Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
Speaker 1: back in to the Kathy Ruhmler transcript from her trip
Speaker 1: to Congress. Mister Submaranium, I may have missed this, but
Speaker 1: were you ever Jeffrey Epstein was never a legal client
Speaker 1: of yours in any way, Miss Rumler. He was not questioned?
Speaker 1: So you never had any kind of agreement with them
Speaker 1: or an engagement? Answer? I did not. Question did you
Speaker 1: ever receive any compensation from him? Answer? No? Question did
Speaker 1: you ever receive any cash from him or any transfer
Speaker 1: money transfer from him? Just gifts? Answer? Yeah, I did
Speaker 1: receive gifts from him, but I did not receive compensation.
Speaker 1: Question but not any money from them? And then did
Speaker 1: you ever you weren't representing them, But did you ever
Speaker 1: attend any of his court proceedings? Answer? As we discussed,
Speaker 1: I was present, you know, as a member of the
Speaker 1: public at his are in July of twenty nineteen. Question
Speaker 1: thank you and apologies if this has already been asked.
Speaker 1: But the reason for that was because of your friendship
Speaker 1: or was there a reason for you attending that? Answer?
Speaker 1: The reason was this is someone that I had dealt
Speaker 1: with over you know, the prior period. I mean the
Speaker 1: prior you know, five year period, and he was he
Speaker 1: was and remained at the time, well up until that time,
Speaker 1: a primary advisor for an important client of mine, and
Speaker 1: I wanted to understand exactly, you know, I wanted to
Speaker 1: understand what was going on and what he was charged
Speaker 1: with and what the conduct was. And I anticipated that
Speaker 1: my client would also want to understand that. Question do
Speaker 1: you believe he ever used the relationship you had with him?
Speaker 1: You know, it's not a friendship, I guess a business relationship.
Speaker 1: Perhaps when reaching out to other people. We've heard from
Speaker 1: other folks that he would use the name name drop essentially.
Speaker 1: Do you feel that that happened to you? Answer? I
Speaker 1: didn't know that at the time, but I know now
Speaker 1: because I've seen, you know, references in documents that have
Speaker 1: been released where he name drops me. But I didn't
Speaker 1: know he was doing it at the time. Question and
Speaker 1: I apologize if this was already asked, But were you
Speaker 1: aware that you were designated as an executor of his estate? Answer?
Speaker 1: I learned that later that I was listed as a
Speaker 1: backup executor. Question did you consent to that? In any way. Answer,
Speaker 1: I didn't know about it. Question okay, so there was
Speaker 1: never a conversation about this answer with Epstein? Question or anyone.
Speaker 1: Answer I don't remember having a conversation with Epstein about it.
Speaker 1: I was surprised when I saw the document when it
Speaker 1: was released last year. Question have you done anything with
Speaker 1: his estate? Gets cut off by Rumler? No association? Answer no.
Speaker 1: Question when was your name removed? Answer? I don't know exactly,
Speaker 1: but that was in a draft That was, you know,
Speaker 1: a draft document, and the final document does not. I'm
Speaker 1: not identified. Question when did you learn about your name
Speaker 1: being an executor? Rumler? Again, I believe the document was
Speaker 1: provided to this committee and then made public. I believe
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five. Question do you have any sort
Speaker 1: of speculation as to why your name or you were
Speaker 1: named as an executor? Answer? My only speculation is that
Speaker 1: I'm a lawyer, and I think someone who believed to
Speaker 1: be an honest person. Question okay, that's all I have.
Speaker 1: Question redacted? Did you ask to be taken off the will? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: mister men if he asking questions now, good afternoon. I
Speaker 1: was kind of struck by your statement here that you
Speaker 1: and mister Epstein only had a professional relationship. You know,
Speaker 1: since I've been sitting here, we've seen a number of
Speaker 1: emails in twenty fourteen where he says to you, girl, careful,
Speaker 1: I will review an old habit. In twenty fifteen where
Speaker 1: you say to him, darling, I'm not one of your things.
Speaker 1: In twenty sixteen where he says that Griffin may be
Speaker 1: interested in women and you say, I ain't. No affirmative action,
Speaker 1: so that's an unprofessional way of having a conversation. He says,
Speaker 1: I meant romantically and new reference Russians, and then it
Speaker 1: all culminates in twenty nineteen when he says, I very
Speaker 1: much appreciate your friendship. So your statement here today is
Speaker 1: that you all weren't friends. Roumler, No, I didn't say that.
Speaker 1: I said I knew him professionally, and I say friendly
Speaker 1: in that context. But the foundation of my dealings with
Speaker 1: him were was that I was a lawyer in private practice,
Speaker 1: and that's why he dealt with me, and that's why
Speaker 1: I dealt with him, And in that context I was
Speaker 1: friendly with him. And I believe this effort or attempt
Speaker 1: to create a binary construct you're either friends or you're
Speaker 1: a professional, is just not real life, and there are
Speaker 1: you know, you probably you're working with other members as
Speaker 1: a professional relationship, but you're probably friendly with him too,
Speaker 1: And that's the way it was with him. But again,
Speaker 1: I didn't have a number of personal friends who I
Speaker 1: spend time with on the weekends. We go out to dinner,
Speaker 1: go to concerts, we might go on vacation, we might
Speaker 1: go to a spot together. And those are the people
Speaker 1: who I count as my friends. So I have tried
Speaker 1: to be as precise and descriptive as I can about
Speaker 1: really the nature of my interactions in dealing with them,
Speaker 1: mister Menifee, So more of a hybrid situation. I practiced
Speaker 1: at a large law firm too. I never called anybody
Speaker 1: darling in a communication, So this would be more of
Speaker 1: a hybrid situation where maybe not completely professional, maybe not
Speaker 1: completely personal. Answer. What I would say is I was friendly.
Speaker 1: You know, I knew him professionally, I was friendly with them,
Speaker 1: and you know, with respect. You may not like the
Speaker 1: words I used, and as I said before, I regret
Speaker 1: it that I even knew this guy much less was
Speaker 1: emailing with him. But I tend to be a pretty
Speaker 1: casual person. I sometimes am a bit irreverent. I'm sometimes
Speaker 1: a bit sarcastic, and those references that your appointing to
Speaker 1: are an example of that. Mister Menefee, I'm introducing what's
Speaker 1: marked as my already exhibit G. It begins with bates
Speaker 1: number EFTA zero two six one zero seven seven nine,
Speaker 1: And we have copies that are being passed around now
Speaker 1: bottom of page one, going into page two. And this
Speaker 1: is an email from you dated December sixteenth, twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: The subject line is my edited version. Am I capturing
Speaker 1: that correctly? Answer? Yes? Question? So it looks like that
Speaker 1: you edited a draft written article written by mister Epstein's
Speaker 1: lawyer Ken Starr. Is that this answer. I don't recall
Speaker 1: who drafted who drafted this originally, but I was asked
Speaker 1: to look at it. But again, I believe this was
Speaker 1: something that was going to be provided in response to media.
Speaker 1: It was a media response and I was asked to
Speaker 1: look at it to either provide my thoughts question. So
Speaker 1: EFTA zero two six one zero seven seventy nine reflects
Speaker 1: a statement for mister Epstein's benefit that you edited answer.
Speaker 1: It was what I understand that was being contemplated here
Speaker 1: was that I don't remember the specifics, but there were
Speaker 1: allegations in the media that mister Epstein had received the
Speaker 1: so called sweet Art deal in Florida, arising you know,
Speaker 1: from the federal and state prosecutions. And so this was
Speaker 1: contemplated by the media response that would be ultimately signed
Speaker 1: or authored by his attorney, of which who I was
Speaker 1: not one? Mister Menifee. Question, so, can we look down
Speaker 1: at the bottom of page two, the last full paragraph,
Speaker 1: So the second to last paragraph on the page there,
Speaker 1: the second to last sentence starts with Jeffrey accepted full
Speaker 1: responsibility for his conduct. Do you see that? Answer? I do? Question? Okay,
Speaker 1: the last sentence on the page for over ten years,
Speaker 1: that being mister Epstein has lived a good and all
Speaker 1: abiding life. Do you see that answer? I do. Question.
Speaker 1: Turn the page the final paragraph. We're looking at the
Speaker 1: third sentence. It begins with but Jeffrey an exemplary employer.
Speaker 1: Do you see that answer? I do? Question? So, were
Speaker 1: you trying to change the public's perception of mister Epstein
Speaker 1: in this document? Answer? No, Again, what this was was
Speaker 1: something that had been drafted by one of mister Epstein's
Speaker 1: lawyers to respond to suggestions in the media at the
Speaker 1: time that mister Epstein had received the so called sweetheart
Speaker 1: deal in Florida, and that the reason what I recall
Speaker 1: during this time is that the media implication, or actually
Speaker 1: the media assertion, was that the sweetheart deal was the
Speaker 1: result of something of undue influence or some type of corruption.
Speaker 1: And this was intended to be a response authored by
Speaker 1: his lawyers who were involved in that very resolution, setting
Speaker 1: forth the facts as they understood it. And I was
Speaker 1: not involved in that investigation in any way, shape or form,
Speaker 1: and I was just asked to read it and give
Speaker 1: my thoughts for sort of tone and style. Question, But
Speaker 1: as you sent this back, did you believe at the
Speaker 1: time that mister Epstein had accepted for responsibility for his
Speaker 1: conduct and that he had lived a good and law
Speaker 1: abiding life in the preceding ten years. Answer at the time, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I understood. Question Do you believe that today? Answer? Today,
Speaker 1: we have a very different understanding. And again, what I
Speaker 1: know is what he indicated in July of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: and that those prosecutors had presented evidence to a grand jury.
Speaker 1: The allegations were not proven, but they certainly presented evidence
Speaker 1: to a grand jury. And a grand jury agreed that
Speaker 1: there was evidence that he had intentionally enticed and recruited
Speaker 1: miners for commercial sex. That is a very different, very
Speaker 1: different set of allegations than I understood he had that
Speaker 1: there was evidence of when he resolved this case in Florida. Question. Okay,
Speaker 1: mister Lynch, let's pick up right there. However, as you
Speaker 1: indicated earlier, you know of mister Epstein's offenses, he was
Speaker 1: a registered sex offender from those previous offenses Ms. Rumler,
Speaker 1: that's right, question by mister Lynch, which are very very serious.
Speaker 1: One of the other aspects of this, again focusing on
Speaker 1: your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. During the investigation, we find
Speaker 1: people who are very very close to Jeffrey Epstein, friends, indeed,
Speaker 1: co workers who work several feet from him, yet when
Speaker 1: they come before the panel, they didn't know him. He
Speaker 1: was a stranger. And you know, reading all these emails,
Speaker 1: as my colleagues have already identified, you know, their references
Speaker 1: to you, calling them darlin uncle, Jeffrey sweety and then,
Speaker 1: which would indicate a much closer relationship. And also you
Speaker 1: may call it humor, but dismissing his offenses by saying
Speaker 1: referring to Jeffrey's type of massage, which refers back to
Speaker 1: his abuse of those younger women for which he was
Speaker 1: a registered sex offender. There's a connection there as well
Speaker 1: as when you sort of dismiss you dismiss those offenses
Speaker 1: by joking about it, you know, joking about the Russians
Speaker 1: or your young things or victims rights. My ass sort
Speaker 1: of dismissing the attorneys and the legal team who are
Speaker 1: trying to defend the accusers and the victims. Is that
Speaker 1: the way that you gained his trust? Answer? I appreciate
Speaker 1: that question, and I understand why. You know, sitting here
Speaker 1: today in twenty twenty six, the emails could come across
Speaker 1: as if there's a callousness to the victims. That's not
Speaker 1: what I intended at the time, and it wasn't my
Speaker 1: state of mind at the time. I feel terrible that
Speaker 1: he victimized women and girls. And you know, if I
Speaker 1: could have done anything, travel back in time stop them
Speaker 1: from doing that, I would like to think I would have.
Speaker 1: And you know, he clearly lied to me. I think
Speaker 1: he lied to a lot of people. And as I said,
Speaker 1: I regret you know, ever knowing him much less you know,
Speaker 1: emailing with them. But I think one of the things
Speaker 1: that's important to or I would ask you to at
Speaker 1: least try to understand from my perspective, is that you know,
Speaker 1: I had a very different understanding of the conduct at
Speaker 1: the time when I was joking or seemed to be joking,
Speaker 1: and I certainly never intended to be insensitive. Mister Lynch,
Speaker 1: you knew he was a sex offender though a registered
Speaker 1: sex offender Rumler, Yes, I did. I did, Lynch. Let's
Speaker 1: move on Rumler again. As I said, I regret dealing
Speaker 1: with him, much less emailing with him. Mister Lynch understood. So.
Speaker 1: Leon Black, he's the former CEO of Apollo Global and
Speaker 1: a longtime friend of mister Epstein's. During his transcribed interview
Speaker 1: before this committee, he mentioned your name in a list
Speaker 1: of people he claimed to have met through mister Epstein.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that it's accurate? Answer that he met
Speaker 1: me through mister Epstein. Question that he met he said
Speaker 1: during his he mentioned your name in a list of
Speaker 1: people that he claimed mister Black claimed to have met
Speaker 1: through Epstein. Answer, Yeah, mister Epstein did introduce me to
Speaker 1: mister Black. Question Okay, when did you first meet mister Black. Answer,
Speaker 1: I don't recall what year it was. Question arrange between
Speaker 1: answer probably in the two thousand and fourteen twenty fifteen timeframe.
Speaker 1: Question I see, what was the frequency of your interaction
Speaker 1: there between yourself and Epstein and mister Black. Answer I
Speaker 1: only recall meeting mister Black on two occasions. And what
Speaker 1: mister Epstein would typically do, as I said, He'd come
Speaker 1: to New York where he didn't he had a house,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't his residence. He'd come into New York
Speaker 1: and he would set up a bunch of meetings with people,
Speaker 1: which he would hold in his dining room at a table.
Speaker 1: Believe it or not, that's even bigger than this one.
Speaker 1: And so, for example, we're coming to a meeting at
Speaker 1: two o'clock, that was my scheduled time to meet with them.
Speaker 1: I would, you know, sit in the secretarial office space
Speaker 1: until such a time as mister Epstein you know, was
Speaker 1: ready for the meeting with me, and he would, you know,
Speaker 1: typically have the person who was coming into the meeting
Speaker 1: in this example me at the same time that the
Speaker 1: person he was meeting before was exiting. And so in
Speaker 1: that context, that's where I met mister Black. Question, Okay,
Speaker 1: did mister Epstein ever talk to you about the nature
Speaker 1: of his dealings with mister Black? Answer? I understood they
Speaker 1: had a business relationship, but I didn't know any more
Speaker 1: details than that. Question. Yeah, what in particular business? Answer No,
Speaker 1: I didn't understand the details of their business relationship. Question
Speaker 1: were you ever aware of any abuse allegations against mister Black?
Speaker 1: Answer not that I can. I know there has been
Speaker 1: some litigation subsequently, meaning you know, after Epstein, you know, died.
Speaker 1: In more recent years, there have been mister Black has
Speaker 1: been involved in some civil litigation. I'm aware of that.
Speaker 1: Question What about affairs? Were you ever aware of mister
Speaker 1: Black being involved in any affairs? Answer? I don't remember
Speaker 1: at the time. I know there have been allegations again
Speaker 1: in the media covering civil lawsuits or civil lawsuits that
Speaker 1: a leg an affair. Question I see. And were you
Speaker 1: ever aware of mister Black requiring women to sign non
Speaker 1: disclosure agreements in connection with any of that litigation? Ms Rumler,
Speaker 1: I don't have any knowledge of that, mister Lynch. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's all I have. All right, folks, We're gonna wrap
Speaker 1: up right here and in the next episode, dealing with
Speaker 1: the topic. We're gonna pick up where we left off.
Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
Speaker 1: found in the description box.