← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 11) (8/6/26)
00:13:19
Kathy Ruemmler told congressional investigators that she regretted associating with Jeffrey Epstein but maintained that she did not know he was continuing to abuse girls and young women after his 2008 conviction. The former Obama White House counsel...
Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:00]
Bretzky
What's up everybody? It's Bretzky. And America is turning 250. And I can't think of a better way to celebrate that than playing on an American owned social casino. Spinquest.com with all of your favorite games, live crafts, bubble craps, live blackjack, there's no better place to play for free and win real cash prizes. Spinquest.com Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. Hey, before your Q3 call, I've got the campaign brief ready built from last quarter's data and the competitive landscape.
- [00:38]
Lady Luck
Great.
- [00:38]
Monday.com Narrator
Did you include the differentiation angle the CMO asked for?
- [00:42]
Bretzky
Already in there. Three angles. No competitors using right now. Just need your approval.
- [00:47]
Monday.com Narrator
Approved. Thanks. Oh, agents, where would we be without you?
- [00:52]
Bretzky
Hmm. Somewhere with a lot more tabs open.
- [00:55]
Monday.com Narrator
Create your first Monday agent in minutes@Monday.com
- [01:01]
Kathy Rumler
what's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right back to Kathy Rumler and our conversation with Congress. Redacted. We'll go back on record. Question by redacted. So, Ms. Rumler, you did mention in your opening statement you gave, but I don't think we have a copy. That feels like a long time ago. Can you talk a little bit more about how you help Mr. Epstein with his legal issues? Answer I was not his lawyer. Question. Right. Answer. But as a distinguished congressman who was here earlier said, you know, he said, when I was a defense lawyer, everyone, every time someone called, they asked me for advice. That's very similar to my life and my experience. And certainly Mr. Epstein did that, you know, from time to time. I knew he did it with others as well. And the issues that he typically would ask me about were related to media scrutiny or, or media allegations. And on occasion he would ask me questions that were legal questions of points of law, is how I would say it, arising from the litigation in Florida. And I understand that a couple of victims had brought against the Justice Department, which I will refer to as the CV litigation, the Crime Victims Rights act litigation. Question. Got it. And then as time went on, there was no more, there was more litigation. He faced an increasing amount of. Of litigation or not. Answer I don't recall. I don't really remember other litigation that he was involved in or that he was a party to to this CVR case. It obviously involved his non prosecution agreement. And in particular, as I understood the issue, the legal issue before the court there was whether or not the Justice Department had violated the notification rights of the plaintiffs in that case and that there was a legal issue. I was actually familiar with this legal issue. The legal issue as I understood it that was before the court was the Crime Victims Rights act, among other things, requires prosecutors to provide notice to victims of crimes. And the question in a decision not to prosecute, which is what a non prosecution agreement is, whether or not those notification requirements had kicked in and whether or not the Justice Department, the U.S. attorney's office, had provided notice and adequate notice at the same time. That was my general understanding of the issue that was before the court. And I knew that the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department had actually issued a formal opinion on that question, not directly related to this lawsuit, but just in general that question when does the Justice Department have to provide notification to victims? And that Office of Legal Counsel opinion had stated that those notification obligations were only attached or kicked in when a charging decision, when someone had been charged. Well, she's wrong about that because the court already admonished the federal government for the CVRA violations. Question as you learn more about the case, did the cause or did that cause you to reevaluate your understanding of the circumstances of his non prosecution agreement? I don't remember there being many facts in the case and the sense I remember that it was a legal issue and that was a legal issue before the court. And the question was, you know, there were sort of two questions. One is did the Justice Department not fulfill its obligation under the cvra? And then second, if they hadn't, what was the remedy? But I don't remember there being, you know, I don't remember having much knowledge about there being facts because the facts are a little bit subsidiary to the legal question. Question well, one set of facts was whether the CVRA remedy aside had been violated at all. Answer that's right. Question and that would be because the plaintiffs or potentially other survivors or victims had been, had not been afforded the rights under the cvra, is that right? Answer My recollection of the Justice Department's position in that litigation was that they had complied, I should say it, as opposed to they, but the prosecutors had complied because there was, they made a decision to not prosecute. So if there had been a decision to prosecute where an indictment had been returned, then a bunch of notification, you know, provisions would kick in. Question the plaintiffs were, Jane does, the people who were survivors, who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, were they not? Answer My understanding is that they were people who said, you know, we believe that we're victims Of. Of this conduct. And the Justice Department owed us certain notifications and we didn't get them. Question did you believe they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein? Answer. I certainly didn't have any reason to doubt it. There clearly, clearly were victims of Mr. Epstein's conduct. That was resolved with the non prosecution agreement. And the legal question, what I understood it to be, the reason that the prosecutors chose not to prosecute them federally was that they did not have sufficient evidence that he knew that anyone was in fact underage. But that doesn't mean they weren't. Question it doesn't mean they weren't. It means that you believed that he had more underage victims than were reflected in the two counts that he ended up pleading guilty to. Answer. In one count, there were no underage victims at all. That was a solicitation of prostitution. Count. And again, in law enforcement prosecutor state of mind, the crime of prostitution has two participants. And you've already, we've already discussed that question. At Times you reminded Mr. Epstein that if she's a minor, then that's not legally prostitution. A minor can't consent. Question. Right. Answer. To engage in a commercial sex act in the way that someone who is legally of age can, and the law treats those people very different, without opining as to whether that's a good policy or whatever. That's what the law does. Question I think you understand what I'm asking here is that working on the CVR case, you became aware of a number of plaintiffs. Mr. Fishman jumps in. I'm sorry, she didn't testify that she was working on the CVRA case. Question. Sorry, you're right. We'll get to that question. In becoming familiar with this CVRA case, you also became familiar that there were a number of plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs alleged to be Jeffrey Epstein's victims, survivors at the time, those additional victims, whether or not he was charged or pled guilty to his offense against them. And you were aware of that, right? Answer. What I was aware of with respect to the CVRA litigation is that there were. And again, that this was, this was public litigation and that there were two different plaintiffs who identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. And at some subsequent point, there was a motion filed by lawyers who were representing the two Jane Doe victims who said that their rights had been violated by the Justice Department. And the motion was seeking to add to additional Jane Doe plaintiffs. And I came to learn that through public reporting at the name of the third Jane Doe plaintiff. That's what I knew. Question. Do you recall Mr. Epstein ever filed any motions in the CV case at all? Answer I don't remember specifically whether anything was filed. I have a vague recollection that there was. Well, I shouldn't say I don't remember. I don't remember. I knew that he wasn't any party to it. Question what kind of work did you do or advice did you provide to Mr. Epstein regarding CVA case? Answer again, I wasn't his lawyer. He had a lawyer. Question and just to be clear on that, you never represented him. Answer I did not represent him. Question. You were not his lawyer. Answer I was not his lawyer. Question when you gave him advice, he. You were never giving him advice in a legal capacity. Answer that's not what I said. Question I'm asking. That is what I'm asking you. Answer he asked my opinion or my views on a number of occasions. Those views, typically, he asked me, let me rephrase it or phrase it differently. There was a lot of media reporting that arose from the CVRA litigation because of a motion that had been filed and allegations that were made in that motion that were quite, that were the kinds of allegations that would attract, that attracted, that did, in fact, attract a lot of media attention. And so there were things that happened as a result of that and a whole bunch of collateral litigation that spun out of that filing. And he asked me about that, you know, from time to time, and I would, you know, give him my best response, you know, based on my understanding of the facts at the time. Question Would you ever perform a similar role to his lawyers directly? Answer sure, if asked. Question Were you asked? Answer I don't. Not that I sitting here today, I don't have any specific recollection of anything. But, you know, you know, one of, one of the things about being a lawyer is that lawyers like to talk to each other about cases. And certainly, you know, again, he had counsel, a very quite competent, really good counsel who was representing him. And so, you know, again, we had a shared client. He knew me. He seemed to me to have a practice of kind of wanting to get a lot of people's perspective, particularly on things that were, you know, in the media. And again, I remember at this time that there were some, you know, some allegations that had been made in this filing that were quite, you know, that were quite. Media got the media going. Question how did you react to those allegations? Answer well, I don't know. I mean, I remember that there were allegations that I found to be, I thought, seemed implausible.
- [10:20]
Lady Luck
Hey, guys, Lady Luck here. Are you going on any road trips this summer? I know I'm going to be going on a bunch of road trips. And being that I'm going to be Passenger Princess, I Love playing on Spinquest.com Spinquest has all of my favorite slot games. Live blackjack, Live craps. Head on over to Spin Quest right now and get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [10:43]
Bretzky
Spin quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [10:49]
Monday.com Narrator
This Monday.com ad was created by a team of people and AI agents. Reese, our content agent, wrote the copy based on our best practices, like mentioning Monday.com three times. That was the second. Johnny, our coordination agent, built the timeline and kept everyone aligned. Olivia, our human creative director, stayed in the loop because agents are great, but they don't always know when a joke lands. She had one tell listeners it only takes minutes to build an agent. So minutes. Create your own AI agent today on Monday.com now at McDonald's everyone can get more of what they want when they want it. With McVowey, you can choose your wake up call, you can choose your study meal or even your drive through dinner.
- [11:35]
Lady Luck
Jump from craving to saving with McDonald's under $3 menu including a McChicken for only $2 limited time only. Price and participation may vary. Cannot be combined with any other offer.
- [11:50]
Kathy Rumler
That's not the right I was skeptical of some of the allegations just based on the nature of the allegations without having any facts. Based on my training, my experience as a prosecutor, there were allegations that seemed unlikely to me based on my I didn't have a lot of indica or credibility. I would say. Question you are skeptical that whether the person whose stories those allegations drew from was herself a victim of Mr. Epstein and Maxwell? Answer I didn't reach a conclusion about that, but I certainly had no reason to disbelieve that. Question did you ever inquire whether she was or wasn't a victim? Answer Inquire of whom? Question well, that's a very good question. Did you ever ask Mr. Epstein? Answer I don't believe I ever asked him, but he told me he he made an assertion to me on more than one occasion. His consistent assertion with respect to that the allegations of that individual was that those allegations were not true. Question did you ever talk to his lawyers about that? Answer I may have. I don't remember. So you mentioned that litigation spun off from that. Can you just describe what that litigation environment was like, what was happening? What does that mean to have it spin off and and can you tell me what you were working on, how you worked on those sort of collateral litigation issues? Answer, I wasn't working on any of those things. Question. Were you providing advice on them? Answer. Again, he would ask my opinion on things that were happening kind of in the media landscape. I can give you an example. One of the allegations in the filing that I'm referring to was made against Professor Alan Dershowitz, and the allegations were that were made against him. If you. If you're him, if you were him, they were highly inflammatory allegations. And he responded to those allegations and that were made in the court filing and immediately reported on extensively in the media. His response was to respond in the media in a way that was disparaging of the affiant and the affiant's lawyers in turn. At least the lawyers. I remember the lawyers in turn, the lawyer sued Mr. Dershowitz for defamation. So that's an example of. Of collateral litigation. Question. And Mr. Epstein would ask for your advice regarding that collateral litigation. Answer. I remember he asked my opinion, and that. I do remember he asked my opinion. And I thought that, you know, if it were me and it wasn't me, but if I had been advising Mr. Dershowitz, the more appropriate that the better legal course than going on TV and denying and making accusations, right. Would be to go to court, file a motion to strike the pleading and. And say why you thought the pleading should be struck. Question, did you ever talk with Mr. Epstein about whether your communications with him about his legal issues or related items were subject to some kind of privilege? Answer, I don't recall having any conversation with him about that one way or the other. Question. The same with same question for his lawyers. Well, again, remember, what I recall him asking was about matters that were in the media because, again, he was represented by counsel. Right. And so his counsel, to the extent that there were issues relating to the cvra, you know, that counsel was monitoring the litigation, was ensuring that, you know, whatever should be done or responses, if they were required, you know, he was responsible for those things, not me. Typically, what Epstein would ask me about, again, were things that were in the media, you know, for better or for worse. In the course of my career, I've worked on many, many matters that. Where the legal issue and the media issues are combined. This was not a typical fact pattern for you in that regard, is what you're saying? Well, there's nothing about the whole fact pattern that was typical, but those types of matters. Those types of matters where there was a court proceeding that had a lot of media attention. Many, I would say most court proceedings don't get any media attention whatsoever. I happen to have spent some time in my career working on cases that have a lot of media attention. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [15:49]
Lady Luck
Hey everybody, lady luck here. And we're celebrating America's 250th birthday. Now all summer long I'm going to be celebrating by playing on fin quest.com which is an American owned social casino. It obviously features over a thousand slot games and live blackjack, live craps, live bubble craps. Head on over to spinquest. Com, get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [16:14]
Bretzky
Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.