
00:05:58.839 --> 00:06:01.680
<v Speaker 1>had any meetings or community occasions with Jeffrey Epstein. But

100
00:06:01.759 --> 00:06:05.839
<v Speaker 1>otherwise no, I just have to interject real quick, Could

101
00:06:05.879 --> 00:06:08.879
<v Speaker 1>this lady be any more smug if you just started

102
00:06:08.879 --> 00:06:11.959
<v Speaker 1>a meeting with Jeffrey Epstein? Listen here, skuffuzza. You've had

103
00:06:11.959 --> 00:06:15.160
<v Speaker 1>a lot more than meetings, okay, And in fact, I'm

104
00:06:15.160 --> 00:06:18.639
<v Speaker 1>gonna have a monologue about that very soon. Question President

105
00:06:18.639 --> 00:06:23.759
<v Speaker 1>Clinton answer no, Secretary Hillary Clinton answer no. Doug Band

106
00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:28.680
<v Speaker 1>answer no, Ted Waite answer no. Any other elected official

107
00:06:28.720 --> 00:06:32.600
<v Speaker 1>politician or world leader answer no. Question. Going back to

108
00:06:32.639 --> 00:06:35.800
<v Speaker 1>mister Poe, you indicated yes for I believe you said

109
00:06:36.160 --> 00:06:40.160
<v Speaker 1>historical conduct. Is that just talking about mister Epstein's previous

110
00:06:40.199 --> 00:06:44.279
<v Speaker 1>crimes that he had already served jail time for. Answer yeah.

111
00:06:44.519 --> 00:06:48.160
<v Speaker 1>Question And then you said yes to Ariander Rothschild, What

112
00:06:48.279 --> 00:06:51.879
<v Speaker 1>specifically did you talk to mister Rothschild about regarding Epstein's

113
00:06:51.879 --> 00:06:56.120
<v Speaker 1>crimes or the allegations. Answer again, not about directly about

114
00:06:56.120 --> 00:06:58.600
<v Speaker 1>his crimes per se, but about the effect that the

115
00:06:58.639 --> 00:07:02.800
<v Speaker 1>media environment has how on people, including myself, because having

116
00:07:02.879 --> 00:07:06.040
<v Speaker 1>any association with Epstein. So that's what I spoke to

117
00:07:06.079 --> 00:07:09.360
<v Speaker 1>her about. Question. Thank you, we're approaching the end of

118
00:07:09.399 --> 00:07:12.720
<v Speaker 1>the hour. I have just a couple more questions. Answer.

119
00:07:13.199 --> 00:07:15.600
<v Speaker 1>I should say I probably spoke with her to explain

120
00:07:15.920 --> 00:07:18.759
<v Speaker 1>to her what I understood about the criminal charges in

121
00:07:18.800 --> 00:07:22.319
<v Speaker 1>twenty nineteen, after I attended the arraignment and read the

122
00:07:22.399 --> 00:07:26.240
<v Speaker 1>charges in the indictment. Question. I may have missed it earlier,

123
00:07:26.279 --> 00:07:29.360
<v Speaker 1>so I apologize if you've already said it. When did

124
00:07:29.360 --> 00:07:33.319
<v Speaker 1>you learn of mister Epstein's status as a sex offender? Answer?

125
00:07:33.360 --> 00:07:35.959
<v Speaker 1>I don't recall specifically, but I knew that a condition

126
00:07:36.240 --> 00:07:39.040
<v Speaker 1>of the non prosecution agreement was that mister Epstein go

127
00:07:39.079 --> 00:07:41.399
<v Speaker 1>to the state. This is actually set forth in the

128
00:07:41.399 --> 00:07:44.360
<v Speaker 1>non prosecution agreement, which at some point I did see.

129
00:07:44.480 --> 00:07:47.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember one exactly, but at some point I

130
00:07:47.040 --> 00:07:50.279
<v Speaker 1>did see that the non prosecution agreement itself required mister

131
00:07:50.319 --> 00:07:52.959
<v Speaker 1>Epstein to go to the state Attorney's office and tell

132
00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:55.519
<v Speaker 1>the state attorney's office that they needed to file an

133
00:07:55.519 --> 00:07:58.639
<v Speaker 1>additional charge against them that would require him to register

134
00:07:58.920 --> 00:08:01.920
<v Speaker 1>as a sex offender. So that was just my experience.

135
00:08:02.160 --> 00:08:06.720
<v Speaker 1>One of the many unusual features of the non prosecution agreement. Question,

136
00:08:06.839 --> 00:08:09.839
<v Speaker 1>But you never had any direct conversation with mister Epstein

137
00:08:10.120 --> 00:08:12.839
<v Speaker 1>about his need to register as a sex offender? Answer

138
00:08:12.879 --> 00:08:15.519
<v Speaker 1>his need to, I mean, I just understand that that

139
00:08:15.639 --> 00:08:18.639
<v Speaker 1>was an outcome of the criminal resolution that predated my

140
00:08:18.759 --> 00:08:22.639
<v Speaker 1>knowing him by six years. Question, But he didn't explicitly

141
00:08:22.680 --> 00:08:25.439
<v Speaker 1>tell you, Miss Rumler, I would need to I'm registered

142
00:08:25.639 --> 00:08:28.079
<v Speaker 1>as a sex offender. You learned it through your own means?

143
00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:32.000
<v Speaker 1>Am I understanding? You correctly? Answer? I just don't remember.

144
00:08:32.080 --> 00:08:34.559
<v Speaker 1>I certainly knew it when I knew it, and how

145
00:08:34.600 --> 00:08:37.440
<v Speaker 1>I came to know it, I couldn't tell you. Question understood.

146
00:08:37.879 --> 00:08:41.080
<v Speaker 1>In November of twenty eighteen, the Miami Herald came out

147
00:08:41.120 --> 00:08:44.919
<v Speaker 1>with an explosive article detailing Epstein and Maxwell's trafficking ring.

148
00:08:45.440 --> 00:08:48.000
<v Speaker 1>Did that article not cause any concern from you at

149
00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:51.480
<v Speaker 1>the time? Answer? My recollection of the article was that

150
00:08:51.519 --> 00:08:54.480
<v Speaker 1>it was a criticism of the Miami US Attorney's Office

151
00:08:54.519 --> 00:08:58.120
<v Speaker 1>decision to decline to prosecute mister Epstein, and that the

152
00:08:58.159 --> 00:09:00.840
<v Speaker 1>premise of the story was that it was sweetheart deal

153
00:09:01.240 --> 00:09:02.919
<v Speaker 1>and that the deal had been the product of some

154
00:09:03.120 --> 00:09:06.879
<v Speaker 1>undue influence or something untoward, some kind of collusion between

155
00:09:06.919 --> 00:09:10.960
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein's defense team and the prosecutors. So my recollection

156
00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:13.360
<v Speaker 1>of the article was that it was all about whether

157
00:09:13.480 --> 00:09:17.039
<v Speaker 1>or not the resolution was adequate, not adequate, whether it

158
00:09:17.159 --> 00:09:20.720
<v Speaker 1>was somehow corrupt in some way. Question and my final

159
00:09:20.799 --> 00:09:23.799
<v Speaker 1>question to you, notwithstanding the need to ask any related

160
00:09:23.840 --> 00:09:27.759
<v Speaker 1>follow ups, you of course said here multiple times today

161
00:09:27.759 --> 00:09:31.360
<v Speaker 1>that Jeffrey Epstein was arrogant, He was patronizing, he was

162
00:09:31.440 --> 00:09:35.039
<v Speaker 1>an overt mansplainer, he became pushy at times. Knowing all

163
00:09:35.080 --> 00:09:38.240
<v Speaker 1>of that, and understanding that you've had, by all accounts,

164
00:09:38.279 --> 00:09:41.679
<v Speaker 1>a very powerful and prominent legal career, why did you

165
00:09:41.759 --> 00:09:45.799
<v Speaker 1>keep dealing with Jeffrey Epstein for all these years? Answer again,

166
00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:49.000
<v Speaker 1>He remained a primary advisor to my client, who remained

167
00:09:49.000 --> 00:09:51.600
<v Speaker 1>my client until I left the law firm, at least

168
00:09:51.639 --> 00:09:53.919
<v Speaker 1>to me. I mean, he wasn't. He wasn't all of

169
00:09:53.919 --> 00:09:56.639
<v Speaker 1>those things. He was also nice, and I was nice

170
00:09:56.639 --> 00:09:59.279
<v Speaker 1>in return, and I try to be nice with everybody,

171
00:09:59.480 --> 00:10:02.720
<v Speaker 1>and in busy this and particularly in the private practice

172
00:10:02.720 --> 00:10:05.120
<v Speaker 1>of law, you deal with all sorts of people, with

173
00:10:05.200 --> 00:10:08.279
<v Speaker 1>all sorts of different kinds of personalities, and he was

174
00:10:08.320 --> 00:10:10.519
<v Speaker 1>on sort of one end of the extreme in terms

175
00:10:10.519 --> 00:10:13.960
<v Speaker 1>of his arrogant self important manner. But he certainly wasn't

176
00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:16.879
<v Speaker 1>the only person that I dealt with like that. But again,

177
00:10:17.240 --> 00:10:19.799
<v Speaker 1>had I known at the time everything that we know now,

178
00:10:19.960 --> 00:10:22.480
<v Speaker 1>most importantly that there was enough evidence to indict him

179
00:10:22.480 --> 00:10:26.000
<v Speaker 1>in twenty nineteen, that this is someone who had intentionally

180
00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:28.919
<v Speaker 1>gone out and sought minors for sex, for commercial sex.

181
00:10:29.159 --> 00:10:31.879
<v Speaker 1>Had I known that, I would have dealt I wouldn't

182
00:10:31.879 --> 00:10:34.279
<v Speaker 1>have dealt with them. It's just a very And I

183
00:10:34.279 --> 00:10:36.519
<v Speaker 1>don't mean to sound too clinical, but as a lawyer

184
00:10:36.519 --> 00:10:39.639
<v Speaker 1>of these concepts of intent and distinctions about one type

185
00:10:39.679 --> 00:10:43.360
<v Speaker 1>of conduct versus another type of conduct, they matter. They

186
00:10:43.360 --> 00:10:45.240
<v Speaker 1>matter in the law, and they matter in the law

187
00:10:45.279 --> 00:10:47.600
<v Speaker 1>for a reason because the law says this type of

188
00:10:47.639 --> 00:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>behavior should be punished in this way, and this type

189
00:10:50.360 --> 00:10:53.039
<v Speaker 1>of behavior should be punished in that way. And I

190
00:10:53.080 --> 00:10:54.960
<v Speaker 1>think I said at the outset, and I'll say it again,

191
00:10:55.360 --> 00:10:57.360
<v Speaker 1>I regret that I did deal with them, and it

192
00:10:57.399 --> 00:10:59.919
<v Speaker 1>was a mistake. I wish I never had as love

193
00:11:00.200 --> 00:11:02.559
<v Speaker 1>as today has been. I wish we weren't here talking

194
00:11:02.639 --> 00:11:05.399
<v Speaker 1>to you all about it. He was a very He

195
00:11:05.600 --> 00:11:07.399
<v Speaker 1>was not a very big part of my life. He

196
00:11:07.519 --> 00:11:10.559
<v Speaker 1>was not a big part of my legal practice, and Unfortunately,

197
00:11:10.600 --> 00:11:13.120
<v Speaker 1>given the intense public interest in the story, which I

198
00:11:13.240 --> 00:11:17.240
<v Speaker 1>understand and I don't disagree, is justified, and the important

199
00:11:17.279 --> 00:11:20.360
<v Speaker 1>work that the committee is doing, it's sort of taken on,

200
00:11:20.440 --> 00:11:24.240
<v Speaker 1>at least for me an outsize, disproportionate view as to

201
00:11:24.240 --> 00:11:26.519
<v Speaker 1>how I felt about the dealings with them at the time.

202
00:11:27.120 --> 00:11:30.720
<v Speaker 1>Mister Grant, thank you. I apologize to our minority colleagues.

203
00:11:30.879 --> 00:11:33.879
<v Speaker 1>I went seven minutes over our hour. We can go

204
00:11:34.039 --> 00:11:36.639
<v Speaker 1>off the record, all right, folks. We're going to wrap

205
00:11:36.720 --> 00:11:38.879
<v Speaker 1>up right here too, and in the next episode dealing

206
00:11:38.879 --> 00:11:41.120
<v Speaker 1>with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.

207
00:11:41.639 --> 00:11:44.320
<v Speaker 1>All the information that goes with this episode can be

208
00:11:44.360 --> 00:11:46.039
<v Speaker 1>found in the description box.