WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:03.160
<v Speaker 1>What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:03.160 --> 00:00:06.919
<v Speaker 1>Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're diving right back in

3
00:00:07.639 --> 00:00:11.599
<v Speaker 1>to the Kathy Rumler bullshit testimony she gave to Congress.

4
00:00:12.400 --> 00:00:15.160
<v Speaker 1>Question I'm going to introduce an exhibit. We're going to

5
00:00:15.240 --> 00:00:17.640
<v Speaker 1>go back in time. Here, we were just talking about

6
00:00:17.640 --> 00:00:21.120
<v Speaker 1>April twenty sixteen. We're going to go back to September

7
00:00:21.280 --> 00:00:25.160
<v Speaker 1>twenty fifteen. This is going to be minority exhibit Bates

8
00:00:25.239 --> 00:00:29.440
<v Speaker 1>number EFTA zero two four eight six eight three eight.

9
00:00:30.320 --> 00:00:33.159
<v Speaker 1>Answer yes, question you right. I want to think about

10
00:00:33.159 --> 00:00:35.960
<v Speaker 1>whether there are any counter claims that could be brought

11
00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:40.200
<v Speaker 1>against VR, he says, thanks. Answer uh huh. Question do

12
00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:44.200
<v Speaker 1>you understand VR to mean Victoria Roberts. Answer? I don't

13
00:00:44.240 --> 00:00:48.119
<v Speaker 1>know who Victoria Roberts is. Question Virginia Roberts answer yes,

14
00:00:48.320 --> 00:00:53.640
<v Speaker 1>question Virginia Roberts Jeoffrey answer yes. Question why did you

15
00:00:53.679 --> 00:00:56.159
<v Speaker 1>want to think about whether there were any counter claims

16
00:00:56.159 --> 00:00:59.320
<v Speaker 1>for Glenn Maxwell to bring about Virginia Roberts in the

17
00:00:59.320 --> 00:01:02.880
<v Speaker 1>defamation case? Answer? First of all, this says nothing about

18
00:01:02.880 --> 00:01:05.840
<v Speaker 1>Glayn Maxwell in the email at all. Question was there

19
00:01:05.879 --> 00:01:09.079
<v Speaker 1>another litigation? Answer? She was an active litigation with I

20
00:01:09.120 --> 00:01:12.120
<v Speaker 1>believe Alan Dershowitz at the time. I don't recall whether

21
00:01:12.159 --> 00:01:15.319
<v Speaker 1>there was litigation with other people. But again he's sending

22
00:01:15.359 --> 00:01:17.760
<v Speaker 1>me an email. By the way, that's in reference Kevin,

23
00:01:17.920 --> 00:01:21.599
<v Speaker 1>that's in reference to the DOJ prosecutor in the Rothschild's case.

24
00:01:21.879 --> 00:01:24.640
<v Speaker 1>And he must have asked me something. Again, my state

25
00:01:24.640 --> 00:01:26.760
<v Speaker 1>of mind at the time, I'm a defense attorney and

26
00:01:26.799 --> 00:01:29.640
<v Speaker 1>he's asking me questions about someone who has made very

27
00:01:29.680 --> 00:01:34.280
<v Speaker 1>extreme allegations about having been sex trafficked to foreign precedents,

28
00:01:34.359 --> 00:01:37.599
<v Speaker 1>to world leaders, to a prime minister, and she had

29
00:01:37.640 --> 00:01:40.519
<v Speaker 1>been forced to have sex with Professor Alan Dershowitz on

30
00:01:40.599 --> 00:01:44.000
<v Speaker 1>multiple claims. These were claims that to me seemed to

31
00:01:44.079 --> 00:01:47.319
<v Speaker 1>lack the indico of credibility that one would expect, and

32
00:01:47.359 --> 00:01:50.599
<v Speaker 1>most importantly, were entirely inconsistent with the resolution of the

33
00:01:50.640 --> 00:01:54.959
<v Speaker 1>case in Florida. There it is again, Is it clear now,

34
00:01:55.760 --> 00:01:59.120
<v Speaker 1>are you guys paying attention? Are you awake? Florida is

35
00:01:59.159 --> 00:02:02.760
<v Speaker 1>the genesis for all these problems, and until that NPA

36
00:02:02.840 --> 00:02:05.120
<v Speaker 1>has dealt with we're gonna have to deal with morons

37
00:02:05.359 --> 00:02:10.759
<v Speaker 1>and idiots like this entirely inconsistent with the summary of

38
00:02:10.759 --> 00:02:13.719
<v Speaker 1>the evidence in the letter authored by Stephanie Thacker to

39
00:02:13.759 --> 00:02:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the Deputy Attorney General that I had read and by

40
00:02:16.599 --> 00:02:20.039
<v Speaker 1>the deputy Attorney General, she means Mark Philippe, you know

41
00:02:20.080 --> 00:02:22.080
<v Speaker 1>the guy that signed off on this, the guy that

42
00:02:22.120 --> 00:02:25.199
<v Speaker 1>negotiated it. Yeah, that dude. And anybody who tells you

43
00:02:25.240 --> 00:02:29.680
<v Speaker 1>that alex Acosta is the architect of this is either

44
00:02:29.719 --> 00:02:33.520
<v Speaker 1>a moron or they're leading you astray for whatever reason,

45
00:02:34.240 --> 00:02:38.199
<v Speaker 1>because the truth is this was never an alex Acosta production.

46
00:02:39.120 --> 00:02:42.439
<v Speaker 1>It was always done by main Justice. Question. I just

47
00:02:42.479 --> 00:02:45.560
<v Speaker 1>want to quickly you pointed out that there were possibly

48
00:02:45.599 --> 00:02:48.919
<v Speaker 1>other cases with Virginia related to what Jeffrey Epstein and

49
00:02:48.960 --> 00:02:51.639
<v Speaker 1>Glenn Maxwell had done to her. What you were referring about,

50
00:02:51.800 --> 00:02:54.319
<v Speaker 1>did you say you want to think about whether there

51
00:02:54.319 --> 00:02:57.280
<v Speaker 1>were any counter claims that could be brought in another

52
00:02:57.319 --> 00:03:00.240
<v Speaker 1>case that was active at the time. Answer. I don't

53
00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:03.080
<v Speaker 1>have any memory, but what I specifically about the email,

54
00:03:03.280 --> 00:03:06.439
<v Speaker 1>but Epstein was would ask me my views. And he's

55
00:03:06.479 --> 00:03:08.919
<v Speaker 1>in this email asking me about something relating to the

56
00:03:08.960 --> 00:03:11.639
<v Speaker 1>Rothchild matter, and I'm sort of in a generic way

57
00:03:11.840 --> 00:03:14.919
<v Speaker 1>trying to show that I'm being somewhat responsive when he's

58
00:03:14.960 --> 00:03:18.400
<v Speaker 1>asking my views. And again, that was common way that

59
00:03:18.400 --> 00:03:20.719
<v Speaker 1>I would respond to him, I would say, hmm, let

60
00:03:20.719 --> 00:03:23.199
<v Speaker 1>me think about it, hmm, let me get back to you.

61
00:03:23.199 --> 00:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, he was, as I said before, he was

62
00:03:25.520 --> 00:03:28.960
<v Speaker 1>very insistent. He would ask you know, me and others,

63
00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:32.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, frequently these things. I didn't have any direct

64
00:03:32.599 --> 00:03:35.319
<v Speaker 1>involvement in any of this. However, there was a lot,

65
00:03:35.560 --> 00:03:39.319
<v Speaker 1>particularly in sort of the more tabloid media attention around

66
00:03:39.400 --> 00:03:42.520
<v Speaker 1>these allegations that she had raised. You know, I'm trying

67
00:03:42.520 --> 00:03:45.520
<v Speaker 1>to keep my composure here, but I really have a

68
00:03:45.560 --> 00:03:49.360
<v Speaker 1>problem when people start to frame my friend Virginia as

69
00:03:49.360 --> 00:03:52.159
<v Speaker 1>some kind of liar, especially in light of everything we know.

70
00:03:52.879 --> 00:03:55.159
<v Speaker 1>Don't you think you have a meocopal moment and say,

71
00:03:55.159 --> 00:03:57.520
<v Speaker 1>you know what, I was wrong. I read the whole

72
00:03:57.520 --> 00:04:00.800
<v Speaker 1>situation wrong. Epstein was an animal, and I should have

73
00:04:00.800 --> 00:04:06.400
<v Speaker 1>helped put them away, but instead she doubles down. Let's

74
00:04:06.439 --> 00:04:10.159
<v Speaker 1>introduce minority exhibit p Bates number e f ta zero

75
00:04:10.199 --> 00:04:13.800
<v Speaker 1>two four eight four two eight five in October twelfth,

76
00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:17.560
<v Speaker 1>the email exchange between you and mister Epstein answer, uh huh, yes,

77
00:04:17.600 --> 00:04:21.279
<v Speaker 1>I see it. Question mister Epstein says, seen as the

78
00:04:21.279 --> 00:04:25.160
<v Speaker 1>good friend that you are, might bring unhelpful criticism. Defense

79
00:04:25.199 --> 00:04:29.519
<v Speaker 1>counsel might create Clinton Obama on necessary implication. Either way,

80
00:04:29.560 --> 00:04:32.399
<v Speaker 1>I appreciate the help, but we should be extra thoughtful

81
00:04:32.759 --> 00:04:37.040
<v Speaker 1>as surrounded by publicity seeking lawyers, et cetera. Question, Now,

82
00:04:37.319 --> 00:04:40.199
<v Speaker 1>help me understand this, because one way to read this case,

83
00:04:40.399 --> 00:04:43.480
<v Speaker 1>this email without your knowledge, is that you had offered

84
00:04:43.519 --> 00:04:46.279
<v Speaker 1>to appear as defense counsel in some case related to

85
00:04:46.319 --> 00:04:49.439
<v Speaker 1>Jeffrey Epstein or his activities, and he's thanking you and

86
00:04:49.480 --> 00:04:52.639
<v Speaker 1>saying no, thank you. Answer. That's not the way it reads.

87
00:04:53.160 --> 00:04:55.839
<v Speaker 1>Question Tell me how to read it. Answer. I don't know.

88
00:04:56.120 --> 00:04:59.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean this again not entirely coherent. But I had

89
00:04:59.160 --> 00:05:02.360
<v Speaker 1>a client he was the primary advisor to during this

90
00:05:02.360 --> 00:05:05.040
<v Speaker 1>period of time. I don't believe that there was any

91
00:05:05.079 --> 00:05:07.839
<v Speaker 1>active litigation with Epstein that he was in. That Epstein

92
00:05:07.879 --> 00:05:09.920
<v Speaker 1>was party two at this time, so I don't know

93
00:05:10.720 --> 00:05:13.199
<v Speaker 1>it was never offered to enter an appearance. Again, he

94
00:05:13.240 --> 00:05:16.680
<v Speaker 1>was represented by Council. That council was monitoring the CVR,

95
00:05:16.800 --> 00:05:19.519
<v Speaker 1>a litigation to which he wasn't a party, and so

96
00:05:19.720 --> 00:05:22.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't I don't have any idea what he's talking about.

97
00:05:22.720 --> 00:05:24.839
<v Speaker 1>But I did not offer to enter any appearance on

98
00:05:24.839 --> 00:05:28.800
<v Speaker 1>his behalf in some case. In October of twenty fifteen. Question,

99
00:05:28.839 --> 00:05:31.240
<v Speaker 1>all right, and we'll just note an earlier exhibit where

100
00:05:31.279 --> 00:05:34.560
<v Speaker 1>Glenn Maxwell miss Bell's almost certainly your name with the sea.

101
00:05:35.040 --> 00:05:39.279
<v Speaker 1>Mister fishman, I'm sorry, are you testifying redacted? Oh no,

102
00:05:39.519 --> 00:05:43.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm definitely not, mister fishman. I'm pretty curious redacted. We'll

103
00:05:43.480 --> 00:05:46.079
<v Speaker 1>go to exhibit him if you'd like, mister Fishman, you

104
00:05:46.079 --> 00:05:49.079
<v Speaker 1>said he misspelled her name. That's what you said, Rumler,

105
00:05:49.319 --> 00:05:52.079
<v Speaker 1>If you are, I'm curious to know what your views

106
00:05:52.079 --> 00:05:57.240
<v Speaker 1>are about the inherent credibility of miss Robert's allegations. Can

107
00:05:57.279 --> 00:06:03.480
<v Speaker 1>you believe that this stupid skuffoza, this effort as the audacity?

108
00:06:03.519 --> 00:06:09.319
<v Speaker 1>What a disgusting, vile person. Question, so you still haven't

109
00:06:09.319 --> 00:06:11.560
<v Speaker 1>actually been able. Do you believe miss Roberts was a

110
00:06:11.560 --> 00:06:14.920
<v Speaker 1>survivor or a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Miss Maxwell? Answer?

111
00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:18.079
<v Speaker 1>I'm sorry. Question. Do you believe that Virginia Roberts was

112
00:06:18.120 --> 00:06:21.560
<v Speaker 1>a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell? Answer? I

113
00:06:21.600 --> 00:06:25.199
<v Speaker 1>don't know. Question okay. Answer if she says that she was,

114
00:06:25.439 --> 00:06:27.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't have any reason to doubt it. However, there

115
00:06:27.680 --> 00:06:30.279
<v Speaker 1>were allegations that she made that were I believe based

116
00:06:30.319 --> 00:06:33.680
<v Speaker 1>on my experience as a former prosecutor and defense counsel

117
00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:36.040
<v Speaker 1>that were of such a nature that they were, they

118
00:06:36.120 --> 00:06:39.600
<v Speaker 1>lacked in her incredibility. Typically, when someone says I was

119
00:06:39.600 --> 00:06:42.800
<v Speaker 1>sex trafficked to someone, they say who, when? Where? Not

120
00:06:42.920 --> 00:06:46.639
<v Speaker 1>multiple world leaders, multiple foreign presidents? She did say who

121
00:06:46.759 --> 00:06:51.199
<v Speaker 1>at whod barock? Okay, there's your Prime minister. How about

122
00:06:51.240 --> 00:06:55.439
<v Speaker 1>Glenn Dubin, how about George Mitchell? How about Bill Richardson?

123
00:06:56.240 --> 00:06:59.759
<v Speaker 1>You catch it on yet? Kathy Rumler is a liar. Okay,

124
00:07:00.079 --> 00:07:02.839
<v Speaker 1>that's my opinion. She lied to Congress. She should be

125
00:07:03.040 --> 00:07:08.160
<v Speaker 1>charged with perjury and she should be arrested. Typically, when

126
00:07:08.199 --> 00:07:11.120
<v Speaker 1>someone says I was trafficked to someone, they say who, when? Where? Not?

127
00:07:11.199 --> 00:07:14.680
<v Speaker 1>Multiple world leaders, multiple foreign presidents. So my state of

128
00:07:14.720 --> 00:07:17.519
<v Speaker 1>mind at the time, and again, I didn't investigate the case.

129
00:07:17.959 --> 00:07:20.480
<v Speaker 1>You're sitting here talking to me. We've been going on

130
00:07:20.560 --> 00:07:23.360
<v Speaker 1>for however many hours. We've been going Okay, have you

131
00:07:23.399 --> 00:07:25.680
<v Speaker 1>sat down and spoken to the state prosecutor who was

132
00:07:25.720 --> 00:07:28.399
<v Speaker 1>in charge of the Epstein investigation, to ask what evidence

133
00:07:28.439 --> 00:07:32.720
<v Speaker 1>she uncovered, to ask whether she interviewed Virginia question. We've

134
00:07:32.759 --> 00:07:34.959
<v Speaker 1>talked a bit about the advice or whatever it is

135
00:07:35.000 --> 00:07:38.519
<v Speaker 1>we're calling it you provided mister Epstein regarding public relations

136
00:07:38.680 --> 00:07:41.319
<v Speaker 1>or media items. Did you ever reach out to anybody

137
00:07:41.319 --> 00:07:45.199
<v Speaker 1>at a media organization about anything to do with Epstein? Answer?

138
00:07:45.360 --> 00:07:47.920
<v Speaker 1>Not advocating on his behalf, I did not. I did

139
00:07:47.959 --> 00:07:50.160
<v Speaker 1>make one courtesy call to a friend and colleague of

140
00:07:50.160 --> 00:07:53.199
<v Speaker 1>mine because I saw something on error that lawyer's media

141
00:07:53.279 --> 00:07:57.959
<v Speaker 1>platform that I thought created a legal risk for the company. Redacted.

142
00:07:58.079 --> 00:08:02.279
<v Speaker 1>Let's introduce minority exhibit qube number EFTA zero two four

143
00:08:02.399 --> 00:08:06.439
<v Speaker 1>six two seven one one on May eighteenth, twenty sixteen,

144
00:08:06.560 --> 00:08:10.240
<v Speaker 1>email exchange between you and mister Epstein. Does this email

145
00:08:10.279 --> 00:08:13.720
<v Speaker 1>reflect the courtesy contact that you just mentioned? Answer? It

146
00:08:13.759 --> 00:08:17.560
<v Speaker 1>reflects my expression of thinking about calling calling that person. Yes.

147
00:08:18.160 --> 00:08:21.519
<v Speaker 1>Question you right, I'm thinking about calling GC of NBC

148
00:08:21.959 --> 00:08:26.600
<v Speaker 1>about those Donnie Deutsch comments answer yes, question thoughts answer yes.

149
00:08:27.120 --> 00:08:30.240
<v Speaker 1>Question Did you call the General Council of NBC? Answer

150
00:08:30.319 --> 00:08:32.879
<v Speaker 1>I believe I did. I believe I did. At this

151
00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:35.919
<v Speaker 1>time in May of twenty sixteen, it was really, you know,

152
00:08:36.200 --> 00:08:39.600
<v Speaker 1>an intense period in the presidential campaign. In the twenty

153
00:08:39.639 --> 00:08:42.840
<v Speaker 1>sixteen presidential campaign, and if Donald Trump at the time

154
00:08:43.000 --> 00:08:45.559
<v Speaker 1>were not the formal nominee, he was certainly the de

155
00:08:45.639 --> 00:08:49.639
<v Speaker 1>facto nominee, and my recollection in these comments were that

156
00:08:49.720 --> 00:08:51.919
<v Speaker 1>I just happened to see were the kind of comments

157
00:08:52.120 --> 00:08:56.080
<v Speaker 1>that could have attracted, you know, litigation, particularly from mister Trump,

158
00:08:56.360 --> 00:08:59.080
<v Speaker 1>who I understood to be, you know, pretty litigous around

159
00:08:59.120 --> 00:09:01.960
<v Speaker 1>those those times. And there were people at the time

160
00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:04.200
<v Speaker 1>who were trying to, to the best of my recollection,

161
00:09:04.519 --> 00:09:07.759
<v Speaker 1>they were trying to connect mister Epstein to mister Trump. Hey,

162
00:09:07.799 --> 00:09:11.639
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Rumler, guess what nobody's scared of you. Nobody's scared

163
00:09:11.679 --> 00:09:15.519
<v Speaker 1>to be ensued by any of your friends. I've been

164
00:09:15.559 --> 00:09:18.320
<v Speaker 1>calling Leon blackout from day one. I've been calling Les

165
00:09:18.360 --> 00:09:20.879
<v Speaker 1>Wexner out from day one. I've been calling Glenn Dubin

166
00:09:20.960 --> 00:09:23.279
<v Speaker 1>out since day one. None of them want to smoke.

167
00:09:23.679 --> 00:09:25.799
<v Speaker 1>They don't want to sue people over this because they

168
00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:32.240
<v Speaker 1>know that they were guilty. That's why question I'm going

169
00:09:32.279 --> 00:09:34.759
<v Speaker 1>to shift gears to a topic that the majority covered

170
00:09:34.960 --> 00:09:36.960
<v Speaker 1>in the prior hour. I think we'll be able to

171
00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:41.000
<v Speaker 1>efficiently go through it. You talked a bit about when

172
00:09:41.039 --> 00:09:44.159
<v Speaker 1>your communication with your employer of Goldman Sachs regarding your

173
00:09:44.200 --> 00:09:48.320
<v Speaker 1>association with Jeffrey Epstein. Glenn Maxwell discussed how those communications

174
00:09:48.360 --> 00:09:51.840
<v Speaker 1>evolved explained you keyed them to different public events that

175
00:09:51.919 --> 00:09:54.639
<v Speaker 1>were reported by the Wall Street Journal. I think that

176
00:09:54.759 --> 00:09:57.080
<v Speaker 1>is completely clear. I just want to make sure that

177
00:09:57.120 --> 00:10:00.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm understanding what happened. So, when you were hired or

178
00:10:00.159 --> 00:10:02.960
<v Speaker 1>before you were hired, you proactively disclosed that you had

179
00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:06.799
<v Speaker 1>an association with Jeffrey Epstein, and somebody there told you

180
00:10:07.080 --> 00:10:09.399
<v Speaker 1>that this is more than we usually get from somebody

181
00:10:09.559 --> 00:10:12.759
<v Speaker 1>at this level of disclosure. Is that right? Answer? Yes?

182
00:10:13.000 --> 00:10:16.039
<v Speaker 1>Question is that what I heard? Answer? Yes? Question okay,

183
00:10:16.039 --> 00:10:18.960
<v Speaker 1>who is that? Answer? It was the secretary of the board?

184
00:10:19.519 --> 00:10:22.279
<v Speaker 1>Question got it? Okay? Then you mentioned the twenty twenty

185
00:10:22.279 --> 00:10:26.200
<v Speaker 1>three Wall Street Journal article that may have prompted something else.

186
00:10:26.519 --> 00:10:30.399
<v Speaker 1>Answer yes, question, had you disclosed anything more to Goldman's

187
00:10:30.440 --> 00:10:33.840
<v Speaker 1>acts about your association with Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell

188
00:10:33.879 --> 00:10:36.759
<v Speaker 1>before that article was published? Answer no, I didn't see

189
00:10:36.759 --> 00:10:40.240
<v Speaker 1>any reason to question. Got it? Answer? Oh, Actually there

190
00:10:40.279 --> 00:10:42.960
<v Speaker 1>was one other thing. Sometime in twenty twenty there was

191
00:10:43.000 --> 00:10:45.440
<v Speaker 1>an article in The Deli Beast that stated that there

192
00:10:45.480 --> 00:10:47.639
<v Speaker 1>were sources who said they saw me in the courtroom

193
00:10:47.679 --> 00:10:51.440
<v Speaker 1>at Epstein's arraignment, and there were anonymous sources who suggested

194
00:10:51.679 --> 00:10:53.519
<v Speaker 1>that he wanted me to be on his defense team,

195
00:10:53.840 --> 00:10:56.360
<v Speaker 1>but that was never going to happen. And so when

196
00:10:56.399 --> 00:10:59.000
<v Speaker 1>I learned because the reporter from the Dealy Beast reached

197
00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:00.679
<v Speaker 1>out to me, I went to the head of the

198
00:11:00.679 --> 00:11:03.399
<v Speaker 1>communications at Goldman Sachs and said, I got this outreach

199
00:11:03.440 --> 00:11:06.720
<v Speaker 1>from the reporter. Question. Was there a point where you

200
00:11:06.759 --> 00:11:09.759
<v Speaker 1>disclosed to Goldman Sachs before it became public that he

201
00:11:09.879 --> 00:11:14.240
<v Speaker 1>called you when he was arrested in twenty nineteen? Answer? No, question.

202
00:11:14.360 --> 00:11:16.840
<v Speaker 1>Was there a point where you disclosed any of the

203
00:11:16.879 --> 00:11:20.399
<v Speaker 1>gifts you received from them before they became public? Answer?

204
00:11:20.600 --> 00:11:22.960
<v Speaker 1>I can't remember whether there was anything in the Wall

205
00:11:22.960 --> 00:11:25.440
<v Speaker 1>Street Journal article in twenty twenty three about that, but

206
00:11:25.480 --> 00:11:27.679
<v Speaker 1>certainly I would have if anyone asked me, you know,

207
00:11:27.759 --> 00:11:30.759
<v Speaker 1>any questions, I would have. It's not something I would

208
00:11:30.799 --> 00:11:33.320
<v Speaker 1>have felt the need to affirmatively disclose, as there was

209
00:11:33.320 --> 00:11:36.480
<v Speaker 1>nothing improper, you know whatsoever about accepting gifts in the

210
00:11:36.480 --> 00:11:40.720
<v Speaker 1>professional services context. Question. I believe it's been reported that

211
00:11:40.759 --> 00:11:43.200
<v Speaker 1>you chaired a set of risk based committees at Goldman

212
00:11:43.320 --> 00:11:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Sachs Firm Wide Conduct Committee, Firm Wide Reputational Risk Committee,

213
00:11:47.519 --> 00:11:49.879
<v Speaker 1>and maybe you remember of something called the Firm RIDE,

214
00:11:50.240 --> 00:11:53.919
<v Speaker 1>Firmwide Enterprise Risk Committee. Is that right? Answer? I was

215
00:11:53.960 --> 00:11:56.200
<v Speaker 1>the chair of the Firm wide Conduct Committee, I was

216
00:11:56.240 --> 00:11:58.919
<v Speaker 1>the vice chair of the Firm Wide Reputational Risk Committee,

217
00:11:58.960 --> 00:12:01.360
<v Speaker 1>and I was a member of the inner Firm Wise

218
00:12:01.639 --> 00:12:04.799
<v Speaker 1>Enterprise Risk Committee. Question did you or anybody else at

219
00:12:04.799 --> 00:12:07.919
<v Speaker 1>Goldman Sachs raise any concerns about you continuing to be

220
00:12:07.960 --> 00:12:11.559
<v Speaker 1>both committees after details of your association with Epstein and

221
00:12:11.679 --> 00:12:16.120
<v Speaker 1>Maxwell became public? Answer? No, I can't imagine they would have. Question.

222
00:12:16.279 --> 00:12:18.320
<v Speaker 1>I think it was reported that you were helping find

223
00:12:18.360 --> 00:12:21.679
<v Speaker 1>I believe the search for your successor as general counsel?

224
00:12:21.759 --> 00:12:24.720
<v Speaker 1>Is that right? Answer? I'm involved in the search process. Yes.

225
00:12:25.360 --> 00:12:28.519
<v Speaker 1>Question will you commit that you will not be recommending

226
00:12:28.559 --> 00:12:32.279
<v Speaker 1>anyone with association to Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell as

227
00:12:32.320 --> 00:12:36.600
<v Speaker 1>your successor as general counsel at Goldman Sachs. Answer? I

228
00:12:36.639 --> 00:12:38.720
<v Speaker 1>think that is not a question for me. I think

229
00:12:38.759 --> 00:12:41.519
<v Speaker 1>that the next General Council and the Chief Legal Officer

230
00:12:41.600 --> 00:12:44.759
<v Speaker 1>you know, will be selected by our CEO and consultation

231
00:12:44.840 --> 00:12:47.559
<v Speaker 1>with our Board of Directors. But let me say this,

232
00:12:48.000 --> 00:12:50.440
<v Speaker 1>in the American legal system, we hold people accountable for

233
00:12:50.480 --> 00:12:53.759
<v Speaker 1>their conduct. We don't hold people accountable for their associations.

234
00:12:54.159 --> 00:12:56.720
<v Speaker 1>And you all hear in the context of performing a

235
00:12:56.799 --> 00:13:01.120
<v Speaker 1>legislative function to inform policymakers and ask my opinion on this,

236
00:13:01.200 --> 00:13:03.679
<v Speaker 1>but I'll give it anyway. In my opinion, a very

237
00:13:03.519 --> 00:13:07.000
<v Speaker 1>very bad policy to start impute in misconduct by people

238
00:13:07.080 --> 00:13:10.679
<v Speaker 1>solely as a virtue of their association. And I would

239
00:13:10.679 --> 00:13:13.440
<v Speaker 1>think that that would be particularly acute and top of

240
00:13:13.480 --> 00:13:16.000
<v Speaker 1>mind to a member, number of members on both sides

241
00:13:16.000 --> 00:13:18.639
<v Speaker 1>of the body and the Senate who publicly endorsed the

242
00:13:18.679 --> 00:13:22.159
<v Speaker 1>candidate who has been credibly accused of sexual assault. And

243
00:13:22.240 --> 00:13:24.679
<v Speaker 1>so if we start applying a standard that somehow a

244
00:13:24.720 --> 00:13:27.360
<v Speaker 1>mere association with someone who's been accused of, you know,

245
00:13:27.519 --> 00:13:30.480
<v Speaker 1>convicted of criminal conduct, I think it's a very dangerous

246
00:13:30.559 --> 00:13:33.600
<v Speaker 1>road to go down. Question. Have you provided Goldman Sachs

247
00:13:33.840 --> 00:13:37.279
<v Speaker 1>with any communication or documents pertaining to you, Epstein or

248
00:13:37.320 --> 00:13:41.039
<v Speaker 1>Maxwell that the Department of Justice has not yet publicly released?

249
00:13:41.840 --> 00:13:44.759
<v Speaker 1>Mister Cravis? Wait, hold on, Fishman, Yeah, don't. I'm not

250
00:13:44.759 --> 00:13:48.440
<v Speaker 1>sure we can. Well, I can, I can ask it, Fishman.

251
00:13:48.519 --> 00:13:51.399
<v Speaker 1>That's a very broad topic question. Have you provided Goldman

252
00:13:51.480 --> 00:13:55.840
<v Speaker 1>Sachs with any documentation or communication between pertaining to your

253
00:13:55.840 --> 00:14:01.240
<v Speaker 1>association with Maxwell or Epstein? Cravis? No, hold on. Wait, redacted,

254
00:14:01.279 --> 00:14:03.720
<v Speaker 1>we'll go off the record, so they come back. On question,

255
00:14:03.799 --> 00:14:07.159
<v Speaker 1>did you provide Goldman Sachs with any communications or documents

256
00:14:07.200 --> 00:14:11.080
<v Speaker 1>pertaining to your association with Epstein or Maxwell? Answer? The

257
00:14:11.080 --> 00:14:13.200
<v Speaker 1>answer to that question is no, I don't have an

258
00:14:13.200 --> 00:14:16.799
<v Speaker 1>association with Glenn Maxwell. Question did you communicate with mister

259
00:14:16.840 --> 00:14:20.960
<v Speaker 1>Epstein or Miss Maxwell through other means than email or

260
00:14:20.960 --> 00:14:24.759
<v Speaker 1>phone calls? Answer? I don't communicate with miss Maxwell other

261
00:14:24.799 --> 00:14:27.320
<v Speaker 1>than the brief introduction that we talked about earlier, and

262
00:14:27.360 --> 00:14:30.720
<v Speaker 1>with respect to mister Epstein. No, my means of communication

263
00:14:30.799 --> 00:14:35.360
<v Speaker 1>with email, telephone, in person meetings. Question no other means? Answer,

264
00:14:35.399 --> 00:14:38.960
<v Speaker 1>no other means. Question have you ever deleted any communication

265
00:14:39.039 --> 00:14:42.799
<v Speaker 1>with mister Epstein? Answer no. Question did you ever communicate

266
00:14:42.879 --> 00:14:46.480
<v Speaker 1>with mister Epstein or Maxwell's attorneys without Epstein or Maxwell

267
00:14:46.519 --> 00:14:50.320
<v Speaker 1>being involved? Fishman, I'm not sure what that means. Rumler,

268
00:14:50.559 --> 00:14:53.399
<v Speaker 1>I'm sorry, Fishman, I mean what does that? I'm not

269
00:14:53.399 --> 00:14:56.919
<v Speaker 1>sure I understood the question redacted well, I asked that

270
00:14:57.240 --> 00:15:00.799
<v Speaker 1>did you ever email any of Epstein's attorneys without Epstein

271
00:15:00.840 --> 00:15:04.240
<v Speaker 1>on the email about Epstein's work matters? Roomler, I don't

272
00:15:04.279 --> 00:15:08.000
<v Speaker 1>recall redacted? All right? The last thing I'll do is

273
00:15:08.279 --> 00:15:11.799
<v Speaker 1>put into the record as minority exhibit are the minorities,

274
00:15:11.879 --> 00:15:15.879
<v Speaker 1>interim staff analysis, the price of non prosecution, the evolution

275
00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:19.519
<v Speaker 1>of Epstein's trafficking network from Palm Beach to Paris then beyond.

276
00:15:20.120 --> 00:15:23.600
<v Speaker 1>Just have that for the court reporter, and with that

277
00:15:24.039 --> 00:15:30.159
<v Speaker 1>the interview is adjourned. YO, this lady is disgusting, holy shit,

278
00:15:30.480 --> 00:15:32.480
<v Speaker 1>and you better believe we're going to have a monologue

279
00:15:32.720 --> 00:15:36.759
<v Speaker 1>discussing it. All the information that goes with this episode

280
00:15:36.840 --> 00:15:39.080
<v Speaker 1>can be found in the description box.