
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
Spinquest Advertiser
Hanging out at the pool is great. Relaxing and playing Vegas style games on my phone at the same time. Drink in one hand and a blackjack in the other. It's all at Spinquest. Over a thousand games including your favorite slots and table games. Be cool with this summer special new players get 30 coin packs for 10@Spinquest.com
Spinquest Announcer
Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
Legal Expert / Interviewee (likely Kathy Ruemler)
Every RA, every housekeeper, every stranger on staff could have a key to her dorm room. That's why she's Birdie created the Birdie Box, a portable door alarm made for the students stepping into a whole new level of independence. On sale buy two get one free right now. A dorm, an apartment, a rental in a new city. An exciting new life stage, but a vulnerable time for many women. Birdie Box installs in under 30 seconds with damage free command strips. No tools, no marks, no nothing to explain to housing. It detects the instant the door opens, triggering a 130 decibel siren that wakes her and alerts the whole floor. Trusted by over 4 million women worldwide. Get your college girl the Birdie Box during the back to school sale for a limited time. Buy two get one free. So stock up for everyone heading back this fall visit. She's birdie.com that's S-H-E-S-B I R D I E.com what's up everyone?
Spinquest Announcer
And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right back to Kathy Ruemler. Enter interview with Congress. Question I'd like to. There's an email I'd like to discuss with you. We'll enter it as exhibit H. It's an email, a November 16, 2014 email between you and Mr. Epstein regarding a lawyer named Greg Poe. Just let me know when you've had a chance to review it. Okay. Question so this is an email where you forwarded Mr. Epstein the biography of Gregory Poe. Who Criminal defense attorney Poe and Burton. Yes. Question. And Mr. Epstein wrote we should move forward. You wrote that Poe will quote, will do it subject to my direction and conditions and we don't have to deal with Latham, BS, etc. Yes. Can you explain to me what's going on in the email? Answer he had asked me for a referral. So that's what this is about. And you know, so this is November of 2014. So you know, I had known Epstein for four months at this point and again, you know, he had referred this client to me who he was the Primary advisor to. And he wanted, without getting into the substance, he wanted an analysis done that related to his historical case. Question. His historical case being. Answer being the Florida case, not the CVRA case, the criminal case, the Florida criminal case. And I was essentially, he asked me for a referral, I made a recommendation. He said he wanted to move forward. He went on to engage that lawyer. And I was, I was offering to be, at the inception, I was offering to be the legal translator, if you will, the analysis that Epstein wanted done and to translate that to the lawyer who had, who he had retained to do it. Question. So when you said, I'll get together with him this week, it was in that role as a legal translator, as you put it. Correct? It was in the vein of here's the analysis that he wants done. You know, here's a little background, as I understand it, you know, the case. These are the sort of, kind of issues that he wants you to look at. And so I made the connection, and I understand that there was an attorney client relationship that was thereafter established between, you know, Mr. Po and, and Mr. Epstein. Question. So what did you mean when you wrote, he will do it, subject to my, quote, direction and conditions? Answer I don't recall specifically, but again, that's just me saying that I'll tell him what to do. I will tell him what analysis you want done in that as that translator at the inception. Answer. Yes. Question. Okay, and then the second part of that sentence, and then we don't have to deal with Latham BS Et cetera. And answer. Yeah, question Latham refers to Latham and Watkins, presumably. What is Latham BS that you didn't want to deal with? Answer. So my recollection is he actually was like, can Latham do this analysis? And I didn't want Latham to be representing Jeffrey Epstein. And so rather than saying, I don't want Latham to represent you and I don't want, I don't want to deal with this analysis, I don't want to do it. Remember, I have a client that he referred me to that was very clear. And this is like the work that I do, and it's my expertise and that's what I'm doing. But he's an important, you know, he's the primary advisor to the client. And so I'm trying not to alienate him. So I'm trying to be helpful. I'll refer a lawyer to you who can do this analysis for you. And then, as you know, I'm characterizing it as, then we don't have to deal with Latham bs As opposed to saying I don't want you to be a client of Latham and Watkins. That was a more diplomatic way of saying that. Question did you ever talk to Latham and Watkins about having Jeffrey Epstein as a client in 2014? No. Question. Later not for me. I never wanted to represent, I didn't represent him. I had a clear relationship with the Rothschild bank, but that was my client relationship. He had a separate relationship with the bank but was a primary advisor and that's the legal representation that I wanted to do and I wanted to continue. Question it sounds like your relationship with the bank, the shared client that had begun at this point by November 16, 2014. Yeah, it had begun September of 2014. Question and that was through Latham. Yeah, the client was a client of Latham's and I was the principal partner on the engagement. Question. So at this point it's not like your law firm. Did anyone at your law firm say Ms. Rumler, do not have Jeffrey Epstein as a firm client? Answer no, I made that. I made that decision myself. I didn't need to talk to anybody at Latham about that question at the time. I believe still now there is a partner at Latham Watkins who was their own separate involvement in Mr. Epstein's underlying Florida case. Person was at Department of Justice and I believe reviewed some portion of the non prosecution agreement. We can if we need to and in the next hour find some emails regarding that I believe between you and Epstein. But for now let me just represent it to you and I just want to ask you this Latham BS we don't have to deal with Latham BS had nothing to do with this person's presence at the law firm or how it might complicate representation. Okay, so let's move. Let's do another exhibit. This one is going to be Exhibit 1 by while this exhibit's being passed out. Can the members who have arrived please identify themselves. Emily Randall, Washington state. Raja Krishnamoorthy, Illinois. Dave Minn, California 47. This exhibit is Bates number EFTA 0119. It's a June 22, 2015 email from Darren Indyke to Mr. Epstein, so please take the time to read it. You're not on the email. The email references invoices from Mr. Poe for approximately $50,000 in legal services he provided to Mr. Epstein, including communicating with Kathy and Marty. Let me know when you've had a chance to review it. Ms. Cotton, is this I just want to make sure goes off the record for a second comes back on questions. So as I said before we went off the record, this email References invoices from Greg Poe, including billing for communicating with Kathy and Marty. Were you communicating with Greg Poe about whatever case this was? Ms. Cotton, can we go off the record for one more second? Can she answer the question please, Mr. Fishman? Well, the question is, were you communicating with her about whatever case this is is not a question I think that we want to answer redacted so we can clarify. Fishman, if you want to try it different, cuts him off. So what case was Greg Poe working on for Mr. Epstein or cases Answer. I didn't. My understanding was that Mr. Poe was engaged to do analysis questions. So in the previous exhibit, the email about doing it at your direction and conditions, avoiding quote Latham BS that was about engaging Greg Poe to do analysis answer. That was my. That was my recollection about why he was engaged question by Ms. Cotton. Now, can we go off record before you ask another question? They go off the record back on Mr. Fishman. Okay, so this document appears to be labeled privileged and confidential. And Ms. Rumler was not copied on this. And as a result, we have concerns about whether the questions you were going to ask her were or the answer she might have given be subject to a privilege that she can't assert and she can't waive. Privilege belongs to the estate of Mr. Epstein. And as you may know, in other civil litigation, they have asserted privilege over certain documents. And so if you can ask her the question about without referring to the document itself, that might actually make it possible for her to answer question. I think we can do that. I will also note for the record that this document is is from the Department of Justice's release. The whole wide world has this document. Now, for the record, the whole world has this document question. The other item to note is that one thing that Jeffrey Epstein did to anyone who's read any of these documents the Department of Justice has released to the whole wide world is put privileged and confidential on literally everything. With that said, let's see if we can ask her questions without having to butt up against that. This is also a transcribed interview. There may be points where you simply refuse to answer. That's how it goes. Fishmen were trying to avoid that Cotton. And it's a lawyer who wrote privileged and confidential, not Epstein, which puts our radars up. Question, did you talk to Gregory Poe at any point between that previous exhibit the previous year when you met with him to set up at your, quote, direction and condition until regarding Epstein, I don't remember any specific conversation with Mr. Poe. Mr. Poe is someone who was known to me, who I've worked with and probably, I don't remember specifically, but probably was working a lot in this period of time, was extremely respected defense attorney and again, someone who we work with pretty frequently. When I say we, I mean my partners and I at Latham Watkins, oftentimes we would have corporate representation. We are representing a corporate client. And, you know, Mr. Poe's specialty was representing individuals and he had spent many years at the Federal Public Defender Service. So I had a lot of communication with Mr. Po. I don't have a specific recollection about talking to him on matters relating to Epstein or other than making the initial, you know, making the referral. It's possible I did. Just sitting here today, I don't remember. Question can you say with confidence that aside from the meeting that you mentioned the previous exhibit, you, you never talk with Mr. Po about matters regarding Jeffrey Epstein? Answer no, I certainly can't say that I never spoke to him, but I just don't remember, you know, any specific occasion that, that I did. Question Sometimes when we talk to people, we can't remember specific communications, but we can generally remember the nature of the ongoing dialogue or periodic communication. So putting aside whether you remember any specific communication, were you communicating with Gregory Poe about anything regarding Jeffrey Epstein from the meeting that was referenced in the previous exhibit, say for now, let's say till June 2015, six months later? Answer, this is 12 years ago. I very well may have. I just don't. I just sitting here today, nothing springs to mind. Question did you ever become aware that Mr. Poe was working on something different than whatever analysis, to use your words, you had initially set him up with? Answer, Putting aside any conversations with Mr. Poe that I recall, what I recall thinking about and being, I don't know whether I was asked about it, what I remember thinking about in the context of the legal issues that were in the CVRA case. As we talked about before, there were two. There were sort of two major issues. One, did the Justice Department violate the notification obligations? And two, if the answer to the question was yes, what was the remedy? On the second part, there had been. Indulge me for a second. The use of a non prosecution and deferred prosecution agreement question cuts her off. I'll indulge you for a second.
Spinquest Advertiser
Hanging out at the pool is great. Relaxing and playing Vegas style games on my phone at the same time. Drink in one hand and a blackjack in the other. It's all at spinquest. Over a thousand games, including your favorite slots and table games. Be cool with this. Summer Special new players get 30 $30 coin packs for 10@Spinquest.com SpinQuest is a
Spinquest Announcer
free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
She's Birdie Advertiser
This Monday.com ad was created by a
Spinquest Announcer
team of people and AI agents. The agents wrote the copy and managed the timelines, while our human creative director made sure it all made sense.
Spinquest Advertiser
Easy.
Spinquest Announcer
Create your own AI agent today on
Legal Expert / Interviewee (likely Kathy Ruemler)
Monday.com this episode sponsored by She's Birdie. You lock the hotel room door, then check it again. And maybe one more time because even the nicest room can feel unfamiliar at night. That's why She's Birdie created birdiebox With She's Birdie you can bring peace of mind with you. BirdieBox is a portable travel door alarm for hotels, dorms, Airbnbs and anywhere you stay away from home. Just attach it to the door frame, switch it on, and if someone opens the door, Birdie Box blasts a loud siren and flashing alarm to alert you and everyone nearby. Because the best part of travel isn't worrying, it's sleeping soundly. Birdie Box from She's locking in peace of mind wherever you stay. For safer, more confident travel, visit she'sbirdie.com that's s H-E-S-B I-R-I-E.com she responds.
Spinquest Announcer
While I'm trying to explain and you're asking me follow up questions, the use of the non prosecution agreement and deferred prosecution agreement was still at that point in time, you know, relatively uncommon, even with the respect to corporate resolution. Now we see that much more commonly, but it was at the time quite uncommon. Quite uncommon to use a non prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement with respect to an individual prosecution. And there were questions about it in the court system in this sort of 2015, 2016 time frame and whether or not courts could get behind the prosecution. A prosecutor's decision to resolve a criminal case either through a non prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement. And there was sort of a seminal case that, as I recall was decided by the D.C. circuit, I think it was in 2016, but the lower court decision had been much earlier than that. Question is this Are you describing what Mr. Po was originally working on? No, I'm responding. What was in my mind about the issues during that period of time? What was Mr. Po working on? I can't say specifically what he was working on. He was doing analysis and in my memory of my mind, the things that I was thinking about. By the way, sorry you can't say because that's a potential privilege issue, or you can't say because you don't remember? I don't remember. Okay. Just checking. Yeah, I don't remember. But at that period of time, these legal questions were present in Mr. Epstein's case, but they were also present in other cases in the country. And the legal questions were very relevant to my practice. So you could have been talking to Mr. Pod about those issues periodically. Answer. I don't remember. But I'm saying at that point in time, in that 2015, 2016 time frame, in my mind, there were issues in Mr. Epstein in the CVRA litigation, which he was not a party to, that were also. That were issues in the courts in general. Question. Let me stop. Can you say, tell me with confidence that you never gave Mr. Po any directions about whatever work he was doing for. For Mr. Epstein. I describe what I recall doing, which is acting as a person who connected Mr. Epstein to Mr. Poe and trying to translate to Mr. Poe what legal work Mr. Epstein wanted someone to do. Question. I think we'll come back to this, but for now, you also mentioned that you worked. You were doing for him. For Mr. Epstein was more in PR, in the media space. So I'd like to turn to that at this point. Just to be clear, I wasn't doing work for Mr. Epstein. Remind me again how you characterized whatever it was you were doing for Mr. Epstein regarding PR and media. He asked my views from time to time, and I think he asked others as well. And I tried to be responsive and give my views, but again, he wasn't my client. I didn't work for him. He wasn't paying me. Wasn't my responsibility. It was somebody else's responsibility. Question. But earlier in this hour, you wouldn't say whether whatever it is you are rendering him was in a legal capacity or a personal capacity. So can you say it now? Answer. No, I don't believe that's the question that you asked me. Question. So. Well, I'll ask it now. Answer. I'm a lawyer, and people ask me questions all the time. That touch on. I'm a lawyer, not a doctor. So people don't come to me and ask me what they should do when their back hurts, but they do come to me to ask me about all sorts of questions that. That touch on the law. Question. But not every piece of advice you give to anyone who asks you about the law is rendered in a professional capacity as opposed to a personal one. Right. I don't understand this distinction that you're trying to make. You are not Mr. Epstein's lawyer, you said again and again and again answer. No, I was a lawyer who he asked questions to question. That's right. You are a lawyer who he asked questions to question. Was he asking you questions as a friend? Was it informal? Was he asking questions to you as his lawyer regardless of not whether there was some sort of retention agreement or you were paying him, what was it? I can't speak for what was in Mr. Epstein's mind. In my mind, I was responding to him the way I respond to people who ask me questions about media issues that touch the law. Alright folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode, 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.
Spinquest Advertiser
What's going on everyone? It's bluff here. And you know what's more American than America's 250th birthday? Supporting American owned companies like Spinquest, America's number one social casino with over a thousand games like Live Dealer, Blackjack and craps. They're offering new users a $30 coin package for for just $10. Go to spinquest.com and sign up today.
Spinquest Announcer
Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
She's Birdie Advertiser
This episode sponsored by She's Birdie. Every woman knows that feeling. And she's Bertie knows it too. The just in case feeling. Just in case I hear something. Just in case someone tries the door. Just in case I need to wake up fast. It's not fear, it's awareness. And Birdie Box from She's Birdie was made for exactly that. Birdie Box is a portable travel door alarm designed by She's Bertie for hotels, dorms, Airbnbs and anywhere you're staying away from home. It installs in seconds on the doorframe and if the door is opened, it activates a loud siren and flashing strobe to help draw attention instantly. She's Bertie because peace of mind should check in with you. Birdie Box by sheezbirdie visit she'sbirdie.com that's S-H-E-S-B-I-R-I-E.com and order your Birdie Box before your next day away from home.
Episode: Kathy Ruemmler And Her Epstein Related Transcript From Her Trip To Congress (Part 12)
Host: Bobby Capucci
Date: August 9, 2026
This episode continues the exploration of Kathy Ruemmler's connections and interactions with Jeffrey Epstein, with a particular focus on Ruemmler's Congressional testimony and released emails related to legal work Epstein sought from her and others. Host Bobby Capucci guides listeners through a deep dive into a 2014–2015 period when Ruemmler, then a partner at Latham & Watkins, navigated legal referrals, privilege issues, and her professional boundaries regarding Epstein and his associates amid mounting scrutiny.
Capucci reads and breaks down a transcript of Ruemmler’s Congressional interview, focusing on a November 16, 2014 email in which she refers Epstein to attorney Gregory Poe.
"He had asked me for a referral. ... I was offering to be ... the legal translator, if you will, the analysis that Epstein wanted done and to translate that to the lawyer who he had retained to do it."
– Kathy Ruemmler (03:13)
Ruemmler specifies that the analysis Epstein wanted Poe to do related to his "historical case"—his 2008 Florida criminal case, not the CVRA litigation.
Ruemmler details her intent to distance herself and her firm (Latham & Watkins) from directly representing Epstein.
"I didn't want Latham to be representing Jeffrey Epstein... rather than saying I don't want Latham to represent you... I'm characterizing it as then we don't have to deal with Latham BS as opposed to saying I don't want you to be a client of Latham & Watkins."
– Kathy Ruemmler (04:44)
Ruemmler asserts she made her own decisions about not representing Epstein, with no top-down directive from her firm.
Significant portions of the transcript delve into privilege concerns surrounding emails and legal bills from Gregory Poe, with Ruemmler's attorney intervening multiple times to restrict her answers.
Ruemmler emphasizes she does not recall any communications with Poe about Epstein beyond the initial setup.
The discussion pivots to whether Ruemmler provided PR or media advice to Epstein.
"He asked my views from time to time... but again, he wasn't my client. I didn't work for him. He wasn't paying me. Wasn't my responsibility."
– Kathy Ruemmler (16:54)
When pressed whether advice was given in a personal or legal capacity, Ruemmler cannot clearly distinguish and notes the line is inherently blurry for a lawyer.
"I'm a lawyer, and people ask me questions all the time... about all sorts of questions that touch on the law."
– Kathy Ruemmler (17:37)
On Refusing Direct Representation
"No, I made that. I made that decision myself. I didn't need to talk to anybody at Latham about that."
– Kathy Ruemmler (06:31)
On Privilege and Advice
"It's a lawyer who wrote privileged and confidential, not Epstein, which puts our radars up."
– Congressional Questioner (11:00)
On Legal versus Personal Advice
"You are not Mr. Epstein's lawyer, you said again and again and again."
– Committee Questioner (17:47)
On Legal Analysis Trends
"Quite uncommon to use a non prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement with respect to an individual prosecution."
– Kathy Ruemmler (14:37)
| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:27 | Capucci transitions to the Ruemmler transcript | | 02:05 | Discussion of the Poe email and Ruemmler's referral role | | 03:13 | Ruemmler explains "legal translator" role | | 04:20 | Avoiding Latham representing Epstein; 'Latham BS' explained | | 06:31 | Ruemmler made decision alone to not represent Epstein | | 09:10 | Privilege questions around Poe's invoices and communications | | 11:00 | Noting overuse of 'privileged and confidential' labels | | 14:25 | Non-prosecution agreements and legal context in 2014–16 | | 16:54 | Ruemmler clarifies limited scope of PR/media advice to Epstein | | 17:37 | Discussion of informal legal advice and professional capacity | | 18:52 | Capucci wraps the episode, promises more in the next installment |
This episode offers a detailed look at Kathy Ruemmler's nuanced, often arm’s-length dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting the legal, ethical, and reputational mazes surrounding even tangential associations with Epstein. Through transcript analysis, host Bobby Capucci and the included Congressional dialogue illuminate the complexity of separating personal advice, professional engagement, and legal privilege in cases involving high-profile, controversial figures.
Listeners come away with a clearer picture of:
[Next episode to continue with further transcripts and deeper analysis.]