Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where he
Speaker 1: left off with Kathy Rumler and the transcript from her
Speaker 1: trip to Congress. Question by mister Adaktid at the end
Speaker 1: of the last hour, my colleague mister Grant from the
Speaker 1: Majority asked about a series of articles that the Miami
Speaker 1: Herald published in November of twenty eighteen. I think he
Speaker 1: asked you something to the effect or after reading those articles,
Speaker 1: did that change your mind about associating with mister Epstein,
Speaker 1: or something to that effect. When you were replied, you said,
Speaker 1: I remember those articles to be about a plea bargain
Speaker 1: or a deal or something like that. I just want
Speaker 1: to remind you that that was a series of articles,
Speaker 1: many of which focused on Jeffrey Epstein's victims. It included
Speaker 1: pictures of what they look like at the time that
Speaker 1: they were abused. Answer uh huh question, and the whole
Speaker 1: world saw it. So with that, I think earlier in
Speaker 1: the day, I believe it was Majority's time they asked
Speaker 1: you a little bit about Glen Maxwell. So I'll apologize
Speaker 1: if we were to treat a little bit of that ground.
Speaker 1: It was a long time ago of transcribed interview hours.
Speaker 1: What was your relationship with Glainne Maxwell. Answer? I didn't
Speaker 1: have a relationship with Glenn Maxwell. I met her one time.
Speaker 1: Question can you say again, please describe that one time
Speaker 1: you met with her? Answer? Her lawyer asked if she
Speaker 1: could use She meaning her lawyer, asked if she could
Speaker 1: use a conference room at my law firm in New
Speaker 1: York in connection with some legal work that was happening
Speaker 1: in New York. I don't know what it was, but
Speaker 1: that's very common in the private practice of law. If
Speaker 1: I have a case, Let's say I had a case
Speaker 1: in Denver, and my law firm didn't have an office
Speaker 1: in Denver, So it would be very common to reach
Speaker 1: out to another law firm and ask whether as a courtesy,
Speaker 1: that you could use a conference room there. That's what
Speaker 1: this was. Question. So they reached out to gets cut
Speaker 1: off by a rumler. Her lawyer reached out. Question her
Speaker 1: lawyer Laura Manager. Answer yes, question is that right reached
Speaker 1: out and asked you if she could use a conference
Speaker 1: room at your law firm, Latham and Watkins in New York.
Speaker 1: Answer yes. Question did you meet them? Answer yeah, and
Speaker 1: so I arranged. You have to reserve a conference room. Question.
Speaker 1: Uh huh. Answer. I reserve the conference room. And I
Speaker 1: happened to be in the office the day that they
Speaker 1: were in the office, and I went to the conference
Speaker 1: room to say hello and introduce myself to miss Manager,
Speaker 1: who I had not met. Question, got it? Do you
Speaker 1: remember when this was at all? Answer? I don't question,
Speaker 1: all right. Question, can you give me an approximation what year, Roomler?
Speaker 1: I don't question before twenty twenty, of course before twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: before twenty eighteen, Roomler. It could have been. It could
Speaker 1: have been. It was some time, probably between twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: and twenty eighteen, but I couldn't tell you exactly when. Question.
Speaker 1: Let's introduce minority Exhibit l bates number EFTA zero two
Speaker 1: four six five two seven two. This is April nineteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, email exchange between mister Epstein and you. Do
Speaker 1: you think this? This email says Laura and Glaine here tomorrow,
Speaker 1: that's from you, And then mister Epstein says, here, where
Speaker 1: were you referring to the meeting we were just talking about,
Speaker 1: Miss Rummer. Yeah. Question, that's all you need for the
Speaker 1: document redacted? No answer question. Just a few days later,
Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell was deposed in the defamation case. I think
Speaker 1: we talked about it earlier between Virginia Roberts and Miss Maxwell.
Speaker 1: Do you know if that meeting between Miss Maxwell and
Speaker 1: Miss Manager at your office was in any way related
Speaker 1: to that deposition? Answer? I don't have any idea question,
Speaker 1: and you didn't talk to either of them about the
Speaker 1: deposition or help them prepare in any way? Answer no. Question.
Speaker 1: Did you recommend miss Manager to Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell? Answer?
Speaker 1: He asked to five for a referral, and I passed
Speaker 1: her name along, but again I didn't know her. Question
Speaker 1: how did you know her well enough to pass her
Speaker 1: name along? Answer? Because I didn't know her well enough
Speaker 1: to pass the name along. I believe what happened, which
Speaker 1: is very common, is someone ask you for a lawyer,
Speaker 1: and you send out an email at your law firm saying,
Speaker 1: does anyone have a recommendation for a lawyer to handle
Speaker 1: this kind of case? Question I remember that too, I
Speaker 1: know what you're talking about. Answer, Yes, those happened all
Speaker 1: the time. So someone in my law firm had recommended Laura, who,
Speaker 1: again I didn't know, and hadn't met, and I passed
Speaker 1: her contact information along. Question what was the extent of
Speaker 1: your interaction with miss Meninger until this April nineteenth, twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen meeting that's your office hosted Answer? I believed either
Speaker 1: myself or one of my colleagues had I don't remember specifically,
Speaker 1: but when she was contacted, I believe she was told
Speaker 1: that the referral came from Latham, and so either I
Speaker 1: or my colleague would have recommended her sort of spoke
Speaker 1: to her. She probably called to thank us for the referral,
Speaker 1: which again is common question. Got it all right? Let's
Speaker 1: introduce Exhibit M two emails bates number EFTA zero one
Speaker 1: two four nine two four and EFTA zero one seven
Speaker 1: eight nine nine three four answer, okay. Question. The first email,
Speaker 1: which we should note for the record, is an email
Speaker 1: from Jeffrey Epstein to Glenn Maxwell, which you are not on.
Speaker 1: I believe reflects exactly what you were describing. The underlying
Speaker 1: email is from you to Jeffrey Epstein providing Laura manager's information. Answer,
Speaker 1: uh huh question, and then he forwards it to miss
Speaker 1: Maxwell and says fifty thousand retainer answer, Uh huh? Question?
Speaker 1: Which in this case is not a ten K, it's
Speaker 1: a fifty K. Answer uh huh question. The next email,
Speaker 1: dated October eighth, twenty fifteen, is again at the top
Speaker 1: of an email exchange between Maxwell and Epstein. Answer ahuh. Question.
Speaker 1: Do you see halfway through the first page where Miss
Speaker 1: Maxwell says called Laura she had already requested an extension
Speaker 1: per Kathy's instruction, she can meet with me on my
Speaker 1: and with Kathy, please call me. She thinks she has
Speaker 1: good grounds for dismissal. Now Kathy is spelled with the
Speaker 1: CEA answer uh huh. Question you spell your name with
Speaker 1: a K. Answer A huh. Question. Do you understand this
Speaker 1: to be this Kathy to be you or somebody else? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Question did you instruct miss manager at
Speaker 1: all about what to do in Miss Maxwell's defamation case
Speaker 1: with Miss Roberts Answer I don't instruct other lawyers. Generally
Speaker 1: lawyers don't like to be instructed by other lawyers. I
Speaker 1: can't speculate on this other than at this stage. One
Speaker 1: of the things when a complaint is filed, assuming that
Speaker 1: it's been has been served, I don't have any idea
Speaker 1: whether this was or not. But under the federal rules,
Speaker 1: the civil procedure, there's an amount of time you have
Speaker 1: to respond, and so given that I would have just
Speaker 1: asked to provide if I can make a recommendation or
Speaker 1: make a referral, which I did, it's possible that that's
Speaker 1: what it's referring to, but I just don't remember. Question
Speaker 1: you don't recall whether or not you discuss filing for
Speaker 1: an extension with Miss Manager. Answer again, I wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been filing any extension. I wasn't involved in the litigation
Speaker 1: other than to provide rumler gets cut off. So when
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell says she can meet with me on Monday
Speaker 1: and with Kathy, did you meet with Miss Maxwell and
Speaker 1: Miss Manager in October of twenty fifteen? Answer no, I
Speaker 1: don't believe I did. And the only time I recalled
Speaker 1: meeting Miss Maxwell is the time that they asked me
Speaker 1: to use the conference room in our office, which was
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, per the email that you showed me. Question,
Speaker 1: let's introduce Exhibit N an email exchange between you and
Speaker 1: mister Epstein dated April twenty three, twenty sixteen, Bates number
Speaker 1: EFTA zero two four sixty three four eight seven. In
Speaker 1: this email, exchange, Mister Epstein asked, quote, how does laur
Speaker 1: set a perjury trap? And you respond, quote preparation letters
Speaker 1: say things she has already said, and then in peature
Speaker 1: with a document that proves otherwise. The age issue is
Speaker 1: perfect for that. Do you remember what she was referring
Speaker 1: to what you were referring to when you said the
Speaker 1: age issue is perfect for that? Answer? He Epstein told
Speaker 1: me that she, meaning miss Roberts, was not being truthful
Speaker 1: about her age, and that's all I remember about it.
Speaker 1: He asked something about a perjury trap. That's not a
Speaker 1: thing in my lexicon. That's not how I talk. I
Speaker 1: don't think about things like that. And I gave him
Speaker 1: a very generic response, explaining sort of frankly cross examination
Speaker 1: one oh one question, Why were you giving Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: any kind of response, any type informal legal advice or whatever?
Speaker 1: This is on how Glenn Maxwell's lawyer should get one
Speaker 1: of his Epstein and Maxwell's victims to be trapped in
Speaker 1: a deposition for perjury. Answer, he was asking me a
Speaker 1: generic question. I understood him to be asking a generic
Speaker 1: question question, but your answer wasn't generic. Mister Fishman, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Can you let the witness finish, please redacted. Your answer
Speaker 1: was not generic. Fishman. I'm sorry, mister Robinson. Redacted. The
Speaker 1: age issue is perfect for that. Fishman. If you want
Speaker 1: to argue with the witness, we don't need to do that. Redacted.
Speaker 1: I don't want to argue with the witness. Fishman. She's
Speaker 1: in the middle of answering. Fishman gets cut off, and
Speaker 1: I'm definitely not arguing with her. Fishman, she's in the
Speaker 1: middle of answering that question. Redacted. You said that there
Speaker 1: was going to be we can go off the record,
Speaker 1: but we're definitely going to keep going here. You said
Speaker 1: you gave a generic answer. You said actually had a
Speaker 1: specific detail that defies the definition of the term generic.
Speaker 1: The age issue is perfect for that answer. Again, he
Speaker 1: had told me that she was not truthful about her age,
Speaker 1: So again I'm just going off of what he told me,
Speaker 1: and I'm giving very generic. This is the most generic
Speaker 1: if you looked up cross examination for dummies, that's the
Speaker 1: response question. Do you remember what age she said she
Speaker 1: actually was? Answer? I don't. I don't remember. I don't
Speaker 1: remember the details about the issue. I do remember Miss
Speaker 1: Roberts's allegations that were made in the CVR case and
Speaker 1: subsequently made public, and there were allegations in there that
Speaker 1: I was inherently skeptical of. Question, were you inherently skeptical
Speaker 1: that Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell abused her when she
Speaker 1: was a minor? Answer? I didn't know, but I recall
Speaker 1: that in the filing that she said she'd been forced
Speaker 1: to have sex with foreign presidents plural, and multiple American politicians,
Speaker 1: with multiple business leaders, all that information, which was generic,
Speaker 1: it wasn't specific, but very extreme allegations. Those allegations, again
Speaker 1: were made in a declaration in court, were inconsistent with
Speaker 1: anything that I had understood about the evidence that the
Speaker 1: state attorney and the US Attorney in Miami had uncovered.
Speaker 1: And I would have thought that if the US Attorney's
Speaker 1: office in Miami had evidence that Epstein had trafficked and
Speaker 1: underage minor the multiple foreign presidents or multiple world leaders
Speaker 1: or multiple American politicians, question like Prince Andrew, answer that
Speaker 1: would be Prince Andrew was separately identified. This was an
Speaker 1: allegation that was separate and apart from Prince Andrew that
Speaker 1: said that she had been trafficked the multiple foreign presidents
Speaker 1: and world leaders and the American politicians and a former
Speaker 1: prime minister. Hey, stupid fuck Kathy Rumler, that's exactly who
Speaker 1: she was talking about. Prince Andrew and all these other
Speaker 1: degenerate fuck bags we've been talking about. People like you
Speaker 1: protected Epstein, people like you kept the abuse going, and
Speaker 1: in fact, Kathy Rumler is one of the most disgusting
Speaker 1: people that has gotten up there and given us a
Speaker 1: bullshit excuse throughout this whole entire thing. Question, So, when
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein then says accountability, please help, and you say
Speaker 1: I will, so I wish we were doing it. Let's
Speaker 1: take it a step by step. What did you mean
Speaker 1: when you said I will when he asked you please help? Answer?
Speaker 1: I don't specifically recall again, this is an email that's
Speaker 1: over ten years ago at this time. But I at
Speaker 1: this point in time, in twenty sixteen, I had a
Speaker 1: very active practice, including an active trial practice. I liked it.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it, as any trial lawyer does. If you
Speaker 1: don't enjoy examining witnesses, you seem to be enjoying this
Speaker 1: quite a lot, then you shouldn't be doing it. And
Speaker 1: so again, my state of mind at the time was
Speaker 1: based on the information that he told me, and that
Speaker 1: I understood from things that were in the public domain,
Speaker 1: that were the allegations that any good lawyer would want
Speaker 1: a probe. Question are you saying that any you think
Speaker 1: any good lawyer would want to depose one of Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein and Glaine Maxwell's victims with the goal of somehow
Speaker 1: trapping them into committing perjury. And just to be clear,
Speaker 1: the person who committed perjury was Glayne Maxwell. So maybe
Speaker 1: Kathy Rumler is not as good of a lawyer as
Speaker 1: she thinks she is. Answer. That's not what I said,
Speaker 1: and that's not what I meant. Those are your words,
Speaker 1: not mine. Question this email, he's asking you how to
Speaker 1: lay a perjury trap. You provide some advice. Part of it,
Speaker 1: you call it generic. There are some very specific stuff
Speaker 1: he says. Please help you say I will. I so
Speaker 1: wish I were doing it. Answer to be clear, She
Speaker 1: gets cut off. Help me understand this email differently than
Speaker 1: exactly what it says. Answer to be clear, I was
Speaker 1: not involved in this litigation. I was not counsel of record.
Speaker 1: There were lawyers involved in the litigation. Question all right, Answer,
Speaker 1: he asked me what I understood to be basic layperson
Speaker 1: question about how is it you cross examine a witness
Speaker 1: when you think they're not being truthful about something? And
Speaker 1: I told them that that's what it was. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: We're going to wrap up right here, and in the
Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick
Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.