Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right back in
Speaker 1: to the Kathy Rumler bullshit testimony she gave to Congress.
Speaker 1: Question I'm going to introduce an exhibit. We're going to
Speaker 1: go back in time. Here, we were just talking about
Speaker 1: April twenty sixteen. We're going to go back to September
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen. This is going to be minority exhibit Bates
Speaker 1: number EFTA zero two four eight six eight three eight.
Speaker 1: Answer yes, question you right. I want to think about
Speaker 1: whether there are any counter claims that could be brought
Speaker 1: against VR, he says, thanks. Answer uh huh. Question do
Speaker 1: you understand VR to mean Victoria Roberts. Answer? I don't
Speaker 1: know who Victoria Roberts is. Question Virginia Roberts answer yes,
Speaker 1: question Virginia Roberts Jeoffrey answer yes. Question why did you
Speaker 1: want to think about whether there were any counter claims
Speaker 1: for Glenn Maxwell to bring about Virginia Roberts in the
Speaker 1: defamation case? Answer? First of all, this says nothing about
Speaker 1: Glayn Maxwell in the email at all. Question was there
Speaker 1: another litigation? Answer? She was an active litigation with I
Speaker 1: believe Alan Dershowitz at the time. I don't recall whether
Speaker 1: there was litigation with other people. But again he's sending
Speaker 1: me an email. By the way, that's in reference Kevin,
Speaker 1: that's in reference to the DOJ prosecutor in the Rothschild's case.
Speaker 1: And he must have asked me something. Again, my state
Speaker 1: of mind at the time, I'm a defense attorney and
Speaker 1: he's asking me questions about someone who has made very
Speaker 1: extreme allegations about having been sex trafficked to foreign precedents,
Speaker 1: to world leaders, to a prime minister, and she had
Speaker 1: been forced to have sex with Professor Alan Dershowitz on
Speaker 1: multiple claims. These were claims that to me seemed to
Speaker 1: lack the indico of credibility that one would expect, and
Speaker 1: most importantly, were entirely inconsistent with the resolution of the
Speaker 1: case in Florida. There it is again, Is it clear now,
Speaker 1: are you guys paying attention? Are you awake? Florida is
Speaker 1: the genesis for all these problems, and until that NPA
Speaker 1: has dealt with we're gonna have to deal with morons
Speaker 1: and idiots like this entirely inconsistent with the summary of
Speaker 1: the evidence in the letter authored by Stephanie Thacker to
Speaker 1: the Deputy Attorney General that I had read and by
Speaker 1: the deputy Attorney General, she means Mark Philippe, you know
Speaker 1: the guy that signed off on this, the guy that
Speaker 1: negotiated it. Yeah, that dude. And anybody who tells you
Speaker 1: that alex Acosta is the architect of this is either
Speaker 1: a moron or they're leading you astray for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: because the truth is this was never an alex Acosta production.
Speaker 1: It was always done by main Justice. Question. I just
Speaker 1: want to quickly you pointed out that there were possibly
Speaker 1: other cases with Virginia related to what Jeffrey Epstein and
Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell had done to her. What you were referring about,
Speaker 1: did you say you want to think about whether there
Speaker 1: were any counter claims that could be brought in another
Speaker 1: case that was active at the time. Answer. I don't
Speaker 1: have any memory, but what I specifically about the email,
Speaker 1: but Epstein was would ask me my views. And he's
Speaker 1: in this email asking me about something relating to the
Speaker 1: Rothchild matter, and I'm sort of in a generic way
Speaker 1: trying to show that I'm being somewhat responsive when he's
Speaker 1: asking my views. And again, that was common way that
Speaker 1: I would respond to him, I would say, hmm, let
Speaker 1: me think about it, hmm, let me get back to you.
Speaker 1: You know, he was, as I said before, he was
Speaker 1: very insistent. He would ask you know, me and others,
Speaker 1: you know, frequently these things. I didn't have any direct
Speaker 1: involvement in any of this. However, there was a lot,
Speaker 1: particularly in sort of the more tabloid media attention around
Speaker 1: these allegations that she had raised. You know, I'm trying
Speaker 1: to keep my composure here, but I really have a
Speaker 1: problem when people start to frame my friend Virginia as
Speaker 1: some kind of liar, especially in light of everything we know.
Speaker 1: Don't you think you have a meocopal moment and say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I was wrong. I read the whole
Speaker 1: situation wrong. Epstein was an animal, and I should have
Speaker 1: helped put them away, but instead she doubles down. Let's
Speaker 1: introduce minority exhibit p Bates number e f ta zero
Speaker 1: two four eight four two eight five in October twelfth,
Speaker 1: the email exchange between you and mister Epstein answer, uh huh, yes,
Speaker 1: I see it. Question mister Epstein says, seen as the
Speaker 1: good friend that you are, might bring unhelpful criticism. Defense
Speaker 1: counsel might create Clinton Obama on necessary implication. Either way,
Speaker 1: I appreciate the help, but we should be extra thoughtful
Speaker 1: as surrounded by publicity seeking lawyers, et cetera. Question, Now,
Speaker 1: help me understand this, because one way to read this case,
Speaker 1: this email without your knowledge, is that you had offered
Speaker 1: to appear as defense counsel in some case related to
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein or his activities, and he's thanking you and
Speaker 1: saying no, thank you. Answer. That's not the way it reads.
Speaker 1: Question Tell me how to read it. Answer. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean this again not entirely coherent. But I had
Speaker 1: a client he was the primary advisor to during this
Speaker 1: period of time. I don't believe that there was any
Speaker 1: active litigation with Epstein that he was in. That Epstein
Speaker 1: was party two at this time, so I don't know
Speaker 1: it was never offered to enter an appearance. Again, he
Speaker 1: was represented by Council. That council was monitoring the CVR,
Speaker 1: a litigation to which he wasn't a party, and so
Speaker 1: I don't I don't have any idea what he's talking about.
Speaker 1: But I did not offer to enter any appearance on
Speaker 1: his behalf in some case. In October of twenty fifteen. Question,
Speaker 1: all right, and we'll just note an earlier exhibit where
Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell miss Bell's almost certainly your name with the sea.
Speaker 1: Mister fishman, I'm sorry, are you testifying redacted? Oh no,
Speaker 1: I'm definitely not, mister fishman. I'm pretty curious redacted. We'll
Speaker 1: go to exhibit him if you'd like, mister Fishman, you
Speaker 1: said he misspelled her name. That's what you said, Rumler,
Speaker 1: If you are, I'm curious to know what your views
Speaker 1: are about the inherent credibility of miss Robert's allegations. Can
Speaker 1: you believe that this stupid skuffoza, this effort as the audacity?
Speaker 1: What a disgusting, vile person. Question, so you still haven't
Speaker 1: actually been able. Do you believe miss Roberts was a
Speaker 1: survivor or a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Miss Maxwell? Answer?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Question. Do you believe that Virginia Roberts was
Speaker 1: a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell? Answer? I
Speaker 1: don't know. Question okay. Answer if she says that she was,
Speaker 1: I don't have any reason to doubt it. However, there
Speaker 1: were allegations that she made that were I believe based
Speaker 1: on my experience as a former prosecutor and defense counsel
Speaker 1: that were of such a nature that they were, they
Speaker 1: lacked in her incredibility. Typically, when someone says I was
Speaker 1: sex trafficked to someone, they say who, when? Where? Not
Speaker 1: multiple world leaders, multiple foreign presidents? She did say who
Speaker 1: at whod barock? Okay, there's your Prime minister. How about
Speaker 1: Glenn Dubin, how about George Mitchell? How about Bill Richardson?
Speaker 1: You catch it on yet? Kathy Rumler is a liar. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's my opinion. She lied to Congress. She should be
Speaker 1: charged with perjury and she should be arrested. Typically, when
Speaker 1: someone says I was trafficked to someone, they say who, when? Where? Not?
Speaker 1: Multiple world leaders, multiple foreign presidents. So my state of
Speaker 1: mind at the time, and again, I didn't investigate the case.
Speaker 1: You're sitting here talking to me. We've been going on
Speaker 1: for however many hours. We've been going Okay, have you
Speaker 1: sat down and spoken to the state prosecutor who was
Speaker 1: in charge of the Epstein investigation, to ask what evidence
Speaker 1: she uncovered, to ask whether she interviewed Virginia question. We've
Speaker 1: talked a bit about the advice or whatever it is
Speaker 1: we're calling it you provided mister Epstein regarding public relations
Speaker 1: or media items. Did you ever reach out to anybody
Speaker 1: at a media organization about anything to do with Epstein? Answer?
Speaker 1: Not advocating on his behalf, I did not. I did
Speaker 1: make one courtesy call to a friend and colleague of
Speaker 1: mine because I saw something on error that lawyer's media
Speaker 1: platform that I thought created a legal risk for the company. Redacted.
Speaker 1: Let's introduce minority exhibit qube number EFTA zero two four
Speaker 1: six two seven one one on May eighteenth, twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: email exchange between you and mister Epstein. Does this email
Speaker 1: reflect the courtesy contact that you just mentioned? Answer? It
Speaker 1: reflects my expression of thinking about calling calling that person. Yes.
Speaker 1: Question you right, I'm thinking about calling GC of NBC
Speaker 1: about those Donnie Deutsch comments answer yes, question thoughts answer yes.
Speaker 1: Question Did you call the General Council of NBC? Answer
Speaker 1: I believe I did. I believe I did. At this
Speaker 1: time in May of twenty sixteen, it was really, you know,
Speaker 1: an intense period in the presidential campaign. In the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen presidential campaign, and if Donald Trump at the time
Speaker 1: were not the formal nominee, he was certainly the de
Speaker 1: facto nominee, and my recollection in these comments were that
Speaker 1: I just happened to see were the kind of comments
Speaker 1: that could have attracted, you know, litigation, particularly from mister Trump,
Speaker 1: who I understood to be, you know, pretty litigous around
Speaker 1: those those times. And there were people at the time
Speaker 1: who were trying to, to the best of my recollection,
Speaker 1: they were trying to connect mister Epstein to mister Trump. Hey,
Speaker 1: Kathy Rumler, guess what nobody's scared of you. Nobody's scared
Speaker 1: to be ensued by any of your friends. I've been
Speaker 1: calling Leon blackout from day one. I've been calling Les
Speaker 1: Wexner out from day one. I've been calling Glenn Dubin
Speaker 1: out since day one. None of them want to smoke.
Speaker 1: They don't want to sue people over this because they
Speaker 1: know that they were guilty. That's why question I'm going
Speaker 1: to shift gears to a topic that the majority covered
Speaker 1: in the prior hour. I think we'll be able to
Speaker 1: efficiently go through it. You talked a bit about when
Speaker 1: your communication with your employer of Goldman Sachs regarding your
Speaker 1: association with Jeffrey Epstein. Glenn Maxwell discussed how those communications
Speaker 1: evolved explained you keyed them to different public events that
Speaker 1: were reported by the Wall Street Journal. I think that
Speaker 1: is completely clear. I just want to make sure that
Speaker 1: I'm understanding what happened. So, when you were hired or
Speaker 1: before you were hired, you proactively disclosed that you had
Speaker 1: an association with Jeffrey Epstein, and somebody there told you
Speaker 1: that this is more than we usually get from somebody
Speaker 1: at this level of disclosure. Is that right? Answer? Yes?
Speaker 1: Question is that what I heard? Answer? Yes? Question okay,
Speaker 1: who is that? Answer? It was the secretary of the board?
Speaker 1: Question got it? Okay? Then you mentioned the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three Wall Street Journal article that may have prompted something else.
Speaker 1: Answer yes, question, had you disclosed anything more to Goldman's
Speaker 1: acts about your association with Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell
Speaker 1: before that article was published? Answer no, I didn't see
Speaker 1: any reason to question. Got it? Answer? Oh, Actually there
Speaker 1: was one other thing. Sometime in twenty twenty there was
Speaker 1: an article in The Deli Beast that stated that there
Speaker 1: were sources who said they saw me in the courtroom
Speaker 1: at Epstein's arraignment, and there were anonymous sources who suggested
Speaker 1: that he wanted me to be on his defense team,
Speaker 1: but that was never going to happen. And so when
Speaker 1: I learned because the reporter from the Dealy Beast reached
Speaker 1: out to me, I went to the head of the
Speaker 1: communications at Goldman Sachs and said, I got this outreach
Speaker 1: from the reporter. Question. Was there a point where you
Speaker 1: disclosed to Goldman Sachs before it became public that he
Speaker 1: called you when he was arrested in twenty nineteen? Answer? No, question.
Speaker 1: Was there a point where you disclosed any of the
Speaker 1: gifts you received from them before they became public? Answer?
Speaker 1: I can't remember whether there was anything in the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal article in twenty twenty three about that, but
Speaker 1: certainly I would have if anyone asked me, you know,
Speaker 1: any questions, I would have. It's not something I would
Speaker 1: have felt the need to affirmatively disclose, as there was
Speaker 1: nothing improper, you know whatsoever about accepting gifts in the
Speaker 1: professional services context. Question. I believe it's been reported that
Speaker 1: you chaired a set of risk based committees at Goldman
Speaker 1: Sachs Firm Wide Conduct Committee, Firm Wide Reputational Risk Committee,
Speaker 1: and maybe you remember of something called the Firm RIDE,
Speaker 1: Firmwide Enterprise Risk Committee. Is that right? Answer? I was
Speaker 1: the chair of the Firm wide Conduct Committee, I was
Speaker 1: the vice chair of the Firm Wide Reputational Risk Committee,
Speaker 1: and I was a member of the inner Firm Wise
Speaker 1: Enterprise Risk Committee. Question did you or anybody else at
Speaker 1: Goldman Sachs raise any concerns about you continuing to be
Speaker 1: both committees after details of your association with Epstein and
Speaker 1: Maxwell became public? Answer? No, I can't imagine they would have. Question.
Speaker 1: I think it was reported that you were helping find
Speaker 1: I believe the search for your successor as general counsel?
Speaker 1: Is that right? Answer? I'm involved in the search process. Yes.
Speaker 1: Question will you commit that you will not be recommending
Speaker 1: anyone with association to Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell as
Speaker 1: your successor as general counsel at Goldman Sachs. Answer? I
Speaker 1: think that is not a question for me. I think
Speaker 1: that the next General Council and the Chief Legal Officer
Speaker 1: you know, will be selected by our CEO and consultation
Speaker 1: with our Board of Directors. But let me say this,
Speaker 1: in the American legal system, we hold people accountable for
Speaker 1: their conduct. We don't hold people accountable for their associations.
Speaker 1: And you all hear in the context of performing a
Speaker 1: legislative function to inform policymakers and ask my opinion on this,
Speaker 1: but I'll give it anyway. In my opinion, a very
Speaker 1: very bad policy to start impute in misconduct by people
Speaker 1: solely as a virtue of their association. And I would
Speaker 1: think that that would be particularly acute and top of
Speaker 1: mind to a member, number of members on both sides
Speaker 1: of the body and the Senate who publicly endorsed the
Speaker 1: candidate who has been credibly accused of sexual assault. And
Speaker 1: so if we start applying a standard that somehow a
Speaker 1: mere association with someone who's been accused of, you know,
Speaker 1: convicted of criminal conduct, I think it's a very dangerous
Speaker 1: road to go down. Question. Have you provided Goldman Sachs
Speaker 1: with any communication or documents pertaining to you, Epstein or
Speaker 1: Maxwell that the Department of Justice has not yet publicly released?
Speaker 1: Mister Cravis? Wait, hold on, Fishman, Yeah, don't. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure we can. Well, I can, I can ask it, Fishman.
Speaker 1: That's a very broad topic question. Have you provided Goldman
Speaker 1: Sachs with any documentation or communication between pertaining to your
Speaker 1: association with Maxwell or Epstein? Cravis? No, hold on. Wait, redacted,
Speaker 1: we'll go off the record, so they come back. On question,
Speaker 1: did you provide Goldman Sachs with any communications or documents
Speaker 1: pertaining to your association with Epstein or Maxwell? Answer? The
Speaker 1: answer to that question is no, I don't have an
Speaker 1: association with Glenn Maxwell. Question did you communicate with mister
Speaker 1: Epstein or Miss Maxwell through other means than email or
Speaker 1: phone calls? Answer? I don't communicate with miss Maxwell other
Speaker 1: than the brief introduction that we talked about earlier, and
Speaker 1: with respect to mister Epstein. No, my means of communication
Speaker 1: with email, telephone, in person meetings. Question no other means? Answer,
Speaker 1: no other means. Question have you ever deleted any communication
Speaker 1: with mister Epstein? Answer no. Question did you ever communicate
Speaker 1: with mister Epstein or Maxwell's attorneys without Epstein or Maxwell
Speaker 1: being involved? Fishman, I'm not sure what that means. Rumler,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Fishman, I mean what does that? I'm not
Speaker 1: sure I understood the question redacted well, I asked that
Speaker 1: did you ever email any of Epstein's attorneys without Epstein
Speaker 1: on the email about Epstein's work matters? Roomler, I don't
Speaker 1: recall redacted? All right? The last thing I'll do is
Speaker 1: put into the record as minority exhibit are the minorities,
Speaker 1: interim staff analysis, the price of non prosecution, the evolution
Speaker 1: of Epstein's trafficking network from Palm Beach to Paris then beyond.
Speaker 1: Just have that for the court reporter, and with that
Speaker 1: the interview is adjourned. YO, this lady is disgusting, holy shit,
Speaker 1: and you better believe we're going to have a monologue
Speaker 1: discussing it. All the information that goes with this episode
Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.