Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
Speaker 1: left off with the Kathy Ruhmler conversation with Congress. Question.
Speaker 1: All right, let's introduce minority Exhibit D bates number EFTA
Speaker 1: A zero two three nine five three zero three. This
Speaker 1: is a June twenty sixteen email exchange between you and
Speaker 1: mister Epstein regarding a possible opportunity for you with a
Speaker 1: hedge fund called Citadel. In this exchange, mister Epstein suggested
Speaker 1: that Citadel CEO Ken Griffin quote might just be interested
Speaker 1: in a woman. You responded, quote, oh Jesus, meaning you're
Speaker 1: going to trade one of your Russians for my comp
Speaker 1: end quote. What did you mean by quote one of
Speaker 1: your Russians? Answer? I think I'm looking at a different
Speaker 1: email exchange, Miss Cotton. Yeah, I think you skipped some
Speaker 1: lines or we have the wrong version. Miss Rumler, we
Speaker 1: have a different version of the email redacted. Let's go
Speaker 1: off record for a second. Back on record, now, what
Speaker 1: did you mean by quote one of your Russians? Mister Fishman, again,
Speaker 1: do you mind if she reads the entire chain? Question? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: Ruemler Okay. The context of this is that I received
Speaker 1: outreach from the soon to be retiring chief legal officer
Speaker 1: of Citadel about whether i'd be willing to take a
Speaker 1: meeting about potentially accepting that job. I didn't know anything
Speaker 1: about Citadel. Frankly, you know, I'd spent the vast majority
Speaker 1: of my career in public service at this point, and
Speaker 1: I certainly wasn't at this point in time. I certainly
Speaker 1: wasn't like a Wall Street person, and so Epstein was
Speaker 1: a finance guy. He was like the Wall Street guy.
Speaker 1: So I asked him, you know, what do you I
Speaker 1: asked him, I infer from the cemail over the phone,
Speaker 1: what do you know about Citadel? And again, in typical
Speaker 1: Epstein fashion, he immediately jumps into, I can negotiate your compensation.
Speaker 1: So I didn't ask him I didn't have an offer
Speaker 1: from Citadel. And he's already talking about how he's going
Speaker 1: to negotiate my compensation. Question that clear he's jumping into
Speaker 1: the talks about helping you hypothetically get this job at
Speaker 1: Citadel and negotiating your compensation. Answer. No, no, he's not. No, no,
Speaker 1: no question. Why did you say one of your Russians?
Speaker 1: Mister Fishman, I'm sorry, question, what do you mean by
Speaker 1: one of your Russians? Fishman jumps in again. She's giving
Speaker 1: an answer, and you then made a statement about what
Speaker 1: was in the emails. She's entitled to answer to respond redacted. Well,
Speaker 1: let's just ask a question, what did you mean when
Speaker 1: you wrote one of your Russians? Answer again, he wasn't.
Speaker 1: I wasn't asking him to help me get a job, Okay,
Speaker 1: I was asking him what he knew about the firm.
Speaker 1: He then immediately jumps into what that he can negotiate
Speaker 1: a compensation package, which I haven't even been offered. And
Speaker 1: so I then deflect and say, trust me, this is
Speaker 1: way below his in your pay grade to be negotiating.
Speaker 1: And so he then says, there is the off chance
Speaker 1: that Griffin might just be interest in a woman. I
Speaker 1: understand him to be referring that he was interested in
Speaker 1: a woman for the position of chief legal officer. I
Speaker 1: found that offensive, So I make again a casual, somewhat
Speaker 1: irreverent remark by saying, I ain't no affirmative action. So
Speaker 1: I found it frankly insulting that someone would suggest that
Speaker 1: I was being offered a job purely because I was
Speaker 1: a woman. So then he writes back and says, I
Speaker 1: meant romantically. So I think I think that he's suggesting
Speaker 1: that somehow this person wants to date me and so again,
Speaker 1: which is also offensive by the way. So again I
Speaker 1: deflect and say, so you're going to trade one of
Speaker 1: your Russians, meaning one of your adult Russian assistants, who
Speaker 1: you're going to set up on a date. This has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with sex. This, This is a confuse
Speaker 1: back and forth, where again he was insinuating himself into
Speaker 1: a way that he was going to make himself relevant
Speaker 1: about negotiating compensation for a job offer that I didn't
Speaker 1: have and I wasn't going to take. Question So you
Speaker 1: were just saying that you were making a joke, an
Speaker 1: offhand joke about mister Ebstein trading one of his Russian
Speaker 1: assistants to Ken Griffin in exchange for your conversation or
Speaker 1: your compensation. Answer. Yeah, question, okay, answer, And as I said,
Speaker 1: I regret emailing them. This is a joke that certainly
Speaker 1: doesn't land very well today. Question all right, we're going
Speaker 1: to cover some ground that the majority covered. The way
Speaker 1: that these formats go sometimes are questions overlap we'll be
Speaker 1: conscious of that answer. Okay question. Let's go back to
Speaker 1: that arrest and the phone call answer. Okay, okay, question.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein called three people answer yes question. Two of
Speaker 1: his lawyers answer yes question, and you answer yes question.
Speaker 1: Why do you think he called you? Answer? I think
Speaker 1: he called me because, not to be modest, but I
Speaker 1: was the chairperson of the defense and investigations practice at
Speaker 1: one of the largest most profitable law firms in the world.
Speaker 1: I was well regarded as a defense attorney, and I
Speaker 1: think that's why he called me, And obviously I knew him. Question.
Speaker 1: Earlier that year, you had written you quote I only
Speaker 1: trust you. Later than that, he said, quote, I only
Speaker 1: trust your advice. Mister fishman, I'm sorry. Are you reading
Speaker 1: from the documents redacted? We'll introduce those documents right now
Speaker 1: as exhibit E. Those documents are bates number EFTA zero
Speaker 1: two six three four two two two and ef TA
Speaker 1: zero two sixty three four seven five eight. Mister Fishman,
Speaker 1: we just have one of them so far redacted front
Speaker 1: and back. Rumler, Oh, I see fishman. Okay, question. There
Speaker 1: are two different documents as one exhibit Fishman. Oh, okay,
Speaker 1: So they're not connected to each other in that way.
Speaker 1: Redacted No Fishman, Okay. Question, So Jeffrey Epstein called you
Speaker 1: because he trusted you? Is that what you're saying? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't know whether he trusted me or not, but
Speaker 1: I can say I can tell you I think I'm
Speaker 1: a good lawyer who gives pretty straightforward advice. Question just
Speaker 1: so I'm clear, did you give him any advice on
Speaker 1: that call after he was arrested? Answer? No question? Did
Speaker 1: he ask for your help? Answer again, I don't remember
Speaker 1: much about that call other than it was extremely short.
Speaker 1: He told me that he'd been arrested, and I said,
Speaker 1: either you have to call your lawyer, or I assume
Speaker 1: you will called your lawyer. Something I don't recall. Whether
Speaker 1: you know he said that he out already or he
Speaker 1: Hadn't you know this or that? Question Before mister Epstein
Speaker 1: was arrested, had he communicated with you about being concerned
Speaker 1: about new criminal charges being brought against him? Answer? No question,
Speaker 1: not at all? Answer he had not. Question. Mister Epstein
Speaker 1: was arrested at Teterborough Airport. He'd flown back from Paris
Speaker 1: on a private jet. Had you known he was a board?
Speaker 1: Answer I don't remember whether I knew. I do remember.
Speaker 1: I do remember knowing that his arrest happened at Teterborough Airport.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether he told me that or whether
Speaker 1: I came to learn that later. Question and before you
Speaker 1: return from Paris? Did he ask you your advice about
Speaker 1: whether it was safe to come back to the US? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: question in twenty nineteen, did he ever ask your advice
Speaker 1: about whether it was safe to travel to any foreign country? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: he didn't ask my advice on those things. Question he
Speaker 1: never asked about your advice on whether it was safe
Speaker 1: to return to the US at any point in twenty nineteen?
Speaker 1: Answer not that I remember. Question. Let's do exhibit F.
Speaker 1: This is February twenty third, twenty nineteen email between you
Speaker 1: and mister Epstein. Mister Epstein writes you, like preparing for
Speaker 1: a hurricane. I'm focused on how to protect myself. Hunkered
Speaker 1: down but vigilant, well prepared, et cetera. I very much
Speaker 1: appreciate our friendship. In a response, you wrote, quote me too,
Speaker 1: we will get you through the storm. Answer yes. Question
Speaker 1: what was the quote storm? You told him you were
Speaker 1: going to get him through? Answer that was a reference
Speaker 1: to the media storm question the media. Two days before that,
Speaker 1: a court ruling had put his two thousand and seven
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement and jeopardy in a case brought by
Speaker 1: a number of his victims asserting their rights under the CVRA,
Speaker 1: the Crime's Victims Act. You don't think this email had
Speaker 1: any reference to that? Answer? I don't remember whether I
Speaker 1: was certainly aware of that litigation in Florida, and I
Speaker 1: was aware of the legal issues that were presented to
Speaker 1: the court in that case. Yes, I don't know, But
Speaker 1: this my best recollection is that this related to a
Speaker 1: media storm. Question. And who did you mean when you
Speaker 1: wrote wei, when you wrote we will get you through
Speaker 1: the storm? Answer? I tend to use the term wei
Speaker 1: in all sorts of different contexts. So I think I
Speaker 1: was my effort to express, you know, some empathy and
Speaker 1: support to him at the time. As I stated earlier,
Speaker 1: what I understood all through the period of time when
Speaker 1: I was interacting with him, up until the time that
Speaker 1: the indictment was returned in July of twenty nineteen, I
Speaker 1: understood that his conduct was predated my knowing him by
Speaker 1: at least a decade, and that had been extensively investigated
Speaker 1: by state and federal prosecutors and had been finally resolved.
Speaker 1: And so in our system of justice, typically when someone
Speaker 1: resolves a criminal case through a guilty plea and or
Speaker 1: in this case, a separate agreement with the federal government,
Speaker 1: and they comply with it and they otherwise fulfill all
Speaker 1: the obligations, they accept responsibility, and they are entitled to
Speaker 1: re enter society. That's the way it works, and so
Speaker 1: that's what I believe the situation was with mister Epstein
Speaker 1: for the entirety of the time that I was dealing
Speaker 1: with them again, up until he was indicted in July
Speaker 1: of twenty nineteen. And then the conduct described in that indictment,
Speaker 1: even though it predated me knowing him by ten years,
Speaker 1: describe conduct that was very different than I had understood
Speaker 1: him to have been involved in. Question. So back to
Speaker 1: the email, you said you understood the storm to be
Speaker 1: referring to negative media. Answer, that's right. Question. Had you
Speaker 1: been working with anyone else to help mister Epstein deal
Speaker 1: with the negative media? Answer in mister Epstein's mom was
Speaker 1: to ask a lot of different people for their opinions
Speaker 1: on things. Question. That is very evident from the emails.
Speaker 1: But what about were you working with anyone to help
Speaker 1: mister Epstein deal with negative media answer? Do you mean
Speaker 1: my communication specialist or someone like that? I'm not sure
Speaker 1: what you mean. Question. You and mister Epstein much better
Speaker 1: than the rest of us. You knew what you were
Speaker 1: doing and who you were talking with much better than
Speaker 1: the rest of us. So were you working with anyone
Speaker 1: to help mister Epstein with his negative media? Answer? He
Speaker 1: asked my opinion about media about you know, media inquiries,
Speaker 1: media issues from time to time, and he was represented
Speaker 1: by counsel, and the council was his legal advisor. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: any decisions that were made about responses to media inquiries, etc.
Speaker 1: Were going to be decided by his lawyer, not by me.
Speaker 1: But as he did with lots of people, he asked
Speaker 1: my point of view and my opinion on stuff all
Speaker 1: the time, including relating to his media issues. And with
Speaker 1: that will pause question. And I believe some other members
Speaker 1: have questions, miss An. Sorry, sure, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here today. As has been discussed through the
Speaker 1: both hours so far, you maintained a friendship with Epstein
Speaker 1: for years. What do you think your biggest mistake in
Speaker 1: maintaining that relationship and staying so close to an known predator,
Speaker 1: and why did you not cut ties with them sooner,
Speaker 1: Miss Rumler. I know him professionally and I was friendly
Speaker 1: with him. In that context, we were not social friends.
Speaker 1: I didn't socialize with them. I didn't travel with them.
Speaker 1: I didn't go on vacation with them. I didn't go
Speaker 1: to concerts with them. I didn't go out to dinner
Speaker 1: with them. So when you say I had a long
Speaker 1: standing friendship, I would characterize it a bit differently. Those
Speaker 1: are the types of things that I do with my friends.
Speaker 1: Mister Epstein and I shared a client and so I
Speaker 1: had a lot of interaction with them relating to that,
Speaker 1: and of course the interaction and just the natural, you know,
Speaker 1: course of life went into other topics, including topics relating
Speaker 1: to his historical conviction and media attention arising from that
Speaker 1: historical conviction. The time when I was interacting with him,
Speaker 1: he had a broad set of relationships with many prominent
Speaker 1: people in the business community, in academia, in you know,
Speaker 1: the arts and entertainment and politics, and it was very
Speaker 1: natural for me to maintain good interaction with him given
Speaker 1: what I was doing professionally at the time. And again
Speaker 1: importantly as he was, you know, a primary advisor to
Speaker 1: a client that had been referred to me in the
Speaker 1: very you know, just a few weeks after I had
Speaker 1: you know, gone back into private practice to restart my
Speaker 1: private practice, and so of course with someone who I
Speaker 1: wanted to maintain a good relationship with, Missen. Sorry, okay,
Speaker 1: but even at the time he was a known predator.
Speaker 1: You knew that you knew of his record. Obviously, ultimately
Speaker 1: we know that Epstein and Maxwell, who I heard you
Speaker 1: say you didn't know, personally committed systemic abuse against more
Speaker 1: than one thousand young girls as well as boys and men.
Speaker 1: I guess how do you begin to express remorse for
Speaker 1: cultivating those ties, even if they were strictly professional and
Speaker 1: not a per personal relationship as you just laid out,
Speaker 1: Miss Rumler, Well, I certainly didn't again know what we
Speaker 1: know now about the nature and scope of his conduct.
Speaker 1: That's the first and foremost. But it's very important to
Speaker 1: understand that, you know, as a lawyer in private practice,
Speaker 1: in my area of expertise, my primary area of expertise
Speaker 1: was representing people who were either accused of crimes or
Speaker 1: accused of other wrongdoing, so that was that was very
Speaker 1: much part or sort of, you know, my daily existence,
Speaker 1: if you will. I certainly feel terrible for anybody who
Speaker 1: this man victimized. Miss Ann. Sorry, have you ever met
Speaker 1: with any of the victims or survivors? Rumler? I have not,
Speaker 1: Miss Ann. Sorry? Is there a reason not to, Miss Rumler,
Speaker 1: I have not been asked to, Miss Ann. Sorry? Okay. Question.
Speaker 1: And as I said before, he lied to me. He
Speaker 1: lied to me about his conduct. He lied to me,
Speaker 1: he led me to believe. And again it wasn't just
Speaker 1: that I believed him what he said, you know, on
Speaker 1: its face, but what he said again was all very
Speaker 1: consistent with the way the investigation in Florida by both
Speaker 1: state and federal authorities had been resolved. Miss Ansorry, thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, We're going to wrap up right here, and
Speaker 1: in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going
Speaker 1: to pick up where we left off. All the information
Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
Speaker 1: description box.