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
00:00:03.200 --> 00:00:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right

3
00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:11.720
<v Speaker 1>back to Kathy Rumler and our conversation with Congress redacted.

4
00:00:11.919 --> 00:00:16.280
<v Speaker 1>We'll go back on record question by redacted. So, Miss Rumler,

5
00:00:16.679 --> 00:00:19.280
<v Speaker 1>you did mention in your opening statement you gave, but

6
00:00:19.399 --> 00:00:21.519
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we have a copy that feels like

7
00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:23.800
<v Speaker 1>a long time ago. Can you talk a little bit

8
00:00:23.839 --> 00:00:27.640
<v Speaker 1>more about how you helped mister Epstein with his legal issues? Answer?

9
00:00:27.679 --> 00:00:31.480
<v Speaker 1>I was not his lawyer. Question right answer, But as

10
00:00:31.480 --> 00:00:34.320
<v Speaker 1>a distinguished congressman who was here earlier said, you know,

11
00:00:34.439 --> 00:00:37.359
<v Speaker 1>he said when I was a defense lawyer, everyone, every

12
00:00:37.439 --> 00:00:41.200
<v Speaker 1>time someone called, they asked me for advice. That's very

13
00:00:41.280 --> 00:00:44.280
<v Speaker 1>similar to my life and my experience. And certainly mister

14
00:00:44.320 --> 00:00:46.920
<v Speaker 1>Epstein did that, you know from time to time. I

15
00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:49.359
<v Speaker 1>knew he did it with others as well. And the

16
00:00:49.399 --> 00:00:52.000
<v Speaker 1>issues that he typically would ask me about were related

17
00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:56.039
<v Speaker 1>to media scrutiny or media allegations, and on occasion he

18
00:00:56.079 --> 00:00:59.000
<v Speaker 1>would ask me questions that were legal questions of points

19
00:00:59.039 --> 00:01:01.920
<v Speaker 1>of law, is how I would say it. Arising from

20
00:01:01.960 --> 00:01:04.719
<v Speaker 1>the litigation in Florida, and I understand that a couple

21
00:01:04.719 --> 00:01:07.920
<v Speaker 1>of victims had brought against the Justice Department, which I

22
00:01:07.959 --> 00:01:10.840
<v Speaker 1>will refer to as the CVR A litigation, the Crime

23
00:01:10.920 --> 00:01:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Victims Rights Act litigation question got it, and then as

24
00:01:14.879 --> 00:01:17.879
<v Speaker 1>time went on there was no more. There was more litigation.

25
00:01:18.120 --> 00:01:21.879
<v Speaker 1>He faced an increasing amount of litigation or not answer.

26
00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:24.799
<v Speaker 1>I don't recall. I don't really remember other litigation that

27
00:01:24.840 --> 00:01:27.560
<v Speaker 1>he was involved in or that he was a party to.

28
00:01:27.560 --> 00:01:32.400
<v Speaker 1>To this CVR case, it obviously involved his non prosecution agreement,

29
00:01:32.719 --> 00:01:35.480
<v Speaker 1>and in particular, as I understood the issue, the legal

30
00:01:35.480 --> 00:01:38.519
<v Speaker 1>issue before the court there was whether or not the

31
00:01:38.599 --> 00:01:42.640
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department had violated the notification rights of the plaintiffs

32
00:01:42.719 --> 00:01:45.799
<v Speaker 1>in that case, and that there was a legal issue.

33
00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:49.200
<v Speaker 1>I was actually familiar with this legal issue. The legal

34
00:01:49.239 --> 00:01:52.200
<v Speaker 1>issue as I understood it that was before the court

35
00:01:53.000 --> 00:01:56.239
<v Speaker 1>was the Crime Victim's Rights Act, among other things, requires

36
00:01:56.239 --> 00:01:59.719
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors to provide notice to victims of crimes. And the

37
00:02:00.079 --> 00:02:03.200
<v Speaker 1>question in a decision not to prosecute, which is what

38
00:02:03.280 --> 00:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>a non prosecution agreement, is whether or not those notification

39
00:02:07.040 --> 00:02:10.240
<v Speaker 1>requirements had kicked in and whether or not the Justice

40
00:02:10.240 --> 00:02:14.080
<v Speaker 1>Department the US Attorney's Office had provided notice and adequate

41
00:02:14.120 --> 00:02:17.240
<v Speaker 1>notice at the same time that was my general understanding

42
00:02:17.280 --> 00:02:20.159
<v Speaker 1>of the issue that was before the court, and I

43
00:02:20.240 --> 00:02:23.400
<v Speaker 1>knew that the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice

44
00:02:23.439 --> 00:02:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Department had actually issued a formal opinion on that question,

45
00:02:26.840 --> 00:02:29.639
<v Speaker 1>not directly related to this lawsuit, but just in general,

46
00:02:30.360 --> 00:02:33.599
<v Speaker 1>that question when does the Justice Department have to provide

47
00:02:33.639 --> 00:02:37.120
<v Speaker 1>notification to victims? And that Office of Legal Council opinion

48
00:02:37.360 --> 00:02:41.039
<v Speaker 1>had stated that those notification obligations only attached or kicked

49
00:02:41.039 --> 00:02:45.599
<v Speaker 1>in when a charging decision, when someone had been charged. Well,

50
00:02:45.680 --> 00:02:48.879
<v Speaker 1>she's wrong about that, because the court already admonished the

51
00:02:48.879 --> 00:02:54.319
<v Speaker 1>federal government for the CVRA violations. As you learn more

52
00:02:54.319 --> 00:02:57.319
<v Speaker 1>about the case, did the cause or did that cause

53
00:02:57.319 --> 00:03:00.719
<v Speaker 1>you to reevaluate your understanding of the circumstance of his

54
00:03:00.840 --> 00:03:04.360
<v Speaker 1>non prosecution agreement? Answer? I don't remember. There are being

55
00:03:04.400 --> 00:03:07.319
<v Speaker 1>many facts in the case in the sense I remember

56
00:03:07.360 --> 00:03:09.800
<v Speaker 1>that it was a legal issue, and that was the

57
00:03:09.879 --> 00:03:12.639
<v Speaker 1>legal issue before the court, and the question was you know,

58
00:03:12.960 --> 00:03:15.680
<v Speaker 1>there were sort of two questions. One is did the

59
00:03:15.800 --> 00:03:20.159
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department not fulfill its obligation under the CVRA, and

60
00:03:20.199 --> 00:03:24.759
<v Speaker 1>then second, if they hadn't, what was the remedy? But

61
00:03:24.840 --> 00:03:27.039
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember their being you know, I don't remember

62
00:03:27.080 --> 00:03:30.159
<v Speaker 1>having much knowledge about their being facts because the facts

63
00:03:30.199 --> 00:03:34.080
<v Speaker 1>are a little bit subsidiary to the legal question. Question. Well,

64
00:03:34.240 --> 00:03:37.319
<v Speaker 1>one set of facts was whether the CVRA remedy aside

65
00:03:37.479 --> 00:03:41.879
<v Speaker 1>had been violated at all? Answer, that's right question, and

66
00:03:41.960 --> 00:03:45.159
<v Speaker 1>that would be because the plaintiffs are potentially other survivors

67
00:03:45.199 --> 00:03:49.039
<v Speaker 1>or victims had not been afforded the rights under the CVRA.

68
00:03:49.280 --> 00:03:52.840
<v Speaker 1>Is that right answer? My recollection of the Justice Department's

69
00:03:52.840 --> 00:03:56.400
<v Speaker 1>position in that litigation was that they had complied. I

70
00:03:56.400 --> 00:04:00.639
<v Speaker 1>should say it as opposed today, But the prosecutors complied

71
00:04:00.879 --> 00:04:04.680
<v Speaker 1>because there was they made a decision to not prosecute.

72
00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:07.280
<v Speaker 1>So if there had been a decision to prosecute where

73
00:04:07.280 --> 00:04:10.039
<v Speaker 1>an indictment had been returned, then a bunch of notification,

74
00:04:10.400 --> 00:04:14.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, provisions would kick in. Question the plaintiffs were Jane,

75
00:04:14.719 --> 00:04:18.240
<v Speaker 1>does the people who were survivors who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims?

76
00:04:18.279 --> 00:04:22.240
<v Speaker 1>Were they not? Answer? My understanding is that they were

77
00:04:22.360 --> 00:04:25.040
<v Speaker 1>people who said, you know, we believe that were victims

78
00:04:25.199 --> 00:04:27.959
<v Speaker 1>of this conduct, and the Justice Department owed us certain

79
00:04:27.959 --> 00:04:32.079
<v Speaker 1>notifications and we didn't get them. Question did you believe

80
00:04:32.120 --> 00:04:35.800
<v Speaker 1>they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein? Answer? I certainly didn't

81
00:04:35.839 --> 00:04:39.399
<v Speaker 1>have any reason to doubt it. Clearly were victims of

82
00:04:39.439 --> 00:04:42.720
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein's conduct. That was resolved with the non prosecution

83
00:04:42.800 --> 00:04:46.199
<v Speaker 1>agreement and the legal question. What I understood it to

84
00:04:46.240 --> 00:04:49.279
<v Speaker 1>be the reason that the prosecutors chose not to prosecute

85
00:04:49.279 --> 00:04:52.120
<v Speaker 1>them federally was that they did not have sufficient evidence

86
00:04:52.439 --> 00:04:55.600
<v Speaker 1>that he knew that anyone was in fact under age.

87
00:04:55.720 --> 00:04:59.040
<v Speaker 1>But that doesn't mean they weren't. Question. It doesn't mean

88
00:04:59.079 --> 00:05:01.800
<v Speaker 1>they weren't. It means that you believed that he had

89
00:05:01.800 --> 00:05:04.720
<v Speaker 1>more underage victims than were reflected in the two counts

90
00:05:04.800 --> 00:05:07.680
<v Speaker 1>that he ended up pleading guilty to answer. In one count,

91
00:05:07.720 --> 00:05:10.079
<v Speaker 1>there were no underage victims at all. That was a

92
00:05:10.120 --> 00:05:14.120
<v Speaker 1>solicitation of prostitution count. And again in law enforcement slash

93
00:05:14.240 --> 00:05:17.399
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor state of mind, the crime of prostitution has two

94
00:05:17.480 --> 00:05:23.040
<v Speaker 1>participants question, and you've already we've already discussed that question

95
00:05:23.360 --> 00:05:26.120
<v Speaker 1>at times. You reminded mister Epstein that if she's a miner,

96
00:05:26.360 --> 00:05:29.759
<v Speaker 1>then that's not legally prostitution. Answer. A minor can't consent

97
00:05:30.199 --> 00:05:33.759
<v Speaker 1>question right answer to engage in a commercial sex act

98
00:05:33.759 --> 00:05:35.959
<v Speaker 1>in the way that someone who is legally of age

99
00:05:36.000 --> 00:05:40.839
<v Speaker 1>ken and the law treats those people very different, without

100
00:05:40.839 --> 00:05:43.399
<v Speaker 1>opining as to whether that's a good policy or whatever.

101
00:05:43.519 --> 00:05:46.800
<v Speaker 1>That's what the law does. Question. I think you understand

102
00:05:46.800 --> 00:05:50.040
<v Speaker 1>what I'm asking here is that working on this CVR case,

103
00:05:50.199 --> 00:05:53.560
<v Speaker 1>you became aware of a number of plaintiffs. Mister Fishman

104
00:05:53.639 --> 00:05:56.279
<v Speaker 1>jumps in, I'm sorry she didn't testify that she was

105
00:05:56.360 --> 00:06:00.720
<v Speaker 1>working on the CVR case. Questions are you're right? We'll

106
00:06:00.720 --> 00:06:04.480
<v Speaker 1>get to that question. In becoming familiar with this CVR

107
00:06:04.519 --> 00:06:07.839
<v Speaker 1>A case, you also became familiar that there were a

108
00:06:07.920 --> 00:06:11.439
<v Speaker 1>number of plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs alleged to be Jeffrey Epstein's

109
00:06:11.480 --> 00:06:15.639
<v Speaker 1>victims survivors at the time, those additional victims, whether or

110
00:06:15.680 --> 00:06:18.920
<v Speaker 1>not he was chargeror pled guilty to his offense against them,

111
00:06:19.199 --> 00:06:22.399
<v Speaker 1>and you were aware of that, right answer. What I

112
00:06:22.480 --> 00:06:25.399
<v Speaker 1>was aware of with respect to the CVRA A litigation

113
00:06:25.839 --> 00:06:28.480
<v Speaker 1>is that there were and again that this was this

114
00:06:28.759 --> 00:06:31.879
<v Speaker 1>was public litigation, and that there were two different plaintiffs

115
00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:34.680
<v Speaker 1>who identified as Jane Do one and Jane do two.

116
00:06:35.639 --> 00:06:38.240
<v Speaker 1>And at some subsequent point there was a motion file

117
00:06:38.279 --> 00:06:41.040
<v Speaker 1>by lawyers who were representing the two Jane Doe victims

118
00:06:41.199 --> 00:06:43.519
<v Speaker 1>who said that their rights had been violated by the

119
00:06:43.639 --> 00:06:46.759
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department, and the motion was seeking to add to

120
00:06:46.839 --> 00:06:49.680
<v Speaker 1>additional Jane Doe plaintiffs, and I came to learn that

121
00:06:50.120 --> 00:06:53.360
<v Speaker 1>through public reporting the name of the third Jane Doe plaintiff.

122
00:06:53.399 --> 00:06:56.519
<v Speaker 1>That's what I knew. Question do you recall mister Epstein

123
00:06:56.560 --> 00:07:00.519
<v Speaker 1>ever filed any motions in the CVRA case at all? Answer?

124
00:07:00.759 --> 00:07:04.279
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember specifically whether anything was filed. I have

125
00:07:04.360 --> 00:07:06.959
<v Speaker 1>a vague recollection that there was. Well, I shouldn't say

126
00:07:07.040 --> 00:07:09.959
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember. I don't remember. I knew that he

127
00:07:10.199 --> 00:07:13.519
<v Speaker 1>wasn't any party to it. Question what kind of work

128
00:07:13.560 --> 00:07:15.720
<v Speaker 1>did you do or advice did you provide to mister

129
00:07:15.720 --> 00:07:20.560
<v Speaker 1>Epstein regarding CVR case? Answer again, I wasn't his lawyer.

130
00:07:20.600 --> 00:07:23.079
<v Speaker 1>He had a lawyer. Question and just to be clear

131
00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:26.120
<v Speaker 1>on that, you never represented him? Answer I did not

132
00:07:26.160 --> 00:07:29.160
<v Speaker 1>represent him. Question you were not his lawyer. Answer I

133
00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:31.720
<v Speaker 1>was not his lawyer. Question when you give him advice?

134
00:07:32.040 --> 00:07:35.279
<v Speaker 1>You were never giving him his advice in a legal capacity.

135
00:07:35.560 --> 00:07:38.839
<v Speaker 1>Answer that's not what I said. Question I'm asking that

136
00:07:39.040 --> 00:07:42.879
<v Speaker 1>is what I'm asking you. Answer. He asked my opinion

137
00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:45.519
<v Speaker 1>or my views on a number of occasions. Those views

138
00:07:45.560 --> 00:07:48.319
<v Speaker 1>typically he asked me let me rephrase it or phrase

139
00:07:48.360 --> 00:07:51.199
<v Speaker 1>it differently. There was a lot of media reporting that

140
00:07:51.240 --> 00:07:54.839
<v Speaker 1>arose from the CVRA litigation because of a motion that

141
00:07:55.000 --> 00:07:57.480
<v Speaker 1>had been filed and allegations that were made in that

142
00:07:57.519 --> 00:07:59.959
<v Speaker 1>motion that were quite that were the kinds of act

143
00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:03.480
<v Speaker 1>dellegations that would that attracted that did in fact attract

144
00:08:03.680 --> 00:08:06.519
<v Speaker 1>a lot of media attention. And so there were things

145
00:08:06.519 --> 00:08:08.879
<v Speaker 1>that happened as a result of that, and a whole

146
00:08:08.879 --> 00:08:11.720
<v Speaker 1>bunch of collateral litigation that spun out of that filing.

147
00:08:12.399 --> 00:08:14.319
<v Speaker 1>And he asked me about that, you know, from time

148
00:08:14.360 --> 00:08:16.240
<v Speaker 1>to time, and I would, you know, give him my

149
00:08:16.319 --> 00:08:18.920
<v Speaker 1>best response, you know, based on my understanding of the

150
00:08:18.920 --> 00:08:22.319
<v Speaker 1>facts at the time. Question, would you ever perform a

151
00:08:22.319 --> 00:08:27.399
<v Speaker 1>similar role to his lawyers? Directly? Answer? Sure? If asked question?

152
00:08:27.439 --> 00:08:31.040
<v Speaker 1>Were you asked? Answer, I don't not that I sitting

153
00:08:31.040 --> 00:08:34.080
<v Speaker 1>here today, I don't have any specific recollection of anything.

154
00:08:34.120 --> 00:08:36.519
<v Speaker 1>But you know, you know, one of one of the

155
00:08:36.559 --> 00:08:39.000
<v Speaker 1>things about being a lawyer is that lawyers like to

156
00:08:39.039 --> 00:08:41.919
<v Speaker 1>talk to each other about cases. And certainly, you know,

157
00:08:42.039 --> 00:08:45.639
<v Speaker 1>again he had counsel, a very quite competent, really good

158
00:08:45.639 --> 00:08:49.159
<v Speaker 1>counsel who was representing him, and so you know, again

159
00:08:49.360 --> 00:08:51.960
<v Speaker 1>we had a shared client he knew me. He seemed

160
00:08:51.960 --> 00:08:54.600
<v Speaker 1>to me to have a practice of kind of wanting

161
00:08:54.639 --> 00:08:57.960
<v Speaker 1>to get a lot of people's perspective, particularly on things

162
00:08:57.960 --> 00:09:00.879
<v Speaker 1>that were, you know, in the media. And again I

163
00:09:00.919 --> 00:09:03.039
<v Speaker 1>remember at this time that there were some, you know,

164
00:09:03.120 --> 00:09:05.639
<v Speaker 1>some allegations that had been made in this filing that

165
00:09:05.679 --> 00:09:08.159
<v Speaker 1>were quite you know, that were quite media got the

166
00:09:08.200 --> 00:09:13.120
<v Speaker 1>media going. Q. How did you react to those allegations? Answer, well,

167
00:09:13.240 --> 00:09:14.879
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I mean, I remember that there were

168
00:09:14.919 --> 00:09:18.279
<v Speaker 1>allegations that I found to be I thought seemed implausible.

169
00:09:19.320 --> 00:09:21.600
<v Speaker 1>That's not the right. I was skeptical of some of

170
00:09:21.639 --> 00:09:24.799
<v Speaker 1>the allegations just based on the nature of the allegations,

171
00:09:24.840 --> 00:09:28.360
<v Speaker 1>without having any facts, based on my training, my experience

172
00:09:28.399 --> 00:09:31.279
<v Speaker 1>as a prosecutor. There were allegations that seemed unlikely to

173
00:09:31.360 --> 00:09:33.919
<v Speaker 1>me based on my I didn't have a lot of

174
00:09:34.080 --> 00:09:37.720
<v Speaker 1>indica or credibility. I would say, question, you were skeptical

175
00:09:37.759 --> 00:09:41.240
<v Speaker 1>that whether the person whose stories Deal's allegations drew from

176
00:09:41.399 --> 00:09:44.919
<v Speaker 1>was herself a victim of mister Epstein and Maxwell. Answer.

177
00:09:45.200 --> 00:09:47.679
<v Speaker 1>I didn't reach a conclusion about that, but I certainly

178
00:09:47.679 --> 00:09:50.840
<v Speaker 1>had no reason to disbelieve that. Question did you ever

179
00:09:50.879 --> 00:09:54.240
<v Speaker 1>inquire whether she was or wasn't a victim. Answer inquire

180
00:09:54.240 --> 00:09:57.080
<v Speaker 1>of whom? Question, Well, that's a very good question. Did

181
00:09:57.080 --> 00:09:59.840
<v Speaker 1>you ever ask mister Epstein? Answer? I don't believe I

182
00:09:59.840 --> 00:10:02.480
<v Speaker 1>have asked him, but he told me he made an

183
00:10:02.519 --> 00:10:05.879
<v Speaker 1>assertion to me on more than one occasion. His consistent

184
00:10:05.919 --> 00:10:09.320
<v Speaker 1>assertion with respect to that the allegations of that individual

185
00:10:09.759 --> 00:10:13.080
<v Speaker 1>was that those allegations were not true. Did you ever

186
00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:16.440
<v Speaker 1>talk to his lawyers about that? Answer? I may have,

187
00:10:16.519 --> 00:10:19.519
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember. Question So you mentioned that litigation spun

188
00:10:19.559 --> 00:10:22.759
<v Speaker 1>off from that. Can you just describe what that litigation

189
00:10:22.879 --> 00:10:25.919
<v Speaker 1>environment was like, what was happening, what does that mean

190
00:10:26.159 --> 00:10:28.440
<v Speaker 1>to have it spin off? And can you tell me

191
00:10:28.799 --> 00:10:31.759
<v Speaker 1>what you were working on how you worked on those

192
00:10:31.759 --> 00:10:35.320
<v Speaker 1>sort of collateral litigation issues. Answer, I wasn't working on

193
00:10:35.360 --> 00:10:39.320
<v Speaker 1>any of those things. Question were you providing advice on them? Answer? Again,

194
00:10:39.639 --> 00:10:41.960
<v Speaker 1>he would ask my opinion on things that were happening

195
00:10:42.039 --> 00:10:44.320
<v Speaker 1>kind of in the media landscape. I can give you

196
00:10:44.399 --> 00:10:47.080
<v Speaker 1>an example. One of the allegations in the filing that

197
00:10:47.159 --> 00:10:50.679
<v Speaker 1>I'm referring to was made against Professor Alan Dershowitz, and

198
00:10:50.720 --> 00:10:54.759
<v Speaker 1>the allegations were that were made against him, if you're him,

199
00:10:55.200 --> 00:10:58.440
<v Speaker 1>If you were him, they were highly inflammatory allegations, and

200
00:10:58.519 --> 00:11:02.039
<v Speaker 1>he responded to those allegations that were made in the

201
00:11:02.039 --> 00:11:05.919
<v Speaker 1>court filing and immediately reported on extensively in the media.

202
00:11:06.000 --> 00:11:08.320
<v Speaker 1>His response was to respond in the media in a

203
00:11:08.320 --> 00:11:11.960
<v Speaker 1>way that was disparaging of the affian and the affian's

204
00:11:12.039 --> 00:11:15.799
<v Speaker 1>lawyers in turn, at least the lawyers I remember the lawyers.

205
00:11:15.799 --> 00:11:19.080
<v Speaker 1>In turn, the lawyer sued mister Dershowitz for defamation. So

206
00:11:19.240 --> 00:11:23.919
<v Speaker 1>that's an example of collateral litigation. Question, and mister Epstein

207
00:11:23.919 --> 00:11:28.279
<v Speaker 1>would ask for your advice regarding that collateral litigation answer.

208
00:11:28.559 --> 00:11:31.600
<v Speaker 1>I remember he asked my opinion, and that I do

209
00:11:31.679 --> 00:11:34.159
<v Speaker 1>remember he asked my opinion, and I thought that, you know,

210
00:11:34.200 --> 00:11:36.440
<v Speaker 1>if it were me, and it wasn't me, But if

211
00:11:36.440 --> 00:11:40.480
<v Speaker 1>I had been advising mister Dershowitz, the more appropriate that

212
00:11:40.519 --> 00:11:43.120
<v Speaker 1>the better legal course then going on TV and denying

213
00:11:43.360 --> 00:11:45.960
<v Speaker 1>and making accusations right, would be to go to court

214
00:11:46.080 --> 00:11:49.080
<v Speaker 1>file emotion to strike the pleading and say why you

215
00:11:49.120 --> 00:11:51.840
<v Speaker 1>thought the pleading should be struck. Question. Did you ever

216
00:11:51.879 --> 00:11:55.000
<v Speaker 1>talk with mister Epstein about whether your communications with them

217
00:11:55.240 --> 00:11:58.279
<v Speaker 1>about his legal issues or related items were subject to

218
00:11:58.320 --> 00:12:01.519
<v Speaker 1>some kind of privilege. Answer? I don't recall having any

219
00:12:01.519 --> 00:12:04.120
<v Speaker 1>conversation with them about that one way or the other.

220
00:12:04.559 --> 00:12:07.879
<v Speaker 1>Question the same with same question for his lawyers. Well, again,

221
00:12:07.960 --> 00:12:11.279
<v Speaker 1>remember what I recall him asking was about matters that

222
00:12:11.320 --> 00:12:15.039
<v Speaker 1>were in the media, because again he was represented by Council, right,

223
00:12:15.320 --> 00:12:17.879
<v Speaker 1>and so his counsel to the extent that there were

224
00:12:17.919 --> 00:12:20.960
<v Speaker 1>issues relating to this CVRA, you know that Council was

225
00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:24.519
<v Speaker 1>monitoring the litigation, was ensuring that, you know, whatever should

226
00:12:24.519 --> 00:12:27.600
<v Speaker 1>be done or responses if they were acquired. You know,

227
00:12:27.919 --> 00:12:31.080
<v Speaker 1>he was responsible for those things, not me. Typically, what

228
00:12:31.159 --> 00:12:33.559
<v Speaker 1>Epstein would ask me about again were things that were

229
00:12:33.559 --> 00:12:36.000
<v Speaker 1>in the media, you know, for better or for worse.

230
00:12:36.240 --> 00:12:38.480
<v Speaker 1>In the course of my career, I've worked on many,

231
00:12:38.559 --> 00:12:41.080
<v Speaker 1>many matters that were the legal issue and the media

232
00:12:41.120 --> 00:12:45.120
<v Speaker 1>issues are combined. Question, this was not a typical fact

233
00:12:45.159 --> 00:12:48.840
<v Speaker 1>pattern for you in that regard, is what you're saying. Answer, Well,

234
00:12:48.879 --> 00:12:51.360
<v Speaker 1>there's nothing about the whole fact pattern that was typical.

235
00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:54.840
<v Speaker 1>But those types of matters, those types of matters where

236
00:12:54.840 --> 00:12:56.799
<v Speaker 1>there was a court proceeding that had a lot of

237
00:12:56.840 --> 00:13:00.320
<v Speaker 1>media attention. Many, I would say, most court proceedings don't

238
00:13:00.320 --> 00:13:03.879
<v Speaker 1>get any media attention whatsoever. I happen to have spent

239
00:13:03.960 --> 00:13:06.600
<v Speaker 1>some time in my career working on cases that have

240
00:13:06.679 --> 00:13:08.799
<v Speaker 1>a lot of media attention. All right, folks, we're going

241
00:13:08.840 --> 00:13:10.799
<v Speaker 1>to wrap up right here, and in the next episode

242
00:13:10.799 --> 00:13:12.679
<v Speaker 1>dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we

243
00:13:12.799 --> 00:13:15.840
<v Speaker 1>left off. All the information that goes with this episode

244
00:13:15.919 --> 00:13:18.000
<v Speaker 1>can be found in the description box.