WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:03.200
<v Speaker 1>What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:03.240 --> 00:00:06.599
<v Speaker 1>Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where he

3
00:00:06.679 --> 00:00:09.960
<v Speaker 1>left off with Kathy Rumler and the transcript from her

4
00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:16.000
<v Speaker 1>trip to Congress. Question by mister Adaktid at the end

5
00:00:16.039 --> 00:00:18.440
<v Speaker 1>of the last hour, my colleague mister Grant from the

6
00:00:18.480 --> 00:00:21.719
<v Speaker 1>Majority asked about a series of articles that the Miami

7
00:00:21.760 --> 00:00:25.239
<v Speaker 1>Herald published in November of twenty eighteen. I think he

8
00:00:25.280 --> 00:00:28.600
<v Speaker 1>asked you something to the effect or after reading those articles,

9
00:00:28.960 --> 00:00:32.039
<v Speaker 1>did that change your mind about associating with mister Epstein,

10
00:00:32.399 --> 00:00:35.119
<v Speaker 1>or something to that effect. When you were replied, you said,

11
00:00:35.320 --> 00:00:37.560
<v Speaker 1>I remember those articles to be about a plea bargain

12
00:00:37.880 --> 00:00:40.119
<v Speaker 1>or a deal or something like that. I just want

13
00:00:40.159 --> 00:00:42.600
<v Speaker 1>to remind you that that was a series of articles,

14
00:00:42.799 --> 00:00:46.039
<v Speaker 1>many of which focused on Jeffrey Epstein's victims. It included

15
00:00:46.079 --> 00:00:48.240
<v Speaker 1>pictures of what they look like at the time that

16
00:00:48.280 --> 00:00:52.280
<v Speaker 1>they were abused. Answer uh huh question, and the whole

17
00:00:52.280 --> 00:00:55.039
<v Speaker 1>world saw it. So with that, I think earlier in

18
00:00:55.079 --> 00:00:57.560
<v Speaker 1>the day, I believe it was Majority's time they asked

19
00:00:57.600 --> 00:01:00.880
<v Speaker 1>you a little bit about Glen Maxwell. So I'll apologize

20
00:01:00.920 --> 00:01:03.039
<v Speaker 1>if we were to treat a little bit of that ground.

21
00:01:03.399 --> 00:01:06.719
<v Speaker 1>It was a long time ago of transcribed interview hours.

22
00:01:07.120 --> 00:01:11.159
<v Speaker 1>What was your relationship with Glainne Maxwell. Answer? I didn't

23
00:01:11.159 --> 00:01:13.840
<v Speaker 1>have a relationship with Glenn Maxwell. I met her one time.

24
00:01:14.239 --> 00:01:17.159
<v Speaker 1>Question can you say again, please describe that one time

25
00:01:17.200 --> 00:01:20.239
<v Speaker 1>you met with her? Answer? Her lawyer asked if she

26
00:01:20.239 --> 00:01:23.040
<v Speaker 1>could use She meaning her lawyer, asked if she could

27
00:01:23.079 --> 00:01:25.159
<v Speaker 1>use a conference room at my law firm in New

28
00:01:25.239 --> 00:01:27.719
<v Speaker 1>York in connection with some legal work that was happening

29
00:01:27.719 --> 00:01:30.719
<v Speaker 1>in New York. I don't know what it was, but

30
00:01:30.879 --> 00:01:34.200
<v Speaker 1>that's very common in the private practice of law. If

31
00:01:34.200 --> 00:01:36.159
<v Speaker 1>I have a case, Let's say I had a case

32
00:01:36.200 --> 00:01:38.560
<v Speaker 1>in Denver, and my law firm didn't have an office

33
00:01:38.560 --> 00:01:40.760
<v Speaker 1>in Denver, So it would be very common to reach

34
00:01:40.760 --> 00:01:43.519
<v Speaker 1>out to another law firm and ask whether as a courtesy,

35
00:01:43.879 --> 00:01:46.400
<v Speaker 1>that you could use a conference room there. That's what

36
00:01:46.519 --> 00:01:50.040
<v Speaker 1>this was. Question. So they reached out to gets cut

37
00:01:50.079 --> 00:01:53.200
<v Speaker 1>off by a rumler. Her lawyer reached out. Question her

38
00:01:53.239 --> 00:01:56.760
<v Speaker 1>lawyer Laura Manager. Answer yes, question is that right reached

39
00:01:56.799 --> 00:01:58.920
<v Speaker 1>out and asked you if she could use a conference

40
00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:02.159
<v Speaker 1>room at your law firm, Latham and Watkins in New York.

41
00:02:02.719 --> 00:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>Answer yes. Question did you meet them? Answer yeah, and

42
00:02:06.959 --> 00:02:11.159
<v Speaker 1>so I arranged. You have to reserve a conference room. Question.

43
00:02:11.319 --> 00:02:15.879
<v Speaker 1>Uh huh. Answer. I reserve the conference room. And I

44
00:02:15.919 --> 00:02:17.680
<v Speaker 1>happened to be in the office the day that they

45
00:02:17.680 --> 00:02:19.680
<v Speaker 1>were in the office, and I went to the conference

46
00:02:19.759 --> 00:02:22.800
<v Speaker 1>room to say hello and introduce myself to miss Manager,

47
00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:25.840
<v Speaker 1>who I had not met. Question, got it? Do you

48
00:02:25.879 --> 00:02:29.000
<v Speaker 1>remember when this was at all? Answer? I don't question,

49
00:02:29.039 --> 00:02:34.039
<v Speaker 1>all right. Question, can you give me an approximation what year, Roomler?

50
00:02:34.080 --> 00:02:37.960
<v Speaker 1>I don't question before twenty twenty, of course before twenty twenty,

51
00:02:38.120 --> 00:02:41.479
<v Speaker 1>before twenty eighteen, Roomler. It could have been. It could

52
00:02:41.479 --> 00:02:44.919
<v Speaker 1>have been. It was some time, probably between twenty fifteen

53
00:02:45.240 --> 00:02:49.240
<v Speaker 1>and twenty eighteen, but I couldn't tell you exactly when. Question.

54
00:02:49.360 --> 00:02:54.120
<v Speaker 1>Let's introduce minority Exhibit l bates number EFTA zero two

55
00:02:54.199 --> 00:02:58.240
<v Speaker 1>four six five two seven two. This is April nineteenth,

56
00:02:58.240 --> 00:03:03.080
<v Speaker 1>twenty sixteen, email exchange between mister Epstein and you. Do

57
00:03:03.120 --> 00:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>you think this? This email says Laura and Glaine here tomorrow,

58
00:03:07.199 --> 00:03:10.240
<v Speaker 1>that's from you, And then mister Epstein says, here, where

59
00:03:10.960 --> 00:03:13.560
<v Speaker 1>were you referring to the meeting we were just talking about,

60
00:03:13.800 --> 00:03:17.199
<v Speaker 1>Miss Rummer. Yeah. Question, that's all you need for the

61
00:03:17.240 --> 00:03:23.840
<v Speaker 1>document redacted? No answer question. Just a few days later,

62
00:03:23.919 --> 00:03:27.039
<v Speaker 1>Glenn Maxwell was deposed in the defamation case. I think

63
00:03:27.080 --> 00:03:30.520
<v Speaker 1>we talked about it earlier between Virginia Roberts and Miss Maxwell.

64
00:03:31.080 --> 00:03:33.319
<v Speaker 1>Do you know if that meeting between Miss Maxwell and

65
00:03:33.400 --> 00:03:36.199
<v Speaker 1>Miss Manager at your office was in any way related

66
00:03:36.240 --> 00:03:39.879
<v Speaker 1>to that deposition? Answer? I don't have any idea question,

67
00:03:40.319 --> 00:03:42.360
<v Speaker 1>and you didn't talk to either of them about the

68
00:03:42.360 --> 00:03:46.080
<v Speaker 1>deposition or help them prepare in any way? Answer no. Question.

69
00:03:46.159 --> 00:03:50.479
<v Speaker 1>Did you recommend miss Manager to Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell? Answer?

70
00:03:50.520 --> 00:03:52.800
<v Speaker 1>He asked to five for a referral, and I passed

71
00:03:52.800 --> 00:03:55.919
<v Speaker 1>her name along, but again I didn't know her. Question

72
00:03:56.039 --> 00:03:57.800
<v Speaker 1>how did you know her well enough to pass her

73
00:03:57.879 --> 00:04:00.879
<v Speaker 1>name along? Answer? Because I didn't know her well enough

74
00:04:00.879 --> 00:04:03.280
<v Speaker 1>to pass the name along. I believe what happened, which

75
00:04:03.319 --> 00:04:05.639
<v Speaker 1>is very common, is someone ask you for a lawyer,

76
00:04:05.840 --> 00:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>and you send out an email at your law firm saying,

77
00:04:08.800 --> 00:04:11.439
<v Speaker 1>does anyone have a recommendation for a lawyer to handle

78
00:04:11.439 --> 00:04:14.719
<v Speaker 1>this kind of case? Question I remember that too, I

79
00:04:14.759 --> 00:04:17.680
<v Speaker 1>know what you're talking about. Answer, Yes, those happened all

80
00:04:17.680 --> 00:04:21.519
<v Speaker 1>the time. So someone in my law firm had recommended Laura, who,

81
00:04:21.560 --> 00:04:24.519
<v Speaker 1>again I didn't know, and hadn't met, and I passed

82
00:04:24.519 --> 00:04:28.240
<v Speaker 1>her contact information along. Question what was the extent of

83
00:04:28.240 --> 00:04:32.319
<v Speaker 1>your interaction with miss Meninger until this April nineteenth, twenty

84
00:04:32.360 --> 00:04:36.879
<v Speaker 1>sixteen meeting that's your office hosted Answer? I believed either

85
00:04:36.920 --> 00:04:40.079
<v Speaker 1>myself or one of my colleagues had I don't remember specifically,

86
00:04:40.519 --> 00:04:43.199
<v Speaker 1>but when she was contacted, I believe she was told

87
00:04:43.439 --> 00:04:46.879
<v Speaker 1>that the referral came from Latham, and so either I

88
00:04:47.079 --> 00:04:50.000
<v Speaker 1>or my colleague would have recommended her sort of spoke

89
00:04:50.079 --> 00:04:52.759
<v Speaker 1>to her. She probably called to thank us for the referral,

90
00:04:52.839 --> 00:04:58.000
<v Speaker 1>which again is common question. Got it all right? Let's

91
00:04:58.040 --> 00:05:02.079
<v Speaker 1>introduce Exhibit M two emails bates number EFTA zero one

92
00:05:02.120 --> 00:05:07.199
<v Speaker 1>two four nine two four and EFTA zero one seven

93
00:05:07.639 --> 00:05:12.040
<v Speaker 1>eight nine nine three four answer, okay. Question. The first email,

94
00:05:12.160 --> 00:05:13.959
<v Speaker 1>which we should note for the record, is an email

95
00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:17.199
<v Speaker 1>from Jeffrey Epstein to Glenn Maxwell, which you are not on.

96
00:05:17.839 --> 00:05:22.480
<v Speaker 1>I believe reflects exactly what you were describing. The underlying

97
00:05:22.519 --> 00:05:27.439
<v Speaker 1>email is from you to Jeffrey Epstein providing Laura manager's information. Answer,

98
00:05:27.560 --> 00:05:30.160
<v Speaker 1>uh huh question, and then he forwards it to miss

99
00:05:30.279 --> 00:05:35.000
<v Speaker 1>Maxwell and says fifty thousand retainer answer, Uh huh? Question?

100
00:05:35.240 --> 00:05:37.560
<v Speaker 1>Which in this case is not a ten K, it's

101
00:05:37.600 --> 00:05:41.600
<v Speaker 1>a fifty K. Answer uh huh question. The next email,

102
00:05:41.720 --> 00:05:45.199
<v Speaker 1>dated October eighth, twenty fifteen, is again at the top

103
00:05:45.240 --> 00:05:50.279
<v Speaker 1>of an email exchange between Maxwell and Epstein. Answer ahuh. Question.

104
00:05:50.360 --> 00:05:52.600
<v Speaker 1>Do you see halfway through the first page where Miss

105
00:05:52.680 --> 00:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Maxwell says called Laura she had already requested an extension

106
00:05:57.000 --> 00:05:59.879
<v Speaker 1>per Kathy's instruction, she can meet with me on my

107
00:06:00.759 --> 00:06:03.319
<v Speaker 1>and with Kathy, please call me. She thinks she has

108
00:06:03.399 --> 00:06:06.879
<v Speaker 1>good grounds for dismissal. Now Kathy is spelled with the

109
00:06:06.920 --> 00:06:09.680
<v Speaker 1>CEA answer uh huh. Question you spell your name with

110
00:06:09.720 --> 00:06:12.759
<v Speaker 1>a K. Answer A huh. Question. Do you understand this

111
00:06:12.839 --> 00:06:16.600
<v Speaker 1>to be this Kathy to be you or somebody else? Answer?

112
00:06:16.600 --> 00:06:19.759
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. Question did you instruct miss manager at

113
00:06:19.800 --> 00:06:22.720
<v Speaker 1>all about what to do in Miss Maxwell's defamation case

114
00:06:22.879 --> 00:06:27.040
<v Speaker 1>with Miss Roberts Answer I don't instruct other lawyers. Generally

115
00:06:27.120 --> 00:06:30.600
<v Speaker 1>lawyers don't like to be instructed by other lawyers. I

116
00:06:30.639 --> 00:06:33.959
<v Speaker 1>can't speculate on this other than at this stage. One

117
00:06:33.959 --> 00:06:37.040
<v Speaker 1>of the things when a complaint is filed, assuming that

118
00:06:37.079 --> 00:06:40.079
<v Speaker 1>it's been has been served, I don't have any idea

119
00:06:40.120 --> 00:06:42.800
<v Speaker 1>whether this was or not. But under the federal rules,

120
00:06:42.800 --> 00:06:45.839
<v Speaker 1>the civil procedure, there's an amount of time you have

121
00:06:45.920 --> 00:06:48.639
<v Speaker 1>to respond, and so given that I would have just

122
00:06:48.680 --> 00:06:51.279
<v Speaker 1>asked to provide if I can make a recommendation or

123
00:06:51.319 --> 00:06:54.439
<v Speaker 1>make a referral, which I did, it's possible that that's

124
00:06:54.480 --> 00:06:57.920
<v Speaker 1>what it's referring to, but I just don't remember. Question

125
00:06:58.199 --> 00:07:00.439
<v Speaker 1>you don't recall whether or not you discuss filing for

126
00:07:00.480 --> 00:07:04.519
<v Speaker 1>an extension with Miss Manager. Answer again, I wouldn't have

127
00:07:04.519 --> 00:07:08.000
<v Speaker 1>been filing any extension. I wasn't involved in the litigation

128
00:07:08.399 --> 00:07:12.160
<v Speaker 1>other than to provide rumler gets cut off. So when

129
00:07:12.160 --> 00:07:14.639
<v Speaker 1>Miss Maxwell says she can meet with me on Monday

130
00:07:14.639 --> 00:07:17.360
<v Speaker 1>and with Kathy, did you meet with Miss Maxwell and

131
00:07:17.399 --> 00:07:20.720
<v Speaker 1>Miss Manager in October of twenty fifteen? Answer no, I

132
00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:23.120
<v Speaker 1>don't believe I did. And the only time I recalled

133
00:07:23.160 --> 00:07:25.639
<v Speaker 1>meeting Miss Maxwell is the time that they asked me

134
00:07:25.680 --> 00:07:28.079
<v Speaker 1>to use the conference room in our office, which was

135
00:07:28.120 --> 00:07:32.360
<v Speaker 1>in twenty sixteen, per the email that you showed me. Question,

136
00:07:33.000 --> 00:07:36.639
<v Speaker 1>let's introduce Exhibit N an email exchange between you and

137
00:07:36.680 --> 00:07:41.199
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein dated April twenty three, twenty sixteen, Bates number

138
00:07:41.240 --> 00:07:46.000
<v Speaker 1>EFTA zero two four sixty three four eight seven. In

139
00:07:46.000 --> 00:07:48.920
<v Speaker 1>this email, exchange, Mister Epstein asked, quote, how does laur

140
00:07:49.040 --> 00:07:53.040
<v Speaker 1>set a perjury trap? And you respond, quote preparation letters

141
00:07:53.079 --> 00:07:55.879
<v Speaker 1>say things she has already said, and then in peature

142
00:07:55.920 --> 00:07:58.800
<v Speaker 1>with a document that proves otherwise. The age issue is

143
00:07:58.839 --> 00:08:02.199
<v Speaker 1>perfect for that. Do you remember what she was referring

144
00:08:02.240 --> 00:08:05.079
<v Speaker 1>to what you were referring to when you said the

145
00:08:05.160 --> 00:08:08.959
<v Speaker 1>age issue is perfect for that? Answer? He Epstein told

146
00:08:09.000 --> 00:08:11.879
<v Speaker 1>me that she, meaning miss Roberts, was not being truthful

147
00:08:11.920 --> 00:08:14.199
<v Speaker 1>about her age, and that's all I remember about it.

148
00:08:14.600 --> 00:08:17.040
<v Speaker 1>He asked something about a perjury trap. That's not a

149
00:08:17.079 --> 00:08:20.720
<v Speaker 1>thing in my lexicon. That's not how I talk. I

150
00:08:20.759 --> 00:08:22.839
<v Speaker 1>don't think about things like that. And I gave him

151
00:08:22.839 --> 00:08:26.319
<v Speaker 1>a very generic response, explaining sort of frankly cross examination

152
00:08:26.399 --> 00:08:30.240
<v Speaker 1>one oh one question, Why were you giving Jeffrey Epstein

153
00:08:30.319 --> 00:08:34.039
<v Speaker 1>any kind of response, any type informal legal advice or whatever?

154
00:08:34.080 --> 00:08:37.039
<v Speaker 1>This is on how Glenn Maxwell's lawyer should get one

155
00:08:37.080 --> 00:08:40.279
<v Speaker 1>of his Epstein and Maxwell's victims to be trapped in

156
00:08:40.320 --> 00:08:43.879
<v Speaker 1>a deposition for perjury. Answer, he was asking me a

157
00:08:43.879 --> 00:08:46.600
<v Speaker 1>generic question. I understood him to be asking a generic

158
00:08:46.720 --> 00:08:52.399
<v Speaker 1>question question, but your answer wasn't generic. Mister Fishman, I'm sorry,

159
00:08:52.600 --> 00:08:56.200
<v Speaker 1>Can you let the witness finish, please redacted. Your answer

160
00:08:56.240 --> 00:09:00.960
<v Speaker 1>was not generic. Fishman. I'm sorry, mister Robinson. Redacted. The

161
00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:03.840
<v Speaker 1>age issue is perfect for that. Fishman. If you want

162
00:09:03.879 --> 00:09:06.879
<v Speaker 1>to argue with the witness, we don't need to do that. Redacted.

163
00:09:06.879 --> 00:09:09.559
<v Speaker 1>I don't want to argue with the witness. Fishman. She's

164
00:09:09.559 --> 00:09:12.399
<v Speaker 1>in the middle of answering. Fishman gets cut off, and

165
00:09:12.440 --> 00:09:15.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm definitely not arguing with her. Fishman, she's in the

166
00:09:15.320 --> 00:09:18.559
<v Speaker 1>middle of answering that question. Redacted. You said that there

167
00:09:18.639 --> 00:09:20.440
<v Speaker 1>was going to be we can go off the record,

168
00:09:20.559 --> 00:09:23.320
<v Speaker 1>but we're definitely going to keep going here. You said

169
00:09:23.559 --> 00:09:26.720
<v Speaker 1>you gave a generic answer. You said actually had a

170
00:09:26.759 --> 00:09:29.919
<v Speaker 1>specific detail that defies the definition of the term generic.

171
00:09:30.360 --> 00:09:34.720
<v Speaker 1>The age issue is perfect for that answer. Again, he

172
00:09:34.799 --> 00:09:37.120
<v Speaker 1>had told me that she was not truthful about her age,

173
00:09:37.240 --> 00:09:39.240
<v Speaker 1>So again I'm just going off of what he told me,

174
00:09:39.600 --> 00:09:42.240
<v Speaker 1>and I'm giving very generic. This is the most generic

175
00:09:42.240 --> 00:09:45.200
<v Speaker 1>if you looked up cross examination for dummies, that's the

176
00:09:45.279 --> 00:09:48.720
<v Speaker 1>response question. Do you remember what age she said she

177
00:09:49.039 --> 00:09:52.120
<v Speaker 1>actually was? Answer? I don't. I don't remember. I don't

178
00:09:52.159 --> 00:09:55.039
<v Speaker 1>remember the details about the issue. I do remember Miss

179
00:09:55.120 --> 00:09:58.679
<v Speaker 1>Roberts's allegations that were made in the CVR case and

180
00:09:58.720 --> 00:10:02.440
<v Speaker 1>subsequently made public, and there were allegations in there that

181
00:10:02.879 --> 00:10:07.720
<v Speaker 1>I was inherently skeptical of. Question, were you inherently skeptical

182
00:10:07.759 --> 00:10:11.039
<v Speaker 1>that Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell abused her when she

183
00:10:11.159 --> 00:10:14.720
<v Speaker 1>was a minor? Answer? I didn't know, but I recall

184
00:10:14.759 --> 00:10:17.039
<v Speaker 1>that in the filing that she said she'd been forced

185
00:10:17.039 --> 00:10:21.000
<v Speaker 1>to have sex with foreign presidents plural, and multiple American politicians,

186
00:10:21.279 --> 00:10:25.240
<v Speaker 1>with multiple business leaders, all that information, which was generic,

187
00:10:25.480 --> 00:10:29.960
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't specific, but very extreme allegations. Those allegations, again

188
00:10:30.799 --> 00:10:33.840
<v Speaker 1>were made in a declaration in court, were inconsistent with

189
00:10:33.919 --> 00:10:36.480
<v Speaker 1>anything that I had understood about the evidence that the

190
00:10:36.480 --> 00:10:39.399
<v Speaker 1>state attorney and the US Attorney in Miami had uncovered.

191
00:10:40.000 --> 00:10:41.879
<v Speaker 1>And I would have thought that if the US Attorney's

192
00:10:41.879 --> 00:10:44.720
<v Speaker 1>office in Miami had evidence that Epstein had trafficked and

193
00:10:44.840 --> 00:10:48.600
<v Speaker 1>underage minor the multiple foreign presidents or multiple world leaders

194
00:10:48.879 --> 00:10:54.039
<v Speaker 1>or multiple American politicians, question like Prince Andrew, answer that

195
00:10:54.080 --> 00:10:57.720
<v Speaker 1>would be Prince Andrew was separately identified. This was an

196
00:10:57.720 --> 00:11:01.360
<v Speaker 1>allegation that was separate and apart from Prince Andrew that

197
00:11:01.519 --> 00:11:04.080
<v Speaker 1>said that she had been trafficked the multiple foreign presidents

198
00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:07.240
<v Speaker 1>and world leaders and the American politicians and a former

199
00:11:07.279 --> 00:11:12.480
<v Speaker 1>prime minister. Hey, stupid fuck Kathy Rumler, that's exactly who

200
00:11:12.519 --> 00:11:15.200
<v Speaker 1>she was talking about. Prince Andrew and all these other

201
00:11:15.360 --> 00:11:18.840
<v Speaker 1>degenerate fuck bags we've been talking about. People like you

202
00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:23.080
<v Speaker 1>protected Epstein, people like you kept the abuse going, and

203
00:11:23.159 --> 00:11:26.080
<v Speaker 1>in fact, Kathy Rumler is one of the most disgusting

204
00:11:26.120 --> 00:11:28.320
<v Speaker 1>people that has gotten up there and given us a

205
00:11:28.320 --> 00:11:34.879
<v Speaker 1>bullshit excuse throughout this whole entire thing. Question, So, when

206
00:11:34.960 --> 00:11:38.120
<v Speaker 1>Jeffrey Epstein then says accountability, please help, and you say

207
00:11:38.159 --> 00:11:40.519
<v Speaker 1>I will, so I wish we were doing it. Let's

208
00:11:40.519 --> 00:11:42.320
<v Speaker 1>take it a step by step. What did you mean

209
00:11:42.360 --> 00:11:46.080
<v Speaker 1>when you said I will when he asked you please help? Answer?

210
00:11:46.120 --> 00:11:49.159
<v Speaker 1>I don't specifically recall again, this is an email that's

211
00:11:49.200 --> 00:11:52.039
<v Speaker 1>over ten years ago at this time. But I at

212
00:11:52.039 --> 00:11:54.480
<v Speaker 1>this point in time, in twenty sixteen, I had a

213
00:11:54.600 --> 00:11:58.080
<v Speaker 1>very active practice, including an active trial practice. I liked it.

214
00:11:58.120 --> 00:12:01.080
<v Speaker 1>I enjoyed it, as any trial lawyer does. If you

215
00:12:01.080 --> 00:12:03.840
<v Speaker 1>don't enjoy examining witnesses, you seem to be enjoying this

216
00:12:03.919 --> 00:12:06.320
<v Speaker 1>quite a lot, then you shouldn't be doing it. And

217
00:12:06.360 --> 00:12:09.320
<v Speaker 1>so again, my state of mind at the time was

218
00:12:09.360 --> 00:12:11.879
<v Speaker 1>based on the information that he told me, and that

219
00:12:11.960 --> 00:12:14.320
<v Speaker 1>I understood from things that were in the public domain,

220
00:12:14.759 --> 00:12:17.360
<v Speaker 1>that were the allegations that any good lawyer would want

221
00:12:17.360 --> 00:12:20.720
<v Speaker 1>a probe. Question are you saying that any you think

222
00:12:20.759 --> 00:12:23.120
<v Speaker 1>any good lawyer would want to depose one of Jeffrey

223
00:12:23.120 --> 00:12:26.320
<v Speaker 1>Epstein and Glaine Maxwell's victims with the goal of somehow

224
00:12:26.320 --> 00:12:29.720
<v Speaker 1>trapping them into committing perjury. And just to be clear,

225
00:12:30.080 --> 00:12:33.960
<v Speaker 1>the person who committed perjury was Glayne Maxwell. So maybe

226
00:12:34.080 --> 00:12:36.600
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Rumler is not as good of a lawyer as

227
00:12:36.600 --> 00:12:40.399
<v Speaker 1>she thinks she is. Answer. That's not what I said,

228
00:12:41.360 --> 00:12:43.360
<v Speaker 1>and that's not what I meant. Those are your words,

229
00:12:43.360 --> 00:12:46.360
<v Speaker 1>not mine. Question this email, he's asking you how to

230
00:12:46.399 --> 00:12:49.559
<v Speaker 1>lay a perjury trap. You provide some advice. Part of it,

231
00:12:49.600 --> 00:12:52.960
<v Speaker 1>you call it generic. There are some very specific stuff

232
00:12:53.360 --> 00:12:56.279
<v Speaker 1>he says. Please help you say I will. I so

233
00:12:56.399 --> 00:12:59.240
<v Speaker 1>wish I were doing it. Answer to be clear, She

234
00:12:59.279 --> 00:13:02.480
<v Speaker 1>gets cut off. Help me understand this email differently than

235
00:13:02.559 --> 00:13:05.600
<v Speaker 1>exactly what it says. Answer to be clear, I was

236
00:13:05.639 --> 00:13:08.639
<v Speaker 1>not involved in this litigation. I was not counsel of record.

237
00:13:08.960 --> 00:13:13.200
<v Speaker 1>There were lawyers involved in the litigation. Question all right, Answer,

238
00:13:13.720 --> 00:13:16.480
<v Speaker 1>he asked me what I understood to be basic layperson

239
00:13:16.600 --> 00:13:19.360
<v Speaker 1>question about how is it you cross examine a witness

240
00:13:19.559 --> 00:13:21.960
<v Speaker 1>when you think they're not being truthful about something? And

241
00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:24.840
<v Speaker 1>I told them that that's what it was. All right, folks,

242
00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:26.559
<v Speaker 1>We're going to wrap up right here, and in the

243
00:13:26.600 --> 00:13:28.759
<v Speaker 1>next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick

244
00:13:28.799 --> 00:13:31.519
<v Speaker 1>up where we left off. All the information that goes

245
00:13:31.559 --> 00:13:34.799
<v Speaker 1>with this episode can be found in the description box.