WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:03.120
<v Speaker 1>What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:03.160 --> 00:00:06.200
<v Speaker 1>Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right

3
00:00:06.200 --> 00:00:11.279
<v Speaker 1>back to Kathy Rumler and her interview with Congress. Question

4
00:00:11.679 --> 00:00:14.039
<v Speaker 1>I'd like to there's an email I'd like to discuss

5
00:00:14.080 --> 00:00:16.719
<v Speaker 1>with you. We'll enter it as Exhibit H. It's an

6
00:00:16.719 --> 00:00:21.120
<v Speaker 1>email on November sixteenth, twenty fourteen, email between you and

7
00:00:21.160 --> 00:00:24.679
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein regarding a lawyer named greg Poe. Just let

8
00:00:24.679 --> 00:00:26.559
<v Speaker 1>me know when you've had a chance to review it.

9
00:00:27.679 --> 00:00:30.760
<v Speaker 1>Answer okay. Question, So this is an email where you

10
00:00:30.800 --> 00:00:34.600
<v Speaker 1>forwarded mister Epstein the biography of Gregory Poe, who criminal

11
00:00:34.679 --> 00:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>defense attorney Poe and Burton. Answer yes, question, and mister

12
00:00:39.000 --> 00:00:41.799
<v Speaker 1>Epstein wrote we should move forward. You wrote that Poe

13
00:00:41.840 --> 00:00:45.880
<v Speaker 1>will quote we'll do its subject to my direction and conditions,

14
00:00:46.079 --> 00:00:48.159
<v Speaker 1>and we don't have to deal with Latham, Bs, etc.

15
00:00:48.880 --> 00:00:52.320
<v Speaker 1>Answer yes question. Can you explain to me what's going

16
00:00:52.359 --> 00:00:54.679
<v Speaker 1>on in the email? Answer he had asked me for

17
00:00:54.679 --> 00:00:57.200
<v Speaker 1>a referral. So that's what this is about. And you know,

18
00:00:57.320 --> 00:01:00.560
<v Speaker 1>so this is November of twenty fourteen. You know I

19
00:01:00.560 --> 00:01:03.039
<v Speaker 1>had known Epstein for four months at this point. And

20
00:01:03.079 --> 00:01:05.560
<v Speaker 1>again you know he had referred this client to me

21
00:01:06.400 --> 00:01:08.920
<v Speaker 1>who he was the primary advisor to, and he wanted

22
00:01:08.959 --> 00:01:12.519
<v Speaker 1>without getting into the substance, he wanted an analysis done

23
00:01:12.760 --> 00:01:16.599
<v Speaker 1>that related to his historical case. Question his historical case

24
00:01:16.640 --> 00:01:20.480
<v Speaker 1>being answer being the Florida case, not the CVR case,

25
00:01:20.840 --> 00:01:24.040
<v Speaker 1>the criminal case, the Florida criminal case. And I was

26
00:01:24.159 --> 00:01:27.280
<v Speaker 1>essentially he asked me for a referral. I made a recommendation.

27
00:01:27.640 --> 00:01:29.840
<v Speaker 1>He said he wanted to move forward. He went on

28
00:01:29.920 --> 00:01:32.640
<v Speaker 1>to engage that lawyer, and I was I was offering

29
00:01:33.120 --> 00:01:35.480
<v Speaker 1>to be at the inception, I was offering to be

30
00:01:35.560 --> 00:01:39.120
<v Speaker 1>the legal translator, if you will, the analysis that Epstein

31
00:01:39.159 --> 00:01:42.599
<v Speaker 1>wanted done and to translate that to the lawyer who

32
00:01:42.599 --> 00:01:45.840
<v Speaker 1>he had retained to do it. Question. So when you

33
00:01:45.920 --> 00:01:48.640
<v Speaker 1>said I'll get together with him this week, it was

34
00:01:48.680 --> 00:01:50.920
<v Speaker 1>in that role as a legal translator as you put it,

35
00:01:51.280 --> 00:01:54.280
<v Speaker 1>answer correct. It was in the vein of here's the

36
00:01:54.319 --> 00:01:57.519
<v Speaker 1>analysis that he wants done. You know, here's a little background,

37
00:01:57.680 --> 00:02:00.760
<v Speaker 1>as I understand it, you know, the case, these are

38
00:02:00.840 --> 00:02:03.079
<v Speaker 1>the sort of kind of issues that he wants you

39
00:02:03.159 --> 00:02:05.400
<v Speaker 1>to look at. And so I made the connection, and

40
00:02:05.480 --> 00:02:08.840
<v Speaker 1>I understand that there was an attorney client relationship that

41
00:02:09.120 --> 00:02:13.639
<v Speaker 1>was thereafter established between you know, mister Poe and mister Epstein. Question,

42
00:02:13.759 --> 00:02:15.919
<v Speaker 1>So what did you mean when you wrote he will

43
00:02:15.960 --> 00:02:20.319
<v Speaker 1>do it subject to my quote, direction and conditions. Answer.

44
00:02:20.479 --> 00:02:23.599
<v Speaker 1>I don't recall specifically, but again that's just me saying

45
00:02:23.639 --> 00:02:25.479
<v Speaker 1>that I'll tell him what to do. I will tell

46
00:02:25.520 --> 00:02:29.840
<v Speaker 1>him what analysis you want done? Question in that as

47
00:02:29.879 --> 00:02:34.639
<v Speaker 1>that translator at the inception, answer yes, question okay, and

48
00:02:34.680 --> 00:02:37.080
<v Speaker 1>then the second part of that sentence, and then we

49
00:02:37.120 --> 00:02:40.199
<v Speaker 1>don't have to deal with Latham Bs, et cetera. Answer, Yeah,

50
00:02:40.400 --> 00:02:46.039
<v Speaker 1>question Latham refers to Latham and Watkins. Presumably what is

51
00:02:46.159 --> 00:02:49.199
<v Speaker 1>Latham bs that you didn't want to deal with? Answer?

52
00:02:49.240 --> 00:02:52.039
<v Speaker 1>So my recollection is he actually was like, can Latham

53
00:02:52.039 --> 00:02:55.000
<v Speaker 1>do this analysis? And I didn't want Latham to be

54
00:02:55.080 --> 00:02:58.400
<v Speaker 1>representing Jeffrey Epstein. And so rather than saying I don't

55
00:02:58.400 --> 00:03:01.120
<v Speaker 1>want Latham to represent you, and I don't want I

56
00:03:01.120 --> 00:03:03.400
<v Speaker 1>don't want to deal with this analysis, I don't want

57
00:03:03.439 --> 00:03:06.000
<v Speaker 1>to do it. Remember, I have a client that he

58
00:03:06.039 --> 00:03:09.199
<v Speaker 1>referred me to. That was very clear, and this is

59
00:03:09.319 --> 00:03:11.520
<v Speaker 1>like the work that I do, and it's my expertise,

60
00:03:11.759 --> 00:03:14.800
<v Speaker 1>and that's what I'm doing. But he's an important you know,

61
00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:17.479
<v Speaker 1>he's a primary adviser to the client, and so I'm

62
00:03:17.479 --> 00:03:20.280
<v Speaker 1>trying not to alienate him. So I'm trying to be helpful.

63
00:03:20.520 --> 00:03:23.360
<v Speaker 1>I'll refer a lawyer to you who can do this

64
00:03:23.439 --> 00:03:26.639
<v Speaker 1>analysis for you. And then, as you know, I'm characterizing

65
00:03:26.680 --> 00:03:30.319
<v Speaker 1>it as then we don't have to deal with LATHAMBS

66
00:03:30.560 --> 00:03:32.599
<v Speaker 1>as opposed to saying I don't want you to be

67
00:03:32.639 --> 00:03:35.599
<v Speaker 1>a client of Latham and Watkins. That was a more

68
00:03:35.599 --> 00:03:39.000
<v Speaker 1>diplomatic way of saying that question. Did you ever talk

69
00:03:39.039 --> 00:03:42.080
<v Speaker 1>to Latham and Watkins about having Jeffrey Epstein as a client?

70
00:03:42.840 --> 00:03:48.080
<v Speaker 1>Answer in twenty fourteen, no, question later answer not for me.

71
00:03:48.800 --> 00:03:51.400
<v Speaker 1>I never wanted to represent I didn't represent him. I

72
00:03:51.439 --> 00:03:54.120
<v Speaker 1>had a clear relationship with the Rothchild Bank, but that

73
00:03:54.240 --> 00:03:57.199
<v Speaker 1>was my client relationship. He had a separate relationship with

74
00:03:57.240 --> 00:04:00.639
<v Speaker 1>the bank, but was a primary advisor, and that's the

75
00:04:00.719 --> 00:04:04.000
<v Speaker 1>legal representation that I wanted to do and I wanted

76
00:04:04.039 --> 00:04:07.719
<v Speaker 1>to continue. It. Sounds like your relationship with the bank

77
00:04:07.759 --> 00:04:11.120
<v Speaker 1>the shared client that had begun at this point by

78
00:04:11.199 --> 00:04:15.759
<v Speaker 1>November sixteenth, twenty fourteen. Answer Yeah, it had begun September

79
00:04:15.759 --> 00:04:20.199
<v Speaker 1>of twenty fourteen. Question and that was through Latham? Answer? Yeah,

80
00:04:20.319 --> 00:04:22.680
<v Speaker 1>The client was a client of Latham's and I was

81
00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:26.360
<v Speaker 1>a principal partner on the engagement question. So at this point,

82
00:04:26.560 --> 00:04:28.560
<v Speaker 1>it's not like your law firm. Did anyone at your

83
00:04:28.639 --> 00:04:31.680
<v Speaker 1>law firm say, miss Rumler, do not have Jeffrey Epstein

84
00:04:31.720 --> 00:04:36.120
<v Speaker 1>as a firm client? Answer? No, I made that. I

85
00:04:36.199 --> 00:04:38.639
<v Speaker 1>made that decision myself. I didn't need to talk to

86
00:04:38.639 --> 00:04:41.959
<v Speaker 1>anybody at Latham about that question at the time. I

87
00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:44.879
<v Speaker 1>believe still now, there is a partner at Latham Watkins

88
00:04:45.079 --> 00:04:48.839
<v Speaker 1>who was their own separate involvement in mister Epstein's underlying

89
00:04:48.920 --> 00:04:52.079
<v Speaker 1>Florida case. Person was that Department of Justice, and I

90
00:04:52.120 --> 00:04:57.160
<v Speaker 1>believe reviewed some portion of the non prosecution agreement. We

91
00:04:57.240 --> 00:04:59.720
<v Speaker 1>can if we need to, and in the next hour

92
00:05:00.160 --> 00:05:02.800
<v Speaker 1>some emails regarding that I believe between you and Epstein.

93
00:05:03.079 --> 00:05:05.680
<v Speaker 1>But for now, let me just represent it to you.

94
00:05:06.480 --> 00:05:08.759
<v Speaker 1>And I just want to ask you this, Latham BS,

95
00:05:08.839 --> 00:05:11.720
<v Speaker 1>we don't have to deal with. LATHAMBS had nothing to

96
00:05:11.759 --> 00:05:14.199
<v Speaker 1>do with this person's presence at the law firm or

97
00:05:14.199 --> 00:05:18.319
<v Speaker 1>how it might complicate representation question. Okay, so let's move.

98
00:05:18.600 --> 00:05:21.120
<v Speaker 1>Let's do another exhibit. This one is going to be

99
00:05:21.199 --> 00:05:26.279
<v Speaker 1>Exhibit one. Question by redacted. While this exhibits being passed out,

100
00:05:26.480 --> 00:05:30.839
<v Speaker 1>can the members who have arrived. Please identify themselves. Emily Randall,

101
00:05:31.079 --> 00:05:37.319
<v Speaker 1>Washington State, Raja Krishna Morthy, Illinois, Dave Minn, California, forty

102
00:05:37.319 --> 00:05:42.439
<v Speaker 1>seven redacted. This exhibit is Bates number EFTA zero one

103
00:05:42.600 --> 00:05:46.079
<v Speaker 1>one nine six six zero four. It's a June twenty second,

104
00:05:46.199 --> 00:05:49.959
<v Speaker 1>twenty fifteen email from Darren Endyke to mister Epstein. So

105
00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:52.040
<v Speaker 1>please take the time to read it. You're not on

106
00:05:52.079 --> 00:05:56.079
<v Speaker 1>the email. The email references invoices from mister Poe for

107
00:05:56.160 --> 00:05:59.560
<v Speaker 1>approximately fifty thousand dollars in legal services he provided to

108
00:05:59.560 --> 00:06:04.439
<v Speaker 1>mister Epps, including quote, communicating with Kathy and Marty. Let

109
00:06:04.439 --> 00:06:06.319
<v Speaker 1>me know when you've had a chance to review it.

110
00:06:06.920 --> 00:06:09.199
<v Speaker 1>Miss Cotton, is this I just want to make sure

111
00:06:10.079 --> 00:06:13.639
<v Speaker 1>goes off the record for a second. Comes back on question. So,

112
00:06:13.680 --> 00:06:15.839
<v Speaker 1>as I said before we went off the record, this

113
00:06:15.959 --> 00:06:19.800
<v Speaker 1>email references in voices from Greg Poe, including billing for

114
00:06:19.879 --> 00:06:23.759
<v Speaker 1>communicating with Kathy and Marty. Were you communicating with Greg

115
00:06:23.800 --> 00:06:27.360
<v Speaker 1>Poe about whatever case this was? Miss Cotton? Can we

116
00:06:27.399 --> 00:06:29.720
<v Speaker 1>go off the record for one more second? Redacted? Can

117
00:06:29.759 --> 00:06:33.040
<v Speaker 1>she answer the question please? Mister Fishman, Well, the question

118
00:06:33.560 --> 00:06:36.879
<v Speaker 1>is were you communicating with her about whatever case this is?

119
00:06:36.879 --> 00:06:39.240
<v Speaker 1>Is not a question I think that we want to

120
00:06:39.279 --> 00:06:43.399
<v Speaker 1>answer redacted so we can clarify, Phishman, if you want

121
00:06:43.439 --> 00:06:46.759
<v Speaker 1>to try it different, cut some off. So what case

122
00:06:46.839 --> 00:06:50.199
<v Speaker 1>was Greg Poe working on for mister Epstein or a cases? Answer?

123
00:06:50.839 --> 00:06:54.439
<v Speaker 1>I didn't. My understanding was that mister Poe was engaged

124
00:06:54.439 --> 00:06:57.839
<v Speaker 1>to do analysis questions. So in the previous exhibit, the

125
00:06:57.879 --> 00:07:01.800
<v Speaker 1>email about doing it at your direction and conditions, avoiding

126
00:07:01.879 --> 00:07:05.079
<v Speaker 1>quote Lathan Bs, that was about engaging Greg Poe to

127
00:07:05.079 --> 00:07:09.120
<v Speaker 1>do analysis. Answer that was that was my recollection about

128
00:07:09.120 --> 00:07:13.720
<v Speaker 1>why you was engaged. Question by miss Cotton. Now can

129
00:07:13.720 --> 00:07:16.079
<v Speaker 1>we go off record before you ask another question? They

130
00:07:16.079 --> 00:07:19.600
<v Speaker 1>go off the record back on, mister Fishman. Okay, So

131
00:07:20.079 --> 00:07:23.360
<v Speaker 1>this document appears to be labeled privileged and confidential, and

132
00:07:23.439 --> 00:07:26.519
<v Speaker 1>Miss Rumler was not copied on this, and as a result,

133
00:07:26.600 --> 00:07:28.879
<v Speaker 1>we have concerns about whether the questions you were going

134
00:07:28.920 --> 00:07:31.079
<v Speaker 1>to ask her, or the answer she might have given

135
00:07:31.360 --> 00:07:34.360
<v Speaker 1>be subject to a privilege that she can't assert and

136
00:07:34.399 --> 00:07:38.120
<v Speaker 1>she can't waive. Privilege belongs to the estate of mister Epstein.

137
00:07:38.319 --> 00:07:41.319
<v Speaker 1>And as you may know, in other civil litigation, they

138
00:07:41.319 --> 00:07:44.839
<v Speaker 1>have asserted privilege over certain documents. And so if you

139
00:07:44.839 --> 00:07:47.680
<v Speaker 1>can ask her the question about without referring to the

140
00:07:47.680 --> 00:07:50.959
<v Speaker 1>document itself. That might actually make it possible for her

141
00:07:50.959 --> 00:07:54.199
<v Speaker 1>to answer question. I think we can do that. I

142
00:07:54.240 --> 00:07:56.600
<v Speaker 1>will also note for the record that this document is

143
00:07:56.600 --> 00:07:59.920
<v Speaker 1>from the Department of Justice's release. The whole wide world

144
00:08:00.160 --> 00:08:02.879
<v Speaker 1>has this document now for the record, the whole world

145
00:08:03.199 --> 00:08:07.319
<v Speaker 1>has this document. Question. The other item to note is

146
00:08:07.360 --> 00:08:09.800
<v Speaker 1>that one thing that Jeffrey Epstein did to anyone who's

147
00:08:09.839 --> 00:08:13.000
<v Speaker 1>read any of these documents the Department of Justice has

148
00:08:13.040 --> 00:08:15.839
<v Speaker 1>released to the whole wide world is put privileged and

149
00:08:15.920 --> 00:08:19.879
<v Speaker 1>confidential on literally everything. With that said, let's see if

150
00:08:19.920 --> 00:08:22.439
<v Speaker 1>we can ask her questions without having the bought up

151
00:08:22.439 --> 00:08:25.920
<v Speaker 1>against that. This is also a transcribed interview. There may

152
00:08:25.959 --> 00:08:28.639
<v Speaker 1>be points where you simply refuse to answer. That's how

153
00:08:28.680 --> 00:08:32.240
<v Speaker 1>it goes Fishman. We're trying to avoid that Cotton, and

154
00:08:32.279 --> 00:08:35.519
<v Speaker 1>it's a lawyer who wrote privileged and confidential, not Epstein,

155
00:08:35.720 --> 00:08:39.120
<v Speaker 1>which puts our radars up. Question, did you talk to

156
00:08:39.159 --> 00:08:42.320
<v Speaker 1>Gregory Poe at any point between that previous exhibit the

157
00:08:42.440 --> 00:08:45.600
<v Speaker 1>previous year when you met with them to set up

158
00:08:45.759 --> 00:08:49.879
<v Speaker 1>at your quote, direction and condition until regarding Epstein answer,

159
00:08:49.960 --> 00:08:53.639
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember any specific conversation with mister Poe. Mister

160
00:08:53.720 --> 00:08:56.159
<v Speaker 1>Poe is someone who was known to me, who I've

161
00:08:56.200 --> 00:08:59.759
<v Speaker 1>worked with and probably I don't remember specifically, but probably

162
00:08:59.879 --> 00:09:02.200
<v Speaker 1>with working a lot in this period of time. Was

163
00:09:02.320 --> 00:09:06.639
<v Speaker 1>extremely respected defense attorney and again someone who we work

164
00:09:06.679 --> 00:09:09.279
<v Speaker 1>with pretty frequently. When I say we, I mean my

165
00:09:09.360 --> 00:09:12.919
<v Speaker 1>partners and I at Latham Watkins. Oftentimes we would have

166
00:09:12.960 --> 00:09:16.600
<v Speaker 1>corporate representation. We are representing a corporate client, and you know,

167
00:09:16.639 --> 00:09:20.320
<v Speaker 1>mister A. Poe's specialty was representing individuals, and he had

168
00:09:20.360 --> 00:09:23.840
<v Speaker 1>spent many years at the Federal Public Defenders Service, So

169
00:09:24.200 --> 00:09:27.360
<v Speaker 1>I had a lot of communication with mister Poe. I

170
00:09:27.360 --> 00:09:30.279
<v Speaker 1>don't have a specific recollection about talking to him on

171
00:09:30.360 --> 00:09:33.840
<v Speaker 1>matters relating to Epstein or other than making the initial

172
00:09:33.879 --> 00:09:37.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, making the referral. It's possible I did. Just

173
00:09:37.759 --> 00:09:41.600
<v Speaker 1>sitting here today, I don't remember. Question. Can you say

174
00:09:41.639 --> 00:09:44.240
<v Speaker 1>with confidence that, aside from the meeting that you mentioned

175
00:09:44.279 --> 00:09:47.720
<v Speaker 1>the previous exhibit, you never talk with mister Poe about

176
00:09:47.720 --> 00:09:51.200
<v Speaker 1>matters regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Answer? No, I certainly can't say

177
00:09:51.200 --> 00:09:54.000
<v Speaker 1>that I never spoke to him, but I just don't remember,

178
00:09:54.120 --> 00:09:58.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, any specific occasion that I did. Question. Sometimes

179
00:09:58.639 --> 00:10:01.679
<v Speaker 1>when we talk to people ca can't remember specific communications,

180
00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:04.840
<v Speaker 1>but we can generally remember the nature of the ongoing

181
00:10:04.840 --> 00:10:09.679
<v Speaker 1>dialogue or periodic communication. So putting aside whether you remember

182
00:10:09.919 --> 00:10:13.919
<v Speaker 1>any specific communication, were you communicating with Gregory Poe about

183
00:10:13.960 --> 00:10:17.519
<v Speaker 1>anything regarding Jeffrey Epstein from the meeting that was referenced

184
00:10:17.559 --> 00:10:20.720
<v Speaker 1>in the previous exhibit, Say for now, let's say till

185
00:10:20.919 --> 00:10:25.360
<v Speaker 1>June twenty fifteen, six months later. Answer, this is twelve

186
00:10:25.440 --> 00:10:29.080
<v Speaker 1>years ago. I very well may have. I just don't.

187
00:10:29.240 --> 00:10:32.720
<v Speaker 1>I just sitting here lay nothing springs to mind. Question

188
00:10:32.799 --> 00:10:35.320
<v Speaker 1>did you ever become aware that mister Poe was working

189
00:10:35.360 --> 00:10:38.480
<v Speaker 1>on something different than whatever analysis? To use your words

190
00:10:38.840 --> 00:10:41.919
<v Speaker 1>you had initially set them up with? Answer, putting aside

191
00:10:41.919 --> 00:10:45.279
<v Speaker 1>any conversations with mister Poe that I recall, what I

192
00:10:45.320 --> 00:10:48.000
<v Speaker 1>recall thinking about and being I don't know whether I

193
00:10:48.039 --> 00:10:50.399
<v Speaker 1>was asked about it, what I remember thinking about. In

194
00:10:50.440 --> 00:10:52.840
<v Speaker 1>the context of the legal issues that were in the

195
00:10:52.879 --> 00:10:56.799
<v Speaker 1>CVR case, as we talked about before, there were two

196
00:10:57.039 --> 00:10:59.279
<v Speaker 1>there were sort of two major issues. One did the

197
00:10:59.399 --> 00:11:03.440
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department violate the notification obligations? And two if the

198
00:11:03.480 --> 00:11:06.000
<v Speaker 1>answer to the question was yes, what was the remedy

199
00:11:06.720 --> 00:11:08.759
<v Speaker 1>On the second part, there had been indulge me for

200
00:11:08.799 --> 00:11:11.720
<v Speaker 1>a second. The use of a non prosecution and deferred

201
00:11:11.799 --> 00:11:15.440
<v Speaker 1>prosecution agreement question cuts her off. I'll indulge you for

202
00:11:15.480 --> 00:11:21.480
<v Speaker 1>a second, she responds. While I'm trying to explain, and

203
00:11:21.600 --> 00:11:24.679
<v Speaker 1>you're asking me follow up questions. The use of the

204
00:11:24.799 --> 00:11:28.600
<v Speaker 1>non prosecution agreement and deferred prosecution agreement was still at

205
00:11:28.639 --> 00:11:31.960
<v Speaker 1>that point in time, you know, relatively uncommon, even with

206
00:11:32.039 --> 00:11:35.080
<v Speaker 1>the respect to corporate resolution. Now we see that much

207
00:11:35.080 --> 00:11:38.240
<v Speaker 1>more commonly, but it was at the time quite uncommon,

208
00:11:38.440 --> 00:11:41.759
<v Speaker 1>quite uncommon to use a non prosecution agreement or a

209
00:11:41.759 --> 00:11:45.960
<v Speaker 1>deferred prosecution agreement with respect to an individual prosecution. And

210
00:11:46.039 --> 00:11:48.519
<v Speaker 1>there were questions about it in the court system in

211
00:11:48.559 --> 00:11:52.840
<v Speaker 1>this sort of twenty fifteen twenty sixteen timeframe, and whether

212
00:11:52.960 --> 00:11:56.399
<v Speaker 1>or not courts could get behind the prosecution a prosecutor's

213
00:11:56.440 --> 00:11:59.159
<v Speaker 1>decision to resolve a criminal case, either through a non

214
00:11:59.159 --> 00:12:03.279
<v Speaker 1>prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement. And there was

215
00:12:03.279 --> 00:12:05.799
<v Speaker 1>sort of a seminal case that, as I recall, was

216
00:12:05.840 --> 00:12:08.480
<v Speaker 1>decided by the DC Circuit. I think it was in

217
00:12:08.480 --> 00:12:12.279
<v Speaker 1>twenty sixteen, but the lower court decision had been much

218
00:12:12.279 --> 00:12:15.919
<v Speaker 1>earlier than that. Question is this are you describing what

219
00:12:15.960 --> 00:12:19.519
<v Speaker 1>mister Poe was originally working on. Answer No, I'm responding

220
00:12:20.000 --> 00:12:22.320
<v Speaker 1>what was in my mind about the issues during that

221
00:12:22.360 --> 00:12:25.559
<v Speaker 1>period of time? Question what was mister Poe working on?

222
00:12:26.120 --> 00:12:28.840
<v Speaker 1>Answer again, I can't say specifically what he was working on.

223
00:12:29.240 --> 00:12:32.159
<v Speaker 1>He was doing analysis and in my memory of my

224
00:12:32.279 --> 00:12:35.320
<v Speaker 1>mind the things that I was thinking about. By the way,

225
00:12:35.600 --> 00:12:39.120
<v Speaker 1>question Sorry, you can't say because that's a potential privilege issue,

226
00:12:39.440 --> 00:12:42.120
<v Speaker 1>or you can't say because you don't remember. Answer I

227
00:12:42.159 --> 00:12:46.960
<v Speaker 1>don't remember. Question okay, just checking answer Yeah, I don't remember.

228
00:12:47.080 --> 00:12:49.639
<v Speaker 1>But at that period of time, these legal questions were

229
00:12:49.679 --> 00:12:52.960
<v Speaker 1>present in mister Epstein's case, but they were also present

230
00:12:53.159 --> 00:12:55.960
<v Speaker 1>in other cases in the country, and the legal questions

231
00:12:56.000 --> 00:12:59.879
<v Speaker 1>were very relevant to my practice. Question So you could

232
00:12:59.879 --> 00:13:04.679
<v Speaker 1>have been talking to mister Poe about those issues periodically. Answer.

233
00:13:04.720 --> 00:13:07.399
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember, but I'm saying at that point in time,

234
00:13:07.720 --> 00:13:11.279
<v Speaker 1>in that twenty fifteen twenty sixteen timeframe, in my mind,

235
00:13:11.879 --> 00:13:15.080
<v Speaker 1>there were issues in mister Epstein in the CVRA litigation

236
00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:17.600
<v Speaker 1>which he was not a party to, that were also

237
00:13:17.919 --> 00:13:21.559
<v Speaker 1>that were issues in the courts in general. Question let

238
00:13:21.559 --> 00:13:24.759
<v Speaker 1>me stop. Can you say tell me with confidence that

239
00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:28.399
<v Speaker 1>you never gave mister Poe any directions about whatever work

240
00:13:28.399 --> 00:13:32.080
<v Speaker 1>he was doing for mister Epstein. Answer, I describe what

241
00:13:32.120 --> 00:13:34.799
<v Speaker 1>I recall doing, which is acting as a person who

242
00:13:34.840 --> 00:13:38.039
<v Speaker 1>connected mister Ebstein to mister Poe and trying to translate

243
00:13:38.080 --> 00:13:41.000
<v Speaker 1>to mister Poe what legal work mister Epstein wanted someone

244
00:13:41.039 --> 00:13:44.919
<v Speaker 1>to do. Question. I think we'll come back to this,

245
00:13:45.080 --> 00:13:47.759
<v Speaker 1>but for now, you also mentioned that you worked you

246
00:13:47.799 --> 00:13:50.000
<v Speaker 1>were doing for him for mister Epstein was more in

247
00:13:50.039 --> 00:13:52.639
<v Speaker 1>PR in the media space, So I'd like to turn

248
00:13:52.639 --> 00:13:55.879
<v Speaker 1>to that at this point. Answer, just to be clear,

249
00:13:56.159 --> 00:13:59.679
<v Speaker 1>I wasn't doing work for mister Epstein. Question Remind me

250
00:13:59.720 --> 00:14:02.240
<v Speaker 1>again and how you characterize whatever it was you were

251
00:14:02.279 --> 00:14:06.000
<v Speaker 1>doing for mister Epstein regarding PR and media. Answer. He

252
00:14:06.039 --> 00:14:08.679
<v Speaker 1>asked my views from time to time, and I think

253
00:14:08.679 --> 00:14:10.600
<v Speaker 1>he asked others as well, and I tried to be

254
00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:14.440
<v Speaker 1>responsive and give my views. But again, he wasn't my client.

255
00:14:14.559 --> 00:14:16.720
<v Speaker 1>I didn't work for him, he wasn't paying me. Wasn't

256
00:14:16.759 --> 00:14:21.200
<v Speaker 1>my responsibility. It was somebody else's responsibility. Question. But earlier

257
00:14:21.200 --> 00:14:23.720
<v Speaker 1>in this hour, you wouldn't say whether whatever it is

258
00:14:23.919 --> 00:14:26.759
<v Speaker 1>you were rendering him was in a legal capacity or

259
00:14:26.799 --> 00:14:30.360
<v Speaker 1>a personal capacity. So can you say it now? Answer? No,

260
00:14:30.480 --> 00:14:33.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't believe that's the question that you asked me. Question,

261
00:14:33.240 --> 00:14:35.840
<v Speaker 1>so well, I'll ask it now. Answer. I'm a lawyer

262
00:14:36.080 --> 00:14:38.559
<v Speaker 1>and people ask me questions all the time that touch

263
00:14:38.600 --> 00:14:41.240
<v Speaker 1>on I'm a lawyer, not a doctor. So people don't

264
00:14:41.240 --> 00:14:42.720
<v Speaker 1>come to me and ask me what they should do

265
00:14:42.840 --> 00:14:45.440
<v Speaker 1>when they're back hurts, But they do come to me

266
00:14:45.679 --> 00:14:48.120
<v Speaker 1>to ask me about all sorts of questions that touch

267
00:14:48.120 --> 00:14:50.919
<v Speaker 1>on the law. Question, but not every piece of advice

268
00:14:50.960 --> 00:14:53.759
<v Speaker 1>you give to anyone who asked you about the law

269
00:14:54.039 --> 00:14:56.799
<v Speaker 1>is rendered in a professional capacity as opposed to a

270
00:14:56.799 --> 00:15:00.679
<v Speaker 1>personal one. Right answer, I don't understand this, this distinction that

271
00:15:00.720 --> 00:15:04.200
<v Speaker 1>you're trying to make. Question. You are not mister Epstein's lawyer,

272
00:15:04.480 --> 00:15:07.279
<v Speaker 1>you said, again and again and again. Answer No, I

273
00:15:07.320 --> 00:15:10.399
<v Speaker 1>was a lawyer who he asked questions to question. That's right.

274
00:15:10.679 --> 00:15:13.879
<v Speaker 1>You are a lawyer who he asked questions to question.

275
00:15:14.279 --> 00:15:16.960
<v Speaker 1>Was he asking you questions as a friend? Was it informal?

276
00:15:17.320 --> 00:15:20.279
<v Speaker 1>Was he asking questions to you as his lawyer, regardless

277
00:15:20.279 --> 00:15:22.879
<v Speaker 1>of not whether there was some sort of attention agreement

278
00:15:23.279 --> 00:15:27.120
<v Speaker 1>or you were paying him? What was it? Answer? I

279
00:15:27.159 --> 00:15:29.720
<v Speaker 1>can't speak for what was in mister Epstein's mind. In

280
00:15:29.799 --> 00:15:32.480
<v Speaker 1>my mind, I was responding to him the way I

281
00:15:32.519 --> 00:15:35.200
<v Speaker 1>respond to people who ask me questions about media issues

282
00:15:35.399 --> 00:15:37.919
<v Speaker 1>that touch the law. All right, folks, we're going to

283
00:15:37.919 --> 00:15:40.399
<v Speaker 1>wrap up right here, and in the next episode, we're

284
00:15:40.440 --> 00:15:42.679
<v Speaker 1>going to pick up where we left off. All the

285
00:15:42.720 --> 00:15:45.919
<v Speaker 1>information that goes with this episode can be found in

286
00:15:45.960 --> 00:15:46.919
<v Speaker 1>the description box.