Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
Speaker 1: back into the Kathy Ruhmler testimony that she gave to
Speaker 1: Congress Mister Grant. We'll go back on the record. It's
Speaker 1: three twenty five. Question, Miss Rumler. I'm going to start
Speaker 1: with a meeting that was scheduled on May sixth of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. Who was a dinner meeting between yourself, Woody
Speaker 1: and Steve and Marvin? Would would he be Woody Allen
Speaker 1: answer yeah? Answer? And Steve would be Steve Bennon answer yeah? Question?
Speaker 1: And who is Marvin? Answer? Marvin was a partner of
Speaker 1: mine at Lathan Watkins. Question is at Marvin Putnam? Answer yes? Question?
Speaker 1: And this meeting was to have a dinner and discuss quote,
Speaker 1: legal stuff with mister Epstein. What specific legal stuff would
Speaker 1: you have discussed with mister Epstein at this time? Answer?
Speaker 1: My recollection of this meeting was that there was a
Speaker 1: prominent plaintiff's lawyer whose name is Michael Avenatti. You may
Speaker 1: be aware of him because he subsequently went to prison,
Speaker 1: and also I believe represented Stormy Daniels at some point.
Speaker 1: But in any event he went to prison, and he
Speaker 1: had tweeted something about having a threatening legal case against Epstein,
Speaker 1: and Epstein had asked for a referral, a legal referral,
Speaker 1: And so I asked around the law firm whether anybody
Speaker 1: had any dealings with mister AVENAUGHTI and mister Putnam, as
Speaker 1: I recall, did he had a case or two, maybe
Speaker 1: have even been dealing with them at the time, And
Speaker 1: so I suggested that if he had any interest in
Speaker 1: meeting Epstein to see whether there was if such a
Speaker 1: case were filed, whether he wanted to take it on
Speaker 1: as a legal matter. So that was what that was
Speaker 1: in reference to question, and briefly, what was the legal issue?
Speaker 1: If you recall answer, I don't remember exactly. My best
Speaker 1: recollection is there was a tweet that ABNAUGHTI had sent
Speaker 1: out saying something along the lines of I have some
Speaker 1: client and the client's going to sue, going to sue Epstein.
Speaker 1: That never happened. I can't remember the timeline, whether it
Speaker 1: was bec because he got indicted before he could do it,
Speaker 1: or whether sometimes what I've seen some lawyers do is
Speaker 1: tweet or make public statements or something like that in
Speaker 1: an effort to attract clients, and I wasn't sure whether
Speaker 1: that's what was going on, but in any event, it
Speaker 1: didn't come to pass. Question and so, just to be
Speaker 1: clearer for the sake of the record, sdnwise investigation into
Speaker 1: mister Epstein began in twenty eighteen. This meeting was in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. This meeting was quote about legal stuff. Was
Speaker 1: not in reference to any investigation of mister Epstein. Is
Speaker 1: that correct? Answer? That's right. I have no knowledge of
Speaker 1: any investigation of mister Epstein in that timeframe. Question. I
Speaker 1: believe you mentioned in a previous hour that you've had
Speaker 1: at least some interaction with Darren Endyke, who is mister
Speaker 1: Epstein's personal attorney. How often would you say that you
Speaker 1: interacted with mister Endyke. Answer infrequently. I believe I only
Speaker 1: met mister Endyke once in person. Question and how often
Speaker 1: would you have any type of other correspondence with mister Dyke?
Speaker 1: Answer again, infrequently. Is my best recollection. I don't remember
Speaker 1: having again during this timeframe that I was dealing with Epstein.
Speaker 1: I don't remember having much engagement with mister Dyke. And
Speaker 1: to the extent that you can remember, the engagement with
Speaker 1: mister Endyke, what did it pertain to? Answer? I don't
Speaker 1: really remember. I knew that mister Endyke was his kind
Speaker 1: of in house lawyer, if you will, And again he
Speaker 1: had external counsel, mister Weinberg. And I mean, I certainly
Speaker 1: knew who he was, but I just don't have any
Speaker 1: real memory of having much in terms of substantative conversations
Speaker 1: with him. Question and switching gears just for a little bit,
Speaker 1: recognizing you said multiple times today you did not have
Speaker 1: any formal legal engagement with mister Epstein. Did you ever
Speaker 1: provide legal services to associates of mister Epstein? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: other than the Rothchild Bank, as we've talked about at length,
Speaker 1: and that was a client relationship that he had. Separately,
Speaker 1: Question and I'll ask about a list of mister epstein'smployees.
Speaker 1: Did you ever have so the same questions will apply.
Speaker 1: Did you ever have or provide any legal services to
Speaker 1: any one of the following individuals? You can answer with
Speaker 1: a simple yes or no. If you do say yes,
Speaker 1: I'll come back to them. Answer okay, and just I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Can you repeat the preface just because I want to
Speaker 1: make sure that I have that in my mind. Answer yeah.
Speaker 1: Did you ever provide legal services of any kind to
Speaker 1: the following individuals? Answer okay question Richard Kahn answer no.
Speaker 1: Bello Cline answer no, Harry Beller answer no, Leslie Groff
Speaker 1: answer no. Sarah Kellen answer no, redacted no, redacted no,
Speaker 1: and miss Maxwell no question. In previous testimony before the committee,
Speaker 1: the Committee has learned that there were five fee paying
Speaker 1: clients of mister Epstein's. Obviously, we discussed the Rothchild family
Speaker 1: at great length today, so I won't ask about them further.
Speaker 1: But have you ever performed any type of legal work
Speaker 1: or other services for Les Wexner answer no, Leon Black
Speaker 1: answer no, Steven Sinofsky answer no, Glenn Dubin answer no,
Speaker 1: Eva Anderson Duben answer no question. Did you ever provide
Speaker 1: advice or counsel to any young woman or girl associated
Speaker 1: with mister Epstein? Answer no question. Did mister Epstein ever
Speaker 1: offer you employment? Answer no question. Did he facilitate employment
Speaker 1: opportunities on your behalf answer other than the referrals that
Speaker 1: I mentioned earlier, the legal referrals, no question. There's an email.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to provide it to you if you would
Speaker 1: like it. I will simply say it's about your offer
Speaker 1: to go to Hogan and about getting compensated six million
Speaker 1: per year. Are you familiar with what I'm referencing? Answer? Yes,
Speaker 1: I am. Question what was this Hogan offer? Answer? It's common,
Speaker 1: even more common today than it was back then in
Speaker 1: competition among law firms to try to recruit a lawyer
Speaker 1: from one law firm to another, particularly if one law
Speaker 1: firm feels like they need more legal talent in one
Speaker 1: particular practice area or another, or they need more business generators,
Speaker 1: or they need particular expertise or something like that. And
Speaker 1: Hogan Levels had reached out to me to see if
Speaker 1: I'd be interested in a conversation about leaving Latham and
Speaker 1: going to Hogan Levels. Question and as part of that
Speaker 1: email chain, mister Ebstein wants to be reminded of this offer?
Speaker 1: And why did you discuss this offer with mister Epstein.
Speaker 1: Answer in mister Epstein and I shared a client. As
Speaker 1: I said, I don't remember the timeframe of the email
Speaker 1: you're referring to. Question This would have been in October
Speaker 1: of twenty fifteen. Answer okay, So I had now been
Speaker 1: working with him on the Rothchild representation for about a year,
Speaker 1: and I believe that he was. He thought I was
Speaker 1: a good lawyer, and I was doing good work for
Speaker 1: the bank, and in fact, we got a very favorable
Speaker 1: outcome for the bank just shortly thereafter, and he believed
Speaker 1: he expressed his belief. Whether he believed it or not,
Speaker 1: who knows. He expressed his belief to me that I
Speaker 1: was being under compensated at Latham and that I should
Speaker 1: that the firm should be paid me more. They weren't
Speaker 1: paying me enough. That was his general view. Question and
Speaker 1: why did you feel that you could trust mister Epstein
Speaker 1: with professional advice on your career. Answer? I didn't ask
Speaker 1: for his professional advice on my career. He was sort
Speaker 1: of a self described hard nosed the negotiator around financial issues.
Speaker 1: From time to time I would ask him, I think
Speaker 1: I'm a good negotiator on behalf of my clients. I
Speaker 1: tend not to be such a great negotiator on my
Speaker 1: own behalf, particularly when it comes to issues like compensation,
Speaker 1: which I think are tough for people. Some people trust me.
Speaker 1: Mister Epstein had no issues in that regard whatsoever. He
Speaker 1: was quite assertive, but so he was someone who pushed me,
Speaker 1: whether I wanted him to or not to be more
Speaker 1: assertive on my own belief in terms of compensation discussions.
Speaker 1: Question I will now enter as majority exhibit one question.
Speaker 1: While it's getting passed around, I'll just read the bare
Speaker 1: minimum details. It's bait stamped EFTA zero two six three
Speaker 1: one nine three three, and it's from Jeffrey Epstein to
Speaker 1: yourself on Monday, March fourth, twenty nineteen. And I'll give
Speaker 1: you a second to review it. I'm only going to
Speaker 1: focus on the very top of the message. Answer Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm ready when you are. Question so it says, this
Speaker 1: is mister Epstein writing to you. Send her the ten K,
Speaker 1: or tell her that since your white House days, your
Speaker 1: comp has been negotiated by your advisor Richard Kahn. I'll listen. First,
Speaker 1: of course, what was the ten K, which I would
Speaker 1: imagine means ten thousand that that was in relation to
Speaker 1: question Yeah, that's not a reference to ten it's to
Speaker 1: a securities filing, a company's ten K. Question. Thank you
Speaker 1: for the clarification. Answer sure. Question. Second part of that
Speaker 1: is since your white House days, your comp has been
Speaker 1: negotiated by your advisor Richard Kahn answer yeah. Question Richard
Speaker 1: Kahn is known to be mister Epstein's financial tax guy.
Speaker 1: Did he ever negotiate compensation on your behalf? Answer? No,
Speaker 1: That is very vintage Epstein. He's injecting himself with this
Speaker 1: kind of kooky, kooky idea, which he even acknowledged because
Speaker 1: he says, I'll listen first, of course, because he knows
Speaker 1: I'm going to say that that's ludicrous, and so that
Speaker 1: he's even predicting that my reaction to what he's suggesting
Speaker 1: here is that I'm going to say that's so dumb.
Speaker 1: But the context of this is, as I said, he
Speaker 1: was someone who was very pushy and insinuating in a
Speaker 1: patronizing way, but also in a way that he thought
Speaker 1: he was trying to be helpful in encouraging me to
Speaker 1: be aggressive in negotiating compensation. In this circumstance. It was
Speaker 1: with a large tech company that I was in pretty
Speaker 1: serious discussions about potentially going and becoming the general counsel.
Speaker 1: Question and just so the record's clear, Richard Kahn never
Speaker 1: negotiated compensation on your behalf? Answer? No, I don't believe
Speaker 1: I've ever met mister Kahn. You mentioned that this was
Speaker 1: full context of the email that was about your potential
Speaker 1: position or applying to go towards a tech company. In
Speaker 1: this case, it looks like Google. Why did you this
Speaker 1: information to mister Epstein in the first place? Answer, I
Speaker 1: wasn't applying for the job. They'd reached out to me
Speaker 1: for the job. Again, so we're continuing to advise the
Speaker 1: same client through this timeframe. And for whatever reason, Epstein
Speaker 1: was interested as to whether or not I was going
Speaker 1: to do something different with my career at that point,
Speaker 1: and I received outreach over the course of my time
Speaker 1: at Latham and even going back to the time when
Speaker 1: I was still at the White House but contemplating leaving
Speaker 1: the White House, I'd been approached by many companies about
Speaker 1: potentially going and working in house as general counsel. And
Speaker 1: so just in the course of normal conversation I had
Speaker 1: to tell him, and again he would insert himself and
Speaker 1: try it again, and to tell me, you should say
Speaker 1: that you want to be paid x. You should say
Speaker 1: you want to be paid why that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: And again he had a very different style than I do.
Speaker 1: And I listened to him, of course, but I wasn't
Speaker 1: following his advice because it would be completely counter to
Speaker 1: just how I am. But it was That's what this was.
Speaker 1: It's just really nothing more than that question. And just
Speaker 1: to be clear, did Darren Endyke ever negotiate a job
Speaker 1: offer or compensation on your behalf? Answer? No, question shortly
Speaker 1: after you left the White House? Where you under consideration
Speaker 1: for any other high level government position. Answer? There was
Speaker 1: public reporting shortly after the Attorney General at the time
Speaker 1: announced his resignation. He had been serving in the position
Speaker 1: for about six years. It's a very very tough job,
Speaker 1: and there was almost immediate speculation in the press that
Speaker 1: I'd be considered to succeed him in that position. Question
Speaker 1: were you formally considered? Answer? I don't want to get
Speaker 1: into conversations that I had about it, just because I
Speaker 1: think those are conversations that are confidential. Question. That's fine.
Speaker 1: You can just give me a yes or no answer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was considering it. Yes, question. I'll introduce majority Exhibit
Speaker 1: number two. I will, of course allow you to review.
Speaker 1: But while you're reviewing, debate stamp is in the bottom
Speaker 1: right corner is EFTA zero two three six four three
Speaker 1: five two At the top of the email, It's from yourself.
Speaker 1: Kathy Rumler, sent to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, October fifteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. I'll give you a minute to review. Answer, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm ready. Question, it seems as though you forwarded a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg link about the rumblings of you being considered to
Speaker 1: be Attorney General of the US. You forwarded this to
Speaker 1: mister Epstein. It sounds like there was a call to
Speaker 1: be had. Did you in fact have a call about
Speaker 1: this article with mister Epstein? Answer that I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I mean again, this is twelve years ago. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Question moving up the middle of the front page. Mister
Speaker 1: Epstein has some suggestions for you. I'll read them. I
Speaker 1: have some concrete suggestions for moving forward. One, let's hire
Speaker 1: a video coach. You need to be trained. Samantha is terrible.
Speaker 1: No hand movement or head tilting or nodding, blinking. You
Speaker 1: will need to get the right glasses. You have two
Speaker 1: months from today. Have someone from your office videotape the
Speaker 1: forward presentation so that it can be reviewed for all
Speaker 1: of the ABO. It seems to me like mister Epstein
Speaker 1: was trying to give you advice for potentially accepting the nomination.
Speaker 1: Is that what was happening here? Answer? Do you recall
Speaker 1: my reference earlier to man's plaining answer, I do, yes, answer,
Speaker 1: That's what's going on in the email. He's man's plaining
Speaker 1: to me on something that he literally knows absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: about and telling And as you see my response, would
Speaker 1: a man need a video coach? So I'm calling him
Speaker 1: out on the man's planning question. So, based on this email,
Speaker 1: it seems like mister Epstein had some sort of knowledge
Speaker 1: into your thought process around potentially becoming the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of the US. Did you have discussions with him about
Speaker 1: the potential for taking that position? Answer? The context to
Speaker 1: me have a conversation with mister Epstein during the time.
Speaker 1: Remember I had just met him for the first time
Speaker 1: in mid July of twenty fourteen, so now what three
Speaker 1: months later or something. I had just been engaged weeks
Speaker 1: maybe three weeks before by the Rothschild Bank for a
Speaker 1: matter that I understood to be quite significant, if not
Speaker 1: exit essential for them, and he was a primary advisor
Speaker 1: and he had just referred the client to me. So
Speaker 1: let's just say that the timing and this media speculation
Speaker 1: that the article says Obama favoring former White House counsel
Speaker 1: Catherine Rumler to succeed holder as Attorney General was certainly
Speaker 1: awkward timing for a client that had just engaged me
Speaker 1: on their very their most important matter. So whether or
Speaker 1: not I would be available to handle the matter or
Speaker 1: I would be unavailable because I was going off to
Speaker 1: run the gauntlet through the US Senate, which mister Blanche
Speaker 1: is doing today, was a question of intense interest of
Speaker 1: mister Epstein question, And was the intense interest just because
Speaker 1: he wanted you to represent the Rothschilds and you could
Speaker 1: not be doing so by taking the position answer. That's
Speaker 1: what I believe that at the time. Again, my whole
Speaker 1: reason for engaging with them during this period is just
Speaker 1: because of the Rothschild representation question. Understood, all right, folks,
Speaker 1: Who're gonna wrap up right here, and the next episode
Speaker 1: dealing with the topic, We're going to pick up where
Speaker 1: we left off. All the information that goes with this
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.