WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.120 --> 00:00:03.000
<v Speaker 1>What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the

2
00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:06.440
<v Speaker 1>Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right

3
00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:09.919
<v Speaker 1>back into the Kathy Ruhmler testimony that she gave to

4
00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>Congress Mister Grant. We'll go back on the record. It's

5
00:00:13.640 --> 00:00:16.839
<v Speaker 1>three twenty five. Question, Miss Rumler. I'm going to start

6
00:00:16.879 --> 00:00:19.600
<v Speaker 1>with a meeting that was scheduled on May sixth of

7
00:00:19.640 --> 00:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>twenty nineteen. Who was a dinner meeting between yourself, Woody

8
00:00:23.640 --> 00:00:27.320
<v Speaker 1>and Steve and Marvin? Would would he be Woody Allen

9
00:00:27.600 --> 00:00:34.359
<v Speaker 1>answer yeah? Answer? And Steve would be Steve Bennon answer yeah? Question?

10
00:00:34.439 --> 00:00:37.799
<v Speaker 1>And who is Marvin? Answer? Marvin was a partner of

11
00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:43.880
<v Speaker 1>mine at Lathan Watkins. Question is at Marvin Putnam? Answer yes? Question?

12
00:00:44.320 --> 00:00:47.520
<v Speaker 1>And this meeting was to have a dinner and discuss quote,

13
00:00:47.600 --> 00:00:51.479
<v Speaker 1>legal stuff with mister Epstein. What specific legal stuff would

14
00:00:51.479 --> 00:00:54.640
<v Speaker 1>you have discussed with mister Epstein at this time? Answer?

15
00:00:54.799 --> 00:00:57.039
<v Speaker 1>My recollection of this meeting was that there was a

16
00:00:57.039 --> 00:01:00.600
<v Speaker 1>prominent plaintiff's lawyer whose name is Michael Avenatti. You may

17
00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:03.240
<v Speaker 1>be aware of him because he subsequently went to prison,

18
00:01:03.479 --> 00:01:07.200
<v Speaker 1>and also I believe represented Stormy Daniels at some point.

19
00:01:07.560 --> 00:01:09.640
<v Speaker 1>But in any event he went to prison, and he

20
00:01:09.640 --> 00:01:13.480
<v Speaker 1>had tweeted something about having a threatening legal case against Epstein,

21
00:01:14.159 --> 00:01:17.519
<v Speaker 1>and Epstein had asked for a referral, a legal referral,

22
00:01:17.680 --> 00:01:20.120
<v Speaker 1>And so I asked around the law firm whether anybody

23
00:01:20.280 --> 00:01:23.879
<v Speaker 1>had any dealings with mister AVENAUGHTI and mister Putnam, as

24
00:01:23.920 --> 00:01:26.799
<v Speaker 1>I recall, did he had a case or two, maybe

25
00:01:27.400 --> 00:01:29.760
<v Speaker 1>have even been dealing with them at the time, And

26
00:01:29.799 --> 00:01:31.879
<v Speaker 1>so I suggested that if he had any interest in

27
00:01:31.920 --> 00:01:34.799
<v Speaker 1>meeting Epstein to see whether there was if such a

28
00:01:34.840 --> 00:01:37.400
<v Speaker 1>case were filed, whether he wanted to take it on

29
00:01:37.719 --> 00:01:40.159
<v Speaker 1>as a legal matter. So that was what that was

30
00:01:40.200 --> 00:01:44.079
<v Speaker 1>in reference to question, and briefly, what was the legal issue?

31
00:01:44.079 --> 00:01:47.439
<v Speaker 1>If you recall answer, I don't remember exactly. My best

32
00:01:47.480 --> 00:01:50.439
<v Speaker 1>recollection is there was a tweet that ABNAUGHTI had sent

33
00:01:50.519 --> 00:01:52.959
<v Speaker 1>out saying something along the lines of I have some

34
00:01:53.079 --> 00:01:56.120
<v Speaker 1>client and the client's going to sue, going to sue Epstein.

35
00:01:56.760 --> 00:01:59.680
<v Speaker 1>That never happened. I can't remember the timeline, whether it

36
00:01:59.719 --> 00:02:02.079
<v Speaker 1>was bec because he got indicted before he could do it,

37
00:02:02.359 --> 00:02:05.359
<v Speaker 1>or whether sometimes what I've seen some lawyers do is

38
00:02:05.400 --> 00:02:08.520
<v Speaker 1>tweet or make public statements or something like that in

39
00:02:08.560 --> 00:02:11.360
<v Speaker 1>an effort to attract clients, and I wasn't sure whether

40
00:02:11.479 --> 00:02:14.159
<v Speaker 1>that's what was going on, but in any event, it

41
00:02:14.199 --> 00:02:17.120
<v Speaker 1>didn't come to pass. Question and so, just to be

42
00:02:17.199 --> 00:02:21.039
<v Speaker 1>clearer for the sake of the record, sdnwise investigation into

43
00:02:21.039 --> 00:02:24.599
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein began in twenty eighteen. This meeting was in

44
00:02:24.599 --> 00:02:28.159
<v Speaker 1>twenty nineteen. This meeting was quote about legal stuff. Was

45
00:02:28.199 --> 00:02:31.639
<v Speaker 1>not in reference to any investigation of mister Epstein. Is

46
00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:35.560
<v Speaker 1>that correct? Answer? That's right. I have no knowledge of

47
00:02:35.639 --> 00:02:39.840
<v Speaker 1>any investigation of mister Epstein in that timeframe. Question. I

48
00:02:39.879 --> 00:02:42.639
<v Speaker 1>believe you mentioned in a previous hour that you've had

49
00:02:42.639 --> 00:02:45.800
<v Speaker 1>at least some interaction with Darren Endyke, who is mister

50
00:02:45.800 --> 00:02:48.919
<v Speaker 1>Epstein's personal attorney. How often would you say that you

51
00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:53.360
<v Speaker 1>interacted with mister Endyke. Answer infrequently. I believe I only

52
00:02:53.400 --> 00:02:57.439
<v Speaker 1>met mister Endyke once in person. Question and how often

53
00:02:57.479 --> 00:03:00.680
<v Speaker 1>would you have any type of other correspondence with mister Dyke?

54
00:03:01.240 --> 00:03:05.039
<v Speaker 1>Answer again, infrequently. Is my best recollection. I don't remember

55
00:03:05.080 --> 00:03:08.240
<v Speaker 1>having again during this timeframe that I was dealing with Epstein.

56
00:03:08.560 --> 00:03:12.639
<v Speaker 1>I don't remember having much engagement with mister Dyke. And

57
00:03:12.719 --> 00:03:15.199
<v Speaker 1>to the extent that you can remember, the engagement with

58
00:03:15.240 --> 00:03:18.520
<v Speaker 1>mister Endyke, what did it pertain to? Answer? I don't

59
00:03:18.560 --> 00:03:21.680
<v Speaker 1>really remember. I knew that mister Endyke was his kind

60
00:03:21.680 --> 00:03:24.400
<v Speaker 1>of in house lawyer, if you will, And again he

61
00:03:24.439 --> 00:03:28.039
<v Speaker 1>had external counsel, mister Weinberg. And I mean, I certainly

62
00:03:28.120 --> 00:03:31.080
<v Speaker 1>knew who he was, but I just don't have any

63
00:03:31.120 --> 00:03:35.560
<v Speaker 1>real memory of having much in terms of substantative conversations

64
00:03:35.560 --> 00:03:38.680
<v Speaker 1>with him. Question and switching gears just for a little bit,

65
00:03:39.360 --> 00:03:42.639
<v Speaker 1>recognizing you said multiple times today you did not have

66
00:03:42.759 --> 00:03:46.400
<v Speaker 1>any formal legal engagement with mister Epstein. Did you ever

67
00:03:46.439 --> 00:03:50.840
<v Speaker 1>provide legal services to associates of mister Epstein? Answer? No,

68
00:03:51.039 --> 00:03:53.840
<v Speaker 1>other than the Rothchild Bank, as we've talked about at length,

69
00:03:54.319 --> 00:03:56.960
<v Speaker 1>and that was a client relationship that he had. Separately,

70
00:03:57.759 --> 00:04:00.479
<v Speaker 1>Question and I'll ask about a list of mister epstein'smployees.

71
00:04:00.840 --> 00:04:03.560
<v Speaker 1>Did you ever have so the same questions will apply.

72
00:04:04.039 --> 00:04:07.039
<v Speaker 1>Did you ever have or provide any legal services to

73
00:04:07.120 --> 00:04:09.800
<v Speaker 1>any one of the following individuals? You can answer with

74
00:04:09.840 --> 00:04:13.039
<v Speaker 1>a simple yes or no. If you do say yes,

75
00:04:13.199 --> 00:04:17.000
<v Speaker 1>I'll come back to them. Answer okay, and just I'm sorry,

76
00:04:17.120 --> 00:04:19.720
<v Speaker 1>Can you repeat the preface just because I want to

77
00:04:19.720 --> 00:04:22.319
<v Speaker 1>make sure that I have that in my mind. Answer yeah.

78
00:04:22.439 --> 00:04:25.319
<v Speaker 1>Did you ever provide legal services of any kind to

79
00:04:25.360 --> 00:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>the following individuals? Answer okay question Richard Kahn answer no.

80
00:04:30.399 --> 00:04:34.720
<v Speaker 1>Bello Cline answer no, Harry Beller answer no, Leslie Groff

81
00:04:34.920 --> 00:04:40.199
<v Speaker 1>answer no. Sarah Kellen answer no, redacted no, redacted no,

82
00:04:40.600 --> 00:04:45.839
<v Speaker 1>and miss Maxwell no question. In previous testimony before the committee,

83
00:04:45.879 --> 00:04:49.079
<v Speaker 1>the Committee has learned that there were five fee paying

84
00:04:49.079 --> 00:04:52.920
<v Speaker 1>clients of mister Epstein's. Obviously, we discussed the Rothchild family

85
00:04:52.920 --> 00:04:55.759
<v Speaker 1>at great length today, so I won't ask about them further.

86
00:04:56.160 --> 00:04:58.360
<v Speaker 1>But have you ever performed any type of legal work

87
00:04:59.160 --> 00:05:02.959
<v Speaker 1>or other services for Les Wexner answer no, Leon Black

88
00:05:03.160 --> 00:05:07.360
<v Speaker 1>answer no, Steven Sinofsky answer no, Glenn Dubin answer no,

89
00:05:07.800 --> 00:05:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Eva Anderson Duben answer no question. Did you ever provide

90
00:05:12.439 --> 00:05:16.160
<v Speaker 1>advice or counsel to any young woman or girl associated

91
00:05:16.199 --> 00:05:20.480
<v Speaker 1>with mister Epstein? Answer no question. Did mister Epstein ever

92
00:05:20.560 --> 00:05:24.759
<v Speaker 1>offer you employment? Answer no question. Did he facilitate employment

93
00:05:24.800 --> 00:05:28.439
<v Speaker 1>opportunities on your behalf answer other than the referrals that

94
00:05:28.480 --> 00:05:32.839
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned earlier, the legal referrals, no question. There's an email.

95
00:05:32.879 --> 00:05:34.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm happy to provide it to you if you would

96
00:05:34.639 --> 00:05:37.680
<v Speaker 1>like it. I will simply say it's about your offer

97
00:05:37.720 --> 00:05:40.680
<v Speaker 1>to go to Hogan and about getting compensated six million

98
00:05:40.680 --> 00:05:44.160
<v Speaker 1>per year. Are you familiar with what I'm referencing? Answer? Yes,

99
00:05:44.240 --> 00:05:48.600
<v Speaker 1>I am. Question what was this Hogan offer? Answer? It's common,

100
00:05:48.839 --> 00:05:51.360
<v Speaker 1>even more common today than it was back then in

101
00:05:51.439 --> 00:05:54.319
<v Speaker 1>competition among law firms to try to recruit a lawyer

102
00:05:54.480 --> 00:05:57.920
<v Speaker 1>from one law firm to another, particularly if one law

103
00:05:57.920 --> 00:06:00.879
<v Speaker 1>firm feels like they need more legal talent in one

104
00:06:00.879 --> 00:06:04.680
<v Speaker 1>particular practice area or another, or they need more business generators,

105
00:06:04.879 --> 00:06:08.480
<v Speaker 1>or they need particular expertise or something like that. And

106
00:06:08.600 --> 00:06:11.279
<v Speaker 1>Hogan Levels had reached out to me to see if

107
00:06:11.279 --> 00:06:13.800
<v Speaker 1>I'd be interested in a conversation about leaving Latham and

108
00:06:13.920 --> 00:06:17.519
<v Speaker 1>going to Hogan Levels. Question and as part of that

109
00:06:17.600 --> 00:06:20.800
<v Speaker 1>email chain, mister Ebstein wants to be reminded of this offer?

110
00:06:21.399 --> 00:06:23.720
<v Speaker 1>And why did you discuss this offer with mister Epstein.

111
00:06:24.399 --> 00:06:26.600
<v Speaker 1>Answer in mister Epstein and I shared a client. As

112
00:06:26.639 --> 00:06:29.160
<v Speaker 1>I said, I don't remember the timeframe of the email

113
00:06:29.199 --> 00:06:32.639
<v Speaker 1>you're referring to. Question This would have been in October

114
00:06:32.639 --> 00:06:36.319
<v Speaker 1>of twenty fifteen. Answer okay, So I had now been

115
00:06:36.360 --> 00:06:39.879
<v Speaker 1>working with him on the Rothchild representation for about a year,

116
00:06:40.120 --> 00:06:42.160
<v Speaker 1>and I believe that he was. He thought I was

117
00:06:42.160 --> 00:06:44.120
<v Speaker 1>a good lawyer, and I was doing good work for

118
00:06:44.160 --> 00:06:47.120
<v Speaker 1>the bank, and in fact, we got a very favorable

119
00:06:47.120 --> 00:06:50.360
<v Speaker 1>outcome for the bank just shortly thereafter, and he believed

120
00:06:50.360 --> 00:06:52.720
<v Speaker 1>he expressed his belief. Whether he believed it or not,

121
00:06:52.759 --> 00:06:55.360
<v Speaker 1>who knows. He expressed his belief to me that I

122
00:06:55.439 --> 00:06:58.759
<v Speaker 1>was being under compensated at Latham and that I should

123
00:06:58.920 --> 00:07:01.920
<v Speaker 1>that the firm should be paid me more. They weren't

124
00:07:01.959 --> 00:07:05.279
<v Speaker 1>paying me enough. That was his general view. Question and

125
00:07:05.360 --> 00:07:07.480
<v Speaker 1>why did you feel that you could trust mister Epstein

126
00:07:07.680 --> 00:07:11.600
<v Speaker 1>with professional advice on your career. Answer? I didn't ask

127
00:07:11.639 --> 00:07:14.160
<v Speaker 1>for his professional advice on my career. He was sort

128
00:07:14.199 --> 00:07:18.079
<v Speaker 1>of a self described hard nosed the negotiator around financial issues.

129
00:07:18.680 --> 00:07:20.680
<v Speaker 1>From time to time I would ask him, I think

130
00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:23.519
<v Speaker 1>I'm a good negotiator on behalf of my clients. I

131
00:07:23.680 --> 00:07:26.040
<v Speaker 1>tend not to be such a great negotiator on my

132
00:07:26.079 --> 00:07:29.959
<v Speaker 1>own behalf, particularly when it comes to issues like compensation,

133
00:07:30.279 --> 00:07:33.279
<v Speaker 1>which I think are tough for people. Some people trust me.

134
00:07:33.399 --> 00:07:36.680
<v Speaker 1>Mister Epstein had no issues in that regard whatsoever. He

135
00:07:36.759 --> 00:07:40.959
<v Speaker 1>was quite assertive, but so he was someone who pushed me,

136
00:07:41.120 --> 00:07:43.279
<v Speaker 1>whether I wanted him to or not to be more

137
00:07:43.319 --> 00:07:46.519
<v Speaker 1>assertive on my own belief in terms of compensation discussions.

138
00:07:47.120 --> 00:07:51.399
<v Speaker 1>Question I will now enter as majority exhibit one question.

139
00:07:51.639 --> 00:07:54.079
<v Speaker 1>While it's getting passed around, I'll just read the bare

140
00:07:54.120 --> 00:07:58.759
<v Speaker 1>minimum details. It's bait stamped EFTA zero two six three

141
00:07:58.920 --> 00:08:01.759
<v Speaker 1>one nine three three, and it's from Jeffrey Epstein to

142
00:08:01.759 --> 00:08:06.519
<v Speaker 1>yourself on Monday, March fourth, twenty nineteen. And I'll give

143
00:08:06.519 --> 00:08:08.720
<v Speaker 1>you a second to review it. I'm only going to

144
00:08:08.759 --> 00:08:11.439
<v Speaker 1>focus on the very top of the message. Answer Okay,

145
00:08:11.480 --> 00:08:14.439
<v Speaker 1>I'm ready when you are. Question so it says, this

146
00:08:14.480 --> 00:08:17.560
<v Speaker 1>is mister Epstein writing to you. Send her the ten K,

147
00:08:18.120 --> 00:08:20.480
<v Speaker 1>or tell her that since your white House days, your

148
00:08:20.480 --> 00:08:24.560
<v Speaker 1>comp has been negotiated by your advisor Richard Kahn. I'll listen. First,

149
00:08:24.600 --> 00:08:27.279
<v Speaker 1>of course, what was the ten K, which I would

150
00:08:27.279 --> 00:08:30.399
<v Speaker 1>imagine means ten thousand that that was in relation to

151
00:08:31.120 --> 00:08:33.879
<v Speaker 1>question Yeah, that's not a reference to ten it's to

152
00:08:34.120 --> 00:08:37.840
<v Speaker 1>a securities filing, a company's ten K. Question. Thank you

153
00:08:37.879 --> 00:08:41.960
<v Speaker 1>for the clarification. Answer sure. Question. Second part of that

154
00:08:42.120 --> 00:08:44.559
<v Speaker 1>is since your white House days, your comp has been

155
00:08:44.559 --> 00:08:48.639
<v Speaker 1>negotiated by your advisor Richard Kahn answer yeah. Question Richard

156
00:08:48.720 --> 00:08:52.360
<v Speaker 1>Kahn is known to be mister Epstein's financial tax guy.

157
00:08:52.519 --> 00:08:56.399
<v Speaker 1>Did he ever negotiate compensation on your behalf? Answer? No,

158
00:08:56.919 --> 00:09:00.600
<v Speaker 1>That is very vintage Epstein. He's injecting himself with this

159
00:09:00.679 --> 00:09:04.159
<v Speaker 1>kind of kooky, kooky idea, which he even acknowledged because

160
00:09:04.200 --> 00:09:07.039
<v Speaker 1>he says, I'll listen first, of course, because he knows

161
00:09:07.039 --> 00:09:10.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to say that that's ludicrous, and so that

162
00:09:10.159 --> 00:09:13.200
<v Speaker 1>he's even predicting that my reaction to what he's suggesting

163
00:09:13.240 --> 00:09:15.519
<v Speaker 1>here is that I'm going to say that's so dumb.

164
00:09:16.039 --> 00:09:18.279
<v Speaker 1>But the context of this is, as I said, he

165
00:09:18.399 --> 00:09:21.120
<v Speaker 1>was someone who was very pushy and insinuating in a

166
00:09:21.159 --> 00:09:24.320
<v Speaker 1>patronizing way, but also in a way that he thought

167
00:09:24.320 --> 00:09:26.879
<v Speaker 1>he was trying to be helpful in encouraging me to

168
00:09:26.879 --> 00:09:31.480
<v Speaker 1>be aggressive in negotiating compensation. In this circumstance. It was

169
00:09:31.519 --> 00:09:33.639
<v Speaker 1>with a large tech company that I was in pretty

170
00:09:33.639 --> 00:09:37.399
<v Speaker 1>serious discussions about potentially going and becoming the general counsel.

171
00:09:38.320 --> 00:09:41.679
<v Speaker 1>Question and just so the record's clear, Richard Kahn never

172
00:09:41.799 --> 00:09:46.840
<v Speaker 1>negotiated compensation on your behalf? Answer? No, I don't believe

173
00:09:46.840 --> 00:09:51.000
<v Speaker 1>I've ever met mister Kahn. You mentioned that this was

174
00:09:51.039 --> 00:09:53.679
<v Speaker 1>full context of the email that was about your potential

175
00:09:53.720 --> 00:09:57.360
<v Speaker 1>position or applying to go towards a tech company. In

176
00:09:57.399 --> 00:10:00.320
<v Speaker 1>this case, it looks like Google. Why did you this

177
00:10:00.399 --> 00:10:04.279
<v Speaker 1>information to mister Epstein in the first place? Answer, I

178
00:10:04.360 --> 00:10:06.679
<v Speaker 1>wasn't applying for the job. They'd reached out to me

179
00:10:06.759 --> 00:10:09.840
<v Speaker 1>for the job. Again, so we're continuing to advise the

180
00:10:09.840 --> 00:10:13.639
<v Speaker 1>same client through this timeframe. And for whatever reason, Epstein

181
00:10:13.720 --> 00:10:16.000
<v Speaker 1>was interested as to whether or not I was going

182
00:10:16.000 --> 00:10:18.559
<v Speaker 1>to do something different with my career at that point,

183
00:10:19.559 --> 00:10:21.600
<v Speaker 1>and I received outreach over the course of my time

184
00:10:21.639 --> 00:10:24.080
<v Speaker 1>at Latham and even going back to the time when

185
00:10:24.080 --> 00:10:26.919
<v Speaker 1>I was still at the White House but contemplating leaving

186
00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:30.159
<v Speaker 1>the White House, I'd been approached by many companies about

187
00:10:30.159 --> 00:10:34.360
<v Speaker 1>potentially going and working in house as general counsel. And

188
00:10:34.440 --> 00:10:37.080
<v Speaker 1>so just in the course of normal conversation I had

189
00:10:37.120 --> 00:10:39.919
<v Speaker 1>to tell him, and again he would insert himself and

190
00:10:39.960 --> 00:10:42.000
<v Speaker 1>try it again, and to tell me, you should say

191
00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:44.200
<v Speaker 1>that you want to be paid x. You should say

192
00:10:44.320 --> 00:10:46.360
<v Speaker 1>you want to be paid why that kind of thing.

193
00:10:47.120 --> 00:10:49.559
<v Speaker 1>And again he had a very different style than I do.

194
00:10:50.159 --> 00:10:52.279
<v Speaker 1>And I listened to him, of course, but I wasn't

195
00:10:52.320 --> 00:10:55.759
<v Speaker 1>following his advice because it would be completely counter to

196
00:10:55.879 --> 00:10:58.919
<v Speaker 1>just how I am. But it was That's what this was.

197
00:10:59.440 --> 00:11:02.480
<v Speaker 1>It's just really nothing more than that question. And just

198
00:11:02.480 --> 00:11:05.159
<v Speaker 1>to be clear, did Darren Endyke ever negotiate a job

199
00:11:05.200 --> 00:11:09.759
<v Speaker 1>offer or compensation on your behalf? Answer? No, question shortly

200
00:11:09.799 --> 00:11:12.320
<v Speaker 1>after you left the White House? Where you under consideration

201
00:11:12.960 --> 00:11:16.679
<v Speaker 1>for any other high level government position. Answer? There was

202
00:11:16.720 --> 00:11:19.679
<v Speaker 1>public reporting shortly after the Attorney General at the time

203
00:11:19.759 --> 00:11:22.879
<v Speaker 1>announced his resignation. He had been serving in the position

204
00:11:22.919 --> 00:11:25.720
<v Speaker 1>for about six years. It's a very very tough job,

205
00:11:26.240 --> 00:11:29.080
<v Speaker 1>and there was almost immediate speculation in the press that

206
00:11:29.120 --> 00:11:33.159
<v Speaker 1>I'd be considered to succeed him in that position. Question

207
00:11:33.200 --> 00:11:36.000
<v Speaker 1>were you formally considered? Answer? I don't want to get

208
00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:38.440
<v Speaker 1>into conversations that I had about it, just because I

209
00:11:38.480 --> 00:11:43.279
<v Speaker 1>think those are conversations that are confidential. Question. That's fine.

210
00:11:43.639 --> 00:11:46.039
<v Speaker 1>You can just give me a yes or no answer. Yeah,

211
00:11:46.080 --> 00:11:50.240
<v Speaker 1>I was considering it. Yes, question. I'll introduce majority Exhibit

212
00:11:50.360 --> 00:11:53.440
<v Speaker 1>number two. I will, of course allow you to review.

213
00:11:53.679 --> 00:11:56.159
<v Speaker 1>But while you're reviewing, debate stamp is in the bottom

214
00:11:56.200 --> 00:12:00.720
<v Speaker 1>right corner is EFTA zero two three six four three

215
00:12:00.799 --> 00:12:04.720
<v Speaker 1>five two At the top of the email, It's from yourself.

216
00:12:04.799 --> 00:12:08.879
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Rumler, sent to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, October fifteenth,

217
00:12:08.960 --> 00:12:12.559
<v Speaker 1>twenty fourteen. I'll give you a minute to review. Answer, Okay,

218
00:12:12.639 --> 00:12:15.759
<v Speaker 1>I'm ready. Question, it seems as though you forwarded a

219
00:12:15.759 --> 00:12:19.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg link about the rumblings of you being considered to

220
00:12:19.440 --> 00:12:22.519
<v Speaker 1>be Attorney General of the US. You forwarded this to

221
00:12:22.559 --> 00:12:25.519
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein. It sounds like there was a call to

222
00:12:25.519 --> 00:12:27.799
<v Speaker 1>be had. Did you in fact have a call about

223
00:12:27.799 --> 00:12:31.759
<v Speaker 1>this article with mister Epstein? Answer that I have no idea.

224
00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:34.519
<v Speaker 1>I mean again, this is twelve years ago. I don't know.

225
00:12:35.360 --> 00:12:37.960
<v Speaker 1>Question moving up the middle of the front page. Mister

226
00:12:38.000 --> 00:12:41.000
<v Speaker 1>Epstein has some suggestions for you. I'll read them. I

227
00:12:41.039 --> 00:12:44.240
<v Speaker 1>have some concrete suggestions for moving forward. One, let's hire

228
00:12:44.240 --> 00:12:47.320
<v Speaker 1>a video coach. You need to be trained. Samantha is terrible.

229
00:12:47.799 --> 00:12:50.840
<v Speaker 1>No hand movement or head tilting or nodding, blinking. You

230
00:12:50.919 --> 00:12:53.240
<v Speaker 1>will need to get the right glasses. You have two

231
00:12:53.320 --> 00:12:56.720
<v Speaker 1>months from today. Have someone from your office videotape the

232
00:12:56.759 --> 00:12:59.559
<v Speaker 1>forward presentation so that it can be reviewed for all

233
00:12:59.600 --> 00:13:03.039
<v Speaker 1>of the ABO. It seems to me like mister Epstein

234
00:13:03.120 --> 00:13:06.240
<v Speaker 1>was trying to give you advice for potentially accepting the nomination.

235
00:13:06.720 --> 00:13:10.039
<v Speaker 1>Is that what was happening here? Answer? Do you recall

236
00:13:10.039 --> 00:13:14.399
<v Speaker 1>my reference earlier to man's plaining answer, I do, yes, answer,

237
00:13:14.440 --> 00:13:16.799
<v Speaker 1>That's what's going on in the email. He's man's plaining

238
00:13:16.840 --> 00:13:19.720
<v Speaker 1>to me on something that he literally knows absolutely nothing

239
00:13:19.720 --> 00:13:22.840
<v Speaker 1>about and telling And as you see my response, would

240
00:13:22.840 --> 00:13:25.279
<v Speaker 1>a man need a video coach? So I'm calling him

241
00:13:25.279 --> 00:13:28.679
<v Speaker 1>out on the man's planning question. So, based on this email,

242
00:13:28.840 --> 00:13:31.120
<v Speaker 1>it seems like mister Epstein had some sort of knowledge

243
00:13:31.279 --> 00:13:35.000
<v Speaker 1>into your thought process around potentially becoming the Attorney General

244
00:13:35.039 --> 00:13:37.720
<v Speaker 1>of the US. Did you have discussions with him about

245
00:13:37.720 --> 00:13:41.799
<v Speaker 1>the potential for taking that position? Answer? The context to

246
00:13:41.840 --> 00:13:44.279
<v Speaker 1>me have a conversation with mister Epstein during the time.

247
00:13:44.519 --> 00:13:46.679
<v Speaker 1>Remember I had just met him for the first time

248
00:13:46.919 --> 00:13:50.200
<v Speaker 1>in mid July of twenty fourteen, so now what three

249
00:13:50.200 --> 00:13:53.639
<v Speaker 1>months later or something. I had just been engaged weeks

250
00:13:53.759 --> 00:13:56.519
<v Speaker 1>maybe three weeks before by the Rothschild Bank for a

251
00:13:56.559 --> 00:13:59.679
<v Speaker 1>matter that I understood to be quite significant, if not

252
00:13:59.679 --> 00:14:02.480
<v Speaker 1>exit essential for them, and he was a primary advisor

253
00:14:02.679 --> 00:14:05.080
<v Speaker 1>and he had just referred the client to me. So

254
00:14:05.279 --> 00:14:07.559
<v Speaker 1>let's just say that the timing and this media speculation

255
00:14:07.919 --> 00:14:11.600
<v Speaker 1>that the article says Obama favoring former White House counsel

256
00:14:11.840 --> 00:14:15.720
<v Speaker 1>Catherine Rumler to succeed holder as Attorney General was certainly

257
00:14:15.759 --> 00:14:18.440
<v Speaker 1>awkward timing for a client that had just engaged me

258
00:14:18.480 --> 00:14:21.440
<v Speaker 1>on their very their most important matter. So whether or

259
00:14:21.519 --> 00:14:23.639
<v Speaker 1>not I would be available to handle the matter or

260
00:14:23.639 --> 00:14:25.919
<v Speaker 1>I would be unavailable because I was going off to

261
00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:28.919
<v Speaker 1>run the gauntlet through the US Senate, which mister Blanche

262
00:14:29.039 --> 00:14:32.279
<v Speaker 1>is doing today, was a question of intense interest of

263
00:14:32.360 --> 00:14:37.240
<v Speaker 1>mister Epstein question, And was the intense interest just because

264
00:14:37.240 --> 00:14:40.279
<v Speaker 1>he wanted you to represent the Rothschilds and you could

265
00:14:40.320 --> 00:14:43.279
<v Speaker 1>not be doing so by taking the position answer. That's

266
00:14:43.320 --> 00:14:45.919
<v Speaker 1>what I believe that at the time. Again, my whole

267
00:14:45.960 --> 00:14:49.519
<v Speaker 1>reason for engaging with them during this period is just

268
00:14:49.600 --> 00:14:54.159
<v Speaker 1>because of the Rothschild representation question. Understood, all right, folks,

269
00:14:54.159 --> 00:14:56.360
<v Speaker 1>Who're gonna wrap up right here, and the next episode

270
00:14:56.399 --> 00:14:58.159
<v Speaker 1>dealing with the topic, We're going to pick up where

271
00:14:58.159 --> 00:15:00.799
<v Speaker 1>we left off. All the information that goes with this

272
00:15:00.919 --> 00:15:03.679
<v Speaker 1>episode can be found in the description box.