Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. There's a new report out from Wall Street
Journal and several other outlets about Katherine Rumler, who used
to be Barack Obama's White House counsel and her deep
ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, you folks are certainly familiar
with the name. We have several episodes where we've talked
about Katherine Rumler and her ties to Epstein and how
she was a key cog as far as the Washington
DC machine goes, and Epstein's tapping into it. Well, now
she's getting called on the carpet once again, and the
spotlight is directly on her. So in this episode, we're
going to begin taking a look at this CNN article
about Katherine Roumler and why she's now taking center stage
when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. This article was published
by CNN and the headline new court document asserts former
Obama White House casel advised Jeffrey Epstein during critical reputational
and legal battles. This article was authored by m Stock
and Andrew Kazinski. Recently unsealed federal court filing suggests that
Kathy Rumler a former White House counsel to President Barack
Obama and now the top lawyer at Goldman Sachs acted
as a key legal advisor to Jeffrey Epstein during some
of his most perilous moments, raising questions about our public
account that their relationship was limited and informal. She lied, Okay,
point blank period she lied, And I think that the
emails bear that out. The kind of emails that were
being sent back and forth between Rumler and Jeffrey Epstein
are not the kind of emails that are informal or limited.
She was giving them legal advice, and she was also
obviously a very good friend of his. And of course
the legacy media is going to make it out like
they had no idea, but they did. We all did.
Everybody knew that Catherine and Jeffrey Epstein were close, and
the emails just gave us the receipts to back up
everything that we thought previously. Rumler was among the many
high profile names who appeared in a trove of Epstein
emails and text messages released last November. As CNN's k
File reported, she was one of the most frequently referenced,
with more than one hundred exchanges between her and the
convicted sex offender over several years. Rumler's name also appeared
repeatedly on Epstein's schedule for planned meetings between twenty fourteen
and twenty nineteen while she worked at the law firm
Latham and Watkins. The recent filing is part of a
civil lawsuit brought by Epstein victims against the executors of
his estate, which is seeking to shield thousands of emails
from disclosure by asserting attorney client privilege, which is so disgusting.
Imagine being the executors of the estate and still trying
to protect your buddy Epstein. Now that's what you would
think they were doing, right, But doing that, they're really
protecting themselves because we all know that Indike and Cohn,
they have their own questions that they need to answer,
and we know that they've already been sued by multiple
survivors for their role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's bullshit. And
as far as Indike Go's, his name is littered on
all these contracts, on all of these financial statements, and
somehow this man's avoided a lot of scrutiny. But he shouldn't.
Do you think that if this was the mafia, and
some lawyer had his name all over all these documents.
The DJ is just gonna shrug and be like, ah,
you know what, no big deal, that's cool. We're not
gonna go after him. We're gonna give him a pass.
That's not what they do, right. If they're going after
an organization, they look to take everybody down, and if
your name is on paperwork especially, you're going to be
left hold in the bag. But somehow when it comes
to Jeffrey Epstein, that's not the case. Privilege would not
typically apply, experts say, to correspondence between profess sational acquaintances
discussing business, the kind of limited informal relationship Rumler says
that she had with Jeffrey Epstein. So it can't be both, right,
was it informal or were you working for him? Because
if it was informal, then you're not protected by attorney
client privilege. But if you were working for him, then
you've been lying this whole entire time. So which one
is it? Miss Rumler in arguing why the contents of
those emails should remain confidential. The state's filing portrays Rumler
as one of a small group of lawyers repeatedly consulted
by Epstein as he faced mounting legal exposure and damaging
press coverage in the years leading up to his twenty
nineteen arrest. Now, look, if it was just legal advice,
that's no big deal. She's a lawyer and that's her job.
But it was much deeper than that, and you can
see it in the emails for yourself. These two had
a very very tight relationship. And how far that relationship went, well,
that's anyone's guests. But there's no doubt that it was
more than informal or an employee employer type of thing.
These were people that were intimately aware of each other,
and Rumler certainly knew about Jeffrey Epstein's life and what
was going on in it. According to the estate's description
of the emails, Roumler was involved in advising Epstein on
a range of topics, including efforts to preserve his controversial
two thousand and eight Plea deal, drafting and shaping propose
public statements, editing correspondence with the US Senator, and even
discussions relating to victim settlements. Seems a little bit more
than informal to me, No, and it's not just you know,
basic help. She's actively looking for a way to help
screw the survivors. What do you think it means when
she's giving him help with the settlement? Do you think
that that's going to be more favorable for the survivors
or do you think Rumler is going to whip something
up that's more favorable for her client and her buddy,
Jeffrey Epps. We all know that this lady doesn't give
a shit about Epstein's crimes or the people that they
were perpetrated against. All she cares about is the access
and the money. In October of twenty sixteen, Jeffrey Epstein
sent an email to his longtime lawyer indicating Kathy Rumler
would weigh in on a statement. According to a record
of Attorney Client privileged documents, the log shows Roumler was
added as a recipient on a related email thread less
than an hour later. Yeah, we're not intimate friends. I
hardly know the guy as she's getting deep in the
weeds with his most intimate secrets. Tony Fratto, a spokesperson
for Goldman Sachs, where Rumler works as the general counsel
for the bank, said in a statement it's irresponsible and
wrong for CNN to draw conclusions about the content of
communications from brief and generic descriptions of emails that you
haven't seen. Kathy was not involved in the privileged desertions
or the descriptions in the log As Kathy has told
see before, she never represented Epstein and never advocated on
his behalf to a third party. She was one of
many prominent lawyers he informally reached out to for advice.
Just another person with nothing to see here, folks, nothing
at all. She had no idea, She didn't know who
Jeffrey Epstein even was. And isn't it amazing that all
the smartest people in the room end up being really
fucking stupid when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. I think
it's pretty telling all these people with so much to
say about so many things, all of a sudden have
nothing to say when they're outed as one of Jeffrey
Epstein's buddies. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that
a senior Goldman Sachs executive discussed preparing a contingency plan
for Rumler to leave following reporting on her past highs
to Epstein. The characterization the bank strongly denied, Well, yeah,
she's perfect for the financial sector. The scummier you are,
the better you're positioned to make moves. Let me be
very clear, there is not a bigger villain when it
comes to this topic or any other topic. Really, then
the financial sector as we suffer, as we struggle through
each day, these sons of bitches are swimming through their
money like Scrooge McDuck, knowing that they're never going to
be accountable for anything, whether that's a financial meltdown or
enabling a human trafficker like Jeffrey Epstein. Their bill never
comes due, and the financial sector is going to continue
to do whatever they want to do because nobody's ever
going to hold them accountable. Notably, the email descriptions also
assert that Roumler was among a group of attorneys who
worked with Epstein in twenty fifteen to push back on
a planned Good Morning America interview with one of his
most outspoken survivors, for Junior Roberts. Epstein estate claims that
Roumler helped draft a legal letter sent to ABC News
in April of twenty fifteen threatening legal action if the
piece aired, which it never did, and that was the
piece that was quashed. The Amy Robot piece, you know,
the one where she said she had everything and they
ended up killing it. Well, here's why. When you have
these kinds of lawyers stepping up for you, chances are
things are going to turn in a direction that's favorable
to you. So when we talk about how Epstein wasn't
able to do this on his own, this is what
we're talking about. People like Roomler, people that are around
him that are helping facilitate his bullshit. And there were
so many people like this that were around him on
a regular basis that were helping him do things like
this that it's not even funny. And that doesn't mean
that everybody that was helping him out is somebody that's
involved with the conspiracy or with the criminal empire. But
somebody like Roumler once again has lied about their relationship
with Jeffrey Epstein. And now the question is why what
are you hiding? Because if things are what you said
they were, then there shouldn't be any issue. Right. I
hardly knew the guy. I sent him a few emails,
that's it. But we know that's not what's going on here,
and we know that it's much deeper. CNN and now
found that Rumler is included in more than thirty emails
in the Privileged log which showed thousands of entries between
Epstein and his attorneys from as early as two thousand
and eight through July twenty nineteen. The logs were provided
as part of an ongoing civil suit by two alleged
victims against the executors of Epstein's estate. And you should
certainly expect a lot more attention to be turned to
the estate because there's a lot of people out there
that still have grievances that haven't been dealt with. And
now that Epstein's gone, people are going to go after
the estate. And they should. When all is said and done,
that estate shouldn't have one single dollar or asset left
to it. It should all be distributed to the survivors
who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein with the help of
all of his buddies. While there are often a handful
of people in those emails, including lawyers and sometimes a
journalist and a public relations crisis professional, there are more
than one hundred and fifty emails between just Roomler and Epstein. Ah,
come on, folks, this is overblown. They weren't really friends,
just like he wasn't friends with the Clintons, just like
he wasn't friends with Donald Trump, just like he wasn't
friends with Steve Manuchin, just like he wasn't friends with
insert person trying to rewrite history here, because that's what
they're all trying to do, rewrite history. Far from a
passive observer who was added to an email chain among
Epstein's lawyers, Roomler appears in the log as an active participant.
In many instances, she's listed as the sender of at
least one hundred and thirty five of those emails, according
to the Privileged Log. Now, have you ever sent just
an acquaintance one hundred and thirty five emails? Maybe out work, right,
somebody that you're dealing with at the job or whatever,
But in your professional life outside of work, if you're
having that kind of back and forth, unless there's a
project you're working on, chances are your friends, right, and
when you read the emails, there's no doubt that that's
what comes out. These two were certainly friends, and they
were certainly working behind the scenes to try and help
Jeffrey Epstein out of the jam that he found himself in.
And now that Rooumler has been outed. Well, she wants
to make pretend that it was just, you know, a
basic relationship where there was nothing really going on and
everything's just being overblown. Well, the problem with that is
the contemporaneous emails and the facts don't match up with
what Rumler and her people are trying to pitch to us.
The recently released logs suggests that Rumler played a far
bigger role in advising Epstein than previously known, adding critical
details to the portrait that emerged from the trove of
messages released by the House Oversight Committee in November. While
those messages displayed a level of being familiar and at
times friendly banter between Rumler and Epstein, the description of
the privileged logs indicate something far more extensive, a relationship that,
on its face and according to experts, appeared to be
that of an attorney and a client. Well I'm certainly
not an expert, but that's what it appeared to be
to me. Certainly appeared to be the relationship between an
attorney and a client, and certainly good friends. So I
don't know where anybody gets off reading those emails and
thinking that this was just a very basic back and forth,
Because that's not what it was. And honestly, I'm shocked
at CNN is going this deep on this topic, but
I'll definitely tilt my cap to him because it's important.
It's important to understand just how powerful Epstein was through
these proxies that he was collecting, and I think people
need to understand that he had a special relationship with
each of them in hopes of extracting whatever he wanted
from them, and that was how Jeffrey Epstein always operated,
and he knew that having a heavy hitter on the
team like Catherine Ruemler was only a bonus, so he
roped her in. In response to questions about a relationship
with Epstein, Roumler told CNN last month she did not
represent him and was not compensated by him. I was
one of a number of lawyers Epstein formally reached out
to for advice, Ruemler said in her statement to CNN,
adding that she did not advocate on his behalf to
third parties and not the press, not a court, not
a government official. Rumler herself did not respond to additional
requests for comment for this piece. Well did you expect
her to maybe through you know, a spokesperson, not her herself.
She doesn't want to step in it any deeper than
she already has, because if you think that this is
going to end here, you're crazy. Especially with the lawsuit
that's been filed against the estate, She's probably going to
get subpoened to be deposed. Now, if it makes it
that far, we'll have to see. But if it does
accelerate and it continues to move forward, I would expect
Katharine Rumler to be called to testify. That's why this
is being brought up right now because it was mentioned
in the court documents that were filed by the survivors
who are suing Epstein's estate. So all of it goes
hand in hand. And one thing that I've learned throughout
the years following this case and covering it, the ultimate
equalizer is a deposition. None of these people want to
be under oath ever, because they understand the jeopardy that
they put themselves in, because all of them, breaking news,
have been lying to you about their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein.
Rumler has characterized her relationship with Epstein, who died in
jail in twenty nineteen while awaiting trial on federal sex
trafficking charges as limited and professional. She said she only
knew him as a business referral source. Epstein in turn,
once referred to Rumler as my great defender. Well both
can't be true right now. Epstein is a notorious liar,
no doubt about that. But we have the emails that
back up what he said about his relationship with Rumler,
So that makes Rumler a liar too. Rumler has also
repeatedly said she regrets ever knowing Epstein, and she told
CNN last month she had no knowledge of any new
or ongoing on lawful activity on his part. Well, yeah,
what else is she gonna say? I knew everything he
was doing. I was in the know, and I just
sat there and didn't do anything about it. Does that
sound logical? Remember this lady is a lawyer, so she's
gonna look to, you know, slither her way out of
this fork tongue her way out of this one. And
the truth is she'll probably be successful. And I hate
being so cynical, but history has proven to us time
and time again that people like this are never held accountable.
All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up part one right here,
and in the next episode, We're gonna pick up where
we left off. All of the information that goes with
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicle. In
this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
off with the CNN article talking about Catherine Rumler once again.
This article was authored by m Steck and Andrew Kazinski.
While the contents of the emails remain sealed, the log
offers a window and now Epstein and his attorneys navigated
some of his most perilous legal and media battles after
this two thousand and eight conviction and incarceration for soliciting
prostitution from a minor. And how in the hell is
that even a thing? I mean, I know, I always
say it all the time, but it's so disgusting. A
minor can't be a prostitute. They can't even consent, so
how can they be a prostitute? The five hundred and
thirteen page privileged log was provided in a suit against
Darren Endyke and Richard Kahn, who served as Epstein's attorney
and accountant. The pseuit alleges the two acted as co
conspirators and facilitating Epstein's sex trafficking crimes, which the too
have strenuously denied. A lawyer for the men told The
New York Times they emphatically reject the allegations of wrongdoing
in the lawsuit and called the claims baseless and legally frivolous.
Oh I have my doubts about that. I mean, how
can you have your name littered all over all this paperwork.
How could you be the one that's in charge of
paying out the girls and still act like you have
no idea what Epstein was giving those girls that kind
of money for their conversational skills because they were great messuses.
Come on, none of it's logical. They'll try and make
it be logical, but if you look at it from
a normal perspective, a normal human being, none of it's logical,
None of it makes sense, and none of it is
even close to being acceptable. There's no indication that Ruemler
is part of the effort to shield the emails from
the public by asserting attorney client privilege. She's maintained that
she was not Epstein's attorney her law firm at the
time a correspondence Laytham and Watkins previously told CNN Epstein
was never a client of the firm, so that's a
gray area. Right. Maybe he was a personal client of
Catherine Rumler and they had some kinds of handshake deal.
How would we know because of attorney client privilege, Right,
that's certainly something that needs to be taken into account.
And while I don't have a document that I can
point to and say, hey, look, she took a retainer
fee from Epstein, when you look at the emails, it's
hard to come to any conclusion but that and either way,
it looks really bad for Roumler because she's lying either way.
And like I've said a million times, now, if you're
lying about this, what else are you lying about? Latham
and Watkins did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Rumler joined the firm in the summer of twenty fourteen
and left in twenty twenty to work at Goldman Sachs.
Nothing like heading back to the financial sector for that
big ass bag. She fits in perfectly there too, right,
I mean, if you had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,
that's the right fraternity for you. But according to experts,
CNN spoke with Rumler's assertions that she was not his
attorney do not matter when it comes to attorney client privilege.
It's the client who asserts privilege. Attorney client privilege is
the privilege of the client with regard to any communication
made to someone for the purpose of legal advice. It
does not matter if there's a formal representation, document or
an agreement, said Ken Brown, a professor at the University
of North Carolina School of Law. If, for example, Epstein
reached out to Rumler for legal advice and she gave it,
those communications could be considered privileged, and he knew that,
and so did she. So all the bullshit, all the posturing,
all the nonsense, more lies. I don't know about you,
but I've had my fill of lies. Wouldn't it be
nice if somebody just told the truth every now and then.
It's in the mind of the client that matters. But
the client would have to have both a reasonable expectation
that the person would provide legal advice to them and
that the statement was being made in confidence. Brown said
Rumler's assertions that she was never compensated by or represented
Epstein also do not mean that she wasn't providing them
legal counsel or advice. In some capacity. You don't need
to be compensated by someone to establish an attorney client
relationship number one, said Elise Mizell, an assistant professor of
law at Michigan State University College of Law and an
expert on attorney client privilege. Mizell also said Rumler could
be viewed as having attorney client relationship with Epstein even
if she never signed a formal engagement letter or represented
him as his counsel in a particular lawsuit. Yeah, if
you go to a lawyer for advice, that's confidential, right,
and that's what they're counting on here. Oh, it was
just advice. There was nothing formal, no agreement, blah blah blah.
But whether formal or not, according to reports and the emails,
Rumler was helping Epstein come up with ways to go
after the survivors to make it so he didn't have
to pay as much, to make it seem like Epstein
was the one that was the victim. And if Rumler
wasn't doing that in the capacity of a lawyer, she
was doing that in the capacity of a private citizen,
which makes it all that much worse for me. As
a lawyer, you're expected to do some shit for your clients, Right,
You're going to pitch a narrative, You're going to try
and build a case that's favorable to the person that
hired you. So, while I think sometimes it's morally reprehensible,
it's their job. But if you're doing it out of
the quote unquote kindness of your heart because it's your friend,
what does that make you? Well, in my opinion, it
makes Rumler a disgusting individual. At the very least, that
doesn't mean that there wasn't an attorney client relationship established
such that the privilege could apply. Mizelle Said insistence that
she was not compensated by Epstein places the extensive legal
work described in the filings in the realm of pro
bono representation. Such unpaid work by attorneys like Rumler, who
made twenty two and a half million in twenty twenty
four as Goldman Sachs chief legal officer, is often worth
tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. That work
is typically reserved for poor clients or public interest matters,
not for a wealthy convicted sex offenders. Yeah. Usually pro
bono work is when one of these big time lawyers
takes on a case where they think they can get
some tread from it, where they're going to get some
good publicity, and where they think that they have an
opening to maybe make some dough. But as far as
pro bono goes, you don't see it all the time,
certainly not for human traffickers right or sex offenders. But
when it comes to Rumler, I guess that's what was
going on. The newly unsealed filing suggests that Rumler's involvement
went far beyond casual and informal work. Rather than a
distant professional acquaintance, the record portrays her as a trusted
legal confidant, repeatedly consulted at moments when Epstein's legal and
reputational stakes were the highest. So that tells us that
he really trusted Rumler her advice and what she thought
was the best course of action. Right. If he's going
to her when the stress is the most and when
the heat's really on, it's because he thinks she could
help him. And remember the team of lawyers that this
man had around him. So would it shocked you to
find out that Obama's White House counsel was also in
the mix. Power gravitates toward power and it doesn't matter
what side of the aisle you're on. Among the most
consequential work described is a legal memorandum. The estate says
that Rumler is sent to Epstein in twenty fifteen analyzing
in federal lawsuit that threatened to unravel is controversial two
thousand and eight non prosecution agreement that had shielded him
from federal charges. Roumler sent an email to Epstein in
May of twenty fifteen, according to the log, with the
subject line CBRA Memorandum four sixteen fifteen PDF. Thelog describes
the entry as providing memorandum containing legal advice. Well that's interesting, huh.
Imagine being the lawyer that's helping Jeffrey Epstein keep that
NPA in place and then acting like you had no
idea what's going on. It's obvious to me that Catherine
Ruemler should also be subpoena and put under oath. What
did she know, when did she know it? And just
how deep did that relationship go with Epstein as far
as personal and professional. Other entries placed Rumler in discussions
about correspondence with lawmakers as political scrutiny intensified in early
twenty nineteen, as general Republican Senator Ben Sass of Nebraska
pressed the Justice Department to investigate how federal prosecutors handled
Epstein's case. Thelog describes multiple emails in which Rumler provided
legal advice on a proposed response. Does that sound like
a friend or a lawyer? You have the walls closing
in on you, You have people asking about the NPA, you
have congressmen trying to get to the bottom of it,
and you turned to Rumler. That tells me that somebody
that you really trusted and you held in your confidence.
One entry shows Roumler sending Epstein an email with the
subject line suggested edits. The estate's description reads Attorney client
communication regarding draft correspondence with Senator Ben Sass. The attachment
is titled letter to the Honorable Ben Sass. A newly
unsealed court filing shows Kathy Rumler and Jeffrey Epstein exchange
in an attorney client privileged communication regarding a letter meant
for then Republican Senator Ben Sass, who was pressing the
Justice Department at the time to investigate federal prosecutors handling
of the Epstein case. One entry in the log indicates
Epstein relied upon Rumler to take a first pass at
drafting public statements responding to allegations against him. In an
email sent on October ninth, twenty sixteen, Epstein wrote to Endyke,
his longtime lawyer, that he was waiting for Kathy's first
pass of a proposed statement addressing what the estate later
described as inaccurate sex abuse claims in the media. I'm
sure that Rumlor had nothing to do with that. Huh,
nothing to do with building a narrative to help protect
Jeffrey Epstein. Now just ruminate on that for a minute
and then ask yourself if you believe it, because the
documents show us that Rumler was right in the mix.
Just over thirty minutes later, according to the Privileged Log,
Rumler was included as a recipient on a related email
thread discussing the same draft outline, which suggests her direct
involvement in reviewing or shaping the statement. Yeah, that's exactly
what it suggests. And is there any doubt that Kathy
Rumler needs to be under oath? I mean, come on,
do you really trust the nonsense that they're telling us,
especially considering that we have the emails that really go
against the narrative that they're trying to pitch. The email
logs also provide previously unreported details about a crucial incident
that held Epstein avoid public scrutiny of his sex crimes
at a time when he was attempting to rehabilitate his reputation.
In early twenty fifteen, ABC News was preparing to air
a lengthy on camera interview with Roberts, who was among
the first to publicly accuse Epstein of sex trafficking and abuse.
And I remember talking to Virginia about this very issue,
and she was very clear that ABC, without a shadow
of a doubt, killed it to protect their access. Imagine
our reporting on the Jeffrey Epstein story because you wanted
to save your access to the royals. When Epstein learned
of the interview in April of twenty fifteen, he quickly
gathered his attorneys on an email chain. Among them was Rumler,
who in the previous year had left her job in
the Obama White House and was working as a high
dollar attorney at Lathaman Watkins. The log says that in
late April of twenty fifteen, Roomler was across more than
a dozen emails appearing to discuss the ABC News interview.
The emails are sometimes described as negotiation with a media
outlet to prevent false allegations from being aired, and had
to deal with media coverage of claims against Epstein false
allegations huh more like a false narrative that you are
trying to run to kill those allegations. One email between
Epstein and his associate Claim Maxwell, in which Rumler is
listed as an attorney, is described in the log as
attorney client communication regarding Good Morning America interview with redacted.
A copy of ABC's comment request Epstein was included in
the files released by the House Oversight Committee. The request
contained a detailed summary of Robert's allegations, including claims at
Epstein's actually abused her beginning when she was a teenager,
trafficked other underage girls, and arranged sexual encounters with powerful men.
Among them, according to Roberts, was then British Royal Prince Andrew,
who was stripped of his royal titles last year over
his association with Epstein. Rumler is listed as sending several
emails to Epstein and as attorney Martin Weinberg on April
twenty second and twenty third twenty fifteen. At least one
email chain that Rumler sent Epstein and his council has
a subject line privileged and confidential, suggesting that she made
the decision to characterize the exchange as an attorney client
privileged conversation. She attached a document called letter to ABC Draft,
seemingly adding her initials to the document's name. The April
twenty third email is described by the estate as communication
providing draft of a letter to the press seeking to
correct the record. The following day, April twenty fourth, twenty fifteen,
Weinberg send official letter to ABC News on Epstein's behalf,
a copy of which was released in November by House investigators.
In the letter, Weinberg argued that Robert's allegations were uncorroborated, outdated,
and contradicted by other evidence, and warned ABC News that
airing the interview would be grossly negligent or worse. If
ABC has concerns about our credibility with respect to any allegation,
it must decline to republish all of her allegations. The
letter from Weinberg read and ABC did it? Can you
imagine whoever made that decision is a piece of shit? Weinberg,
who has in the past denied that Ruemler represented Epstein,
told CNN, I regret that I cannot discuss any communications
for which the estate has claimed privilege. The ABC News
interview never aired. Roberts, who died by suicide last year,
described in her published memoir feeling proud to have done
the interview and devastated that it never aired. I had
been defeated once again the people I was trying to
speak out against, and I couldn't help but wonder if
a media giant like ABC could be shut down in
its attempts to reveal the truth, was there any hope
for survivors like me? Years later, a League twenty nineteen
recording captured then Good Morning America co host Amy Robock
expressing frustration that the segment was not broadcast. We had everything,
Robock said. Robock declined to comment to CNN. A spokesperson
for ABC News pointed CNN to a past statement on
the incident. At the time, not all of our reporting
met our standards to error, but we have never stopped
investigating the story. What that means is they got scared
by Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers and Prince Andrew and the royal family.
That's what it means. And when we're talking about people
that helped protect Jeffrey Epstein, when we're talking about people
that helped enable Jeffrey Epstein, then in my opinion, Katherine
Rumler certainly is on the list. So the question obviously
is where do we go from here. My advice this lady,
put her in front of Congress and let's see what
she has to say. Do I think that's going to happen? Well,
that's a whole last other conversation altogether. All of the
information that goes with this episode can be found in
the description box.