Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. Now that we have read the full Kathy
Speaker 1: Rumler transcript, I can tell you this much. Whatever you
Speaker 1: thought about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein before sitting down
Speaker 1: with these pages, the transcript does absolutely nothing to calm
Speaker 1: the waters. If anything, it raises a whole new set
Speaker 1: of questions about how somebody with Rumler's intelligence, experience and
Speaker 1: legal sophistication could have moved through Epstein's world the way
Speaker 1: she did, while later describing that relationship in terms that
Speaker 1: fuel so carefully narrowed. The closer somebody was to Epstein,
Speaker 1: the more complicated the explanation seemed to become. After the fact,
Speaker 1: everybody knew him, but apparently nobody really knew him. Everybody
Speaker 1: communicated with them, but somehow none of those communications meant much.
Speaker 1: Everybody had their own little slice of the relationship, carefully
Speaker 1: separated from everything else, and nobody ever seems to have
Speaker 1: possessed the full picture. Maybe that's true in some cases,
Speaker 1: maybe it's even true in many cases, But after years
Speaker 1: of hearing the same basic defense wrapped in different packaging,
Speaker 1: you would have to be asleep at the wheel not
Speaker 1: to notice how often powerful people suddenly become incredibly incurious
Speaker 1: when Jeffrey Epstein's standing in front of them, And Rumler
Speaker 1: is not just anybody. She knew how investigations worked, She
Speaker 1: knew how questions were framed. She knew how words could
Speaker 1: be used to narrow exposure, reject premises, and keep a
Speaker 1: witness from stepping any farther than absolutely necessary. So when
Speaker 1: you listen to this transcript or read it, you can't
Speaker 1: just look at the answers. You have to look at
Speaker 1: the construction of the answers. You have to look out
Speaker 1: what's accepted, what's rejected, what's qualified, what's laughed off, and
Speaker 1: what gets put into the category of misunderstanding or hindsight.
Speaker 1: That's where the real story begins to emerge. So the
Speaker 1: question now is what these people knew, what they understood,
Speaker 1: what role Epstein played in their lives, and why so
Speaker 1: many relationships that appeared significant in real time became strangely
Speaker 1: insignificant once investigators started asking questions. That's the larger issue
Speaker 1: hanging over this transcript, And once you read the whole thing,
Speaker 1: not just the excerpts, not just the committee summary, not
Speaker 1: just the press coverage, you start to see why this
Speaker 1: interview deserves a much harder look than it's gotten so far.
Speaker 1: And that's because Catherine Ruhmler's testimony should make anybody who
Speaker 1: has seriously studied Jeffrey Epstein's operation want to put their
Speaker 1: fists through the fucking television, because rarely has the contempt
Speaker 1: embedded in this entire process been displayed so cleanly by
Speaker 1: a single witness. Here was a former White House counsel,
Speaker 1: a woman whose professional reputation was built on being sharper
Speaker 1: than everybody else in the room, suddenly presenting herself as
Speaker 1: remarkably unsophisticated whenever the subject turned to the convicted sex
Speaker 1: offender she maintained a relationship with that's not merely difficult
Speaker 1: to believe, it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone familiar
Speaker 1: with Ruhmler's career. She didn't spend decades climbing to the
Speaker 1: summit of American law by failing to recognize liability, reputational danger,
Speaker 1: compromised actors, or poisonous associations. She made her bones understanding
Speaker 1: precisely those things, dissecting precisely those problems, and operating inside
Speaker 1: environments where knowing who you were dealing with was not optional.
Speaker 1: Yet Apparently Jeffrey Epstein walked through the front door, and
Speaker 1: all those finely tuned instincts packed their bags and went
Speaker 1: on fucking vacation. Suddenly, the woman who could navigate the
Speaker 1: White House, federal investigations, elite law firms, and Wall Street
Speaker 1: couldn't fully process the significance of the registered sex offender
Speaker 1: standing in front of her. Suddenly every grotesque feature of
Speaker 1: Epstein's story required additional context before it could penetrate. The
Speaker 1: fortress of benefit of the doubt she had construct around
Speaker 1: them and Congress instead of shredding that absurdity until nothing
Speaker 1: was left, but the underlying facts allowed the familiar Washington
Speaker 1: ritual to commence. Witness minimizes, lawyers, qualify politicians, yapp transcript drops,
Speaker 1: everybody congratulates themselves, and nobody gets any closer to explaining
Speaker 1: how Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly found sanctuary among people who supposedly
Speaker 1: knew better. And this is why Rumler is such an
Speaker 1: important figure, because she blows apart the tired excuse that
Speaker 1: Epstein survived in elite society because everybody around them was
Speaker 1: simply too gullible to understand what they were seeing. Catherine
Speaker 1: fuckin' Rumler was not gullible. Nobody who has followed her
Speaker 1: career could confuse her with some wide eyed mark wandering
Speaker 1: through Manhattan waiting to be conned by the first billionaire
Speaker 1: who bought dinner. She was trained to interrogate facts, evaluate witnesses,
Speaker 1: identify inconsistencies, and to say sipate exposure and understand what
Speaker 1: information powerful people desperately wanted kept off the table. That
Speaker 1: was her business. So when she asked the public to
Speaker 1: believe that her Epstein relationship existed inside some carefully compartmentalized
Speaker 1: universe where his intelligence and connections were visible, but the
Speaker 1: monstrous baggage attached to him remain conveniently blurred. She's asking
Speaker 1: us to abandon common sense in deference to a resume.
Speaker 1: Fuck that her resume is exactly why the questions should
Speaker 1: become harder, not easier. A former White House Council does
Speaker 1: not get to invoke sophistication when it enhances her credibility,
Speaker 1: and then invoke obliviousness when sophistication becomes inconvenient. You can't
Speaker 1: spend your career selling yourself as one of the smartest
Speaker 1: legal operators in DC and then expect everyone to accept
Speaker 1: Sergeant Schultz when Jeffrey Epstein appears in the file. The
Speaker 1: entire performance becomes even more obnoxious when you move away
Speaker 1: from Rumler's carefully chosen description and look at how Epstein
Speaker 1: himself treated the relationship. Epstein didn't behave as though Rumler
Speaker 1: with some peripheral acquaintance he occasionally bumped into between appointments.
Speaker 1: He cultivated her, communicated with her, gave her gifts, involved
Speaker 1: her in his world, and apparently regarded her high enough
Speaker 1: to include her as a potential successor executor of his estate.
Speaker 1: And I think that matters because Epstein was nothing if
Speaker 1: not deliberate about the people he collected around them. His
Speaker 1: relationships were currency, his introductions were currency, His access was currency,
Speaker 1: and the prestige of the people that were willing to
Speaker 1: deal with them that was currency too. Every former government official, billionaire, professor, banker, lawyer, royal,
Speaker 1: and celebrity in his orbit helped repair the reputational damage
Speaker 1: inflicted by his conviction, whether they consciously intended to help
Speaker 1: him or not. Rumler brought a platinum plated credential to
Speaker 1: that Rehabilitation Machine Council, to the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: Epstein understood exactly what that was worth, and I think
Speaker 1: the ridiculous part is watching the people who gave him
Speaker 1: that legitimacy later behave as though their relationship carried no
Speaker 1: significance whatsoever. And then Rumler had the fucking gall to
Speaker 1: sit there and cast skepticism towards Virginia while expecting everybody
Speaker 1: else to approach her own account, wearing silk gloves that
Speaker 1: should have detonated the entire room. Virginia spent years being
Speaker 1: picked apart by lawyers, journalists, Epstein allies, Prince Andrew's camp,
Speaker 1: and anyone else looking for a contradiction they could turn
Speaker 1: into a weapon, while Rumler apparently felt perfectly entitled to
Speaker 1: weigh Robert's credibility from the comfort of her own Epstein relationship.
Speaker 1: Talk about nerve. Here's somebody explaining why her own emails
Speaker 1: require context, why her comments require interpretation, why her own
Speaker 1: relationship should not be overstated, and why her own own
Speaker 1: knowledge had limits. Yet suddenly she becomes fucking Sherlock Holmes
Speaker 1: when evaluating the woman accusing Epstein and his associates. That
Speaker 1: is the Epstein power structure distilled into one ugly little tableau,
Speaker 1: The survivor must prove every syllable, while the prestigious insider
Speaker 1: gets to explain every uncomfortable document. The survivor is judged
Speaker 1: by contradictions, while the insider is rescued by nuance. The
Speaker 1: survivor gets suspicion, and the Washington lawyer gets a fucking
Speaker 1: seminar on context and her attempt to reach for humor
Speaker 1: as a solvent capable of dissolving embarrassing communications is a joke?
Speaker 1: How many times are Americans supposed to hear some variation
Speaker 1: of that was a joke before somebody in authority finally
Speaker 1: responds okay, then explain the fucking joke. Jokes require shared
Speaker 1: reference points. Jokes require us to be familiar with the
Speaker 1: subject matter. Jokes work because both people on understand what
Speaker 1: is being alluded to, and that makes context more important,
Speaker 1: not less. When communications involving Epstein brush against subjects connected
Speaker 1: to the very conduct that made him infamous, dismissing them
Speaker 1: as humor does not finish the inquiry. It should blow
Speaker 1: that inquiry wide open. What exactly did Rumler understand about
Speaker 1: the joke when it was made? What did Epstein understand
Speaker 1: that she understood? What previous conversations made that subject comfortable
Speaker 1: enough to joke about in the first fucking place. These
Speaker 1: are the questions that federal investigators should have been hammering
Speaker 1: through in twenty nineteen, which is why this congressional spectacle,
Speaker 1: seven years later feels less like accountability than an autopsy
Speaker 1: of prosecutorial cowardice. Epstein was arrested sitting atop a sprawling
Speaker 1: apparatus of properties, employees, recruiters, financial structures, legal relationships, travel systems,
Speaker 1: corporate entities, assistance pilots, fixers, social connect and wealthy patrons
Speaker 1: or associates. You could not look into that architecture for
Speaker 1: five fucking minutes without realizing that the meaningful investigative unit
Speaker 1: was not Jeffrey Epstein the individual, but Jeffrey Epstein the enterprise.
Speaker 1: That should have triggered an all hands federal assault designed
Speaker 1: to determine every person who knowingly helped the machine run
Speaker 1: and every person who merely passed through it. Instead, Americans
Speaker 1: watched Epstein die, Maxwell, eventually get convicted, and much of
Speaker 1: the surrounding network migrate into the twilight zone between congressional
Speaker 1: curiosity and civil litigation. And that's why my ass never
Speaker 1: shuts up about Rico. Prosecutors use enterprise statutes to rip
Speaker 1: apart organizations by mapping roles, money, communication, facilitation, concealment, predicate,
Speaker 1: acts and relationships, then squeezing the people in the middle
Speaker 1: until the fucking hierarchy reveals itself. With Epstein, the hierarchy
Speaker 1: seems to have been treated like a collection of a
Speaker 1: dependent social encounters that nobody was particularly interested in connecting.
Speaker 1: Rumler should have been dragged through that investigative machinery in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, not because knowing Epstein made her guilty, but
Speaker 1: because knowing Epstein in the manner reflected by the record
Speaker 1: made her materially relevant to understanding how is world operated.
Speaker 1: There should have been no courtesy lane for former White
Speaker 1: House counsel, no prestige exemption, no assumption that somebody with
Speaker 1: an immaculate resume obviously had nothing to explain. Every communication
Speaker 1: should have been subpoenaed and chronologically reconstructed. Every gift should
Speaker 1: have been cataloged, every referral traced, every meeting placed on
Speaker 1: a timeline, every mutual contact identified, every state document examined,
Speaker 1: and every discrepancy hammered against independent records. Investigators should have
Speaker 1: known exactly what Epstein told Rumler about his criminal history,
Speaker 1: exactly what she learned elsewhere, exactly when she learned it,
Speaker 1: and exactly how her conduct changed or did not change afterward.
Speaker 1: They should have compared her answers against Epstein's communication with
Speaker 1: other people, and then compared those people's answers against hers.
Speaker 1: That's how you investigate a network, instead of hosting a
Speaker 1: fucking book club about one. But instead we get Congress
Speaker 1: years later, doing its patent bipartisan rain dance, where everybody
Speaker 1: chance transparency until they convince themselves that releasing another transcript
Speaker 1: constitutes justice. It does not. Calling Rumler into her room
Speaker 1: after the federal investigative moment has been squandered does not
Speaker 1: restore the evidence that disappeared, the memories that faded, the
Speaker 1: leverage that vanished, or the witnesses who learned exactly how
Speaker 1: much they can get away with saying Congress loved the
Speaker 1: theater of disclosure because disclosure is cheap. They can fire
Speaker 1: off a subpoena, announce a witness pose for television, publish
Speaker 1: several hundred pages, and then claim another glorious victory for accountability,
Speaker 1: while absolutely nothing fundamental changes the witnesses know the game too.
Speaker 1: They arrived lawyer to the teeth, answer the narrow question,
Speaker 1: reject the loaded characterization, contextualize the inconvenient document, and wait
Speaker 1: for the clock to run out. Then everybody wanders off
Speaker 1: to tell the cameras how seriously they take justice for
Speaker 1: Epstein's survivors, and then the fucking carousel starts again. Rumler's
Speaker 1: testimony deserves particular contempt because it sits inside a much
Speaker 1: larger pattern of elite people around Epstein, demanding that we
Speaker 1: treat every individual piece of their relationship as an isolated accident.
Speaker 1: The dinners were nothing, the emails were nothing, the gifts
Speaker 1: were nothing, the jokes were nothing, the visits for nothing,
Speaker 1: the referrals were nothing. And somehow this monumental heap of
Speaker 1: nothing repeatedly surrounds the exact same convicted sex offender. At
Speaker 1: some point, the statistical miracle becomes the story. Jeffrey Exsteine
Speaker 1: apparently spent decades accumulating the brightest, richest, most connected people
Speaker 1: on Earth, while simultaneously ensuring that none of them ever
Speaker 1: possessed enough information to understand the man's standing directly in
Speaker 1: front of them. What a fucking magician he could find
Speaker 1: former presidents, princes, billionaires, professors, bankers, lawyers, and political operators
Speaker 1: with surgical precision. Yet every one of those geniuses somehow
Speaker 1: discovered intellectual helplessness at exactly the moment when recognizing Epstein
Speaker 1: clearly might have required them to walk away. And that
Speaker 1: is the bullshit that Rumler's testimony represents, and that's why
Speaker 1: it deserves something far stronger than any other polite article
Speaker 1: about questions surrounding her Epstein lies sparis the euphemisms. Her
Speaker 1: account should be attacked where it's weak, challenged where it
Speaker 1: conflicts with the texture of the documented relationship, and tested
Speaker 1: ruthlessly against every record. Congress and federal investigators can obtain.
Speaker 1: Her credentials should buy her exactly zero additional credibility, because
Speaker 1: credentials are not evidence and power is not corroboration. If anything,
Speaker 1: the sophistication of Catherine Rumler raises the standard for explaining
Speaker 1: why she continued dealing with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction,
Speaker 1: rather than lowering it. Congress needs to stop behaving like
Speaker 1: proximity to Epstein is some embarrassing social fall poe, and
Speaker 1: start treating the architecture around them like the problem it
Speaker 1: always was. The DOJ should explain why the people occupying
Speaker 1: meaningful positions in that architecture were not subjected to the
Speaker 1: kind of enterprise wide scrutiny routinely unleashed against defendants without
Speaker 1: money connections, former presidents in their phone books or Wall
Speaker 1: Street titles attached to their names. And Rumler should stop
Speaker 1: receiving the institutional courtesy of having every contradiction translated into
Speaker 1: the most charitable interpretation imaginable. The American public has been
Speaker 1: force fed that garbage for nearly two decades, and anyone
Speaker 1: who has actually followed the evidence is fucking sick of chewing.
Speaker 1: Catherine Rumler did not answer the central question surrounding Epstein's
Speaker 1: ability to burrow back into elite society after becoming a
Speaker 1: convicted sex offender. She embodied them, and the fact that
Speaker 1: Washington still cannot bring itself to confront that reality without
Speaker 1: drowning the discussion in qualifications is exactly why this entire
Speaker 1: goddamn exercise continues to smell like a charad. All the
Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
Speaker 1: the description box.