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 our conversation with Congress redacted.
Speaker 1: We'll go back on record question by redacted. So, Miss Rumler,
Speaker 1: you did mention in your opening statement you gave, but
Speaker 1: I don't think we have a copy that feels like
Speaker 1: a long time ago. Can you talk a little bit
Speaker 1: more about how you helped mister Epstein with his legal issues? Answer?
Speaker 1: I was not his lawyer. Question right answer, But as
Speaker 1: a distinguished congressman who was here earlier said, you know,
Speaker 1: he said when I was a defense lawyer, everyone, every
Speaker 1: time someone called, they asked me for advice. That's very
Speaker 1: similar to my life and my experience. And certainly mister
Speaker 1: Epstein did that, you know from time to time. I
Speaker 1: knew he did it with others as well. And the
Speaker 1: issues that he typically would ask me about were related
Speaker 1: to media scrutiny or media allegations, and on occasion he
Speaker 1: would ask me questions that were legal questions of points
Speaker 1: of law, is how I would say it. Arising from
Speaker 1: the litigation in Florida, and I understand that a couple
Speaker 1: of victims had brought against the Justice Department, which I
Speaker 1: will refer to as the CVR A litigation, the Crime
Speaker 1: Victims Rights Act litigation question got it, and then as
Speaker 1: time went on there was no more. There was more litigation.
Speaker 1: He faced an increasing amount of litigation or not answer.
Speaker 1: I don't recall. I don't really remember other litigation that
Speaker 1: he was involved in or that he was a party to.
Speaker 1: To this CVR case, it obviously involved his non prosecution agreement,
Speaker 1: and in particular, as I understood the issue, the legal
Speaker 1: issue before the court there was whether or not the
Speaker 1: Justice Department had violated the notification rights of the plaintiffs
Speaker 1: in that case, and that there was a legal issue.
Speaker 1: I was actually familiar with this legal issue. The legal
Speaker 1: issue as I understood it that was before the court
Speaker 1: was the Crime Victim's Rights Act, among other things, requires
Speaker 1: prosecutors to provide notice to victims of crimes. And the
Speaker 1: question in a decision not to prosecute, which is what
Speaker 1: a non prosecution agreement, is whether or not those notification
Speaker 1: requirements had kicked in and whether or not the Justice
Speaker 1: Department the US Attorney's Office had provided notice and adequate
Speaker 1: notice at the same time that was my general understanding
Speaker 1: of the issue that was before the court, and I
Speaker 1: knew that the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice
Speaker 1: Department had actually issued a formal opinion on that question,
Speaker 1: not directly related to this lawsuit, but just in general,
Speaker 1: that question when does the Justice Department have to provide
Speaker 1: notification to victims? And that Office of Legal Council opinion
Speaker 1: had stated that those notification obligations only attached or kicked
Speaker 1: in when a charging decision, when someone had been charged. Well,
Speaker 1: she's wrong about that, because the court already admonished the
Speaker 1: federal government for the CVRA violations. As you learn more
Speaker 1: about the case, did the cause or did that cause
Speaker 1: you to reevaluate your understanding of the circumstance of his
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement? Answer? I don't remember. There are being
Speaker 1: many facts in the case in the sense I remember
Speaker 1: that it was a legal issue, and that was the
Speaker 1: legal issue before the court, and the question was you know,
Speaker 1: there were sort of two questions. One is did the
Speaker 1: Justice Department not fulfill its obligation under the CVRA, and
Speaker 1: then second, if they hadn't, what was the remedy? But
Speaker 1: I don't remember their being you know, I don't remember
Speaker 1: having much knowledge about their being facts because the facts
Speaker 1: are a little bit subsidiary to the legal question. Question. Well,
Speaker 1: one set of facts was whether the CVRA remedy aside
Speaker 1: had been violated at all? Answer, that's right question, and
Speaker 1: that would be because the plaintiffs are potentially other survivors
Speaker 1: or victims had not been afforded the rights under the CVRA.
Speaker 1: Is that right answer? My recollection of the Justice Department's
Speaker 1: position in that litigation was that they had complied. I
Speaker 1: should say it as opposed today, But the prosecutors complied
Speaker 1: because there was they made a decision to not prosecute.
Speaker 1: So if there had been a decision to prosecute where
Speaker 1: an indictment had been returned, then a bunch of notification,
Speaker 1: you know, provisions would kick in. Question the plaintiffs were Jane,
Speaker 1: does the people who were survivors who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims?
Speaker 1: Were they not? Answer? My understanding is that they were
Speaker 1: people who said, you know, we believe that were victims
Speaker 1: of this conduct, and the Justice Department owed us certain
Speaker 1: notifications and we didn't get them. Question did you believe
Speaker 1: they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein? Answer? I certainly didn't
Speaker 1: have any reason to doubt it. Clearly were victims of
Speaker 1: mister Epstein's conduct. That was resolved with the non prosecution
Speaker 1: agreement and the legal question. What I understood it to
Speaker 1: be the reason that the prosecutors chose not to prosecute
Speaker 1: them federally was that they did not have sufficient evidence
Speaker 1: that he knew that anyone was in fact under age.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean they weren't. Question. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they weren't. It means that you believed that he had
Speaker 1: more underage victims than were reflected in the two counts
Speaker 1: that he ended up pleading guilty to answer. In one count,
Speaker 1: there were no underage victims at all. That was a
Speaker 1: solicitation of prostitution count. And again in law enforcement slash
Speaker 1: prosecutor state of mind, the crime of prostitution has two
Speaker 1: participants question, and you've already we've already discussed that question
Speaker 1: at times. You reminded mister Epstein that if she's a miner,
Speaker 1: then that's not legally prostitution. Answer. A minor can't consent
Speaker 1: question right answer to engage in a commercial sex act
Speaker 1: in the way that someone who is legally of age
Speaker 1: ken and the law treats those people very different, without
Speaker 1: opining as to whether that's a good policy or whatever.
Speaker 1: That's what the law does. Question. I think you understand
Speaker 1: what I'm asking here is that working on this CVR case,
Speaker 1: you became aware of a number of plaintiffs. Mister Fishman
Speaker 1: jumps in, I'm sorry she didn't testify that she was
Speaker 1: working on the CVR case. Questions are you're right? We'll
Speaker 1: get to that question. In becoming familiar with this CVR
Speaker 1: A case, you also became familiar that there were a
Speaker 1: number of plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs alleged to be Jeffrey Epstein's
Speaker 1: victims survivors at the time, those additional victims, whether or
Speaker 1: not he was chargeror pled guilty to his offense against them,
Speaker 1: and you were aware of that, right answer. What I
Speaker 1: was aware of with respect to the CVRA A litigation
Speaker 1: is that there were and again that this was this
Speaker 1: was public litigation, and that there were two different plaintiffs
Speaker 1: who identified as Jane Do one and Jane do two.
Speaker 1: And at some subsequent point there was a motion file
Speaker 1: by lawyers who were representing the two Jane Doe victims
Speaker 1: who said that their rights had been violated by the
Speaker 1: Justice Department, and the motion was seeking to add to
Speaker 1: additional Jane Doe plaintiffs, and I came to learn that
Speaker 1: through public reporting the name of the third Jane Doe plaintiff.
Speaker 1: That's what I knew. Question do you recall mister Epstein
Speaker 1: ever filed any motions in the CVRA case at all? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't remember specifically whether anything was filed. I have
Speaker 1: a vague recollection that there was. Well, I shouldn't say
Speaker 1: I don't remember. I don't remember. I knew that he
Speaker 1: wasn't any party to it. Question what kind of work
Speaker 1: did you do or advice did you provide to mister
Speaker 1: Epstein regarding CVR case? Answer again, I wasn't his lawyer.
Speaker 1: He had a lawyer. Question and just to be clear
Speaker 1: on that, you never represented him? Answer I did not
Speaker 1: represent him. Question you were not his lawyer. Answer I
Speaker 1: was not his lawyer. Question when you give him advice?
Speaker 1: You were never giving him his advice in a legal capacity.
Speaker 1: Answer that's not what I said. Question I'm asking that
Speaker 1: is what I'm asking you. Answer. He asked my opinion
Speaker 1: or my views on a number of occasions. Those views
Speaker 1: typically he asked me let me rephrase it or phrase
Speaker 1: it differently. There was a lot of media reporting that
Speaker 1: arose from the CVRA litigation because of a motion that
Speaker 1: had been filed and allegations that were made in that
Speaker 1: motion that were quite that were the kinds of act
Speaker 1: dellegations that would that attracted that did in fact attract
Speaker 1: a lot of media attention. And so there were things
Speaker 1: that happened as a result of that, and a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of collateral litigation that spun out of that filing.
Speaker 1: And he asked me about that, you know, from time
Speaker 1: to time, and I would, you know, give him my
Speaker 1: best response, you know, based on my understanding of the
Speaker 1: facts at the time. Question, would you ever perform a
Speaker 1: similar role to his lawyers? Directly? Answer? Sure? If asked question?
Speaker 1: Were you asked? Answer, I don't not that I sitting
Speaker 1: here today, I don't have any specific recollection of anything.
Speaker 1: But you know, you know, one of one of the
Speaker 1: things about being a lawyer is that lawyers like to
Speaker 1: talk to each other about cases. And certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: again he had counsel, a very quite competent, really good
Speaker 1: counsel who was representing him, and so you know, again
Speaker 1: we had a shared client he knew me. He seemed
Speaker 1: to me to have a practice of kind of wanting
Speaker 1: to get a lot of people's perspective, particularly on things
Speaker 1: that were, you know, in the media. And again I
Speaker 1: remember at this time that there were some, you know,
Speaker 1: some allegations that had been made in this filing that
Speaker 1: were quite you know, that were quite media got the
Speaker 1: media going. Q. How did you react to those allegations? Answer, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I remember that there were
Speaker 1: allegations that I found to be I thought seemed implausible.
Speaker 1: That's not the right. I was skeptical of some of
Speaker 1: the allegations just based on the nature of the allegations,
Speaker 1: without having any facts, based on my training, my experience
Speaker 1: as a prosecutor. There were allegations that seemed unlikely to
Speaker 1: me based on my I didn't have a lot of
Speaker 1: indica or credibility. I would say, question, you were skeptical
Speaker 1: that whether the person whose stories Deal's allegations drew from
Speaker 1: was herself a victim of mister Epstein and Maxwell. Answer.
Speaker 1: I didn't reach a conclusion about that, but I certainly
Speaker 1: had no reason to disbelieve that. Question did you ever
Speaker 1: inquire whether she was or wasn't a victim. Answer inquire
Speaker 1: of whom? Question, Well, that's a very good question. Did
Speaker 1: you ever ask mister Epstein? Answer? I don't believe I
Speaker 1: have asked him, but he told me he made an
Speaker 1: assertion to me on more than one occasion. His consistent
Speaker 1: assertion with respect to that the allegations of that individual
Speaker 1: was that those allegations were not true. Did you ever
Speaker 1: talk to his lawyers about that? Answer? I may have,
Speaker 1: I don't remember. Question So you mentioned that litigation spun
Speaker 1: off from that. Can you just describe what that litigation
Speaker 1: environment was like, what was happening, what does that mean
Speaker 1: to have it spin off? And can you tell me
Speaker 1: what you were working on how you worked on those
Speaker 1: sort of collateral litigation issues. Answer, I wasn't working on
Speaker 1: any of those things. Question were you providing advice on them? Answer? Again,
Speaker 1: he would ask my opinion on things that were happening
Speaker 1: kind of in the media landscape. I can give you
Speaker 1: an example. One of the allegations in the filing that
Speaker 1: I'm referring to was made against Professor Alan Dershowitz, and
Speaker 1: the allegations were that were made against him, if you're him,
Speaker 1: If you were him, they were highly inflammatory allegations, and
Speaker 1: he responded to those allegations that were made in the
Speaker 1: court filing and immediately reported on extensively in the media.
Speaker 1: His response was to respond in the media in a
Speaker 1: way that was disparaging of the affian and the affian's
Speaker 1: lawyers in turn, at least the lawyers I remember the lawyers.
Speaker 1: In turn, the lawyer sued mister Dershowitz for defamation. So
Speaker 1: that's an example of collateral litigation. Question, and mister Epstein
Speaker 1: would ask for your advice regarding that collateral litigation answer.
Speaker 1: I remember he asked my opinion, and that I do
Speaker 1: remember he asked my opinion, and I thought that, you know,
Speaker 1: if it were me, and it wasn't me, But if
Speaker 1: I had been advising mister Dershowitz, the more appropriate that
Speaker 1: the better legal course then going on TV and denying
Speaker 1: and making accusations right, would be to go to court
Speaker 1: file emotion to strike the pleading and say why you
Speaker 1: thought the pleading should be struck. Question. Did you ever
Speaker 1: talk with mister Epstein about whether your communications with them
Speaker 1: about his legal issues or related items were subject to
Speaker 1: some kind of privilege. Answer? I don't recall having any
Speaker 1: conversation with them about that one way or the other.
Speaker 1: Question the same with same question for his lawyers. Well, again,
Speaker 1: remember what I recall him asking was about matters that
Speaker 1: were in the media, because again he was represented by Council, right,
Speaker 1: and so his counsel to the extent that there were
Speaker 1: issues relating to this CVRA, you know that Council was
Speaker 1: monitoring the litigation, was ensuring that, you know, whatever should
Speaker 1: be done or responses if they were acquired. You know,
Speaker 1: he was responsible for those things, not me. Typically, what
Speaker 1: Epstein would ask me about again were things that were
Speaker 1: in the media, you know, for better or for worse.
Speaker 1: In the course of my career, I've worked on many,
Speaker 1: many matters that were the legal issue and the media
Speaker 1: issues are combined. Question, this was not a typical fact
Speaker 1: pattern for you in that regard, is what you're saying. Answer, Well,
Speaker 1: there's nothing about the whole fact pattern that was typical.
Speaker 1: But those types of matters, those types of matters where
Speaker 1: there was a court proceeding that had a lot of
Speaker 1: media attention. Many, I would say, most court proceedings don't
Speaker 1: get any media attention whatsoever. I happen to have spent
Speaker 1: some time in my career working on cases that have
Speaker 1: a lot of media attention. All right, folks, we're going
Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode
Speaker 1: dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we
Speaker 1: left off. All the information that goes with this episode
Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.