p. 1COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. INTERVIEW OF: KATHRYN H. RUEMMLER Wednesday, July 15, 2026 Washington, D.C. The interview in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:08 a. m. Present: Representatives Comer, Higgins, Biggs, Burlison, Lynch, Krishnamoorthi, Stansbury, Garcia, Crockett, Randall, Subramanyam, Ansari, Bell, Min, Walkinshaw, and Menefee. Appearances: For the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: DANIEL ASHWORTH, GENERAL COUNSEL , UNDERGRADUATE FELLOW HANNAH CATHEY, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER MALLORY COGAR, CHIEF CLERK AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JESSICA COLLINS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR JACK EMMER, CHIEF COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATIONS EMILY FEYERABEND, COUNSEL BILLY GRANT, DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL FOR INVESTIGATIONS WILL HARNICE, PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER , UNDERGRADUATE FELLOW MARK MARIN, STAFF DIRECTOR LISA MORTIER, SENIOR ADVISOR PETER SPECTRE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OVERSIGHT ELLISON TOLAN, COUNSEL ASHLEE VINYARD, DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR , MINORITY DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR , MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR , MINORITY SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR , MINORITY DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR , MINORITY FELLOW , MINORITY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR , MINORITY RESEARCH ASSISTANT , MINORITY RESEARCH ANALYST , MINORITY INTERN , MINORITY PRESS SECRETARY , MINORITY SENIOR COUNSEL , MINORITY INTERN , MINORITY SENIOR COUNSEL , MINORITY OPERATIONS SPECIALIST , MINORITY FELLOW , MINORITY DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL , MINORITY CLERK INTERN , MINORITY PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER , MINORITY FELLOW , MINORITY SENIOR ADVISOR , MINORITY LEGAL INTERN , MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL For KATHRYN H. RUEMMLER: PAUL J. FISHMAN, ESQ. RACHEL F. COTTON, ESQ. Arnold & Porter 601 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20001-3743 JONATHAN I. KRAVIS, ESQ. Liu Shur Kravis, LLP The Westory 607 14th Street NW, Suite 625 Washington, D.C. 20005
p. 5Mr. Grant.We will go on the record. It is 10:08 a. m. Good morning. This is a transcribed interview of Ms. Kathryn Ruemmler, conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under the authority granted to it pursuant to House rule X. Accordingly, House rule X grants the Committee broad jurisdiction for the Committee to conduct investigations of any matter at any time. This interview was requested by Chairman James Comer as part of the Committee's investigation in to the circumstances and subsequent investigations in to the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the operation of sex-trafficking rings and ways for the Federal Government to effectively combat them, the ways in which Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sought to curry favor and exercise influence to protect their illegal activities, and potential violations of ethics rules related to elected officials. Can the witness please state her name and spell her last name for the record?
p. 5Ms. Ruemmler.Yes. Kathryn H. Ruemmler, R-u-e-m-m-l-e-r.
p. 5Mr. Grant.Thank you. I want to thank Ms. Ruemmler for appearing here voluntarily today. My name is Billy Grant, and I am the deputy chief counsel for investigations for Chairman James Comer. Under the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's rules, you are allowed to have counsel present to advise you during this interview. Do you have counsel representing you in a personal capacity present with you today?
p. 5Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 5Mr. Grant.Will all counsel please identify themselves for the record?
p. 5Mr. Fishman.Paul Fishman from Arnold & Porter.
p. 5Ms. Cotton.Rachel Cotton, Arnold & Porter.
p. 6Mr. Kravis.Jonathan Kravis, Liu Shur Kravis.
p. 6Mr. Grant.Thank you all. For the record, starting with majority staff, can the additional staff members please introduce themselves with their name, title, and affiliation?
p. 6Ms. Tolan.Ellison Tolan, senior counsel, Chairman Comer.
p. 6Mr. Emmer.Jack Emmer, chief counsel for investigations for Chairman Comer.
p. 6Mr. Harnice.Will Harnice, professional staff member for Chairman Comer.
p. 6Ms. Feyerabend.Emily Feyerabend, counsel for Chairman Comer.
p. 6Ms. Cathey.Hannah Cathey, professional staff member, Chairman Comer.
p. 6Mr. Marin.Mark Marin, staff director, Chairman Comer.
p. 6Ms. Collins.Jessica Collins, communications director, Chairman Comer.
p. 6Ms. Vinyard.Ashlee Vinyard, deputy staff director, Chairman Comer.
p. 6Ms. Cogar.Mallory Cogar, director of operations and chief clerk, Chairman Comer. Mr. . , deputy chief counsel for the minority. Mr. . fellow, Ranking Member Garcia. Ms. . , fellow, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . , operations specialist for Ranking Member Robert Garcia. Ms. . , senior counsel, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . , senior counsel, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . , chief counsel, Ranking Member Garcia. Ms. , research assistant, Ranking Member Garcia. Ms. . , research analyst, Ranking Member Garcia. Ms. , professional staff member, Ranking Member Garcia. Ms. . , senior policy advisor, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . , clerk intern, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . , fellow, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . , legal intern, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . , staff director, Ranking Member Garcia. Ms. . , deputy communications director, Ranking Member Garcia. Mr. . senior advisor, Ranking Member Garcia.
p. 7Mr. Spectre.Peter Spectre, director of oversight for Chairman Comer.
p. 7Mr. Ashworth.Dan Ashworth, general counsel for Chairman Comer.
p. 7Mr. Grant.Thank you all. Will the Members of Congress please identify themselves for the record? Chairman Comer. James Comer, Chairman, Kentucky.
p. 7Mr. Higgins.Clay Higgins, Louisiana.
p. 7Mr. Biggs.Andy Biggs, Arizona 5.
p. 7Mr. Grant.Thank you all. Ms. Ruemmler, before we begin, I would like to go over the ground rules for this interview. The questioning will proceed in rounds. The majority will ask questions for up to an hour, and then the minority will have an opportunity to ask questions for up to an hour if they choose. To the extent members have questions for the witness, they will be propounded during their side's respective rounds. The clock will stop if you need to confer with counsel, your counsel is speaking, and when members or staff are speaking during the opposing side's rounds of questions. We will alternate back and forth until there are no more questions. Do you understand?
p. 7Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 7Mr. Grant.There is a court reporter taking down everything I say and everything you say to make a written record of the interview. For the record to be clear, please wait until the staffer questioning you finishes each question before you begin your answer, and the staffer will wait until you finish your response before proceeding to the next question. Further, to ensure the court reporter can properly record this interview, please speak clearly, concisely, and slowly. Also, the court reporter can not record nonverbal answers, such as nodding or shaking your head, so it is important that you answer each question with an audible, verbal answer. Do you understand?
p. 8Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 8Mr. Grant.Exhibits may be entered in to the record. Majority exhibits will be identified numerically. Minority exhibits will be identified alphabetically. Do you understand?
p. 8Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 8Mr. Grant.We want you to answer our questions in the most complete and truthful manner possible, so we will take our time. If you have any questions or do not fully understand the question, please let us know. We will attempt to clarify, add context to, or rephrase our questions. If we ask about specific conversations or events in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words or details, you should testify to the substance of those conversations or events to the best of your recollection. If you recall only a part of a conversation or event, you should give us your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you do recall. Do you understand?
p. 8Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 8Mr. Grant.Although you are here voluntarily, you are required by law pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1001, to answer questions from Congress truthfully. This also applies to questions posed by congressional staff in this interview. Do you understand?
p. 9Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 9Mr. Grant.If at any time you knowingly make false statements, you could be subject to criminal prosecution. Do you understand?
p. 9Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 9Mr. Grant.This includes both knowingly providing false testimony but also stating that you do not recall or remember something when, in fact, you do. Do you understand?
p. 9Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 9Mr. Grant.Furthermore, you can not tell half-truths or exclude information necessary to make statements accurate. You are required to provide all information that would make your response truthful. A deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false statement. Do you understand?
p. 9Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 9Mr. Grant.Is there any reason you are unable to provide truthful testimony in today's interview?
p. 9Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 9Mr. Grant.Please note that if you wish to assert a privilege over any statement today, that assertion must comply with the rules of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Pursuant to that, Committee rule 16(c)(1) states, "For the Chair to consider assertions of privilege over testimony or statements, witnesses or entities must clearly state the specific privilege being asserted and the reason for the assertion on or before the scheduled date of testimony or appearance." Do you understand?
p. 9Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 9Mr. Grant.Ordinarily we take a 5-minute break at the end of each hour of questioning, but if you need a longer break or a break before that, please let us know, and we will be happy to accommodate. However, to the extent that there is a pending question, we would ask that you finish answering the question before we take the break. Do you understand?
p. 10Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 10Mr. Grant.Do you have any other questions before we begin?
p. 10Ms. Ruemmler.I do not.
p. 10Mr. Grant.We've had another Member of Congress join. Can he please identify himself for the record?
p. 10Mr. Bell.Congressman Wesley Bell, Missouri's First District.
p. 10Mr. Grant.Thank you, sir. I understand that you have an opening statement that you would like to read for the record. You may do so now.
p. 10Ms. Ruemmler.Thank you very much. Thank you all for the opportunity to appear before the Committee. I have been a practicing lawyer for 30 years as a Federal prosecutor, as a defense attorney, and as a general counsel. I first met Jeffrey Epstein in July of 2014 when I was restarting my legal practice after having served several years in government. Although Epstein was never my client, I got to know him when he referred a financial-institution client to me for which he was a primary advisor. There are two important points that I want to make up front: I did not see any evidence of ongoing criminal conduct or misconduct of any kind by Mr. Epstein during the time I dealt with him. Second, if I had seen or heard any evidence suggesting that he was abusing women or girls, I would have immediately reported him to law enforcement. If I knew then what I know now about who Epstein really was, I never would have accepted an initial meeting with him. It was a mistake to deal with him, and I regret it. But many people assume that, given everything we know now about Epstein, everyone who dealt with him before his 2019 indictment must have known everything then. In my case, that assumption is completely wrong. When Epstein cold-called me at my law firm in July of 2014, I had never heard of him and knew nothing about him. He told me that he was working with Bill Gates to set up a large donor-advised fund and that he and Mr. Gates were looking for someone to quarterback the myriad legal issues involved in establishing and administering this fund. Though that donor-advised fund ultimately did not materialize, with in weeks Epstein referred another important client which did retain me and which I represented until I left my law firm in 2020. Epstein was already a primary advisor to that client, a role he maintained throughout my time in private practice, and I had substantial dealings with him as a result. He also referred other clients to me. And even though I wasn't his lawyer, he sought my advice from time to time, as many people do. I was friendly with him in that context, and I dealt with him in my ordinary course -- casually, informally, and sometimes irreverently. Shortly after meeting Epstein, I came to understand that he had pleaded guilty 6 years earlier to two prostitution-related offenses, including solicitation of a minor for prostitution, and had received a non-prosecution agreement from the Department of Justice. I learned from him that he had received an 18-month sentence, of which he served 13 months, much of that time on work release. Epstein told me that, while a small number of the women he had solicited for prostitution turned out to be under the age of consent, he had not known that any of them were underage. Epstein appeared to be quite open about the conduct leading to his conviction, or so he led me to believe. He expressed remorse, embarrassment, and regret for his conduct, which he described as paying money for sex to women he believed to be over the age of 18. Notwithstanding his conviction, by the time I met him he had active relationships with an extensive group of respected professionals in business, academia, politics, and the arts. And given the nature of my law practice, I routinely dealt with compromised or controversial people, including those facing criminal or other allegations of wrongdoing. To be clear, at no time did I endorse or excuse the conduct for which Epstein had pleaded guilty in 2008. As a former prosecutor, I relied on the resolution reached by Federal and State prosecutors and validated by a judge as being a proportionate and final resolution of his criminal conduct. In light of everything we know now, that resolution was deeply flawed. But at the time, given my experience, the resolution seemed consistent with his description, that he was a customer, or a “John,” and had never intentionally targeted minors. Epstein also provided me with a letter that one of his attorneys in that matter, Stephanie Thacker, had written to the Deputy Attorney General's Office at DOJ in 2008 appealing the Miami U.S. Attorney's requirement that Epstein enter a non-prosecution agreement. Although I did not know Ms. Thacker personally, I knew of her reputation as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals and as a respected and experienced former supervisory prosecutor in DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. Ms. Thacker's lengthy and substantive letter stated that the evidence gathered by State and Federal investigators showed that Epstein sought commercial sex only from people who were of age. As we know now, his conduct was much worse and more sinister, but at the time I reviewed Ms. Thacker's letter, it strongly supported and corroborated Epstein's explanations to me. And based on my experience as a former senior DOJ official, I also knew that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami had a reputation for aggressive, hard-nosed prosecution. I believed that those prosecutors would have charged him with targeting minors for commercial sex if they had sufficient evidence to support such charges. My communication with Epstein ended in July 2019 after he was indicted for sex trafficking minors. I was shocked by the indictment, which alleged that Epstein had intentionally enticed and recruited minor girls to engage in sex acts with him in exchange for cash. Those horrific allegations, which covered conduct that had occurred almost 10 years before I met Epstein, contradicted what I had understood about the nature and scope of that prior conduct. There has been much media attention around my email communications with Epstein and gifts that he gave me. Many of my emails with Epstein have been taken out of context, or do not me an what so me have speculated or suggested. With that said, given what I now know about him, I wish I never would have dealt with him at all, much less emailed with him. With respect to gifts, I didn't ask for them, I didn't need them, and I didn't view them as particularly personal or consequential. I accepted them graciously, as I saw no reason not to, but the gifts weren't important to me, and I declined to accept so me of them. In any event, nothing he gave me caused me to deal with him any differently than I otherwise would have. Epstein was a masterful liar, and he clearly lied to me. I can see now that he used me and other respectable people to legitimize his standing, and I know now that he often exaggerated his relationship with me to others. I understand how frustrating and hurtful it must have been for anyone victimized by Epstein to see him going about his life without facing the type of accountability and consequences that he deserved. I am angry that he hurt so many people, and I regret ever having anything to do with him. I look forward to answering the Committee's questions.
p. 13Mr. Grant.Thank you, Ms. Ruemmler. The time reads 10:23, and the majority's time will begin now. EXAMINATION
p. 14QThank you for that opening statement. Of course, just to make sure that we have a thorough transcript of today's interview, so me of these questions will, of course, elicit what you just brought up in your opening statement, so I want to apologize in advance for that.
p. 14AUnderstood.
p. 14QI want to briefly begin with discussing your background. So where did you attend undergraduate school?
p. 14AThe University of Washington in Seattle.
p. 14QAnd what degree did you graduate with?
p. 14AA Bachelor of Arts degree in English.
p. 14QAnd where did you attend law school?
p. 14AGeorgetown University Law Center.
p. 14QAnd when did you graduate from Georgetown?
p. 14A1996.
p. 14QWhen were you admitted to practice law?
p. 14A1998.
p. 14QAnd what jurisdictions do you currently hold a bar license?
p. 14AThe District of Columbia, the State of Virginia, and State of New York.
p. 14QAre your licenses currently in good standing?
p. 14AYes.
p. 14QAnd can you briefly just go through your professional background from when you graduated law school until current day?
p. 14ASure. Right after law school, I clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Then I worked at a litigation boutique here in Washington, D.C., where I specialized in white-collar criminal defense. From there, I went to the White House, where I worked as Associate Counsel to the President for President William Jefferson Clinton. From there, I worked briefly at a law firm in Washington, D.C., the law firm of Latham & Watkins. And I left Latham & Watkins when I had the opportunity to go and work in the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. as an assistant U.S. attorney. I worked in that office for a few years, and then I had the opportunity to go on detail to Main Justice, where I spent close to 4 years working on the investigation and prosecution of executives at Enron after its collapse. I then returned to private practice as a partner to the law firm of Latham & Watkins, where I again specialized in white-collar criminal defense. I was there for 2 years. And then I returned to government in January of 2009 in a senior management role at the Justice Department. I served as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General until 2010. In 2010, I moved to the White House, where I became Principal Deputy White House Counsel for President Barack Obama. In June of '11, I was promoted to White House Counsel for President Barack Obama. I served in that role until May of 2014. And I returned to private practice at Latham & Watkins in July of 2014, where I became the global chair of the White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice at Latham. I worked in private practice in that capacity until April of 2020 when I moved to go to Goldman Sachs. My first position at Goldman Sachs was global head of regulatory affairs. I then was -- I moved to become -- or I was promoted to become the chief legal officer and general counsel of Goldman Sachs in March of 2021. And in February of 2026, I announced that I would be stepping down from those roles at the end of June. And I currently am in an advisory role at Goldman Sachs.
p. 15QThank you. A very illustrious career.
p. 16AThank you.
p. 16QWhat were your primary responsibilities when you were the White House Counsel?
p. 16AYou know, there's a -- the very first White House Counsel was appointed by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And he was asked -- this is -- I don't know if this is apocryphal, but this is the story. He was asked by a member of the media what this White House Counsel was going to do, and he said, "Legal stuff." And that, I think, is still a pretty apt description of the job. As White House Counsel, there are a number of responsibilities that I think are very particularized to the role. You are responsible for judicial nominations, making recommendations to the President for judicial nominations and shepherding those, along with the Office of Legislative Affairs, through the Senate confirmation process. You are -- at least when I was working for President Obama, I had responsibility for making clemency recommendations to the President, advising on legality of matters relating to domestic policy, national security, congressional oversight. It's been quite a few years since I've been up here with the House Oversight Committee. I've typically always been a lawyer, so this is my first go-around as a witness and not being a lawyer here. But that was a significant part of my responsibility -- responding to Congress and liaising with the general counsels of the other agencies. So it's a very broad portfolio.
p. 16QThank you.
p. 16Mr. Emmer.We've had another member join. Can he please announce himself for the record?
p. 16Mr. Walkinshaw.James Walkinshaw, Virginia's 11th District.
p. 16Ms. Stansbury.Good morning. Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico's First Congressional District.
p. 16Mr. Grant.Thank you.
p. 17QMs. Ruemmler, when did you first meet Jeffrey Epstein?
p. 17AI met him in July of 2014 when he cold-called Latham & Watkins and asked to speak to me.
p. 17QAnd prior to that cold call, you had no other interactions?
p. 17ANone.
p. 17QNo in-person meetings?
p. 17ANo. I had not -- I didn't know who he was prior to receiving the message that this person named Jeffrey Epstein had called and asked for me to return his call relating to a potential legal matter.
p. 17QAnd, at this time, were you aware of any of his previous legal troubles?
p. 17AAt that time, no.
p. 17QAnd what was the reason for this cold call?
p. 17AWhat he said -- so I returned the call. What he said was that he was working with Bill Gates to put together a large donor-advised fund that would allow people to pool their resources for philanthropy and therefore be -- you know, sort of, potentially have a greater impact. This was an idea that he told me he had been working on with Mr. Gates and that there were a number of legal issues that would be involved. There would be tax issues and securities issues; there would be the establishment of the fund. And while I didn't have particular expertise in, you know, these particular legal subjects, what he said was, "I understand that you are a, you know, excellent generalist lawyer, and we need someone to quarterback these various legal issues that will come in to play."
p. 17QAnd are you aware of somebody referring him to you?
p. 17AI didn't know that at the -- no, I didn't know why he was reaching out to me.
p. 17QHave you subsequently learned if someone referred him to you?
p. 18AWhen I met with him the first meeting -- so he asked me in that first phone call if I would meet with him to discuss it further. And in that first meeting, to the best of my recollection, he mentioned a couple of people who we knew in common.
p. 18QAnd who were those people?
p. 18ALarry Summers I recall him mentioning and Reid Weingarten, who was a prominent criminal defense attorney.
p. 18QAnd for the first phone call you mentioned -- the "cold call" I'll refer to it as -- was anyone else present on this call with you?
p. 18ANo.
p. 18QAnd in this first in-person meeting with Mr. Epstein, was there anyone else present at that meeting?
p. 18ANot during the meeting, no.
p. 18Ms. Tolan.And you said you had just started working at Latham & Watkins in July 2014 as well. Was that correct?
p. 18Ms. Ruemmler.Yes. In fact, when he called the law firm, I hadn't actually started working yet. It was in the public that I was going -- I was leaving the White House and I was going to return to Latham & Watkins, but I actually hadn't formally started yet. And so when he called the main receptionist in New York, it was routed to somebody else, and then that person said, "Hey, this person has a potential new matter." So it was right before I started, but I actually hadn't technically started yet. I didn't have an office yet, I didn't have a computer, I didn't have a Latham & Watkins email, I didn't have a phone number yet.
p. 18Ms. Tolan.Yeah. And was it just a few days or a couple weeks or --
p. 18Ms. Ruemmler.It was when -- when I had the first meeting with him, I believe it was the Friday before I started at the firm on a Monday.
p. 19QAnd between this cold call and the first meeting that you had with Mr. Epstein in person, what did you know about Mr. Epstein leading in to that meeting?
p. 19AI don't remember knowing anything about him. I had never -- I'd never heard of him before. And so, you know, walking in to that meeting, I just don't have any specific recollection of knowing much about him at all. I remember, the first meeting, you know -- there were a number of things that were striking about that first meeting that I remember quite well.
p. 19QAnd what were those things?
p. 19AHe -- so he held, you know, his meetings at this townhouse that he lived in in New York. And it was a very large townhouse, extremely large and, you know, imposing from the street. And I recall that there were the -- you know, he -- at the outside of the townhouse, it had two initials. It was a bit strange, was a bit unusual to me. I hadn't seen that before. People typically have their house numbers, but the initials were "JE." And then when I went in to the townhouse, I was asked to go to meet him in his office. And the office was enormous. It took up the entire front of the -- you know, street-front of the mansion. And there was an enormous taxidermied tiger on the floor. So that was, I thought -- was something I remember quite well.
p. 19QAnd when you arrived for this meeting, did someone invite you in to the house? Was it Mr. Epstein or someone else?
p. 19AThere was -- there is a buzzer outside -- so, like, a, you know -- announcing your arrival. And I believe someone opened -- someone on the staff opened the do or for me. And then there was a small office on the first floor, and that was, sort of, if you think about it like a secretarial office. And he had an executive assistant who sat there. So I believe I sat there waiting for the appointment, if you will, and then was told that my -- you know, the meeting would start, and I was asked to walk up a set of stairs to his office.
p. 20QAnd do you recall who that secretary was at that time?
p. 20AI believe it was Leslie Groff.
p. 20QWhat did you --
p. 20ABut I certainly came to see her, you know, several times when I would have meetings at the townhouse.
p. 20QAnd --
p. 20AThat was her office, was my understanding.
p. 20QUnderstood. And so you mentioned so me of the impressions you got from this first meeting at Mr. Epstein's New York home. What were your first impressions of Mr. Epstein from this meeting?
p. 20AHe struck me as extremely arrogant. He was a high-energy person. You know, he was a -- he struck me as eccentric. I don't think I'd ever seen anyone's office that size. It was probably three times the size of any -- I me an, it was bigger than the Oval Office. And, you know, I thought to myself, "Who has a stuffed tiger, like, sitting on their office floor?" The rest of the -- well, I'll let you ask the next question.
p. 20QWhat did you -- you've mentioned that the cold call was about setting up this fund with Mr. Gates. Is that the only thing that was brought up during this in-person meeting as well, or were there other things discussed?
p. 20AThe meeting was like an interview. That's how it felt to me. He was interviewing me for this potential role. It was a role that, had it materialized, would have been, you know, a great role for a lawyer, and it would've been a great -- it would've been a great matter for my law firm, because my law firm, you know, it's one of the largest -- it is today, but even then was, you know, one of the largest law firms in the world, and so you have lots of different lawyers with very specific types of subject-matter expertise. And so, given the size of the project as being described, it would've required a lot of different lawyers to be involved. And so those are -- those are the kinds of matters that law firms tend to really like.
p. 21QUnderstood. And what did you understand Mr. Epstein's job to be at this time?
p. 21AI understood, you know, just generally, that he was someone who had a lot of financial expertise and acumen and had acted as an advisor to, you know, wealthy people and families.
p. 21QAnd obviously he had this gigantic mansion that you went to, but did you already understand Mr. Epstein to be a wealthy man when you first met him?
p. 21AI didn't know anything other than the size of the house, and no normal person lives in a house like that.
p. 21QUnderstood. And you mentioned that he had done so me sort of -- or it was your impression he had done so me sort of financial work for families or other individuals. Do you know how -- did you know how he acquired his money?
p. 21AI didn't.
p. 21QAt the time of your first meetings with him, did you learn who any of his clients were or purported to be?
p. 21ANo.
p. 21QWhen did you first learn who his clients were?
p. 21AI knew -- I don't remember exactly when I learned, you know, over the course of time. And I didn't know the exact nature of the client relationship. It wasn't -- other than what I observed about my own -- the client I did come to represent, who he was the primary advisor for. But I didn't -- I didn't have any insight, if you will, in to his relationships with other clients.
p. 21QAnd who was that mutual client of yours?
p. 22AIt was the Edmond de Rothschild Bank.
p. 22QSwitching gears a little bit --
p. 22Mr. Emmer.We've had another member join. Can he please announce himself for the record?
p. 22Mr. Garcia.Sure. Ranking Member Robert Garcia.
p. 22Mr. Emmer.We've also had additional staff members join. Can they please announce themselves for the record? Ms. . , comms director, Ranking Member Garcia.
p. 22Mr. Emmer.Thank you all.
p. 22QSwitching gears a little bit, can you just briefly describe the nature and extent of your relationship with Mr. Epstein through the years?
p. 22ASure. I knew him professionally as a lawyer. The foundation of my relationship and interaction and dealings with Epstein were as a lawyer. As I said, with in the first few weeks of meeting him, he asked whether I was available -- or whether I could be available to work on a representation for a client of his, which was a Swiss bank that, like every other Swiss bank, had a problem with the U.S. Justice Department. And he was in a primary advisory role with that client throughout my period of time in private practice. And I continued to represent that client throughout my private practice. In addition, he referred other clients to me over the years, and I was friendly with him in the context of a business relationship.
p. 22QRoughly how many other clients did he refer to you over the years?
p. 22AI don't remember exactly. It was probably three or four.
p. 22QAnd who were those clients?
p. 23AThere were two matters -- there were two matters that he referred to me that I had a conflict at the law firm, so I was not able to do them. One was a matter that was -- it was a civil dispute for Apollo, the hedge fund. The second one relates to an individual, so I would, respectfully, prefer not to identify the individual's name, because that, I think, is probably confidential in the context of a, you know, potential representation.
p. 23Mr. Emmer.We've had more members join. Can they please announce themselves for the record?
p. 23Mr. Burlison.I'm Congressman Eric Burlison from Missouri.
p. 23Ms. Ruemmler.Good morning.
p. 23Mr. Subramanyam.I'm Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia.
p. 23Mr. Grant.Thank you all.
p. 23QHow frequently would you say you communicated with Mr. Epstein? Actually, let me back for up a second. The relationship started in, I believe you said, July of 2014, roughly?
p. 23AThat's right.
p. 23QAnd when did your relationship with Mr. Epstein end?
p. 23AIn July of 2019, when he was indicted on sex-trafficking charges by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York.
p. 23QAnd through this time period of July of 2014 to July of 2019, how frequently did you communicate with Mr. Epstein, roughly?
p. 23AIt's hard to say. He was a -- it sort of seemed to me that he spent, kind of, all day every day calling people, emailing people, you know, sort of connecting people. So, you know, he was someone who was very pushy and insinuating and, I think, was always trying to -- my impression was he was always trying to make stuff happen and sort of put people together and, you know, see if he could make deals happen and, you know, somehow figure out how to monetize that activity of putting businesspeople together.
p. 24QSo would you say that your personal communications with Mr. Epstein -- were they daily? Weekly? Monthly? Depended on what you guys were working on?
p. 24AI couldn't say. I me an, he communicated with me a lot. He emailed me a lot. And, you know, he was just a very, kind of, persistent guy in that way. And, you know, I am -- by nature, I'm a responsive person, and so I generally tried to be responsive. He was such a, sort of, relentless person, it was, frankly, hard to be responsive all the time, particularly because throughout this period of time I had a very active law practice that had absolutely nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. So, you know -- but, yes, I me an, he -- I emailed with him frequently, I would say, you know, throughout the 5-year period that I knew him.
p. 24QAnd was email the primary method of your communication?
p. 24AYes.
p. 24QWould you also have phone calls with Mr. Epstein?
p. 24AYes.
p. 24QDid you take in-person meetings often with Mr. Epstein?
p. 24AI did, but I would not characterize those as "often" because he did not live in New York, and so -- like a lot of people who maintain a residence in New York but don't live in New York, they have to count their days. And so he would come to New York, you know, every couple of months, was my impression. And when he did, he would ask people -- you know, he would reach out to people and ask them to come and have meetings. And so, if I met with him in person, it would be at his -- typically in the dining room of his Manhattan townhouse.
p. 25QAnd can you estimate how many in-person meetings you would've had with Mr. Epstein?
p. 25AI really can't. But, again, just knowing -- just knowing his general frequency of coming to New York -- like, let's say he came, you know, six times a year. If I happened to be in New York -- which I wasn't always -- and he asked me to come for a meeting, you know, I typically would do that. And so, you know, this is just a guess, but I'd say, you know, I maybe met with him in person, like, 20 times over the 5 years.
p. 25QDuring your relationship with Mr. Epstein, was there any point in time where you communicated more frequently?
p. 25AI think that I communicated -- I haven't done an analysis of that, so -- but certainly during the first couple of years that I knew him, when I was actively working on the Rothschild representation -- and, again, you know, he was primary advisor. So he was sort of, if you think about -- he was sort of the primary relationship conduit, and I was sort of the secondary, if you will. And over time I developed an independent relationship with the bank and the client, but, you know, he was always there. In the later years, he would -- in the later years, my recollection is that I became less responsive because he became pushier and I had an independent relationship with the Rothschild client at that point and I was really busy doing a lot of other legal work.
p. 25QAt any point during your association with Mr. Epstein, would you consider him to be a friend?
p. 25AI considered him to -- I was friendly with him, but I considered my relationship with him to be based on the fact that I was a lawyer in private practice. And if I hadn't been a lawyer in private practice, I would've had no reason to deal with him and he would've had no reason to deal with me.
p. 25QAnd you've referred -- in emails released by the Department of Justice, you've referred to Mr. Epstein as "sweetie," "older brother," "Uncle Jeffrey." Was your relationship ever romantic with Mr. Epstein?
p. 26AAbsolutely not.
p. 26QDid you ever have a sexual relationship with Mr. Epstein?
p. 26AAbsolutely not.
p. 26QIf there wasn't a romantic relationship, why did you refer to Mr. Epstein in these terms?
p. 26AWell, we can take them one by one, if you would like.
p. 26QOkay.
p. 26AAnd there's --
p. 26QSo the first one I mentioned was "sweetie."
p. 26AYeah. So the context I remember -- there's an email in which I call him "sweetie." The context of that was that he sent me an email comparing his prior criminal conduct to the conduct that had been alleged publicly right around that time against Harvey Weinstein. And he said something to the effect of, "My conduct was money in exchange for sex. This guy was dangling jobs over people and, you know, basically pretending as if" -- again, this is in reference to -- I'm paraphrasing, but this is what I understood him to be saying in his not-very-grammatically-correct email to me, okay? That "Harvey Weinstein -- like, what's being said about him is really bad, because these are women who are coming forward and saying he was sort of dangling these opportunities to be in movies, and young actresses, and he was deceptive. It was this element of, like, deceptiveness. And he was using his power with in the movie industry to sort of coerce or assault -- you know, assault women. But, by contrast, all I did was pay for sex. And this was just a strictly commercial transaction, and everybody was consenting. And so what I did wasn't so bad." And so I responded, and I said in a very -- in a way that was designed to tell someone something that they didn't want to hear, in a patronizing way -- the court reporter is not going to get this. But my tone was, "sweetie," like I was patting him on the head. "Hey, sweetie, your conduct involved abuse of power too." So it was far from an indication of affection. It was me speaking to him and correcting him from trying to minimize his own prior criminal history against Mr. Weinstein's, and I said it in a way, over email, that was designed to make the medicine go down a little bit easier.
p. 27QUnderstood. Thank you for that. The next term I mentioned was "older brother."
p. 27AYes. So that was an email that I sent to his executive assistant. At the time that I sent -- that I used those words, I didn't know Epstein. I'd only known him for a couple of months. He had referred a -- as I said, he had referred this important client to me. It was a -- it was a big matter. It was a good matter. We did great work for that -- for the bank. And I was traveling, I think for the first time, is my recollection, from New York over to Geneva, which is where the bank was based. And, again, he was the primary advisor. And if I'm recalling this email correctly, he had asked for his executive assistant to upgrade me on the flight. And I said -- or it was so me other thing that he was asking -- it was something involving my flying to Geneva or he was asking his executive assistant to do for me. And to show my appreciation -- which, again, I didn't ask for it. I didn't need it. He knew I was traveling there because he had this primary advisory relationship with the client. And I was saying, you know, "He doesn't really need to do this." And she's like, "No, he just wants to be nice." And I said, "Oh, he's" -- I think I said something like, "I adore him. He's like an older brother." Again, he was -- I didn't need any of these things from him, but he -- what I thought at the time was that he was being nice; this was insignificant to him, in terms of the value. I wasn't paying for the flight anyway, because it was a business trip. And that was the context in which I made that reference.
p. 27QThank you for that explanation. And the third term I mentioned to you was "Uncle Jeffrey."
p. 28AYes. So Mr. Epstein was -- as I said a few minutes ago, he was extremely arrogant. He was a mansplainer. He was pushy. He was avuncular. And as a joke and, frankly, to poke fun of those qualities -- you know, again, at this point in time -- you know, it's 10 years ago, 12 years ago -- I'm in my, you know, early 40s, I'm a relatively accomplished professional, okay? And he's constantly offering me all sorts of unsolicited advice, you know, et cetera, and I -- about -- by the way, about a whole host of things that even, frankly, he didn't really know much about. That didn't stop him from offering his opinions. And, in that context -- and I think it was in response to, you know, again, something that he had sent me, you know, as a gift -- that I, sort of, in a teasing way, referred to him, you know, as "Uncle Jeffrey," in a way to not be -- to sort of call him out for the way that he could be quite patronizing as a -- you know, we all -- we all sometimes have relatives like that. And that's what -- that's what I meant.
p. 28QAnd then did Mr. Epstein ever meet any of your family members?
p. 28ANo.
p. 28QAre you aware of Mr. Epstein having any children of his own?
p. 28ANot that I was aware of.
p. 28Ms. Tolan.Apart from your in-person meetings with Mr. Epstein that you mentioned, did you ever socialize with him in any other context?
p. 28Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 28QAnd you mentioned that the relationship ended in July of 2019?
p. 28AYes.
p. 28QWhen was the last time you communicated with Mr. Epstein?
p. 29AThe last time I communicated with him was when he called me after he was arrested.
p. 29QAnd what was the nature of that conversation?
p. 29AAgain, to the best of my -- to the best of my recollection, it was a very short conversation, probably less than a minute. And, to the best of my recollection, the only thing that he said was that he'd been arrested. And my response was, "You obviously need to call your lawyer."
p. 29QHe didn't ask you for any legal advice at that time?
p. 29ANot at that time.
p. 29Mr. Emmer.Were you aware that he had been arrested prior to this phone call?
p. 29Ms. Ruemmler.No. That was what alerted me to the fact that he was arrested, was his call.
p. 29QDid he describe any of the facts surrounding why he was being arrested on this call?
p. 29ANot that I remember. I don't believe so.
p. 29QDid he ask you to call or reach out to anyone else on his behalf?
p. 29ANo.
p. 29QWhen was the last time you saw Mr. Epstein in person?
p. 29AIt was at his arraignment in July of 2019.
p. 29QAnd where did that occur?
p. 29AIt was at the Federal courthouse in Manhattan.
p. 29QAnd why did you decide to go to his arraignment?
p. 29AI wanted to understand what was going on. You know, this is someone who I had dealt with over the prior 5 years. I was absolutely shocked that he had been arrested. It was -- you could've knocked me over with a feather, I was so shocked by it. And I didn't understand, you know, what he was being charged with. And, you know, in Federal court, there aren't any cameras allowed in the court. And I knew -- obviously, I was still -- I was still representing the Rothschild Bank. I had come to have a personal relationship with Ariane de Rothschild, and so I knew that she would want to know, like, what exactly was going on. And so the way to find out exactly what was going on is actually to be there in the courtroom. And so I went with a partner of mine from the law firm, and we sat in the back of the courtroom to watch the -- just, you know, to see the proceedings and to see exactly what the nature of the charges were.
p. 30QAnd who was that partner from the law firm?
p. 30AChris Clark.
p. 30QClark, C-l-a-r-k?
p. 30AUh-huh.
p. 30QDid you get the opportunity to have a conversation with Mr. Epstein before or after his arraignment proceedings?
p. 30AI did not have the opportunity to talk to him in the courtroom. And I don't believe that he saw me in the courtroom, because I only saw the back of his head.
p. 30QAnd did you have any other conversations with Mr. Epstein after this arraignment proceeding?
p. 30AI did not.
p. 30QDid he ever try to reach out to you that you're aware of?
p. 30ADid he try to reach out to me to communicate with me? No. He -- at so me point in the days after his arraignment, I was asked whether or not I would consider joining the defense team.
p. 30QAnd who asked you that?
p. 30AMy best recollection is that Mr. Indyke, Darren Indyke, who was Mr. Epstein's lawyer, asked me.
p. 30QAnd what did you say to Mr. Indyke about the ask?
p. 30AI declined to join the defense team.
p. 31QAnd why did you decline?
p. 31AWell, I had no interest in being involved in that defense.
p. 31QAnd why is that?
p. 31AAt that time, I had now seen the indictment. The charges were -- the charges covered the timeframe 2002 to 2005, so a good, you know, decade-plus since I had met him. So it covered, you know, a period of time that I believed had been investigated thoroughly by the State and Federal prosecutors in Florida. And, again, my understanding is that the conclusion reached as a result of that investigation was that Mr. Epstein did not intentionally recruit minors for commercial sex. And the Southern District of New York indictment specifically alleged that he had intentionally enticed and recruited minors, that this was something that they had evidence that they had presented to a grand jury. And that was a wholly different, worse, and more sinister conduct than I had understood. I had no interest in being involved in the defense.
p. 31QAnd you mentioned you saw the 2019 indictment. You had re-seen facts of the 2002-2005 timeframe, the State investigation in Florida, the Federal investigation then, which led to his incarceration in Florida. You had talked to him about his previous legal issues, as you mentioned earlier. What did Mr. Epstein convey to you about what happened in his first Florida legal issues? What were your impressions of what had happened?
p. 31AWell, I can tell you what he told me, and then I can tell -- well, let me tell you what he told me. And, again, this is something that he told me, to the best of my recollection, with in -- I don't believe it was the first meeting, but it was certainly the second or third meeting. He told me that he had -- at his home in Palm Beach, that he had arranged for women to come to his home and provide massages to him and that so me of those massages were sexual in nature and that he had -- that he, you know, had paid for each of these massages, he paid cash for each of the massages, and that so me of -- a small number of the masseuses or the women who were coming to his home were -- turned out to be under the age of 18, but that he did not have knowledge of that, and that the women, as he described to me, you know, many of them worked in local massage parlors in Florida. [11:08 a. m.]
p. 33QAnd did you believe his story?
p. 33AI believed it, not because that's what he told me; I believed it because, based on my experience as a Federal prosecutor, I knew that the State -- the State Attorney's Office in Florida, and in particular the chief of the Sex Crimes Division there, had led the investigation of Epstein, and that the conclusion of that investigation was a single -- an indictment for a single count of solicitation of prostitution, and that, then, the Federal Government, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, which based on my experience -- my long experience in the department and in particular my service as the principal associate deputy attorney general, the Miami office reputationally was a very aggressive office. And, in fact, particularly during the period of time that I was working on the Enron investigation, Main Justice was very frequently recruiting people from Miami to come up to Main Justice because it was viewed as, like, you know, the hard charging office. And I understood that they had investigated the case, you know, for a lengthy period of time with all of the tools available to prosecutors, you know, search warrants, I didn't know whether they used wire taps or whatever. But, you know, that -- and the result of that investigation, the outcome of that investigation was a decision not to prosecute Epstein and to, you know, require him to enter in to a nonprosecution agreement. And then he told me, which I, you know, knew through factual sources -- I me an, through the record in the matter, that he had received an 18-month sentence. He received 12 months on one count, 6 months on another count. He had served 13 months of that sentence, and most of that 13 months, it had actually been served on work release. So what he told me about the case was consistent with the outcome. And then in addition -- I should say this. What he told me about his conduct in the case, and the key issue in my mind being, did this guy intentionally target minors for, you know, for commercial sex or was he more -- was he like a customer or a “John” and this is a prostitution case where so me of the individuals were underage but that he didn't know that? Okay? And, importantly, he provided me with this letter that was a lengthy -- a lengthy submission by an attorney named Stephanie Thacker, who I knew to be a sitting -- at the time I read the letter, I knew to be a sitting Federal Court of Appeals judge. And the importance to me about the letter, which I read at the time, was that it wasn't just that it was an advocacy piece that a defense lawyer submitted, but it was written to the Deputy Attorney General's office and it was a analysis and a -- about the evidence that had been uncovered in the case. And she stated unequivocally that there was not evidence that Epstein had targeted minors for sex. And she wouldn't -- you have to remember that, you know, I was the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and so those kinds of letters came to me when I sat in that seat, those types of letters. Obviously not this letter. I wasn't there then. But the last thing a lawyer would do is go to the Justice Department and say "the evidence shows this" to the people who know what the evidence actually is, because if you did that and you were misstating the evidence, you would have zero credibility. So that letter was -- really formed the basis of my understanding of what his prior conduct in Florida was, and that letter was consistent with what he told me and corroborated what he told me.
p. 34QWere you shocked at all that Mr. Epstein was granted pretty compassionate work release?
p. 34AI didn't know anything about the circumstances of that. You know, I didn't -- I certainly -- "compassionate release" in law enforcement circles has a particular – it has a very specific meaning, and it typically has to do with poor health or something like that. I didn't understand it to be anything along those lines. I believed that the State -- you know, ultimately, this was a State resolution that the Federal Government, you know -- the Federal Government had made a decision not to prosecute him, but it was a State resolution. And the inference that I drew as a former Federal prosecutor is that they reached the conclusion that he wasn't, you know, so me kind of threat to the community. And, again, that was also something that was consistent with someone who the evidence showed didn't intentionally target minors for sex. So it was just another factor, if you will, that, again, drawing on my experience, suggested to me that this case was a case in which he was a -- you know, he was a customer of -- a prostitution customer.
p. 35QThank you.
p. 35Mr. Emmer.We've had another member join. Can he please announce himself for the record?
p. 35Mr. Menefee.Yeah. Congressman Christian Menefee, Texas 18.
p. 35Mr. Grant.Thank you, sir.
p. 35QSwitching gears a little bit -- we're coming towards the end of our first hour here -- have you ever met Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 35AYes.
p. 35QAnd when did you first meet Ms. Maxwell?
p. 35AI've only met her once. The context of meeting her was that she was involved in civil litigation, and her lawyer -- there was either -- the litigation was in New York, and her lawyer -- there was so me type of proceeding in the case. And as is very common in practice, her lawyer asked whether she could -- they could use a conference room as a professional courtesy at my law firm because her lawyer didn't have an office in New York. And so when they came to use the conference room, I went by to say hello as a professional courtesy.
p. 35QDid Mr. Epstein inform you that she would have a lawyer reaching out to you?
p. 35ANo. No. The lawyer had asked, again, if -- her lawyer had asked whether she could use a conference room at my law firm as a professional courtesy and, of course, I said yes.
p. 36QAnd roughly when was this?
p. 36AGosh, I don't remember. I don't remember what year that was.
p. 36QWere you aware of Ms. Maxwell's relationship with Mr. Epstein at this time?
p. 36AI knew that he knew her, and I knew that she had been the subject of public allegations at the time. But I didn't know anything about, you know, what his relationship was with her.
p. 36QDid Mr. Epstein discuss those public allegations of Ms. Maxwell with you?
p. 36AAbout Ms. Maxwell or about -- there were -- yes, insofar as they were part of a set of allegations that were made by a woman who said she had been victimized by Epstein and many others. So they were all related to allegations put forth by, you know, one victim, and the allegations were extensive.
p. 36QAnd did Mr. Epstein discuss those allegations with you?
p. 36AYes.
p. 36QAnd --
p. 36AHe did to the extent that there were media inquiries around -- arising from those allegations. So it was in the context of media inquiries that he, you know, he talked to me about it or asked my point of view about it.
p. 36QAnd did he explain any of the details or facts to you or try to make a case to you of why they were or were not true?
p. 36AHe just told me that they weren't true. There wasn't quite -- you know, just quite unequivocally.
p. 36QAnd then other than this one time Ms. Maxwell used the office at your law firm, did you have any other interactions with Ms. Maxwell?
p. 36ANo.
p. 36QAny other communications?
p. 36ANo.
p. 37QMeetings?
p. 37ANo.
p. 37QWere you aware that Mr. Epstein regularly entertained young women at his residences?
p. 37AEntertained? No.
p. 37QWhen around Mr. Epstein, how did Mr. Epstein act towards the young women or girls that were around him?
p. 37AI never saw any girls. I never saw any girls around him at all, if you -- by that you me an anyone under the age of 18.
p. 37QAny young women at all? Twenties? Low thirties?
p. 37AWell, I wouldn't refer to women in their twenties as girls, so I'm just trying to be precise as to language. I never saw anybody under the age of 18 in Mr. Epstein's presence, with the exception of a meeting where I was attending with my client and my client's -- one of my client's daughters.
p. 37QDid Mr. Epstein ever discuss his relationships with young women in your presence?
p. 37AHe did not discuss his relationships with women. I knew he -- he had a girlfriend that I met on one or two occasions when I went to his townhouse for meetings. And his girlfriend was the same girlfriend for the entire period of time I knew him, and she was -- I didn't ask how old she was, but to my eye, she looked 30.
p. 37QAnd who was that girlfriend?
p. 37AHer first name is Karyna. I can't remember her last name.
p. 37QDid you ever witness Mr. Epstein engage in any sexual contact?
p. 37AAbsolutely not.
p. 37QDid you ever witness Mr. Epstein have sexual contact of any kind with any young woman or girl?
p. 37ANo.
p. 38QDid you ever witness Mr. Epstein sexually abuse or assault young women or girls?
p. 38ANo.
p. 38QDid Mr. Epstein ever discuss sexual acts of any kind with you?
p. 38ANo.
p. 38Mr. Fishman.Except for what she's already described.
p. 38Ms. Ruemmler.Except for the historical conduct --
p. 38Mr. Grant.Understood.
p. 38Ms. Ruemmler.-- that led to his guilty plea in Florida.
p. 38Mr. Grant.Understood.
p. 38QDid you ever witness Mr. Epstein receive a massage from a young woman or girl?
p. 38ANo.
p. 38QDid you ever witness Mr. Epstein pay women for massages?
p. 38ANo.
p. 38QDid you ever witness Mr. Epstein giving cash to young women or girls?
p. 38ANo.
p. 38QDid you ever hear about Mr. Epstein receiving massages?
p. 38ANo, other than what we previously talked about, the conduct arising to his -- that gave rise to his guilty plea.
p. 38QDid Mr. Epstein ever discuss getting massages?
p. 38ANo, other than, again, what he told me about the conduct that caused him -- that forced him to plead guilty in 2008.
p. 38QDid you ever receive any massage from any young woman or girl brought to you by or introduced to you by Mr. Epstein?
p. 38AAbsolutely not.
p. 39QHave you ever been contacted by any law enforcement agency concerning Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 39ANo.
p. 39QHave you ever been interviewed by any law enforcement agency concerning Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 39ANo.
p. 39QHave you ever provided any information to any law enforcement agency concerning Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 39ANo.
p. 39QDid Jeffrey Epstein ever inform or represent to you that he was working with any intelligence service of any nation, including the United States?
p. 39ANo.
p. 39QDid Ghislaine Maxwell ever inform or represent to you that she was working with any intelligence service of any nation, including the United States?
p. 39ANo.
p. 39QDuring your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, did you ever suspect either of them being affiliated with any intelligence agency?
p. 39AI had no relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. The answer to both of them is no.
p. 39QAnd at any time, have you had an affiliation with any intelligence agency?
p. 39AWell, by affiliation, I was a White House counsel and a senior Justice Department official. In that capacity, I dealt with the DNI, the CIA, the NSA --
p. 39QBut you did not formally work --
p. 39A-- DOD.
p. 39QYou did not formally work --
p. 39ASenate Intelligence Committee, House Intelligence Committee.
p. 40QYou did not formally work for any of those agencies?
p. 40AI did not, no.
p. 40Mr. Grant.And we've had another Member of Congress join us. Could she please introduce herself for the record?
p. 40Ms. Ansari.Yassamin Ansari, Arizona's Third District.
p. 40Mr. Grant.Thank you. And that will conclude our first hour. [Recess.] Mr. . Let's go back on the record.
p. 40Ms. Crockett.And for purposes of the record, Representative Jasmine Crockett, Texas 30, is present. Mr. . Mr. Lynch, could you please introduce yourself for the record?
p. 40Mr. Lynch.Sure. Congressman Steve Lynch, Eighth Congressional District of Massachusetts. Mr. . I just have one note before we begin. To the extent that any of our questions or your answers contain the names of survivors or their identifying information, we would ask that the majority redact that information prior to releasing the transcript publicly. And with that, let's get started. EXAMINATION BY MR. :
p. 40QSo, Ms. Ruemmler, in the majority's first hour, you talked a bit about attending Mr. Epstein's 2019 arraignment --
p. 40AYes.
p. 40Q-- and hearing the charges --
p. 40AYes.
p. 40Q-- and learning about those charges in the indictment. Do you remember what those charges were?
p. 41AI do. In general, it was conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking. I believe it was two counts. One was a conspiracy count, and the second one was, you know, what we would call a substantive count of sex trafficking. And in particular, the indictment alleged that Epstein had enticed and recruited minors, minor girls, for sex in exchange for cash.
p. 41QDo you recall what he used to entice or recruit those minors?
p. 41AWell, not specifically. I don't remember that the indictment was specific in that regard. You know, typically, for a Federal indictment, there would need to be so me instrumentality of interstate commerce so, you know, a phone call, you know, an email or something like that. So that certainly would have been present, you know, in so me respect.
p. 41QAnd at the arraignment you were at, the government told the court that Mr. Epstein's victims were, quote, initially recruited to provide massages to the defendant which would be performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and would typically include one or more sex acts. That sound familiar?
p. 41AThat is consistent with my understanding of what the charges were, yes. If I don't remember those specific words, yes. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit A was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 41QI will now introduce minority exhibit A, which is a February 2016 email between you and Mr. Epstein.
p. 41AYes.
p. 41QMr. Epstein asked you, quote, "we all set for a day of joy?"
p. 41AYes.
p. 41QCan you read for the record what you responded to Mr. Epstein?
p. 42AYes. I said, "Best massage ever but not your kind of massage."
p. 42QAnd he replied, "Shame."
p. 42AYes.
p. 42QBy February 2016, were you aware that Mr. Epstein had used massage appointments to entrap the girls and women he victimized?
p. 42AWhat I understood -- you know, as I stated this morning, I certainly knew that he had pled guilty to two prostitution-related offenses and that those -- that those involved -- that conduct involved sexualized massages. What I understood about the nature and scope of that conduct was that the vast majority of the women who had engaged in this activity with Mr. Epstein were over the age of 18, that so me small number had turned out to be under the age of 18 but he had believed them to be over the age of 18. So --
p. 42QLet's pause for a second.
p. 42ASure.
p. 42Mr. Lynch.I'm sorry. I just want to understand, are we going to see the exhibits?
p. 42Ms. Crockett.I was just going to ask, do you mind speaking up just a little bit?
p. 42Ms. Ruemmler.Oh, sure.
p. 42Ms. Crockett.You kind of faded off towards the end of your last statement.
p. 42Ms. Ruemmler.Okay. No problem. Absolutely. Mr. . We'll go back on the record.
p. 42Ms. Ruemmler.Okay. So as I was saying, I was certainly aware that he had pled guilty to prostitution-related offenses that involved sexualized massages. I knew that -- he was open to me -- with me about it, or so I believed, about the nature of his conduct, as I discussed at so me length this morning. So what I was making here was an offhanded joke that, certainly sitting here in 2026, is in extraordinarily poor taste, but it was a joke about his prior criminal history. BY MR. :
p. 43QSo when you wrote "Best massage ever, but not your kind of massage," you were referring to how he used massage to entice his victims?
p. 43ANo, that's not what I'm saying at all. Again, as we discussed at length this morning, I understood that the conduct that Mr. Epstein had engaged in, as stated by Ms. Thacker in the letter to the deputy attorney general, was that Mr. Epstein was in essence a customer or a “John.” Okay? Taking a step back for a second, I had been a prosecutor in the D.C U.S. Attorney's Office, and as a young, you know, prosecutor in that office --
p. 43QBefore we take a step back, let's take a step forward.
p. 43AOkay.
p. 43QWhat kind of massage were you referring to?
p. 43AFor me?
p. 43QWhen you wrote "Best massage ever, but not your kind of massage" to Jeffrey Epstein, what was his kind of massage?
p. 43ALet me explain the context of this email. Epstein had, I believe as a holiday Christmas gift, had given me a half day spa day at The Peninsula Hotel. Okay? And that's what he's referring -- when he's saying, "we all set for a day of joy?", he's saying are you going to have a nice day at the Peninsula spa, where I was able to, you know, to pick -- again, it was a gift -- I was able to pick whatever I wanted to do at the Peninsula spa, which is a lovely place in New York, if you haven't --
p. 43QThat's right. Your emails -- the emails between Mr. Epstein and his assistant, Lesley Groff, they call it Kathy Ruemmler's pampered weekend. And then Ms. Groff and you email, and you told Ms. Groff, quote, "Jeffrey's so thoughtful as always." So yes.
p. 43AOkay. So yes. And so he then asks me, basically, you know, are you all set to go have a, you know, nice day at the spa, essentially.
p. 44Q"A day of joy."
p. 44AA day -- and so then after I go to the spa -- so it's the following day. I had gone on a Saturday. I believe I went on a Saturday morning. And so I wrote back and said, you know, "Best massage ever," meaning I had a very nice massage at the spa. And I said "but not your kind of a massage." Yes. That was a joke to him about the fact that he had engaged in the crime of prostitution where the act, again, as I understood it, was that he had paid women to give him sexualized massages. Now, what I wanted to say, taking a step back -- so, again, as I stated, I wish I had never met Jeffrey Epstein. I wish I never dealt with the guy. It was a mistake to deal with him. I wish I -- certainly wish I'd never emailed with him. And sitting here, you know, 10 years later, in light of everything we know now, this is a joke where I'm -- I am using humor to basically, again, sort of call him out on the fact that he had this conviction. And it's in poor taste. But when I was a -- when I was a prosecutor and I was doing prostitution cases, at this -- in the period of time -- so this -- when I was doing prostitution cases, it would have been, you know, 2001, 2002. In the District of Columbia, the crime of prostitution is the agreement between an individual who is seeking sex and someone who was willing to provide sex for money. The crime is the agreement. Okay? And we were instructed -- it was, you know, the policy of the office at the time that because the crime was the agreement, that both the “John” -- and I'm using the law enforcement terms -- the “John” and the prostitute were both prosecuted. They were both prosecuted equally.
p. 44QCan a minor be a prostitute?
p. 44AAbsolutely not.
p. 44QYou told Jeffrey Epstein that --
p. 44AAbsolutely not.
p. 45Q-- at least on one occasion. Is that right?
p. 45AUnder the law, a minor -- under State law, a minor can not consent to prostitution. Yes. I agree with you entirely.
p. 45QYou mentioned this letter from a lawyer, Thacker, that you refer to a lot.
p. 45AYes.
p. 45QWe will talk about that later. But that letter references massage, I don't know, 18 times. It recounts allegation after allegation of how Mr. Epstein used massage to entice victims.
p. 45AYes.
p. 45QSo that's more than just Jeffrey Epstein paying for sex one time in 2007, right?
p. 45AOh, I have never suggested that I believed he had paid for sex for one time.
p. 45QSo then were you -- so what were you referring to? Were you referring to the full range of his alleged conduct that you were aware of?
p. 45AThis was an offhand remark -- I certainly wasn't referring to the full range of his conduct, you know, in a one-sentence, offhand joke that, as I've said to you sitting here today, was in very poor taste.
p. 45QDid you think one of the issues here -- he bought you this massage. This was not the first or last massage that he had bought you, nor was it the only time you discussed massages with him. So given what you knew then, why did you accept any massages from Jeffrey Epstein --
p. 45AOkay. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
p. 45Q-- and why were you joking about what he did with them?
p. 45AHe gave me as a gift, okay, so -- he gave me as a gift a half day at the spa at The Peninsula Hotel in New York City. I think I also got a facial that day. I don't remember. But in any event, when I go to the spa -- which I have gone to many, many, many times over the course of my life, and I have gone to spa resorts. A lot of women go to spas. And in 99 percent of those cases, I've paid for my own massage. As a gift, he gave me a half day at the Peninsula spa, and I got a massage. That is what this is.
p. 46QYou knew he was a registered sex offender at that time, right?
p. 46AYes.
p. 46QSo why were you accepting gifts of massages from a registered sex offender whose offenses including getting massages?
p. 46AI can't even follow the logic of your question. Mr. . What part don't you understand?
p. 46Ms. Ruemmler.I don't understand -- I don't understand the question. Mr. . Do you want to repeat the question? Mr. . Let me ask it differently. BY MR. :
p. 46QDid you ever think of his underage victims at any point and think, "Hey, I'm not going to accept a massage from Jeffrey Epstein," or "I'm not going to joke about Jeffrey Epstein's history of massage," or "I'm not even going to talk about massages with Jeffrey Epstein"?
p. 46AAs I said, I didn't accept a massage from Jeffrey Epstein. He bought me, as a gift, a day at a very well-established hotel spa in New York City. And I accepted it because, as I stated, he was the primary advisor to a client of mine. There was no reason not to accept it. It was a nice gesture, and I accepted it.
p. 46QLet's move on.
p. 46AIt's not more complicated than that.
p. 46QSo the 2019 indictment, at the arraignment the government said that Mr. Epstein engaged in a years-long scheme to sexually abuse underage girls, paying minor girls to themselves be abused, and also paying certain victims to recruit other girls to be subject to the defendant's sexual abuse. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit B was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 47QLet's introduce as minority exhibit B an email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein from September 19th, 2014. In it, Mr. Epstein wrote, quote, "girls?, careful, I will renew an old habit." Page 4.
p. 47AYes. I see it.
p. 47QWe've already established that you were aware of the allegation against Mr. Epstein because you had read the Thacker letter at this point. Did you consider whether Mr. Epstein was referring to his past sex crimes involving young girls when he said, "girls?, careful, I will renew an old habit"?
p. 47AOkay. First of all, I don't know whether I had read the Thacker letter in September of 2014. I had, you know -- I'd only met with Mr. Epstein, I think, twice at that point. So just to put that in characterization -- in the proper context. But I remember this email very -- notwithstanding it was 12 years ago, I remember this email very specifically. And during either the first or the second meeting that I had with Epstein, in the course of the conversation, and it may have actually been in reference to -- reference to me, he referred to women as girls. Okay? And I said to him, Don't refer to women as girls. Unfortunately, I'm now 55 years old, and I've been, you know, a practicing lawyer for a long time, and I have been referred to as a girl by many men in many contexts. And I said, Don't do that. And so I write "Most girls do not have to worry about that crap." I'm basically, in my email, referring back to that conversation. Okay? Like, "Hey, knucklehead." I'm referring to myself here. "Most girls don't have to worry about this crap." Then he responds, "girls, question mark, careful, I will renew an old habit."
p. 47QSo it was something of an inside joke between the two of you?
p. 47AAbout language.
p. 48QGot it. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit C was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 48QAll right. Let's move on to minority exhibit C. This is Bates number EFTA02510803. This is a March 4th, 2015, email exchange. And the portion I'd like to talk about is on page 1.
p. 48Mr. Fishman.Can you give us a minute? Takes us a while to get it down the table. Mr. . Do you see where you wrote to him, "Darling, I am not one of your young things"?
p. 48Ms. Ruemmler.Yes, I do. Mr. . What were you referring to?
p. 48Mr. Fishman.Do you mind if she looks at the whole document first? Mr. . Absolutely.
p. 48Ms. Ruemmler.So the context here is that I was doing a lot of international travel in the course of my law practice. And I can tell that -- I can tell from the context here that I had just -- I had just landed in China, because I had -- I say I had a loaner BlackBerry that makes outgoing calls. So as any of the members in the room who have traveled to China know, that's typically the protocol that you would use when traveling to China. And he, again in very typical fashion, in a -- I am complaining about the fact that I'm tired from all of the travel. And he patronizingly tells me that I can figure out a way to travel better. BY MR. :
p. 48QAnd then you reply?
p. 48AAnd then I reply, again, in sort of a snarky way, you know, I'm not one of your young things. Remember, he had a -- his girlfriend was probably 15 years younger than me and -- at that time. And I said, I've been doing this for 20 years, and despite well-honed skills, it still sucks.
p. 49QSo there was his girlfriend, but you said "your young things." So --
p. 49AWell, he also had --
p. 49Q-- who are you referring to?
p. 49AHe also had staff, you know, several women in their, you know, late 20s, early 30s, who were on his staff who traveled with him. And so I'm basically saying, don't -- again, Don't mansplain me. I'm cranky. Again, he's asking for something. He wants me to call him or something. And I've just landed in China --
p. 49QWhat do you remember --
p. 49A-- where I probably didn't want to be.
p. 49Q-- about those staff?
p. 49APardon?
p. 49QThe staff you just mentioned, what do you remember about them?
p. 49AI remember that he had quite a large staff, and he had, you know, women and men on his staff. And he had so me assistants, personal assistants.
p. 49QDo you know if all the women on his staff were American? Were any of them foreign?
p. 49ASo me of them were Russian and Eastern European, yes. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit D was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 49QAll right. Let's introduce minority exhibit D, Bates number EFTA02395303. This is a June 2016 email exchange --
p. 49AYes.
p. 49Q-- between you and Mr. Epstein regarding a possible opportunity for you with a hedge fund called Citadel. In this exchange, Mr. Epstein suggested that Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, quote, "might just be interested in a woman." You responded, quote, "Oh, Jesus -- meaning you are going to trade one of your Russians for my comp?", end quote. What did you me an by, quote, "one of your Russians"?
p. 50AI think I'm looking at a different email exchange.
p. 50Ms. Cotton.Yeah. I think you skipped so me lines or we have the wrong version.
p. 50Ms. Ruemmler.We have a different version of the email. Mr. . Let's go off the record for a second. [Discussion off the record.] Mr. . Let's go back on the record. What did you me an by, quote, "one of your Russians"?
p. 50Mr. Fishman.Again, do you mind if she reads the entire chain? Mr. . Absolutely.
p. 50Ms. Ruemmler.Okay. The context of this is that I had received outreach from the so on-to-be retiring chief legal officer of Citadel about whether I would be willing to take a meeting about potentially accepting that job. I didn't know anything about Citadel, frankly. You know, I'd spent the vast majority of my career in public service at this point, and I certainly wasn't -- at this point in time, I certainly wasn't, like, a Wall Street person. And so Epstein was the finance guy. He was like the Wall Street guy. So I asked him, you know, what do you -- I asked him, I infer from this email over the phone, what do you know about Citadel? And, again, in typical Epstein fashion, he immediately jumps in to, I can negotiate your compensation. So I didn't ask him -- I didn't have an offer from Citadel, and he's already talking about how he's going to negotiate my compensation. BY MR. :
p. 50QThat's clear he is jumping in to talk about helping you, hypothetically, get this job at Citadel and negotiating your compensation.
p. 50ANo, no, no. He's not --
p. 51QBut why did you say --
p. 51ANo. No, no, no, no, no.
p. 51QWhy did you say "one of your Russians"?
p. 51Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry, Mr. -- Mr. . What do you me an by "one of your Russians"?
p. 51Mr. Fishman.She was giving an answer -- Mr. . I know.
p. 51Mr. Fishman.-- and you then made a statement about what was in the emails. She's entitled to answer, to respond -- Mr. . Well, let's just ask the question. BY MR. :
p. 51QWhat did you me an when you wrote "one of your Russians"?
p. 51AAgain, he wasn't -- I wasn't asking him to help me get a job, okay? I was asking him what he knew about the firm. He then immediately jumps in to what -- that he can negotiate a compensation package, which I haven't even been offered. And so I then deflect and say, "Trust me, this is way below his and your pay grade to be negotiating." And so then he says, "there is the off chance that Griffin might just be interested in a woman." I understood him to be referring that he was interested in a woman for the position of the chief legal officer. I found that offensive. So I make, again, a casual, somewhat irreverent remark by saying, "I ain't no affirmative action." So I found it, frankly, insulting that someone would suggest that I was being offered a job purely because I was a woman. So then he writes back and says, "I meant romantically." So I think -- I think that he's suggesting somehow that this person wants to date me. And so again, I -- which is also offensive, by the way. So again I deflect and I say -- I say, So you're going to trade one of your Russians, meaning one of your adult Russian assistants, who you're going to set up on a date. This has nothing to do with sex. This has -- this is a confused back-and-forth where, again, he was insinuating himself in to a way that he was going to make himself relevant about negotiating compensation for a job offer that I didn't have and I wasn't going to take.
p. 52QSo you were just saying that you were making a joke, an offhand joke, about Mr. Epstein trading one of his Russian assistants to Ken Griffin in exchange for your compensation?
p. 52AYes.
p. 52QOkay.
p. 52AAnd as I said, I regret emailing him. And this is a -- this is a joke that certainly doesn't land very well today.
p. 52QAll right. We're going to cover so me ground that the majority covered. The way these formats go, sometimes our questions overlap. We will be conscious of that.
p. 52AOkay.
p. 52QLet's go back to that arrest and the phone call.
p. 52AOkay. Okay.
p. 52QJeffrey Epstein called three people.
p. 52AYes.
p. 52QTwo of his lawyers --
p. 52AYes.
p. 52Q-- and you.
p. 52AYes.
p. 52QWhy do you think he called you?
p. 52AI think he called me because, not to be immodest, but I was the chairperson of the defense and investigations practice at one of the largest, most profitable law firms in the world. I was well-regarded as a defense attorney, and I think that's why he called me. And obviously I knew him.
p. 53QEarlier that year, he had written to you, quote, "I only trust you." Later than that, he said, quote, "I only trust your advice."
p. 53Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry. Are you reading from documents? Mr. . We will introduce those documents right now as exhibit E. Those documents are Bates number EFTA02634222 and EFTA02634758. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit E was marked for identification.]
p. 53Mr. Fishman.We just have one of them so far. Mr. . Front and back.
p. 53Ms. Ruemmler.Oh, I see.
p. 53Mr. Fishman.Oh, okay. Mr. . They are two different documents as one exhibit.
p. 53Mr. Fishman.Oh. Okay. So they're not connected to each other in that way. Mr. . No.
p. 53Mr. Fishman.Okay. BY MR. :
p. 53QSo Jeffrey Epstein called you because he trusted you? Is that what you're saying?
p. 53AI don't know whether he trusted me or not, but I can say -- I can tell you that -- I think I'm a good lawyer who gives pretty straightforward advice.
p. 53QJust so I'm clear, did you give him any advice on that call after he was arrested?
p. 53ANo.
p. 53QDid he ask for your help?
p. 53AAgain, I don't remember much about that call other than it was extremely short. He told me that he had been arrested. And I said either, You have to call your lawyer, or, I assume you've called your lawyer, something -- I don't recall whether, you know, he said that he already had or he hadn't or, you know, this or that.
p. 54QBefore Mr. Epstein was arrested, had he communicated to you about being concerned about new criminal charges being brought against him?
p. 54ANo.
p. 54QNot at all?
p. 54AHe had not.
p. 54QMr. Epstein was arrested at the Teterboro Airport. He'd flown back from Paris on a private jet. Had you known he was abroad?
p. 54AI don't remember whether I knew he was -- I do remember that he -- I do remember knowing that his arrest happened at Teterboro Airport. I don't know whether he told me that or whether I came to learn that later.
p. 54QAnd before he returned from Paris, did he ask you your advice about whether it was safe to come back to the United States?
p. 54ANo.
p. 54QIn 2019, did he ever ask your advice about whether it was safe to travel to any foreign country?
p. 54ANo, he didn't ask my advice on those things.
p. 54QHe never asked about your advice on whether it was safe to return to the United States at any point in 2019?
p. 54ANo, not that I remember. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit F was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 54QLet's do exhibit F. This is a February 23rd, 2019, email between you and Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein writes you, "Like preparing for a hurricane, I'm focused on how to protect myself. Hunkered down but vigilant, well prepared, et cetera. I very much appreciate our friendship." In response, you wrote, quote, "Me too. We will get you through this storm."
p. 55AYes.
p. 55QWhat was the, quote, "storm" you told him you were going to get him through?
p. 55AThat was a reference to the media storm.
p. 55QThe media. Two days before that, a court ruling had put his 2007 nonprosecution agreement in jeopardy in a case brought by a number of his victims asserting their rights under the Crime Victims' -- the CVRA, the Crime Victims' Act. You don't think this email had any reference to that?
p. 55AI don't remember whether -- I was certainly -- I was certainly aware of that litigation in Florida, and I was aware of the legal issues that were presented to the court in that case, yes. I don't know -- but this -- my best recollection is that this related to a media storm.
p. 55QAnd who did you me an when you wrote "we," when you wrote "We will get you through this storm"?
p. 55AI tend to use the term "we" in all sorts of different contexts. So I think that was my effort to express, you know, so me empathy and support to him at the time. As I stated earlier, what I -- what I understood all through the period of time when I was interacting with him up until the time that the indictment was returned in July of 2019, I understood that his conduct that predated my knowing him by at least a decade had been extensively investigated by State and Federal prosecutors and had been finally resolved. And so in our system of justice, typically, when someone resolves a criminal case through a guilty plea and -- and/or in this case a separate agreement with the Federal Government and they comply with it, and they otherwise fulfill all of their obligations, they accept responsibility, that they are entitled to reenter society. That's the way it works. And so that's what I believed the situation was with Mr. Epstein for the entirety of the time that I was dealing with him, again, up until he was indicted in July of 2019. And then the conduct described in that indictment, even though it predated me knowing him by 10 years, described conduct that was very different than I had understood him to have been involved in.
p. 56QSo back to that email, you said you understood the storm to be referring to negative media.
p. 56AThat's right.
p. 56QHad you been working with anyone else to help Mr. Epstein deal with that negative media?
p. 56AMr. Epstein's MO was to ask a lot of different people their opinions on things.
p. 56QThat is very evident from the emails, but what about, were you working with anyone to help Mr. Epstein deal with the negative media?
p. 56ADo you me an like a communications specialist or someone like that? I'm not sure what you me an.
p. 56QYou knew Mr. Epstein much better than the rest of us. You knew what you were doing and who you were talking with much better than the rest of us. So were you working with anyone to help Mr. Epstein with his negative media?
p. 56AHe asked my opinion about media -- about, you know, media inquiries, media issues from time to time, and he was represented by counsel and that counsel was his legal advisor. Ultimately, any decisions that were made about responses to media inquiries, et cetera, were going to be decided by his lawyer, not by me. But as he did with lots of other people, he asked my point of view and my opinion on stuff all the time, including relating to his media issues. Mr. . And with that, we will pause. Mr. . And I believe so me of our members have questions.
p. 56Ms. Ansari.Sure. Thank you so much for being here today. As has been discussed through both hours so far, you maintained a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein for years. What do you think was your biggest mistake in maintaining that relationship and staying so close to a known predator, and why did you not cut ties with him sooner?
p. 57Ms. Ruemmler.I knew him professionally, and I was friendly with him in that context. We were not -- we were not social friends. I didn't socialize with him. I didn't travel with him. I didn't go on vacation with him. I didn't go to concerts with him. I didn't go out to dinner with him. So when you say I had a longstanding friendship, I would characterize it a bit differently. Those are the types of things that I do with my friends. Mr. Epstein and I had a shared client, and so I had a lot of interaction with him relating to that. And, of course, the interaction and just the natural, you know, course of life went in to other topics, including topics relating to his historical conviction and media attention arising from that historical conviction. At the time when I was interacting with him, he had a broad set of relationships with many prominent people in the business community, in academia, in, you know, the arts and entertainment and politics. And it was very natural for me to maintain good interaction with him given what I was doing professionally at the time. And again, importantly, as he was, you know, a primary advisor to a client that he had referred to me in the very, you know, just few weeks after I had, you know, gone back in to private practice, to restart my private practice, and so he, of course, was someone who I wanted to maintain a good relationship with.
p. 57Ms. Ansari.Okay. But even at the time, he was a known predator; you knew that. You knew of his record. Obviously, ultimately, we know that Epstein and Maxwell, who I heard you say you didn't know personally --
p. 57Ms. Ruemmler.Right.
p. 57Ms. Ansari.-- committed systemic abuse against more than 1,000 young girls, as well as boys and men. I guess, how do you begin to express remorse for cultivating those ties even if they were strictly professional and not a personal relationship as you just laid out?
p. 58Ms. Ruemmler.Well, I certainly didn't, again, know what we now know about the nature and scope of his conduct. That's the first and foremost. But it is very important to understand that, you know, I was a lawyer in private practice, and my are a of expertise -- my primary are a of expertise was representing people who were either accused of crimes or accused of other wrongdoing. So that was -- that was very much a part of sort of, you know, my daily existence, if you will. I certainly -- I feel terrible for anybody who this man victimized.
p. 58Ms. Ansari.Have you ever met with any of the victims or survivors?
p. 58Ms. Ruemmler.I have not.
p. 58Ms. Ansari.Is there a reason you have not?
p. 58Ms. Ruemmler.I've never been asked to.
p. 58Ms. Ansari.Okay.
p. 58Ms. Ruemmler.And as I said before, he lied to me. And he lied to me about his conduct. He led me to believe -- and again, it wasn't just that I believed him, what he said, you know, on its face, but what he said, again, was all very consistent with the way that investigation in Florida by both State and Federal authorities had been resolved.
p. 58Ms. Ansari.Thank you.
p. 58Mr. Subramanyam.I may have missed this, but were you ever -- Jeffrey Epstein was never a legal client of yours in any way?
p. 58Ms. Ruemmler.He was not.
p. 58Mr. Subramanyam.So you never had any sort of agreement with him or any sort of engagement --
p. 58Ms. Ruemmler.I did not.
p. 58Mr. Subramanyam.Did you ever receive any compensation from him?
p. 59Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 59Mr. Subramanyam.Did you ever receive any cash from him or any --
p. 59Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 59Mr. Subramanyam.-- transfer -- money transfers from him? Just gifts?
p. 59Ms. Ruemmler.Yes, I did receive gifts from him, but I did not receive compensation.
p. 59Mr. Subramanyam.But not any money from him. And then did you ever -- you weren't representing him, but did you ever attend any of his court proceedings?
p. 59Ms. Ruemmler.As we discussed, I was present, you know, as a member of the public at his arraignment in July of 2019.
p. 59Mr. Subramanyam.Thank you. And apologies if this has already been asked, but the reason for that was because of your friendship, or what was the reason for attending that?
p. 59Ms. Ruemmler.The reason was that this is someone who I had dealt with over, you know, the prior period -- I me an, the prior, you know, 5-year period, and he was and -- he was and remained at that time -- well, up until that time -- a primary advisor for an important client of mine. And I wanted to understand exactly -- you know, I wanted to understand what was going on and what he was charged with and what the conduct was. And I anticipated that my client would also want to understand that.
p. 59Mr. Subramanyam.Do you believe he ever used the relationship you had with him -- you know, it's not a friendship. I guess a business relationship, perhaps -- when reaching out to other people? We have heard from other folks that he would often use a name -- name drop, essentially [inaudible] do you feel that happened with you?
p. 59Ms. Ruemmler.I didn't know that at the time, but I now know because I've seen, you know, references in documents that have been released where he name drops me. But I didn't know he was doing that at the time. [12:22 p. m.]
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.And I apologize if this was already asked, but were you aware that you were designated as an executor of his estate?
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.I learned that later, that I was listed as a backup executor.
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.Did you consent to this in any way?
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.I didn't know about it.
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.Okay. So there was never a conversation about this?
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.With Epstein?
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.Or anyone.
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.I don't remember having any conversation with Epstein about it. I was surprised when I saw the document when it was released last year.
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.Have you done anything with his estate and --
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.No. [Crosstalk.]
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.-- association --
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.When was your name removed?
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.I don't know exactly, but it -- that was in a draft. That was in, you know, a draft document, and the final document does not -- I'm not identified.
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.When did you learn about being named as an executor?
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.Again, I believe the document was provided to this Committee and then made public, I believe, in 2025.
p. 60Mr. Subramanyam.Do you have any sort of speculation as to why you were named as an executor?
p. 60Ms. Ruemmler.My only speculation is that I'm a lawyer and, I think, someone who he believed to be an honest person.
p. 61Mr. Subramanyam.Okay. That's all I have. Mr. . Did you ask to be taken off the will?
p. 61Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 61Mr. Menefee.Good afternoon. I was kind of struck by your statement here that you and Mr. Epstein only had a professional relationship. You know, since I've been sitting here, we've seen a number of emails -- in 2014, where he says to you, "Girl, careful, I will review an old habit"; in 2015, where you say to him, "Darling, I am not one of your things"; in 2016, where he says that Griffin may be interested in women and you say, "I ain't no affirmative action," so it's -- that's an unprofessional way of having a conversation. He says, "I meant romantically," and you reference Russians. And then it all culminates in 2019 when he says, "I very much appreciate your friendship." So your statement here today is that you all weren't friends?
p. 61Ms. Ruemmler.What -- no, I didn't say that. I said I knew him professionally and I was friendly in that context. But the foundation of my dealings with him were -- was that I was a lawyer in private practice. And that's why he dealt with me, and that's why I dealt with him. And, in that context, I was friendly with him. And I believe this effort or attempt to create a binary construct -- you're either friends or you're professional -- it's just not real life. And there are, you know -- you probably -- you're working with other Members as a professional relationship, but you're probably friendly with them too. And that's the way that I was with him. But, again, I didn't -- I have a number of personal friends who I spend time with on the weekends, we go out to dinner, we go to concerts, we might go on vacation, we might go to a spa together, and those are the people who I count as my personal friends. So I've tried to be as precise and descriptive as I can about, really, the nature of my interactions in dealing with him.
p. 62Mr. Menefee.So more of a hybrid situation. I practiced at a large law firm too; I never called anybody "darling" in a communication. So this would be more of a hybrid situation where -- maybe not completely professional, maybe not completely personal?
p. 62Ms. Ruemmler.What I would say is, I was friendly -- you know, I knew him professionally; I was friendly with him. And, you know, with respect, you may not like the words I used, and, as I said before, I regret it that I even knew this guy, much less was emailing with him, but I tend to be a pretty casual person. I sometimes am a bit irreverent. I'm sometimes a bit sarcastic. And those references that you're pointing to are examples of that. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit G was marked for identification.]
p. 62Mr. Menefee.I'm introducing what is marked as minority exhibit G. It begins with Bates number EFTA02610779. And we have copies being passed around now. Bottom of page 1, going in to page 2 -- and this is an email from you, dated December 16th, 2018. The subject line is, "My edited version." Am I capturing that correctly?
p. 62Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 62Mr. Menefee.So it looks here that you edited a draft written article written by Mr. Epstein's lawyer, Ken Starr. Is that what this is?
p. 62Ms. Ruemmler.I don't recall who drafted -- who drafted this originally, but I was asked to look at it. And -- but, again, I believe this was something that was going to be provided in response to media. It was a media response, and I was asked to look at it and to either provide my -- my thoughts.
p. 63Mr. Menefee.So EFTA02610779 reflects a statement for Mr. Epstein's benefit that you edited.
p. 63Ms. Ruemmler.It was a -- what I understood that was being contemplated here was that there was -- I don't remember the specifics, but there were allegations in the media that Mr. Epstein had received a so-called sweetheart deal in Florida arising, you know, from the Federal and State prosecutions, and this was contemplated to be a media response that would be ultimately signed or authored by his attorneys --
p. 63Mr. Menefee.So --
p. 63Ms. Ruemmler.-- of which -- who I was not one.
p. 63Mr. Menefee.-- can we look down to the bottom of page 2? The last full paragraph, so the second-to-last paragraph on the page there, the second-to-last sentence starts with, "Jeffrey accepted full responsibility for his conduct." Do you see that?
p. 63Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 63Mr. Menefee.Okay. The last sentence on the page: "For over 10 years, he" -- that being Mr. Epstein -- "has lived a good and law-abiding life." Do you see that?
p. 63Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 63Mr. Menefee.Turn the page. The final paragraph, we're looking at the third sentence. It begins with, "But Jeffrey, an exemplary employer." Do you see that?
p. 63Ms. Ruemmler.I do.
p. 64Mr. Menefee.So were you trying to change the public's perception of Mr. Epstein in this document?
p. 64Ms. Ruemmler.No. Again, what this was was something that had been drafted by one of Mr. Epstein's lawyers to respond to suggestions in the media at that time that Mr. Epstein had received a so-called sweetheart deal in Florida and that the reason -- what I recall during this time is that the media implication -- or, actually, the media assertion was that that sweetheart deal was the result of something of undue influence or so me type of corruption. And this was intended to be a response authored by his lawyers who were involved in that very resolution setting forth the facts as they understood it. And I was not involved in that investigation in any way, shape, or form. And I was asked just to read it and give my thoughts for, sort of, tone and style.
p. 64Mr. Menefee.But, as you sent this back, did you believe at the time that Mr. Epstein had accepted full responsibility for his conduct and that he had lived a good and law-abiding life in the preceding 10 years?
p. 64Ms. Ruemmler.At the time, yes, that's what I understood.
p. 64Mr. Menefee.Do you believe that today?
p. 64Ms. Ruemmler.Today, we have a very different understanding. And, again, what I -- what I know is that he was indicted in July of 2019 and that those prosecutors had presented evidence to a grand jury. It wasn't -- the allegations were not proven, but they certainly presented evidence to a grand jury, and a grand jury agreed that there was evidence that he had intentionally enticed and recruited minors for commercial sex. That is a very different -- that's a very different set of allegations than I understood he had -- that there was evidence of when he resolved his case in Florida.
p. 64Mr. Menefee.Okay.
p. 65Mr. Lynch.Let's pick up right there. However, as you indicated earlier, you knew of Mr. Epstein's offenses. He was a registered sex offender --
p. 65Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 65Mr. Lynch.-- from those previous offenses --
p. 65Ms. Ruemmler.That's right.
p. 65Mr. Lynch.-- which are very, very serious. One of the other aspects of this, again, focusing on your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein: During this investigation, we find people who were very, very, very close to Jeffrey Epstein -- friends indeed, coworkers who worked several feet from him -- yet, when they come before this panel, they didn't know him; he was a stranger. And, you know, reading all these emails, as my colleagues have already identified, you know, there are references to you calling him "darling," "Uncle Jeffrey," "sweetie," and then -- which would -- which indicate a much closer relationship. And, also, you may call it humor, but dismissing his offenses by saying -- referring to "Jeffrey's type of massage," which refers back to his abuse of those younger women for which he was a registered sex offender, there's a connection there, as well, when you sort of dismiss -- you dismiss those offenses by joking about it, you know, joking about the Russians or "your young things" or "victim's rights, my ass," sort of dismissing the attorneys and the legal team who were trying to defend the accusers and the victims. Is that a way that you -- that you gained his trust?
p. 65Ms. Ruemmler.I appreciate the question, and I understand why, you know, sitting here in 2026, the emails can come across as if there is a callousness to victims. That's not what I intended at the time. It wasn't my state of mind at the time. I feel terrible that he victimized women and girls, and, you know, if I could have done anything, traveled back in time and stopped him from doing that, I would like to think I would've. And, you know, he clearly lied to me. I think he lied to a lot of people. And, as I said, I regret, you know, ever knowing him, much less, you know, emailing with him. But I think one of the things that is important to -- or I would ask you to at least try to understand from my perspective is that, you know, I had a very different understanding of the conduct at the time when I was joking, or seemed to be joking, and I certainly never intended --
p. 66Mr. Lynch.You knew he was --
p. 66Ms. Ruemmler.-- to be insensitive.
p. 66Mr. Lynch.-- a sex offender, though, a registered --
p. 66Ms. Ruemmler.I did.
p. 66Mr. Lynch.-- sex offender.
p. 66Ms. Ruemmler.Yes, I did. I did.
p. 66Mr. Lynch.Yeah.
p. 66Ms. Ruemmler.And --
p. 66Mr. Lynch.Let me move on.
p. 66Ms. Ruemmler.-- I don't -- again, as I said, I regret dealing with him, much less emailing with him.
p. 66Mr. Lynch.I understand. So Leon Black is the former CEO of Apollo Global and a longtime friend of Mr. Epstein's. During his transcribed interview before this Committee, he mentioned your name in a list of people he claimed to have met through Mr. Epstein. Do you believe that's accurate?
p. 66Ms. Ruemmler.That he met me through Mr. Epstein?
p. 66Mr. Lynch.That he met -- he said during his -- he mentioned your name in a list of people that he claimed, Mr. Black claimed, to have met through Mr. Epstein.
p. 67Ms. Ruemmler.Yes. Mr. Epstein did introduce me to Mr. Black.
p. 67Mr. Lynch.Okay. When did you first meet Mr. Black?
p. 67Ms. Ruemmler.I don't recall what year it was.
p. 67Mr. Lynch.A range? Between?
p. 67Ms. Ruemmler.It probably was in the 2014-2015 timeframe.
p. 67Mr. Lynch.I see. What was the frequency of the interactions there between yourself and Epstein and Mr. Black?
p. 67Ms. Ruemmler.I only recall meeting Mr. Black on two or three occasions. And what Mr. Epstein would typically do, as I said, he would come in to New York, where he didn't -- he had a house, but that wasn't his residence -- he would come in to New York, and he would set up a bunch of meetings with people, which he would hold in his dining room at a table, believe it or not, that's even bigger than this one. And so, if I, for example, were coming to a meeting at 2 o'clock, that was my scheduled time to meet with him, I would, you know, sit in the secretarial office space until such time as Mr. Epstein was, you know, ready for the meeting with me. And he would, you know, typically have the person who was coming in to the meeting -- in this example, me -- at the same time that the person he was meeting before was exiting. And so it was in that context --
p. 67Mr. Lynch.I see.
p. 67Ms. Ruemmler.-- where I've met Mr. Black.
p. 67Mr. Lynch.Okay. Did Mr. Epstein ever talk to you about the nature of his dealings with Mr. Black?
p. 67Ms. Ruemmler.I understood they had a business relationship, but I didn't know any more details than that.
p. 67Mr. Lynch.Yeah. What -- in any particular business?
p. 68Ms. Ruemmler.No, I didn't understand the details of the business relationship.
p. 68Mr. Lynch.Were you ever aware of any abuse allegations against Mr. Black?
p. 68Ms. Ruemmler.No, not that I can -- I know that there has been so me litigation subsequently, meaning, you know, after Epstein, you know, died. In the more recent years, there has been -- Mr. Black has been involved in so me civil litigation. I'm aware of that.
p. 68Mr. Lynch.What about affairs? Were you ever aware of Mr. Black being involved in any affairs?
p. 68Ms. Ruemmler.I don't remember at that time. I know that there have been allegations, again, in the media covering civil lawsuits -- or a civil lawsuit that alleges an affair.
p. 68Mr. Lynch.I see. And were you ever aware of Mr. Black requiring women to sign nondisclosure agreements in connection with any of that litigation?
p. 68Ms. Ruemmler.I didn't have any knowledge of that.
p. 68Mr. Lynch.Okay. That's all I have. Mr. . Were you ever aware that Brad Karp was working with Mr. Black on any of the things Representative Lynch just described?
p. 68Ms. Ruemmler.No. I knew that Mr. -- I knew that Mr. Karp and Mr. Karp's law firm were the primary law firm for Apollo, and, at the time, Mr. Black was the CEO and chairman of Apollo. And, in fact, the Apollo referral that I referred to earlier, I recall, came because Paul Weiss had a conflict on that particular -- on that particular matter, so there was an opportunity for another law firm to step in, where as typically Paul Weiss was handling most of Apollo's matters. Mr. . Thank you. That concludes our hour, and we'll go off the record. [Recess.]
p. 68Mr. Grant.We'll go back on the record. It is 12:55. And I believe, Mr. Biggs, you have so me questions.
p. 69Mr. Biggs.I do. Thank you so much. Thank you. And so I just want to clarify so me things to make sure I understood them.
p. 69Ms. Ruemmler.Sure.
p. 69Mr. Biggs.You mentioned that you knew that Mr. Epstein had a girlfriend, she looked about 30, her name was Karyna?
p. 69Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 69Mr. Biggs.And how did you know of his relationship with her?
p. 69Ms. Ruemmler.He -- I met her on a couple of occasions, and he introduced her as his girlfriend and referred to her, you know, from time to time, in, you know, general passing, as in the way that someone -- the way that someone refers to their significant other. You know, "Karyna and I," you know, "went to," you know, this thing or that thing.
p. 69Mr. Biggs.And you mentioned Darren Indyke. Did you know Darren Indyke previous to the 2019 indictment of Mr. Epstein?
p. 69Ms. Ruemmler.Yes. I had met Mr. Indyke once in person.
p. 69Mr. Biggs.Did you know he was Mr. Epstein's, for lack of a better term, maybe his criminal defense attorney or someone that Mr. Epstein had retained maybe even before the 2019 indictment?
p. 69Ms. Ruemmler.I understood Mr. Indyke to play a different role for Mr. Epstein. I understood that --
p. 69Mr. Biggs.A different role from what?
p. 69Ms. Ruemmler.I did not understand Mr. Indyke to be a criminal defense attorney.
p. 69Mr. Biggs.Okay.
p. 69Ms. Ruemmler.I understood him to be his in-house counsel who actually worked more on, like, business contracts and, you know, those types of things.
p. 70Mr. Biggs.So were you surprised that ostensibly, it sounds like, a commercial transaction attorney was putting together a defense team for Mr. Epstein?
p. 70Ms. Ruemmler.Well, I understood that he was his legal -- he was one of his legal advisors, but, unlike the other legal representatives, the other lawyers who he had, who, you know, had multiple other clients, my understanding is that Mr. Epstein was Mr. Indyke's only client.
p. 70Mr. Biggs.Would you say he was in-house?
p. 70Ms. Ruemmler.Right.
p. 70Mr. Biggs.Okay.
p. 70Ms. Ruemmler.That's the way I thought about it and understood it.
p. 70Mr. Biggs.Okay. And so you received a call, I believe, from Mr. Epstein informing you that he had been indicted on perhaps the day that he was -- that the indictment was announced?
p. 70Ms. Ruemmler.He -- not exactly. The sequence, as I remember it, is that he called me to tell me that he'd been arrested.
p. 70Mr. Biggs.Okay.
p. 70Ms. Ruemmler.But the indictment was -- which would have been -- just mechanically, what happens in general practice -- I'm not talking about in specifics, but from my experience as a prosecutor -- an indictment is returned from the grand jury to a court, and then an arrest warrant is issued. So that's what I assumed had happened here. And then the indictment itself was unsealed and made public up on the arraignment date.
p. 70Mr. Biggs.So when did you hear from him that he had been arrested?
p. 70Ms. Ruemmler.On the day of his arrest. That was my -- that was my understanding, is that he had -- that he was arrested, and he called me and informed me that he had been arrested.
p. 70Mr. Biggs.And if I remember your testimony right, it was a short conversation. He informed you that he had been arrested, and you basically told him to call his lawyer.
p. 71Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 71Mr. Biggs.It seems -- were you interested at all in why he would've called you to tell you that he was arrested?
p. 71Ms. Ruemmler.It didn't surprise me, because, again, I knew him and I was, you know, a quite, you know, well-known defense attorney, and I think he thought I was a good lawyer. And I think -- so, in that regard, I guess I wasn't surprised. You know, if I had been a -- if I had been, like, a tax attorney and he called me, that would've been a bit more surprising, but, given the nature of my practice, it didn't really surprise me.
p. 71Mr. Biggs.But he didn't request that you provide any kind of counsel or advice at all? I know that when I practiced as a defense attorney almost everybody asked for a little bit of advice when they would call. And so --
p. 71Ms. Ruemmler.I'm very familiar with that.
p. 71Mr. Biggs.Yeah. So I'm kind of -- I was surprised when you testified and said, "Oh, he just said, 'Hey, I got arrested,'" and you said, "Call your attorney."
p. 71Ms. Ruemmler.Yeah.
p. 71Mr. Biggs.I'm curious to know what more might've been said, if anything.
p. 71Ms. Ruemmler.Again, to my recollection, it was a very short call, and he seemed to me to be in a state of shock. And, as I -- I was shocked. I was, you know, stunned and didn't understand, you know, what the guy could possibly have been arrested for, again, just, you know, based on my understanding. And so --
p. 71Mr. Biggs.So he didn't tell you what the allegation was or the charge was?
p. 71Ms. Ruemmler.I don't believe he did, and I'm not sure he knew at that time. I'm not sure how much he was told. Because, again, you know, the arrest would typically be executed by, you know, the agents, the FBI agents, and, in my experience, they don't really get in to great detail about, you know, what the indictment says or anything like that.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.Did he reveal whether he'd already talked to Mr. Indyke before he called you?
p. 72Ms. Ruemmler.I don't remember whether he did or not. In my mind, when I said, "You should call your lawyer," I was not thinking about Darren Indyke as the person he should call. I was thinking about his defense attorney.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.So he had a different defense attorney?
p. 72Ms. Ruemmler.He did.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.And who was that?
p. 72Ms. Ruemmler.Martin Weinberg.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.And so do you know if he had reached out to Martin Weinberg before he called you?
p. 72Ms. Ruemmler.I don't know.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.And I guess -- well, I'll just leave that alone. I just have one more are a. I wrote down just a few adjectives you used to describe Mr. Epstein earlier today. "Extremely arrogant." Did I get that right?
p. 72Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.Okay. "Avuncular" --
p. 72Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.-- which is not a term we usually hear around this table, but I thought that was interesting. And you said he was a -- I don't know if you used the term "inveterate," but you implied it -- "mansplainer."
p. 72Ms. Ruemmler.Yes. He was a mansplainer, indeed.
p. 72Mr. Biggs.Okay. Without asking you what a mansplainer is -- I'll leave that one alone -- it makes me wonder if you could -- and this is not a question that is unique to you. This is a question that has been asked to many of the witnesses who knew him or worked with him. Do you think that Mr. Epstein, the way you knew him, the way you've described him, is the kind of man who would've ended up killing himself?
p. 73Ms. Ruemmler.Ah. I believe he killed himself.
p. 73Mr. Biggs.So that's a "yes"?
p. 73Ms. Ruemmler.Yes, I believe he killed himself. I don't know that I can shed a lot of light on whether he's the type of person who would kill himself, but -- but I believe that he killed himself.
p. 73Mr. Biggs.So -- okay. So I'm not asking you for a psychological profile here. Just, you, then, were not surprised to hear that the avuncular Epstein had killed himself?
p. 73Ms. Ruemmler.I was very surprised that he --
p. 73Mr. Biggs.You were surprised?
p. 73Ms. Ruemmler.I was very surprised that he -- and I -- when I learned -- when I heard the news, one of the first thoughts that I had was, "How in the world would he know how to do that?" So, you know, that -- that -- that came to mind. And, of course, given, you know, my experience at the Justice Department -- and when I was the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General -- you know, people call it the "PADAG" -- when I was the PADAG, the Bureau of Prisons, you know, fell under the DAG, the Deputy Attorney General's office for supervision. And, you know, the primary responsibility of the Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is to keep the community safe and to keep the inmates safe. And, obviously, for someone at that time with Mr. Epstein's profile to have been in a situation where he could kill himself was a massive, massive failure at the Bureau of Prisons.
p. 73Mr. Biggs.Uh-huh. You haven't looked at any of the -- any report or anything like that, the postmortem or anything like that?
p. 73Ms. Ruemmler.I haven't, other than what I've read in terms of media coverage of those reports. But I haven't -- I haven't read the -- I believe the Inspector General did a report around the circumstances of Epstein's suicide, and I have not read that.
p. 74Mr. Biggs.Absolutely last question, because I want to make sure I get this right: Were you the first person he called the day he was arrested for these charges?
p. 74Ms. Ruemmler.I don't know.
p. 74Mr. Biggs.Okay. Thank you for letting me take time.
p. 74Mr. Grant.Yes, sir.
p. 74QJust to follow up on a couple things Mr. Biggs brought up, how did you hear the news that Mr. Epstein had killed himself?
p. 74AIt popped up on my phone in a New York Post -- you know how you get those pop-ups?
p. 74QSo it wasn't from an associate of his or someone in his orbit?
p. 74ANo, I don't believe so. I learned it through the media.
p. 74QDid you discuss it with -- his death with anyone in his orbit or any of his associates?
p. 74AWell, in his orbit, I at so me point discussed it with his lawyer and --
p. 74QAnd that lawyer being Mr. --
p. 74AMr. Weinberg. And I certainly would've discussed it with -- I discussed it with Mr. Karp, because, you know, Mr. Karp also knew Mr. Epstein. I discussed it with the client that Epstein and I shared, Ms. de Rothschild.
p. 74QAnd --
p. 74ASo those are the ones I remember. I very well may have discussed it --
p. 74Mr. Biggs.Could I ask a -- there was a question I wanted to ask you with regard to Ariana (sic), I believe --
p. 75Ms. Ruemmler.Ariane. Yes.
p. 75Mr. Biggs.-- Ariane de Rothschild. And what was the extent of that relationship between Mr. Epstein and Ms. de Rothschild?
p. 75Ms. Ruemmler.It was a business relationship, as far as I observed. He was, you know, an advisor to her.
p. 75Mr. Biggs.Was he managing her money?
p. 75Ms. Ruemmler.I don't know. I don't -- not to my knowledge, but I wouldn't have any information about that one way or the other.
p. 75Mr. Biggs.Thank you.
p. 75Mr. Grant.And to follow up on a previous point, you said that you discussed the news of Mr. Epstein's death with his attorney, Ms. de Rothschild, and Mr. Karp. By "discussed it" with them, what do you me an by that? What was the discussion?
p. 75Ms. Ruemmler.Oh, gosh. Just an expression of shock -- of shock. And all of these events -- the arrest, the indictment, the suicide -- were all quite shocking to me. And, again, this is someone who I knew and I had dealt with, and so it was quite surreal, to be -- you know. And, again, the media coverage around Epstein's indictment in 2019 was very extensive, and the idea that the Bureau of Prisons, you know, could have been so negligent in a core duty to have allowed him to commit suicide was shocking and appalling to me.
p. 75Mr. Biggs.I have to go vote.
p. 75Mr. Fishman.Good luck with that.
p. 75Ms. Ruemmler.Thank you, Congressman.
p. 75Mr. Biggs.Yes. Thanks.
p. 75QMs. Ruemmler, to ensure the record is clear, I want to pivot briefly to a topic that we discussed during the previous hour. I believe you were asked about clients that Epstein referred to you. Is that right?
p. 76AYes.
p. 76QAnd there was an individual client that you did not want to provide the name for, correct?
p. 76AI -- that is a consideration just for my ethical, you know, obligations. And given that it has nothing to do with anything, I think, that you are interested in, I just didn't feel like it was appropriate to say the person's name.
p. 76QAnd you answered my next question. To be clear, this individual has nothing to do with this Committee's investigation in to sexual misconduct and trafficking conducted by Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell?
p. 76AThat's correct. This is an accounting -- this is an accounting fraud case that had nothing to do with Mr. Epstein whatsoever.
p. 76QHas the individual been identified as a person of interest by this Committee or the Epstein Files Transparency Act?
p. 76ANo.
p. 76QI want to turn gears a little bit. I know that you've mentioned the gifts you received in your opening statement today, and I know in previous hours it's loosely been brought up, but just to make sure that we have a clear record, an accounting of the gifts, I'm going to go through a lot of them. Starting with my first question being, did Mr. Epstein give you gifts over the course of your relationship?
p. 76AYes, he did.
p. 76QAnd what was the -- when did you receive your first gift from Mr. Epstein --
p. 76AOh, gosh.
p. 77Q-- roughly?
p. 77AI believe -- I believe it was when I was flying to Geneva for my first meeting with the Rothschild Bank and he, really without my knowledge, you know, upgraded my flight. I learned that I had been upgraded, you know, when I went to the -- when I went to board the flight, they gave me a different boarding pass.
p. 77QAnd this was an upgrade to first class?
p. 77AIt was from business to first class, yes.
p. 77QAnd what would you say is the biggest, most lavish, most expensive gift that Mr. Epstein provided to you?
p. 77AThe most lavish gift that he tried to give me I did not accept, and that was a -- I guess it's called a "jet card," but it's essentially, if you can imagine, like, if you give someone, like, a Starbucks card, this is a card that you can use to charter a plane. And it was -- the face value of it -- I me an, there wasn't, like, a physical card, but it was like, "Oh, I'm giving you this jet card" -- the face value of it was $50,000. I thought it was excessive, and I don't charter private planes, and it was not anything that I was ever going to do for my -- you know, buy for myself, and I just declined it.
p. 77QAnd do you know when he would've tried to provide you this jet card?
p. 77AYes. This was for my -- it was ostensibly a birthday gift for my birthday in April of 2019.
p. 77QThank you for that. So, over the course of this Committee's investigation, we've identified numerous other gifts. I will stipulate to you that I am using the term "gifts" pretty broadly.
p. 77AOkay.
p. 77QSo the first one I would like to talk about is Mr. Epstein providing you flowers. On how many occasions in total did Mr. Epstein either personally or through his employees or agents provide you flowers, to your best recollection?
p. 78ATo my best recollection, it was only once, but it's possible that it was other times. But I -- my memory is that he sent me flowers once when I was sick, along with chicken so up, which is ironic because I don't eat chicken, and so, you know, the chicken so up didn't get eaten.
p. 78QAnd did Mr. Epstein ever pay for your facials at a Bliss SoHo?
p. 78ANot that I remember, but it's certainly possible.
p. 78QDid Mr. Epstein provide or pay for a massage for yourself at the Mandarin Oriental? This would've been -- both of these would've been for Valentine's Day, around Valentine's Day in 2016.
p. 78AI don't -- my memory was that the spa-day gift was actually a holiday gift, so it was more of a Christmas gift that didn't get used or whatever. And my memory was, it was actually the Peninsula Spa, not the Mandarin, but, again, it was 10 years ago, so I'm not exactly sure.
p. 78QDid Mr. Epstein ever pay for a hair blowout or haircut at Fekkai Salon for you on or around Valentine's Day in 2016?
p. 78AI recall that he paid, or insisted on paying, for a haircut or blowout for both me and our shared client, Ariane de Rothschild. It probably was on that occasion.
p. 78QDid you find it strange or unusual you were getting gifts on or around Valentine's Day from Mr. Epstein?
p. 78AAgain, I don't believe these were Valentine's gifts.
p. 78QI'll -- we can go through the rigmarole of putting more documents in front of you, but I will stipulate to you that the email that I'm referring to is from February 12th, 2016.
p. 78AOkay. Isn't Valentine's Day on February 14th?
p. 78QYes.
p. 78AOkay.
p. 78QThat's why I said "on or around Valentine's Day."
p. 78AYeah. I me an, I don't remember it being a thing, that he would, like, send me Valentine's gifts. He definitely would send me a gift on my birthday. And he was -- you know, he was a pretty prolific gift-giver.
p. 79QAnd sticking specifically to the Fekkai Salon, on how many occasions did you get your hair done, cut, blowdried, et cetera, at Fekkai Salon?
p. 79AGosh. The typical cadence for a woman's haircuts is, like, once every, like, 10 weeks or so. So, you know -- but the Fekkai Salon closed at so me point. I don't remember exactly when, but many years ago it closed. And the building that it was in, the Henri Bendel building in New York City, the whole -- got hit with the retail-sector turndown, and the whole building shut down. So I couldn't tell you. But what I can tell you is that I paid for the vast majority of my haircuts and continue to as an adult woman. I'm --
p. 79QUnderstood.
p. 79A-- pretty capable of paying for my own hair.
p. 79QAre you aware of how many times Mr. Epstein would've paid for your hair services at Fekkai Salon?
p. 79AI have no idea, but it was probably on, you know, one or two occasions.
p. 79QDuring these occasions, were the services provided by Frederic Fekkai himself or other associates at the salon?
p. 79AOh, other associates. I don't know who -- you know, Frederic Fekkai is, like, a franchise, and there were multiple Frederic Fekkai Salons in New York City and, I think, elsewhere, actually. Like, so, you know, it's like Vidal Sassoon. And so I've never met Frederic Fekkai, or I wouldn't recognize him if I -- if he walked in here.
p. 79QSo, to be clear, you've never been introduced to Frederic Fekkai by Mr. Epstein or anyone else?
p. 80ANo.
p. 80QAre you aware of Mr. Epstein trying to provide you a massage at Urban Detox in New York in March of 2016?
p. 80AThat does not ring any bells to me.
p. 80QAre you aware of Mr. Epstein paying for a spa day at the Four Seasons in D.C. for you? And this also would've been -- this would've been in August of 2016.
p. 80AI do remember that, yes.
p. 80QAnd what exactly did you get done at the Four Seasons?
p. 80ASo I believe I have this timeframe right. That was either before or after I had -- I was either about to start or it was after I had finished a big trial. And trials are stressful things. And so he was, you know, again, being nice by saying, "You should go and get a massage; you seem stressed out," which I'm sure I was.
p. 80QAnd did Mr. Epstein, in fact, pay for that massage at the Four Seasons?
p. 80AI believe that he had his assistant, you know, call and say, you know, "Please book" -- she either made the appointment for me or I made the appointment and she called and said it should be, you know, paid for on this credit card.
p. 80QAnd are you aware on how many occasions in total Mr. Epstein paid for massages for you?
p. 80AI don't know, but it would've been -- you've probably just identified the two occasions in which he gave me as gifts a visit to a spa: the one occasion at the Four Seasons and one occasion -- I thought it was the Peninsula, but maybe it was the Mandarin Oriental. I don't remember.
p. 80QSeeing as the nature of the gifts we've covered so far -- flowers, spa appointments, and massages -- did you ever interpret these gifts to be a romantic gesture or flirtatious gesture from Mr. Epstein?
p. 81ANo, I did not interpret it that way at all.
p. 81QHow did you interpret it?
p. 81AWell, again, the haircuts -- you know, the haircut was something that he insisted on, you know, doing for both me and our shared client. And I thought that -- he was obviously an extremely wealthy person, and it was his way of -- it seemed to me to be his way of maintaining relationships with people. And by that, I me an, you know, professional relationships. And, in business, particularly in professional services, one thing that happens all the time -- but not for me, because I don't golf -- but that, you know, business colleagues or clients or other associates will invite people to play golf at their private country club. And there are guest fees, and those guest fees can run, you know, up to a thousand dollars. I didn't golf. You know, I don't, like, really go to, like, the Knicks games. And so I think I interpreted it as, you know, I'm a female professional, and I had a quite stressful job, and I was traveling all the time, and so, you know, what's a thing that you give to a female professional? You give her a day at the -- half-day at the spa. That's how I interpreted it.
p. 81QSo they didn't strike you as odd or concerning?
p. 81ANo.
p. 81QOkay.
p. 81QAnd are you aware of Mr. Epstein paying for the Glamsquad to come to your New York apartment for hair and makeup?
p. 81AI have a vague recollection of something like that, but it didn't -- I don't believe it ever happened. I know that the Glamsquad is basically -- it's sort of like Taskrabbit, where you can -- you know, it's like -- I think there's, like, an app, and you can call and have them, like, come to your house and do your makeup. But I've only had my makeup done once, and I remember it because I thought it just looked so weird. And it was actually before a state dinner.
p. 82QYou've mentioned the one first-class trip that Mr. Epstein provided to you, going to Geneva. Were there any other trips in which Mr. Epstein either paid for an upgrade to first class, outright booked you a first-class ticket, or bought you a train ticket?
p. 82AThere may have been one other occasion in which I was traveling to Geneva that he asked his executive assistant to -- again, that's where the Rothschild Bank was -- that he asked his assistant to book for me. And, you know, I said -- and I said, "You really don't need to do that." I think -- I think, if I'm remembering this right, on one occasion, I was going to travel to Geneva around the Christmas holiday, and he asked his assistant to book a flight for me, which I thought was -- I thought it was quite rude to ask his assistant to book a flight for me. He was, you know, asking her on Christmas Day, and I felt -- I felt quite apologetic to her that he was asking her to do this, which I didn't need him to do. I was very capable of buying my own plane ticket and making my own flight reservation.
p. 82QAnd did Mr. Epstein ever set up any dentist or doctor appointments on your behalf?
p. 82AHe recommended a dentist to me in New York and also a -- I think you call it -- I think the word is "endodontist." I had to get a root canal.
p. 82QI'm sorry.
p. 82AAnd so I -- and it was -- I was, like, crazy enough to get a root canal in a wisdom tooth, which I would not recommend that anyone ever do. But he knew -- you know, I was kind of new to New York, because I had spent my whole career in Washington, and he knew tons of people. And so he recommended this guy to do a root canal and then, you know, also a dentist. In addition, he had a friend who was an oncologist, and I met her on, you know, one occasion at the townhouse. And she was talking about her work, which was very focused in particular on breast cancer. And so he was introducing us, and she was -- you know, he was saying, she's done all this great work on breast cancer, et cetera, et cetera. And she went in to a -- to tell so me stories about how important early detection is for breast cancer and how it just sort of makes all the difference in the world. And, in the context of that conversation, I made the comment that I had never had a mammogram. Again, I've, you know, been working pretty hard in government, and, as you all know, working in government, you oftentimes, like, fail to do things like go to the dentist and fail to do things like these basic things. And so, when I said that, that I'd never had a mammogram -- at that time, you know, I was in my mid-40s -- there was kind of, like, shock and horror expressed. And, you know, both Epstein, you know, and his friend who was the oncologist both insisted that I immediately make an appointment at her breast cancer clinic to get a mammogram.
p. 83QAnd who was this oncologist?
p. 83AEva Dubin.
p. 83QAnd did Mr. Epstein pay for any of these appointments -- or visits, rather?
p. 83ANo. I don't believe -- they were all covered by insurance, as I recall.
p. 83QDid Mr. Epstein ever give you an Apple TV or other Apple products?
p. 83AHe gave me an Apple Watch. I don't -- I don't think Apple has a TV. I don't think so. He did give me an Apple Watch.
p. 83QNot any of the Apple TV device boxes that you can stream other apps off of?
p. 83AOh, those little black boxes?
p. 83QYes.
p. 83AI certainly -- I don't re- -- I don't remember that. It's possible. But he did give me an Apple Watch as a Christmas gift.
p. 83QAnd that was an Apple Watch with the Hermes band; is that correct?
p. 83AYes.
p. 84QAnd did Mr. Epstein provide you with a Fendi coat and bag?
p. 84AYes.
p. 84QAnd do you remember roughly when you would've received those?
p. 84AI don't.
p. 84QDid it strike you as odd to receive a coat and bag from Mr. Epstein?
p. 84ANot really. I me an, he -- as I said, he -- you know, he typically would send -- as a birthday gift, he would send -- to me, at least, it was a handbag. And, you know, I assumed that he, you know, had his executive assistant basically go to the handbag closet that he had in his house. It just -- it seemed like a very, you know -- not a particularly personalized gift. You know, I think for women, you know, leather goods, you know, handbags or wallets or, you know, scarves are a very, kind of, you know, common -- you know, common gift.
p. 84QSo you were not part of the decision-making process in selecting these bags or coats; they were just randomly gifted to you?
p. 84AIn most every instance, the answer to that is yes. I believe that he -- that Fendi bag that you just mentioned, I believe that he sent me an online picture of it or, you know -- you know, "Do you like this bag?" you know, kind of thing. But the other ones, no. The other ones just came as they were.
p. 84QAnd either probably him or his assistant had picked them out for you?
p. 84AI certainly could not have imagined that he was picking out these himself.
p. 84QOkay. So he wasn't trying to style you with certain pieces in any way?
p. 84ANo, no. I certainly didn't have that impression.
p. 84QAnd the last main gift I'll bring up is the Hermes bag. I believe this was approximately a $10,000 bag. Did you receive that gift from Mr. Epstein?
p. 85AI did.
p. 85QAnd did you -- similar to the question just asked, were you involved in picking out that gift at all?
p. 85ANo, not that I remember. I do remember the circumstances of that gift, however. And --
p. 85QAnd what were those?
p. 85A-- the circumstances were that -- I had mentioned earlier that, in 2016, I had done a trial that was -- where the damages -- it was in Federal court in California, you know, in Orange County, so it was south of L.A., and the damages at stake were quite big. I don't remember exactly, but I believe it was -- the damages claim, at least, was, you know, several hundred million dollars. And I was representing a foreign bank. This was not the Rothschild Bank; it was a different bank. And the, you know, trial had so me publicity around it, and, you know, the publicity around it would have suggested that this would be a very difficult case to defend and that my client, which was a foreign bank -- it was actually a foreign Middle Eastern bank -- was not a very popular defendant in California. And I won the trial. And so -- and it was a complete defense verdict. And so there was so me media reporting in the legal press around, in particular, my performance. You know, I had given the closing argument in the case. And he sent that bag to me as a congratulations gift. And I received -- I received a lot of congratulatory gifts after winning that trial from other clients and, you know, associates. [1:37 p. m.]
p. 86QSo, in short, this gift also did not strike you as being odd in any way?
p. 86ANo.
p. 86QAnd one of the --
p. 86AI me an, it was -- it was a -- it was -- it didn't strike me as odd coming from him, given his wealth and given his general kind of -- you know, he would -- he was a -- he was kind of an over-the-top guy, if you know what I me an. And so, you know, where as I might have gotten a bottle of really nice champagne, you know, from another client, you know, this guy, you know, sends an Hermes bag. That was kind of his -- that was kind of his, you know, thing.
p. 86QAnd one of the main points of the committee's investigation is how Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell surrounded themselves with influential people, whether that be other billionaires, people in government, people in universities and well known. Did you ever get the impression that due to what your past was, working in the White House Counsel's Office, being a very prominent attorney first in D.C. and then in New York, that Mr. Epstein was trying to provide you these gifts to keep you in his circle and your connections in his circle?
p. 86AI did not believe that at the time. And the reason why I didn't -- not only didn't believe it, it didn't even cross my mind. And the reason is that, you know, when you leave -- when you leave government service, which, you know, so me of you may do at so me point in time, you start over and your, you know -- yes, I had been a White House counsel, but guess what? That was yesterday, and here's today. And so I had to build a practice. I had to -- I had to perform well and I had to do the work. And I was a lawyer in private practice, and I didn't -- I didn't have any ability to, you know, do anything special for him, and I didn't -- I wasn't -- I was never asked by him to do -- you know, I wasn't asked to, you know, call somebody in government or anything like that. And so, you know, in my mind, this was a guy who liked to give people gifts. In my mind, they were inconsequential to me. In the private practice of law, but also just in professional services generally, people are giving each other gifts all the time. As I noted, it's either, you know, tickets to Knicks games. Tickets to the U.S. Open was a big thing. You know, it's a big thing in New York. You know, trips on private planes. You know, rounds of golf, flowers, wine, champagne. You know, all those kinds of things. It's very common. And while, you know, he may have been a little bit extra, it didn't seem extra to me in terms of the significance to him in light of his -- you know, his wealth. And they just were inconsequential to me. And at the time, you know, I was lucky enough to have been -- had so me success in my career and, you know, I was very lucky to be well-compensated. And there's nothing that he ever gave me that I could not have easily paid for myself. And as I said, the one thing that he tried to give me that I just thought was like just too over the top, I said it's just too over the top. I appreciate the gesture, but no thank you.
p. 87QThank you for that. Did Mr. Epstein ever provide you any cash gifts?
p. 87ANo.
p. 87QDid Mr. Epstein ever wire you any money?
p. 87ANo.
p. 87QDid he ever provide you with any checks?
p. 87AI don't believe so, no.
p. 87QDid he provide you with any gift cards?
p. 87AYes, he did. Well, he tried, you know, that jet card. It's not a card, but that's what they call it, I guess. But, yes, he gave me Bergdorf Goodman, you know, which is a department store in New York, gift cards at so me point.
p. 87QAnd do you recall the value of those gift cards?
p. 87AI don't specifically, but what I -- what I recall about the context is that he -- this notion of me having a burdensome travel schedule was a constant topic that was raised, right? And a lot of it -- a lot of it, I was traveling to Geneva a lot during that period of time, but I was traveling all over the world. And he thought that I was cheap in traveling, you know, in economy or, you know, in business class when first class was available. And, you know, that was one of his unsolicited comments. And so at so me point he said, I'm going to transfer -- I don't know whether he said it to me or he said it to somebody on his staff, but he said, I'm going to transfer American Express points to her so that she can use it to travel better, to travel in a way that, you know, I think people should travel. And so there was so me effort, you know, to do that. And apparently, I don't know, I guess they couldn't do it or something. And so in lieu of that, he sent me these -- I guess converted those point -- those American Express points in to Bergdorf Goodman gift cards, and he gave them to me, and I -- they were sent to my office. And it wasn't just one. I remember it was multiples. And I think, you know, maybe each one was worth like $1,000 or $500. And I shared them with a number of assistants at the law firm.
p. 88QThe Amex points were actually my next question, so thank you for answering that also.
p. 88Mr. Fishman.She saw your notes.
p. 88QDid Mr. Epstein give you access to any other perks offered by his American Express Black Card, such as lounges, airport lounges, the Amex Centurion concierge service, or anything of that nature?
p. 88ANo.
p. 88QWere you ever under any healthcare plan of Mr. Epstein?
p. 88ANo.
p. 88QAnd I know you mentioned denying the private jet card as a gift from Mr. Epstein. Do you recall any other gifts you denied from Mr. Epstein?
p. 88AHe offered to fly me on his plane to Paris when I had -- I had to go to Geneva to present to the board of the bank, and he offered to fly me to Paris on his plane, and then I could, from there, go on to Geneva. And I declined that invitation, slash, you know, gift.
p. 89QDid you ever receive any loans from Mr. Epstein?
p. 89ANo.
p. 89QDid you ever request a loan from Mr. Epstein?
p. 89ANo.
p. 89QDid you ever have any loans forgiven by Mr. Epstein, whether they be other outside loans that he was willing to pay off for you?
p. 89ANo, I did not.
p. 89QDid Mr. Epstein ever provide you with any ownership or voting rights in any entity of his?
p. 89ANo.
p. 89QDid Mr. Epstein ever provide you with any real estate?
p. 89ANo.
p. 89QDid Mr. Epstein assist you with either home hunting or apartment hunting?
p. 89AHe came to -- I was looking for an apartment in New York, and I was going to see the apartment with my broker. And he called me and said -- when he called you, what he would say when he'd call -- I'd say hello, and he would say, "What's doing?" That was his -- that was his "hey, what's up?" He would say, "What's doing?" Like, what are you doing? And so I said, "I'm going to look at an apartment." And he goes, "Oh, do you want me to come look at it?" I said sure. I never purchased real estate in New York before. And so he came and looked at an apartment that I was looking at and expressed his unsolicited opinion that it was not an apartment that I should buy.
p. 89QDid Mr. Epstein ever ask you for any personal favors of any kind?
p. 89AHe asked -- the only thing that I can recall him asking me was to -- he asked me for, you know, referrals for lawyers. I didn't really view that as a personal favor. But he asked whether I could help to arrange for a White House tour for one of his friends.
p. 90QThat is actually my next question also. Who is the friend that you set up a White House tour for?
p. 90AIt was Mr. Woody Allen and his wife.
p. 90QAnd did you have to use your contacts in the White House to set up that tour?
p. 90AI had a number of contacts in the White House, and so I asked one of them whether they would arrange a tour for Mr. Allen and his wife, yeah.
p. 90QHad you met Woody Allen prior to setting up that tour for him?
p. 90AI had, yes.
p. 90QAnd were you aware of Mr. Allen's legal history when making these arrangements?
p. 90AHis legal history?
p. 90QSpecifically, his widely publicized sexual abuse allegations?
p. 90AI was aware of, you know, public reporting that had occurred I believe in the -- I don't know whether it was the '90s or the 2000s, but I was aware that there, you know, had been controversy around Mr. Allen, sure.
p. 90QDid that controversy ever cause concern to you at all?
p. 90AWell, I me an, he was one of the, you know, iconic comedic directors. I certainly had watched many of his films. One of my favorite films to this day is Annie Hall. My favorite actress is Diane Keaton. I knew that, you know, Diane Keaton had given a really -- you know, she had at so me point in time given a very, you know, heartfelt tribute to Mr. Allen. And I was very happy to help arrange a White House tour, which I had done for hundreds of people over the years, for him and his wife just to, you know, to see the White House.
p. 90Ms. Tolan.Just jumping back for a moment. Why did you say you denied the offer from Mr. Epstein to take the trip on his private aircraft?
p. 90Ms. Ruemmler.Because I didn't want to sit on a plane and talk to him for 8 hours. I wanted to go on the plane, put my mask on, my sleeping mask, and, you know, go straight to Geneva and try to get -- and to get so me sleep on the overnight flight. It was as simple as that.
p. 91QDid Mr. Epstein attempt to compensate you for setting up that White House tour for Mr. Allen?
p. 91ANo. And he just asked if -- he knew that Mr. Allen and his wife were going to be in Washington and, you know, was it possible for them to get a White House tour.
p. 91QDid Mr. Epstein ever personally himself ask you to gain access to the White House in any way, whether for a tour or for meetings or anything of that nature?
p. 91ANo.
p. 91QAnd this was touched on briefly in previous hours, but were you ever formally retained as a lawyer for Mr. Epstein?
p. 91ANo, I was not.
p. 91QNever signed any legally binding agreement to provide legal services?
p. 91ANo, I did not.
p. 91QJust to follow up on the gifts. Are you aware of Epstein giving anyone else similar gifts that you received?
p. 91AI knew that he had given gifts to our shared client. Again, what I would -- haircut, you know, handbag, sweater, you know, those kinds of things.
p. 91QDid anyone ever express being uncomfortable with the gifts that they were receiving from Mr. Epstein?
p. 91AI never heard any expression of any discomfort.
p. 91QAnd you referenced previously that it was common that you'd receive gifts. You specifically mentioned trials. Is that right?
p. 92AIt's common to receive gifts in the professional services world. Yes. And so I received many gifts from many clients and other associates, you know, professional associates during my years in private practice, as did my partners.
p. 92QApproximately how many gifts would you have received from professional acquaintances or clients worth more than $5,000?
p. 92AI don't know that I can quantify it and I don't know that I can specifically, you know, tell you about specific value. You know, there are certain, let's say, you know, concerts or something that you might get invited to where the face value of the ticket typically -- you would get -- you know, you might get invited to a box, right? And the face value of the ticket could be many thousands of dollars. I recall, you know, receiving a Chanel necklace from a daughter of a client that actually I -- I viewed as very personal because it was something that I knew she had personally taken the time to find something that she really believed was like, you know, consistent with my style and that I would appreciate. I don't know the value of it.
p. 92QAnd I believe I asked you if others around you were uncomfortable with gifts. But for the record, were you ever uncomfortable with gifts that you were receiving from Mr. Epstein?
p. 92AThe only gift that I was uncomfortable about receiving because I thought it was excessive was that jet card. But the other ones, no.
p. 92Mr. Grant.That will wrap up our second hour. We will go off the record. [Discussion off the record.] Mr. . We'll go back on the record.
p. 92Ms. Ruemmler.Okay. BY MR. :
p. 92QSo, Ms. Ruemmler, you did mention this 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 bit more about how you helped Mr. Epstein with his legal issues?
p. 93AI was not his lawyer.
p. 93QRight.
p. 93ABut as the distinguished Congressman who was here earlier said -- you know, he said, when I was a defense lawyer, everyone -- every time someone called me, they asked me for advice. That is 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 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 that I understood that a couple of victims had brought against the Justice Department, which colloquially I will just refer to as the CVRA litigation, the Crime Victims' Rights Act litigation.
p. 93QGot it. And then as time went on, there was more litigation. He faced an increasing amount of litigation, or not?
p. 93AI don't -- I don't recall -- I don't really remember other litigation he was involved in. And he wasn't a party --
p. 93QUh-huh.
p. 93A-- to this CVRA case. It obviously involved his nonprosecution 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 that -- I was actually familiar with the legal issue. The legal issue, as I understood it, that was before the court there was the Crime Victims' Rights Act, among other things, requires prosecutors to provide notice to victims of crimes. And the question is in a decision not to prosecute, which is what a nonprosecution 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 right 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 only attached or kicked in when a charging decision -- when someone had been charged.
p. 94QAs you learned about the facts of the case, did that cause you to reevaluate your understanding of the circumstances of his nonprosecution agreement?
p. 94AI didn't -- I don't remember there being many facts in the case in the sense -- I just -- I remember that that was the legal issue.
p. 94QSo --
p. 94AAnd that was the 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 obligations under the CVRA? And then, second, if they hadn't, what was the --
p. 94QThe remedy.
p. 94A-- remedy?
p. 94QWhat was the remedy.
p. 94ACorrect.
p. 94QRight. Right.
p. 94ABut 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.
p. 94QWell, one set of facts was whether the CVRA, remedy aside, had been violated at all, right?
p. 94AThat's right.
p. 95QAnd that would be because the plaintiffs or potentially other survivors or victims had not been afforded their rights under the CVRA? Is that right?
p. 95AMy recollection of the Justice Department's position in that litigation was that they had complied. I should say "it" as opposed to "they" -- but that the prosecutors had complied because there was not -- they made a -- the decision was not to 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.
p. 95QThe plaintiffs were Jane Does, the people who were survivors, who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, were they not?
p. 95AMy under- -- yes. My understanding is that they were -- they were people who said, you know, We believe that we're victims of this conduct, and the Justice Department owed us certain notifications, and we didn't get them.
p. 95QDid you believe they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
p. 95AI certainly didn't have any reason to doubt that. There clearly were -- there clearly were victims of Mr. Epstein's conduct in -- that was resolved with the nonprosecution agreement. And the legal question -- what I understood to be the reason that the prosecutors chose not to prosecute him federally was that they did not have sufficient evidence that he knew that anyone was, in fact, underage. That doesn't me an that they weren't.
p. 95QBut that means --
p. 95AI --
p. 95QIt doesn't me an that 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?
p. 95AIn one count, there were no underage victims at all. That was a solicitation of prostitution count. And again, in a law enforcement, slash, prosecutor state of mind, the crime of prostitution has two participants.
p. 96QAnd you've already -- we've already discussed --
p. 96AWent through that.
p. 96Q-- at times you reminded Mr. Epstein that if she is a minor, then that is not legally prostitution. Is that --
p. 96AA minor can not consent --
p. 96QRight. Right.
p. 96A-- 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 differently.
p. 96QSo I think --
p. 96AWithout opining as to whether that's a good policy or whatever --
p. 96QRight. Right. Right.
p. 96A-- that's what the law does.
p. 96QI think you understand what I'm asking here, is that working on this CVRA case, you became aware of a number of plaintiffs --
p. 96Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry. She didn't testify she was working on the CVRA case. Mr. . Sorry. You're right. We will get to that. BY MR. :
p. 96QIn becoming familiar with the 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 were additional victims, whether or not he was charged or pled guilty to his offenses against them. And you were aware of that, right?
p. 96AWhat I was aware of with respect to the CVRA litigation is that there were -- and again, that's -- this was -- this was public litigation. -- that there were two plaintiffs who were identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. And at so me subsequent point, there was a motion filed by the lawyers who were representing those two Jane Doe victims who said that their rights had been violated by the Justice Department. And the motion was seeking to add two additional Jane Doe plaintiffs. And I came to learn through public media reporting the name of the third Jane Doe plaintiff. That's what I knew.
p. 97QDo you recall if Mr. Epstein ever filed any motions in the CVRA case at all?
p. 97AI don't remember specifically whether anything was filed. I know that -- I have a vague recollection that there was -- that there was so me -- well, I shouldn't say. I don't remember. I don't remember. I knew that he wasn't a party to it.
p. 97QWhat kind of work did you do or advice did you provide to Mr. Epstein regarding that CVRA case?
p. 97AWhen -- again, I wasn't his lawyer. He had a lawyer.
p. 97QAnd just to be clear on that --
p. 97AYeah.
p. 97Q-- you never represented him?
p. 97AI did not represent him --
p. 97QYou were never his lawyer?
p. 97AI was not his lawyer.
p. 97QWhen you gave him advice, you were never giving him advice in a legal capacity?
p. 97AThat's not what I said.
p. 97QI'm asking -- that is what I'm asking you.
p. 97AHe asked my -- he asked my opinion or my views on a number of occasions. Those views typically -- he asked me -- let me 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.
p. 98QWould you ever perform a similar role to his lawyers directly?
p. 98ASure, if asked. I me an, that's one of the --
p. 98QWere you asked?
p. 98AI don't -- not that I -- sitting here today, I don't have any specific recollection of anything. But, you know, would be very -- you know, one of the -- 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 there were so me, you know, so me allegations that had been made in this filing that were quite -- you know, that were quite media -- got the media going.
p. 98QHow did you react to those allegations?
p. 98AWell, I don't know that I -- I me an, I remember that there were allegations that I found to be -- that I thought seemed implausible. That's not the right -- I was skeptical of so me 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 -- unlikely to -- or didn't have a lot of indicia of credibility, I would say.
p. 98QWere you skeptical that whether the person whose story those allegations drew from was herself a victim of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell?
p. 98AI didn't reach a conclusion about that, but I certainly had no reason to disbelieve that.
p. 98QDid you ever inquire whether she was or wasn't a victim?
p. 99AInquire of whom?
p. 99QWell, that's a very good question. Did you ever ask Mr. Epstein?
p. 99AI don't believe I ever asked him, but he told me --
p. 99QUh-huh.
p. 99A-- 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.
p. 99QDid you ever talk to his lawyers about that too?
p. 99AI don't -- I may have. I don't remember.
p. 99QSo you mentioned that litigation spun off --
p. 99AYes.
p. 99Q-- from that. Can you just describe what that litigation environment was like? What was happening? What does that me an, to have it spin off? And can you tell me what you were working on? How you worked on those sort of collateral --
p. 99AI wasn't --
p. 99Q-- litigation issues.
p. 99AI wasn't working on any of those things.
p. 99QWere you providing advice on them?
p. 99AAgain, 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 were, if you're him --
p. 99QThankfully, none of us are.
p. 99A-- if you were him, they were highly inflammatory allegations. And he responded to those allegations that were made in the court filing and then immediately reported on extensively in the media. His response was to respond in the media in a way that was disparaging of the affiant as well as the affiant's lawyers.
p. 100QUh-huh.
p. 100AIn turn, at least the lawyers -- I remember the lawyers -- in turn, the lawyers sued Mr. Dershowitz for defamation. So that is an example of the collateral litigation.
p. 100QAnd Mr. Epstein, would he ask for your advice regarding that collateral litigation?
p. 100AI remember he asked my opinion. On 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, that the more -- the more appropriate -- that the better legal course than going on TV and denying -- and making accusations, right, would be to go to the court and file a motion to strike the pleading and to say why you thought that the pleading should be struck.
p. 100QDid you ever talk with Mr. Epstein about whether your communications with him about his legal issues or related items were subject to so me kind of privilege?
p. 100AI don't recall having any conversations with him about that one way or the other.
p. 100QThe same with -- same question for his lawyers.
p. 100AWell, again, remember -- what I recall him asking me about were matters that were in the media and -- because, again, he was represented by counsel.
p. 100QRight.
p. 100ARight? And so his counsel, to the extent that there were issues relating to the CVRA, you know, that counsel was monitoring that 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 have worked on many, many matters that where the legal issues and the media issues are combined.
p. 100QThis was not an atypical fact pattern for you in that regard, is what you're saying.
p. 100AWell, there's nothing about this whole fact pattern that was typical.
p. 101QUh-huh.
p. 101ABut 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 happened to have spent a lot of my career working on cases that have a lot of media attention.
p. 101QYeah.
p. 101ASo it was, I think, pretty natural for him to, you know, ask my point of view on things. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit H was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 101QI'd like to -- there's an email I'd like to discuss with you. We'll enter it as exhibit H. It is an email -- a November 16th, 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.
p. 101AOkay.
p. 101QSo this is an email where you forwarded Mr. Epstein the biography for Gregory Poe --
p. 101AYes.
p. 101Q-- who -- criminal defense attorney, Poe & Burton.
p. 101AYes.
p. 101QAnd Mr. Epstein wrote, "We should move forward." You wrote that Poe will, quote -- quote, "will do it subject to my direction and conditions, and we don't have to deal with Latham BS, et cetera."
p. 101AYes.
p. 101QCan you explain to me what is going on in this email?
p. 101AHe had asked me for a referral, so that's what this is about. And, you know, so this is November of '14, so, you know, I had known Epstein for 4 months at that point. And again, you know, he was -- he had referred this client to me, and he was the -- who he was the primary advisor to. And he wanted -- without getting in to the substance, he wanted an analysis done that related to his historical case.
p. 102QHis historical case being?
p. 102ABeing 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 the -- at the inception, I was offering to be the legal translator, if you will, between the -- the analysis that Epstein wanted done and to translate that to the lawyer who he had retained to do it.
p. 102QSo when you said, "I'll get together with him this week," it was in that role as a legal translator, as you put it?
p. 102ACorrect. 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, about, you know, the case. These are sort of the kind of issues that he -- you know, that he wants to look at. And so I made -- that he wants looked at. And so I made that connection. And I understand that there was an attorney-client relationship that was thereafter established between, you know, Mr. Poe and Mr. Epstein.
p. 102QSo what did you me an when you wrote "He will do it subject to my," quote, "direction and conditions"?
p. 102AI don't recall specifically. But again, that's just me saying I'll tell him what to do. I will tell him what analysis you want done.
p. 102QIn that -- as that translator at the inception?
p. 102AYes.
p. 102QOkay. And then the second part of that sentence is, "and then we don't have to deal with Latham BS, et cetera."
p. 102AYeah.
p. 103QLatham refers to Latham & Watkins, your law firm --
p. 103AYes.
p. 103Q-- presumably. What is the Latham BS that you didn't have to deal with?
p. 103ASo my recollection is he actually was like, Can Latham do this analysis?
p. 103QUh-huh.
p. 103AAnd I didn't -- I didn't want -- I didn't want Latham to be representing Jeffrey Epstein. And so rather than saying I don't want Latham to be representing you, and I don't want to -- I don't want to deal with this analysis, I don't want to do it -- remember, I have a client. So my -- that he referred to me. And it was -- 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 I don't want to -- 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. Okay. I'll refer a lawyer to you who can do this analysis for you. And then, you know, I'm characterizing it as "and 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." That was a more diplomatic way of saying that.
p. 103QDid you ever talk to Latham & Watkins about having Jeffrey Epstein as a client?
p. 103AIn 2014? No.
p. 103QLater?
p. 103ANot for me. I never wanted to represent -- I didn't represent him. I had a clear relationship with the Rothschild Bank. That was my client relationship. He had a separate relationship with that bank but was a primary advisor. And that's the legal representation that I wanted to do and I wanted to continue.
p. 103QIt sounds like your relationship with the bank, the shared client, that had begun at this point by November 16th --
p. 103AYes.
p. 103Q-- 2014?
p. 104AYes. It had begun in September of 2014.
p. 104QAnd that was through Latham?
p. 104AYes. The client was a client of Latham's, and I was the principal partner on the engagement.
p. 104QAnd so at this point, it's not like your law firm -- did anyone at your law firm say, "Ms. Ruemmler, do not have Jeffrey Epstein as the firm's client"?
p. 104ANo.
p. 104QAnd then --
p. 104AI made that -- I made the decision myself. I didn't need to talk to anybody at Latham about that.
p. 104QAt the time -- I believe still now -- there is a partner at Latham & Watkins who has their own separate involvement in Mr. Epstein's underlying Florida case. Person was at the Department of Justice and, I believe, reviewed so me portion of the nonprosecution agreement. We can, if we need to, in the next hour find so me 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, this Latham BS, "we don't have to deal with Latham BS," had nothing to do with that person's presence at the law firm --
p. 104ANo.
p. 104Q-- or how it might complicate representation?
p. 104AAbsolutely not.
p. 104QOkay. So let's move -- let's do another exhibit. This one is going to be exhibit I. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit I was marked for identification.] Mr. . While this exhibit is being passed out, can the members who have arrived please identify themselves?
p. 105Ms. Randall.Emily Randall, Washington State.
p. 105Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Raja Krishnamoorthi from Illinois.
p. 105Mr. Min.Dave Min, California 47. Mr. . This exhibit is Bates number EFTA01196604. It's a June 22nd, 2015, email from Darren Indyke to Mr. Epstein. So please take time to read it. You're not on this email. This email references invoices from Mr. Poe for approximately $50,000 in legal services he provided to Mr. Epstein, including, quote, "communicating with Kathy and Marty." Let me know when you've had a chance to review.
p. 105Ms. Cotton.Is this I? I just want to make sure I'm -- Mr. . I. This should be exhibit I. We'll go off the record for a second. [Discussion off the record.] Mr. . Let's go back on the record here. 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?
p. 105Ms. Cotton.Can we go off the record for one more second? Mr. . Can she answer the question, please?
p. 105Mr. Fishman.Well, the question is were you communicating with her about whatever case this is -- Mr. . Sure.
p. 105Mr. Fishman.-- is not a question, I think -- Mr. . So we can clarify.
p. 105Mr. Fishman.If you want to try a different -- BY MR. :
p. 106QSo what case was Greg Poe working on for Mr. Epstein? Or cases.
p. 106AI didn't -- my understanding was that Mr. Poe was engaged to do analysis.
p. 106QSo in the previous exhibit, that email about doing it at your direction and conditions, avoiding, quote, "Latham BS," that was about engaging Greg Poe to do analysis?
p. 106AThat was my -- that was my -- that's my recollection about why he was engaged.
p. 106QSo --
p. 106Ms. Cotton.Now can we go off the record before you ask another question? Mr. . Off the record. [Recess.] Mr. . Let's go back on the record.
p. 106Mr. Fishman.Okay. So this document appears to be labeled "privileged and confidential," and Ms. Ruemmler was not copied on this. And as a result, we have concerns about whether the questions you were going to ask her or the answers she might give might be subject to a privilege that she can't assert and she can't waive. Privilege belong 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. Mr. . I think we can do that.
p. 106Mr. Fishman.Okay. Mr. . I will also note for the record that this document 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.
p. 106Mr. Fishman.We -- Mr. . The other item to note here 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 is how this goes.
p. 107Mr. Fishman.We're trying to avoid that.
p. 107Ms. Cotton.And it's a lawyer who wrote "privileged and confidential," not Epstein, which puts our radars up. BY MR. :
p. 107QDid you talk with Gregory Poe at any point between that previous exhibit, the previous year when you met with him to set something up at your, quote, "direction and conditions," until -- regarding Jeffrey Epstein?
p. 107AI don't remember any specific conversations with Mr. Poe. Mr. Poe is someone who was known to me, who I had 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 so -- and again, someone who we worked with pretty frequently. When I say we, my partners and I at Latham & Watkins. Oftentimes we would have a 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's service. So I had a lot of communications with Mr. Poe. I don't have a specific recollection about talking to him on matters relating to Mr. Epstein other than making the initial -- you know, making the referral. It's possible I did. I just, sitting here today, don't remember.
p. 107QCan you say with confidence that aside from that meeting that's mentioned in the previous exhibit, you never talked with Mr. Poe about matters regarding Jeffrey Epstein?
p. 107ANo, I certainly can't say that I never spoke to him. But I just don't remember, you know, any specific occasions that I -- that I did.
p. 108QSometimes when we talk to people we can't remember specific communications, but we can generally remember the nature of an ongoing dialogue or periodic communications. So putting aside whether you remember any specific communications, were you communicating with Gregory Poe about anything regarding Jeffrey Epstein from that meeting that was referenced in the previous exhibit, say -- for now, let's say till June 2015, 6 months later?
p. 108AThis is 12 years ago. I very well may have. I just don't -- I just, sitting here today, don't -- nothing springs to mind.
p. 108QDid 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?
p. 108APutting aside any conversations with Mr. Poe, what 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 that question was yes, what was the remedy? On the second point, there had been the -- indulge me for a second. The use of nonprosecution and deferred prosecution agreements was still --
p. 108QI'll indulge you for a second.
p. 108AWell, I'm trying to explain --
p. 108QPlease.
p. 108AI just told you I didn't remember --
p. 108QI know.
p. 108A-- and you're asking me --
p. 108QI know.
p. 108A-- follow-up questions. The use of nonprosecution and deferred prosecution agreements was still at that point in time, you know, relatively uncommon, even with respect to corporate resolutions. Now we see that much more commonly. But it was, at that time, quite uncommon, quite uncommon to use a nonprosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement with respect to an individual prosecution. And there were questions about -- in the court system in this sort of 2015, 2016 timeframe, about whether or not courts could get behind a prosecutions -- a prosecutor's decision to resolve a criminal case either through a nonprosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement. And there was a sort of 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. [2:50 p. m.] BY MR. :
p. 110QIs this -- are you describing what Mr. Poe was originally working on?
p. 110ANo. I'm responding what was in my mind about the issues --
p. 110QDuring that period?
p. 110A-- during that period of time.
p. 110QWhat was Mr. Poe working on?
p. 110AAgain, I can't say specifically what he was working on. He was doing an analysis. And in my memory of my mind, the things that I was thinking about -- by the way --
p. 110QSorry. You can't say because there's a potential privilege issue or you can't say because you can't remember?
p. 110AI don't remember.
p. 110QOkay. Just checking.
p. 110AYes, 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.
p. 110QSo you could have been talking to Mr. Poe about those issues periodically?
p. 110AI 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's -- in the CVRA litigation, which he was not a party to, that were also -- there were issues in the courts in general.
p. 110QLet me stop. Can you say, tell me with confidence, that you never gave Mr. Poe any directions about whatever work he was doing for Mr. Epstein?
p. 110AI described 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.
p. 111QI think we will come back to this, but for now, you also mentioned the work you were doing for him, for Mr. Epstein, was more in the PR, in the media space. So I would like to turn to that at this point.
p. 111AJust to be clear, I wasn't doing work for Mr. Epstein.
p. 111QRemind me again how you characterize whatever it is you were doing for Mr. Epstein regarding PR and media.
p. 111AHe asked my views from time to time, as 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.
p. 111QBut earlier in this hour you wouldn't say whether whatever it is you were rendering him was in a legal capacity or personal capacity. So can you say it now?
p. 111ANo, I don't believe that's the question that you asked me.
p. 111QSo, well, let's ask it, then.
p. 111AI'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 and ask me about all sorts of questions that touch on the law.
p. 111QBut 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?
p. 111AI don't understand this distinction that you're trying to make. I'm a lawyer --
p. 111QYou were not Mr. Epstein's lawyer, you've said again and again and again.
p. 111ANo. I was a lawyer who he asked questions to.
p. 111QThat's right. You were a lawyer who he asked questions to.
p. 112AYes.
p. 112QWas 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 so me sort of retention agreement or you were paying him? What was it?
p. 112AI can't speak for what was in Mr. Epstein's mind. In my mind, I was responding to him in the way that I respond to people who ask me questions about media issues that touch on the law. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit J was marked for identification.] Mr. . All right. Let's enter minority exhibit J, Bates number EFTA01203719. It's an April 21st, 2015, email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein forwarded you an inquiry from ABC News regarding an interview with --
p. 112Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry. Do you want her to read the document first before you summarize it. Mr. . Sure.
p. 112Mr. Fishman.Okay. Mr. . So before we discuss this particular exhibit, we're going to have the members ask so me questions.
p. 112Ms. Ruemmler.Okay.
p. 112Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Okay. Thank you. Ms. Ruemmler, my first question is, did you say before that Leon Black -- or was Leon Black someone that was referred to you as a client by Mr. Epstein?
p. 112Ms. Ruemmler.Not Leon Black. It was, as I recall, there was a commercial dispute that Apollo --
p. 112Mr. Krishnamoorthi.So Apollo the firm?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.Apollo the firm, correct.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Okay. And how much in billings did Apollo accrue with Latham & Watkins at the time that you were at Latham & Watkins because of that referral?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.Oh, zero. We had a conflict, and so we were unable to do the case.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Were any other clients referred to Latham by Epstein?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Through you?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.Yes. There was another person who he referred to me that was an individual who had been indicted in California in connection with a corporate acquisition.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Was it just one other client that was referred to you by him?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.Well, of course, the Rothschild client was referred to me.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Okay.
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.Originally when he called me it was about a referral relating to this donor advised fund that he was working on with Mr. Gates.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Any others?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.Directly, not that I can remember sitting here.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.And how much in billings did those clients referred to you by Epstein accrue for Latham & Watkins?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.I don't remember the specific amount.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.I don't -- again, I don't remember the specific amount for the Rothschild representation. My best recollection is that it was the single-digit millions.
p. 113Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Okay. Did Epstein ever help you in attaining your position at Goldman in 2020?
p. 113Ms. Ruemmler.No, he did not.
p. 114Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Did he ever try to help you with landing any positions at any other firm, including Facebook, not limited to Facebook?
p. 114Ms. Ruemmler.He didn't -- not to my knowledge at the time. What Mr. Epstein -- Mr. Epstein had nothing to do at all with the outreach that I got from Facebook. I had known for many years the retiring general counsel, and he reached out to me. I made the mistake, I think, of mentioning it to Mr. Epstein, and then, as was his typical fashion, what I've now seen is that he wanted to make himself relevant. And so he would offer all sorts of suggestions about negotiations around any offer.
p. 114Mr. Krishnamoorthi.I understand.
p. 114Ms. Ruemmler.I didn't -- I didn't -- I didn't -- I ultimately didn't want an offer from Facebook, and I didn't receive one. So his musings about that were not relevant. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit K was marked for identification.]
p. 114Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Got it. Okay. I have an email here, it's EFTA R1 01333849 Bates stamp. If you can share that with the witness, please.
p. 114Mr. Fishman.How would you like this marked? Mr. . It's going to be exhibit K. Minority exhibit K.
p. 114Mr. Krishnamoorthi.And this is, as you can tell, this is an email that was originally from Cheryl Gould to you, which you then forwarded to Mr. Epstein later on.
p. 114Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 114Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Okay. We can all read the substance of the email, but the first sentence of that email says, "I certainly do hope at this time you understand the finality of your 'relationship' with my husband." She's referring to Reid Weingarten.
p. 114Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 115Mr. Krishnamoorthi."I hope now you can find true happiness without having a relationship with someone else's husband." Was Mr. Epstein aware of this relationship before Cheryl Gould became aware of this relationship?
p. 115Ms. Ruemmler.Is this relevant to your inquiry?
p. 115Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Yes, absolutely, hundred percent.
p. 115Ms. Ruemmler.Okay. I'm happy to answer the question.
p. 115Mr. Fishman.Happy may not be the right word.
p. 115Ms. Ruemmler.It's surprising to me that this is something that you would spend your time on, but let's go ahead with it. So unbeknownst to me -- or inexplicably -- I came to learn that Mr. Epstein -- Mr. Weingarten had said something to Mr. Epstein about his feelings for me. I did not raise those. I did not raise this with Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein raised it with me.
p. 115Mr. Krishnamoorthi.I guess my question is this. My question is this. Were you aware that Epstein knew about this relationship prior to the time that you became aware that Gould became aware of that relationship?
p. 115Ms. Ruemmler.The answer is -- I think I understand what you're asking. The answer is yes. And that is why I forwarded this. But to be clear, to be very clear, my relationship with Mr. Weingarten was -- which has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Epstein whatsoever.
p. 115Mr. Krishnamoorthi.He didn't introduce you or anything like that either?
p. 115Ms. Ruemmler.No, as I, with apologies, I don't think you were here, Congressman, when I said this, he cold called me at my law firm. I was an unmarried person, and Mr. Weingarten was an unmarried person. When I received this email, this was out of the blue. I was shocked and mortified, among other reactions. And the reason that I forwarded it to Epstein is because Epstein had raised with me that Mr. Weingarten had raised with him his feelings towards me.
p. 116Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Last question. In an earlier email -- and we can share this with you -- you basically -- he had said to you on July 9th, 2017, "Can you and I have a coffee or meal with John Brennan?"
p. 116Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 116Mr. Krishnamoorthi.And in response you said, "That would be fun. I think he would be scared off because of your Google history." That was July 9th, 2017. When did you become aware of Jeffrey Epstein's conviction for child prostitution?
p. 116Ms. Ruemmler.I became aware that he had pled guilty to two prostitution-related offenses, including solicitation of a minor for prosecution, in or around July of 2014.
p. 116Mr. Krishnamoorthi.Thank you. Mr. . Representative Randall.
p. 116Ms. Randall.Thank you. Ms. Ruemmler, earlier this year the Miami Herald published a story describing how you worked with Steve Bannon and others in '18 and -- 2018 and 2019 -- to, I'm going to use quotes here, help counter the public narrative that was forming against Mr. Epstein after the Herald's perversion of justice investigation was published. What work did you do with Mr. Bannon?
p. 116Ms. Ruemmler.I didn't do any work with Mr. Bannon. Mr. Bannon was someone who I met on one or two occasions at business meetings, and I didn't work with him on anything.
p. 116Ms. Randall.What is your understanding of Mr. Epstein's relationship with Mr. Bannon?
p. 116Ms. Ruemmler.I didn't know. I me an, they seemed to be friendly. But I didn't know like beyond that.
p. 116Ms. Randall.So do you have any knowledge of Mr. Bannon ever acting as an intermediary between Epstein and Donald Trump?
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.I don't.
p. 117Ms. Randall.In text messages from August 2018 between Mr. Epstein and Mr. Bannon, Mr. Epstein wrote, "Your girlfriend Ruemmler is coming over." Do you know why Mr. Epstein would refer to you in this manner even jokingly?
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.Lord knows. I have no idea.
p. 117Ms. Randall.I'm going to list so me names, and for these individuals I would like to know if you were ever aware of Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell introducing them to any minor girls or young women for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. Kimbal Musk?
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.I am not familiar with that name.
p. 117Ms. Randall.Elon Musk's brother. Martin Nowak?
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.I'm sorry. Would you just mind repeating the preface of the question?
p. 117Ms. Randall.Yeah. Yeah. If you have any knowledge of Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell introducing them to any minor women or girls.
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.Okay. Thank you.
p. 117Mr. Fishman.I think you can answer the question as a whole, though.
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.Yes, I can answer them. The answer with respect to Mr. Nowak is no with respect to both Epstein and Maxwell.
p. 117Ms. Randall.Richard Branson?
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 117Ms. Randall.David Copperfield?
p. 117Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 117Ms. Randall.David Blaine?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Larry Summers?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Paolo Zampolli?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Peter Mandelson?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Henry Jarecki?
p. 118Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry?
p. 118Ms. Randall.Henry Jarecki?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Stephen Hanson?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Alan Dershowitz?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Glenn Dubin?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Tom Pritzker?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.And Ehud Barak?
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.No.
p. 118Ms. Randall.Thank you. I appreciate you answering.
p. 118Ms. Ruemmler.Yeah. And just to clarify for the record, I'm unaware of any of that activity with respect to anyone at any time. Again, as I understand, the allegations that have been put forth by the Justice Department is that the activities involving Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell predated my knowing Mr. Epstein by 10 years at least. So that's -- I have no knowledge of anything, anything relating to those types of activities.
p. 119Ms. Randall.Thank you.
p. 119Mr. Min.Thank you. Ms. Ruemmler, I know it's been a long day.
p. 119Mr. Fishman.That means it sounds like it's over, Congressman. That's fine. That would be great. [Laughter.]
p. 119Mr. Min.I don't know how much longer. But I wanted to switch to Brad Karp and your relationship with him. How long have you known Mr. Karp?
p. 119Ms. Ruemmler.Probably 15 years.
p. 119Mr. Min.Fifteen years. So around 2011, 2010?
p. 119Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 119Mr. Min.And how did you first meet him? Was it professional? Personal?
p. 119Ms. Ruemmler.Professional.
p. 119Mr. Min.Working on a case together, interacting --
p. 119Ms. Ruemmler.Mr. Karp is a very prominent member of the legal community, and he was the chairman of --
p. 119Mr. Min.Paul Weiss.
p. 119Ms. Ruemmler.-- Paul Weiss. And I had multiple friends who were partners at Paul Weiss, and so --
p. 119Mr. Min.Can you remind me where you were again in 2011, 2010? I apologize.
p. 119Ms. Ruemmler.I was working at the White House at the time.
p. 120Mr. Min.At the White House. Okay.
p. 120Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 120Mr. Min.Got it. And like how often did you interact with him over that time?
p. 120Ms. Ruemmler.I knew Brad, but I came to -- the only memory I have of interaction with him is when I was leaving the White House to go back in to the private sector, I spoke to a couple of law firms and Paul Weiss was one of them. And Paul Weiss was recruiting me to join the law firm, and I spoke with him quite a bit in that context.
p. 120Mr. Min.And did you continue to speak with him after that point in time?
p. 120Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 120Mr. Min.Professionally or --
p. 120Ms. Ruemmler.Professionally.
p. 120Mr. Min.Did you have any discussions or interactions relating to Jeffrey Epstein with Mr. Karp?
p. 120Ms. Ruemmler.Yes. We had -- I was aware that Brad, Mr. Karp, knew Epstein in a very similar way that I knew Mr. Epstein in the sense that he had a client in the form of Apollo, Mr. Black was the chairman and CEO of Apollo, and Mr. Epstein had a business relationship with Mr. Black. Similarly, I had a client relationship with the Rothschild Bank, and Mr. Epstein had a separate business relationship with the Rothschild Bank. That was my understanding of how Mr. Karp knew Mr. Epstein.
p. 120Mr. Min.And in 2014, there's an email from Jeffrey Epstein saying that he was introduced to you by Mr. Karp. Is that something that you would agree with?
p. 120Ms. Ruemmler.That --
p. 120Mr. Min.Mr. Epstein was introduced to you by Mr. Karp?
p. 120Ms. Ruemmler.No. Mr. Epstein just cold called my law firm.
p. 120Mr. Min.He cold called your law firm?
p. 121Ms. Ruemmler.If Mr. Karp had recommended me in so me way, shape or form, I didn't know that.
p. 121Mr. Min.But you were not introduced --
p. 121Ms. Ruemmler.No, we were not introduced. No.
p. 121Mr. Min.And so after that time when you were introduced, or when Mr. Epstein called you, over the next, I guess, what, 5, 6 years, how often would you and Mr. Karp discuss Epstein? Like once a week? Once a month? Once a year?
p. 121Ms. Ruemmler.Oh, gosh, no. I would say very rarely. At so me point in time, I think I mentioned earlier, Congressman, when you weren't in the room, that my observation was Epstein tried to make himself relevant by constantly --
p. 121Mr. Min.I heard you say that.
p. 121Ms. Ruemmler.Okay. Connecting people. And at so me point I think he tried to make himself relevant by talking to Mr. Karp about recruiting me to leave Latham and go to Paul Weiss.
p. 121Mr. Min.Just a last couple questions here. Did you communicate with Mr. Karp -- actually, I'll preface this by saying I have at least three emails saying -- I don't have the documents here, so you would have to take my word on this -- but on February 22nd, 2019, you were on an email with Mr. Karp that's sent by Mr. Epstein updating you and Mr. Karp on developments in a lawsuit with one of his alleged victims. And a March 3rd, 2019, email, you were copied, Mr. Karp provided legal advice to Mr. Epstein, including regarding protecting his 2008 plea deal. And in a March 31st, 2018, email exchange you advised Mr. Epstein on certain steps he might consider taking following a lawsuit against him. How often did you and Mr. Karp communicate about Epstein, and, in particular, about legal strategy or legal advice during this period? Is that the entirety of it, or was there more?
p. 121Ms. Ruemmler.My, again, my observation was that Epstein would ask me and other lawyers who he knew their views. It was like a sort of a shotgun approach. It's one of the reasons I would have thought if he were my client he would have been a maddening client because he shopped around. "Okay, you knew Brad. Let me ask Brad what he thinks. I know Kathy, let me ask Kathy what she thinks." That was my observation of the way that he engaged with Mr. Karp and the way that he engaged with me.
p. 122Mr. Min.I'm told we're out of time. So thank you for your time. Mr. . We'll go off the record. [Recess.]
p. 122Mr. Grant.We'll go back on the record. It's 3:25.
p. 122QMs. Ruemmler, I'm going to start with a meeting that was scheduled on May 6th of 2019. It was a dinner meeting between yourself, Woody and Steve and Marvin. Would Woody be Woody Allen?
p. 122AYes.
p. 122QAnd Steve would be Steve Bannon?
p. 122AYes.
p. 122QAnd who is Marvin?
p. 122AMarvin was a partner of mine at Latham & Watkins.
p. 122QIs that Marvin Putnam?
p. 122AYes.
p. 122QAnd this meeting was to have a dinner and discuss, quote, "legal stuff" with Mr. Epstein. What specific legal stuff would you have discussed with Mr. Epstein at this time?
p. 122AMy recollection of this meeting was that there was a prominent plaintiff's lawyer, whose name is Michael Avenatti -- you may be aware of him because he subsequently went to prison, and also, I believe, represented Stormy Daniels at so me point -- but in any event, he went to prison. And he had tweeted something about having a -- threatening a legal case against Epstein. And Epstein had asked for a referral, a legal referral. And so I asked around the law firm whether anybody had had dealings with Mr. Avenatti. And Mr. Putnam, as I recall, did, had had a case or two, may have even been dealing with him at the time, and so I suggested that if he had any interest in meeting Epstein to see whether there was -- if such a case were filed, whether he wanted to take it on as a legal matter. So that was what that was in reference to.
p. 123QAnd briefly, what was that legal issue, if you recall?
p. 123AI don't remember exactly what the -- my best recollection is there was a tweet that Avenatti had sent out saying something along the lines of, "I have so me client and the client is going to sue," going to sue Epstein. That never happened. I can't remember the timeline, whether it was because he got indicted before he could do it or whether he was -- sometimes what I've seen so me lawyers do is tweet or make a public statement or something like that in an effort to attract clients, and I wasn't sure whether that was going on. Whatever. But in any event, it didn't come to pass.
p. 123QAnd so just to be clear, for the sake of the record, SDNY's investigation in to Mr. Epstein began in 2018, this meeting was in 2019, this meeting about, quote, "legal stuff" was not in reference to any investigation of Mr. Epstein. Is that correct?
p. 123AThat's right. I have no knowledge of any investigation of Mr. Epstein in that time frame.
p. 123QI believe you've mentioned in a previous hour that you've had at least so me interactions with Darren Indyke, who's Mr. Epstein's personal attorney. How often would you say that you interacted with Mr. Indyke?
p. 123AInfrequently. I believe I only met Mr. Indyke once in person.
p. 124QAnd how often would you have had any type of other correspondence with Mr. Indyke?
p. 124AAgain, infrequently is my best recollection. I don't remember having, again, during this time frame that I was dealing with Epstein, I don't remember having much engagement with Mr. Indyke.
p. 124QAnd to the extent you can remember that engagement with Mr. Indyke, what did it pertain to?
p. 124AI don't really remember. I knew that Mr. Indyke was his kind of in-house lawyer, if you will. And, again, he had external counsel, Mr. Weinberg. And, I me an, I certainly knew who he was, but I just don't have any real memory of having much in terms of substantive conversations with him.
p. 124QAnd switching gears just a little bit. Recognizing you said multiple times today you did not have a formal legal engagement with Mr. Epstein, did you ever provide legal services to any associates of Mr. Epstein?
p. 124ANo, other than the Rothschild Bank, as we've talked about at length, and that was a client relationship that he had separately.
p. 124QAnd I'll ask about a list of Mr. Epstein's employees. Did you ever have -- so the same question will apply -- did you ever have any -- provide any legal services to any one of the following individuals. You can answer with a simple yes or no. If you do say yes, I will come back to them?
p. 124AOkay. And just, I'm sorry, can you just repeat the preface, just because I want to make sure I have that in my mind?
p. 124QYes. Did you ever provide legal services of any kind to any of the following individuals?
p. 124AOkay.
p. 124QRichard Kahn?
p. 124ANo.
p. 124QBella Klein?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QHarry Beller?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QLesley Groff?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QSarah Kellen?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125Q?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125Q?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QAnd Ms. Maxwell?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QIn previous testimony before this committee the committee has learned that there were five fee-paying clients of Mr. Epstein's. Obviously we have discussed the Rothschild family at great lengths here today, so I won't ask about them further. But have you ever performed any type of formal legal work or other services to Les Wexner?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QLeon Black?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QSteven Sinofsky?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QGlenn Dubin?
p. 125ANo.
p. 125QEva Andersson-Dubin?
p. 126ANo.
p. 126QDid you ever provide advice or counsel to any young woman or girl associated with Mr. Epstein?
p. 126ANo.
p. 126QDid Mr. Epstein ever offer you employment?
p. 126ANo.
p. 126QDid he facilitate employment opportunities on your behalf?
p. 126AOther than the referrals that I mentioned earlier, the legal referrals, no.
p. 126QThere is an email, I'm happy to provide it to you if you would like it, I will simply say it is about your offer to go to Hogan and about getting compensated $6 million per year. Are you familiar with what I'm referencing?
p. 126AYes, I am.
p. 126QWhat was this Hogan offer?
p. 126AIt's common in -- even more common today than it was back then -- in competition among law firms to try to recruit a lawyer from one law firm to another, particularly if one law firm feels like they need more legal talent in one particular practice are a or another, or they need more business generators, or they need particular expertise or something like that. And Hogan Lovells had reached out to me to see if I'd be interested in a conversation about leaving Latham and going to Hogan Lovells.
p. 126QAnd as part of this email chain, Mr. Epstein wants to be reminded of this offer. Why did you discuss this offer with Mr. Epstein?
p. 126AMr. Epstein and I had a shared client, as I said, and he -- I don't remember the time frame of this email you're referring to.
p. 126QThis would have been in October of 2015.
p. 126AOkay. So I had now been working with him on the Rothschild representation for about a year, and I believe that he was -- he thought I was a good lawyer and I was doing good work for the bank, and, in fact, we got a very favorable outcome for the bank just shortly thereafter. And he believed -- he expressed his belief -- whether he believed it or not, who knows? -- he expressed his belief to me that I was being undercompensated at Latham and that I should -- that the firm should be paying me more, they weren't paying me enough. That was his general view.
p. 127QAnd why did you feel that you could trust Mr. Epstein with professional advice on your career?
p. 127AI didn't ask for his professional advice on my career. He was sort of the self-described hard-nosed negotiator around financial issues and he -- from time to time I would ask him -- I think I'm a good negotiator on behalf of my clients. I tend not to be such a great negotiator on my own behalf, particularly when it comes to issues like compensation, which I think are tough for people -- so me people. Trust me, Mr. Epstein had no issues in that regard whatsoever. He was quite assertive. But so he was someone who pushed me, whether I wanted him to or not, to be more assertive on my own behalf in terms of compensation discussions.
p. 127QI will now enter as majority exhibit 1. [Ruemmler Majority Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.]
p. 128QWhile it is getting passed around I will just read the bare minimum details. It's Bates stamped EFTA02631933, and it is from Jeffrey Epstein to yourself on Monday, March 4th, 2019. And I will give you a second to review it. I'm only going to focus on the very top message.
p. 128AOkay. I'm ready when you are.
p. 128QSo it says -- this is Mr. Epstein writing to you -- "Send her the 10k or tell her that since your White House days your comp has been negotiated by your advisor, Rich Kahn. I'll listen first of course." What was the "10k," which I would imagine means $10,000, what was that in relation to?
p. 128AYeah, that's not a reference to $10,000. It's to a securities filing, a company's 10-K.
p. 128QThank you for that clarification.
p. 128ASure.
p. 128QSecond part of that is, "since your White House days your comp has been negotiated by your advisor, Rich Kahn."
p. 128AYeah.
p. 128QRich Kahn is known to be Mr. Epstein's financial tax guy. Did he ever negotiate compensation on your behalf?
p. 128ANo. This is very vintage Epstein. He is injecting himself with this kind of kooky, kooky idea, which he even acknowledged, because he says, "I'll listen first of course," because he knows I'm going to say that's ludicrous. And so he's even predicting that my reaction to what he is suggesting here is that I'm going to say that's so dumb. But the context of this is, as I said, he was someone who was very pushy and insinuating in a patronizing way, but also in a way that he thought he was trying to be helpful in encouraging me to be aggressive in negotiating compensation. In this circumstance it was with a large tech company that I was in pretty serious discussions about potentially going and becoming the general counsel there.
p. 129QAnd just so the record is clear, Richard Kahn never negotiated compensation on behalf of yourself?
p. 129ANo. I don't believe I've ever met Mr. Kahn.
p. 129QYou mentioned that this was -- the full context of this email was about your potential position, or applying to go towards a tech company, in this case it looks to be Google. Why did you forward this information to Mr. Epstein in the first place?
p. 129AI wasn't applying for the job. They had reached out to me for the job. Again, so we were continuing to advise the same client through this time frame, and for whatever reason Epstein was interested as to whether or not I was going to do something different with my career at that point. And I had received outreach over the course of my time at Latham, and even going back to the time when I was still at the White House, but contemplating leaving the White House. I had been approached by many companies about potentially going and working in-house as general counsel. And so just in the course of normal conversation I had told him that. And, again, he would insert himself and try to, again, tell me, "You should say that you want to be paid X, you should say you want to be paid Y," that kind of thing. And, again, he had a very different style than I do. And I listened to him, of course, but I wasn't following his advice, because it would be completely counter to just how I am. But it was -- that's what this was, is just really nothing more than that.
p. 129QAnd just to be clear, did Darren Indyke ever negotiate a job offer or compensation on your behalf?
p. 129ANo.
p. 129QShortly after you left the White House, were you under consideration for any other high-level government positions?
p. 130AThere was public reporting shortly after the Attorney General at the time announced his resignation. He had been serving in the position for about 6 years. It's a very, very tough job. And there was almost immediate speculation in the press that I would be considered to succeed him in that position.
p. 130QWere you formally considered?
p. 130AI don't want to get in to conversations that I had about it just because I think those are conversations that are confidential.
p. 130QThat's fine. You can just give me a yes or no.
p. 130AYes. I was considering it, yes.
p. 130QI will introduce as majority exhibit 2. [Ruemmler Majority Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.]
p. 130QI will, of course, allow you to review, but while you're reviewing, the Bates stamp in the bottom right corner is EFTA02364352. At the top of this email, it is from yourself, Kathy Ruemmler, sent to Jeffrey Epstein, on Wednesday, October 15th, 2014. And I will give you a moment to review.
p. 130AOkay. I'm ready.
p. 130QAnd it seems as if you forwarded a Bloomberg link about the rumblings of you being considered to be the Attorney General of the United States. You forwarded this to Mr. Epstein. It sounds like there was a call to be had. Did you, in fact, have a call about this article with Mr. Epstein?
p. 130AThat I have no idea. I me an, again, this is 12 years ago. I don't know.
p. 130QMoving up to the middle of the front page, Mr. Epstein has so me suggestions for you. I will read them. "I have so me concrete suggestions for moving forward. One, let's hire a video coach. You need to be trained. Samantha is terrible. No hand movement or head tilting or nodding, blinking. You will need to get the right glasses. You have 2 months from today. Have someone from your office videotape the ford presentation so that it can be reviewed for all of the above." It seems to me like Mr. Epstein was trying to give you advice for potentially accepting a nomination. Is that what was happening here?
p. 131ADo you recall my reference earlier to mansplaining.
p. 131QI do. Yes.
p. 131AThat's what's going on in this email. He's mansplaining to me on something that he literally knows absolutely nothing about and telling -- and as you see my response is, "Would a man need a video coach?" So I'm calling him out on the mansplaining.
p. 131QSo based on this email, it seems like Mr. Epstein had so me sort of knowledge in to your thought processes around potentially becoming the Attorney General of the United States. Did you have discussions with him about the potential for taking that position?
p. 131AThe context of me having conversations with Mr. Epstein during this time, remember, I just have met him for the first time in mid-July of 2014. So we're now, what, 3 months later or something. I had just been engaged weeks, maybe 3 weeks before, by the Rothschild Bank for a matter that I understood to be quite significant, if not existential for them, and he was the primary adviser, and he had referred the client to me. So let's just say that the timing of this media speculation, that the article says, "Obama favoring former White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler to succeed Holder as Attorney General," was certainly awkward timing for a client that had just engaged me on their very -- their most important matter. So whether or not I would be available to handle the matter or I would be unavailable because I was going off to run the gauntlet through the United States Senate, which Mr. Blanche is doing today, was a question of intense interest of Mr. Epstein.
p. 132QAnd was that intense interest just because he wanted you to represent the Rothschilds and you could be not doing so by taking this position?
p. 132AThat's what I believed at the time. Again, this is -- my whole reason for engaging with him in this period of time frame is just all about the Rothschild representation.
p. 132QUnderstood. I will now mark as majority exhibit 3 another email Bates stamp EFTA02383491. [Ruemmler Majority Exhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.]
p. 132QWhile it is getting passed around and you review it, this is at the top, from yourself, Kathy Ruemmler, to Jeffrey Epstein, on Thursday, October 23rd, 2014. And I will give you a second to review it.
p. 132AOkay. I'm ready.
p. 132QSo this appears to me to be your statement declining to be considered a candidate for Attorney General of the United States. Is that correct?
p. 132AIt was something that I was contemplating. Ultimately I didn't provide a statement.
p. 132QAnd --
p. 132AThe White House issued a statement.
p. 132QOkay. Thank you. So notwithstanding that you did not ultimately provide a statement, as you mentioned, at this point you've been engaged with Mr. Epstein for 3 or so odd months. You've been engaged with Mr. Epstein for 3 or so odd months. Obviously he had an interest in your next role due to the client you were potentially going to be representing that was mutual to him. Is it not odd that you're providing a draft statement of declining to be Attorney General of the United States to someone you just met 3 months ago?
p. 133ANot given his relationship with the client that, again, he was really the primary adviser to the client, and I was the secondary. I me an, I was the lawyer, but he was the primary adviser. And I believe I was actually in Geneva at this time when I sent this. And so the client has gone through the not easy thing to do, which is to transfer a very significant matter. There had already been a ton of work done by a prior law firm in the United States and a Swiss law firm, millions of dollars in legal fees had been spent, they had gone through the process of basically telling those law firms you're no longer working on this matter, transferring the whole file over to Latham & Watkins. I was in Geneva at the time. It was an intense period of time for me because I was trying to decide what the right thing to do was, whether or not I should go ahead and say, "Yes, I'm willing to be nominated," or, as I ultimately decided, was to decline. And so it was very natural to me, given his role with the client and the fact I literally was in Geneva with the client at the time, when I -- I think I can say this because it's in the draft statement, I said I have so informed the President. When I did that, when I informed the President, I actually did it -- I was in Geneva. And so I didn't think that that was unnatural at all.
p. 133QI understand that. However, I think where my confusion lies in this is that you could have simply just told Mr. Epstein, or the client at the time, "I'm weighing this, I will let you know what I decide," but it seems like sending a draft statement of in this case declining the role, but even if it were in the inverse of accepting the role, to someone you just met 3 months ago, strikes me as odd. And you don't find that odd?
p. 133AWell, again, this was not something that was confidential. This was all over the press.
p. 133QUnderstood.
p. 133AThere was massive speculation about who was going to succeed Eric Holder, who could be confirmed. There were members of the Senate who were making comments, "Well, this person, I wouldn't support this person, I would support" -- this was like not -- this was a very public matter. And, again, with in the first 6 weeks or so of restarting my legal practice I had gotten this engagement for a very significant -- for a big Swiss bank in a very significant matter. And I think what -- it was important -- it was very important to the bank, but it was also important to me because it was one of my first new matters after coming back in to private practice. And so I wanted to make sure that, given that Epstein was the primary adviser, that he was informed in what was going to happen. So I could have done it that way, the way you described it, but I didn't. And I didn't -- if Jeffrey Epstein weren't the notorious Jeffrey Epstein that is causing you guys to have spent countless hours going through my emails, which I apologize for, we wouldn't -- you wouldn't even be asking me about this, right? And so it's like but at the time when I'm dealing with him I don't think that he is this person who the world now understands him to be.
p. 134QUnderstood. Switching gears just a little bit. Have you ever maintained an account at JPMorganChase Bank?
p. 134AYes.
p. 134QAnd when did you first open an account at JPMorganChase Bank, roughly?
p. 134AWhile I was working at Latham & Watkins, so 2016, 2017. I'm not sure. But in that 2016, 2017, 2018 kind of time frame.
p. 134QAre you aware of Mr. Epstein reaching out to JPMorgan on your behalf?
p. 134AI am now, yes.
p. 134QAnd you're aware now because of reviewing documents released by the DOJ, or other means?
p. 135AI've seen documents that show that he asked his executive assistant to reach out to JPMorgan on my behalf, and those were not documents that I would have seen at the time.
p. 135QSo to be clear, you did not ask Mr. Epstein to reach out to JPMorgan on your behalf?
p. 135AI did not. In fact, what happened, what I did ask him about was I had a banking relationship at Merrill Lynch. And having spent the vast majority of my career in public service, I candidly just never really paid much attention -- I certainly didn't pay attention to investments because I didn't have any money to invest. And so after a couple of years at Latham I had so me money to invest, and I didn't know whether or not my investment performance was good or bad. And Mr. Epstein was the finance genius, and so -- allegedly -- and so -- and he certainly was -- my belief was that he was advising people, billionaires, right? Certainly the Rothschilds. And so I asked him, "Do you think this performance is good, basically, from my portfolio?" And he said, in essence, "It sucks. The market's been up this amount and you've only been up this amount, and you're paying these really high fees, and this is ridiculous, and you didn't pay attention to it," and mansplain, mansplain, mansplain. In this circumstance it was appropriate mansplaining. And so he said you need a real bank. I know the head of the private banker, the head of asset and wealth management or something at JPMorgan, and I'll have her call you. And I was like that's ridiculous because I'm like a little tiny peon with -- I'm not even sure whether I qualify. I don't even -- I don't know. I don't know what their threshold was. But like the idea that someone at that level of seniority was going to pay attention, it was sort of insulting, I thought, to even ask to pay attention to me. But he took it up on himself to do that. And so ultimately I did meet with a lovely young woman banker at JPMorgan and I opened an account at JPMorgan.
p. 135QWere you aware at the time of Mr. Epstein's otherwise rocky relationship with JPMorganChase Bank? A I had no idea about that. [4:01 P.M.]
p. 137Mr. Grant.Have you subsequently become aware of that rocky relationship?
p. 137Ms. Ruemmler.I subsequently became aware that at so me point -- that he had been a client at the bank, which I didn't know, and that he had been exited from the bank or they had told him that they were going to close his accounts. I didn't know either of those things. [Ruemmler Majority Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.]
p. 137QI will now mark as majority exhibit 4 another email from the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Bates stamped EFTA02513732. While it is being passed around, the top of the email is from Jeffrey Epstein to yourself, Kathy Ruemmler, on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015. I will give you all a moment to review.
p. 137AThis didn't take long to review, so I'm ready whenever you are.
p. 137QThe middle of the message is yourself sending Mr. Epstein a birthday message to say, "Happy birthday! I hope you enjoy the day with your one true love." Who are you referring to as his one true love?
p. 137AHimself.
p. 137QAnd his response to you was, "They say that men usually give a name to their penis, as it would be inappropriate to make love to a total stranger."
p. 137AYes.
p. 137QWhat was the point of this response, to your knowledge or understanding?
p. 137AIdiocy?
p. 137QAnd do you understand what Mr. Epstein was trying to make reference to or talk about?
p. 137AHe was making a stupid joke. And I actually responded to this email. I don't know if you have the response. But I do have the response. I remember what I said to him.
p. 138QWhat was your response?
p. 138AIn essence, I said, it's hard to believe there's still a debate that men are the inferior gender. I stand by that response, particularly in response to this email.
p. 138QUnderstood. Did you have any other conversations of a similar nature with Mr. Epstein where he is bringing up graphic words?
p. 138AI wouldn't --
p. 138QMore specifically, his genitalia?
p. 138AWell, he's not referring to his genitalia. He's making a dumb joke about men. And I responded as -- I responded in kind, basically saying this is a dumb joke.
p. 138QUnderstood. Switching gears completely.
p. 138Mr. Fishman.As you should.
p. 138QHave you ever traveled with Jeffrey Epstein?
p. 138AI have not.
p. 138QAnd I believe you stated earlier, but just to be clear, you did not take that 2015 trip to Paris with Mr. Epstein?
p. 138AI did not.
p. 138QAnd did you take a 2017 trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands with Mr. Epstein?
p. 138ANo.
p. 138QHave you been to any of Mr. Epstein's other New York apartments, not including his townhouse?
p. 138ANo.
p. 139QHave you been to Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house?
p. 139ANo.
p. 139QHave you been to the New Mexico, otherwise known as the Zorro Ranch?
p. 139AI have not.
p. 139QHave you been to Little Saint James Island?
p. 139ANo.
p. 139QHave you been to Great Saint James Island?
p. 139ANo.
p. 139QHave you been to Mr. Epstein's Paris apartment?
p. 139AYes.
p. 139QWhen did you visit Mr. Epstein's Paris apartment?
p. 139AI don't remember the exact date, but Ms. de Rothschild and I attended a lunch meeting together with Mr. Epstein in his dining room at his Paris apartment.
p. 139QIs that the only time you went there?
p. 139AYes.
p. 139QWas anyone else there other than you and Ms. Rothschild?
p. 139AI believe that he had a chef, and the chef was there. And my recollection is that the chef also served the food. And there was so me fanfare around the -- whatever was served. I don't remember what it was. But whatever the food -- I believe the chef was French, and it was French cuisine of so me type.
p. 139QAnd have you ever been to a Boston rental apartment owned or leased by Mr. Epstein?
p. 139ANo.
p. 139QDid you ever observe any massage tables at any of Mr. Epstein's properties that you have visited?
p. 139ANo.
p. 140QDid you notice any unusual photographs in Mr. Epstein's homes, apartment?
p. 140APhotographs?
p. 140QSuch as nude paintings, nude photos displayed anywhere.
p. 140ANo.
p. 140QIn the time that you knew and dealt with Mr. Epstein, do you know how many assistants he had?
p. 140AI didn't know. I knew that he had a number of staff who did different things. Exactly what they did, I wasn't sure. I observed a number of personal staff. And when I say "personal staff," staff who were present at the townhome in New York.
p. 140QI think this was also covered earlier, but have you ever traveled on any aircraft with Mr. Epstein, including ones owned or operated by him?
p. 140ANo.
p. 140QSwitching gears completely again. Did you ever visit Mr. Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in 2019?
p. 140ANo, I did not.
p. 140QAnd this was also, I think, mentioned a couple different times in an earlier hour, but just to have it clearly in one place on the transcript. In one form, not the final form of Mr. Epstein's last will and testament, you were listed as a successor executor. Is that correct?
p. 140AMy understanding, I was a backup executor on a draft, a draft will.
p. 140QAnd do you know why you were listed as the backup executor?
p. 140AI don't.
p. 140QWere you ever informed of your designation in to that last will and testament?
p. 140AI don't believe so.
p. 140QAnd can you remind us when you were first hired at Goldman Sachs?
p. 141AI accepted the offer, I believe, in February of 2020, and I started at the firm -- I started at Goldman Sachs in April of 2020.
p. 141QAnd as part of your hiring and/or onboarding at Goldman Sachs did you have to disclose any part of your prior relationship with Mr. Epstein?
p. 141AI did not have to.
p. 141QDid you?
p. 141AI chose to disclose it.
p. 141QAnd what did you disclose?
p. 141AI disclosed that -- before I accepted the offer, I told the firm, I told Goldman Sachs that while I was -- while I had been White House Counsel, that I was in charge of vetting. That was one of my responsibilities that we didn't talk about earlier. But so I was responsible for vetting Cabinet Secretaries and other senior officials. And I told them that before I accept the offer, I've done my own vet. And I've had an active practice and an active criminal practice. And so here are so me of the representations that I think -- the representations or associations, et cetera, that I think could cause media attention. Goldman Sachs was a high-profile firm. And so I said that I knew Epstein, that I had communicated with Epstein, that I had dealt with Epstein, that he was not my client, but that he was a primary adviser to my client, and that he had asked my -- while he wasn't my client, he would certainly ask my views on things from time to time. So I basically described, in essence, what I described to you today.
p. 141QAnd --
p. 141AOr to the committee.
p. 141QThank you. When were concerns of your ties to Mr. Epstein first raised internally at Goldman Sachs?
p. 141AConcerns by whom?
p. 142QAnyone internal to Goldman Sachs.
p. 142Mr. Fishman.Anyone that she might know about?
p. 142QCorrect. Anyone that you might know about that would have raised concerns internally. I can ask more specifically. When were concerns expressed to you from the chief executive officer about your ties with Mr. Epstein?
p. 142AI wouldn't characterize it as concerns. I would characterize it as -- so I -- before I accepted the offer, I said this is the vet. I did my own vet. Also, there were so me other client representations that were the kinds of things that either had been or could be the subject of media attention. That was sort of the nature of my practice, again, as I worked with -- I worked in controversy, with controversial people. And of course on so me of those -- so me of those matters intersected with this building and with Congress, et cetera, and so could become contentious, politicized, et cetera. And so then that was appreciated. In fact, I was told that no one else had ever done that before at Goldman. And then the next time it came up was when The Wall Street Journal published a story at the end of April of 2023. And The Wall Street Journal reported based on, I gather, based on documents that they had come in to possession of that showed meetings that Epstein had with people and calendar entries and things like that. And so I was listed along with a number of other people as being people who he had met with.
p. 142QAnd did anyone bring concerns to you after that story broke internally at Goldman?
p. 142AWell, what happened is, is that The Wall Street Journal sent a bunch of questions, and I discussed them with the right senior people. We sat down and went through them all.
p. 142QAnd to your knowledge, has Goldman performed any internal investigations about your ties with Jeffrey Epstein outside of the self-vetting process you've already described?
p. 143AWithout getting in to the substance, yes.
p. 143QWhen did those internal investigations occur?
p. 143AI wouldn't characterize it as investigation, but there were reviews done and questions asked. And that occurred in 2023. That occurred again in 2025, in 2026, as there was increasing media scrutiny around anybody who had ever sat in the same room with Jeffrey Epstein.
p. 143QI just want to circle back for a moment to a few more questions about the meeting between you, Mr. Epstein, and Mr. Putnam about legal stuff that was discussed prior.
p. 143AUh-huh.
p. 143QYou said that Mr. Avenatti had threatened a legal case against Jeffrey Epstein. Is that --
p. 143AThat's what -- that's my best memory, is that it was in the form of a tweet.
p. 143QAnd that's what you were going to be meeting about.
p. 143AYes.
p. 143QAnd did this have anything to do with the allegations against or the criminal activities committed by Mr. Epstein?
p. 143AI don't remember whether there was even specificity in whatever Avenatti put out. But Mr. Putnam is a civil litigator. He doesn't do criminal work at all. And so it was really about if there were so me lawsuit that came to pass, so me lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Avenatti, was Mr. Putnam interested in defending that litigation. That's what it was about.
p. 143QAnd I can read the tweet from Mr. Avenatti to refresh your recollection.
p. 143AOkay. Oh, you found it. That's amazing.
p. 143QOn March 1st, 2019, is the date, he says, "I can confirm we have been retained by two victims of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. We intend to ensure that no stone is left unturned in connection with our investigation and that all of those connected to his perverse conduct are held fully accountable." If that sheds any more light on --
p. 144AThat's consistent with my recollection, that he had tweeted something out and said that he had clients and was intending to file a suit.
p. 144QAnd we're just trying to understand the extent of the knowledge you had surrounding the allegations against Mr. Epstein. Why would you later be shocked that he was indicted that same year for the crimes against him?
p. 144AWell, because, again, my understanding was that he had been investigated over a multiyear period by both the State Attorney's Office in Florida and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, and that that had resulted in a final resolution of any criminal activity of Epstein and that he had accepted responsibility, he had served his time, complied with all of his obligations, and was, for lack of a better way to say it, living a law-abiding life. And so that tweet is not at all inconsistent with my state of mind at the time. And, in fact, when Epstein was indicted in 2019, again, the conduct period that was covered by the indictment was 2002 to 2005. And I think that's something that sometimes gets misunderstood in the public domain, that that 2019 indictment related back to almost -- a much, much prior period, and that that prior period of time, that conduct that was covered by the 2019 indictment, actually predated the guilty plea and the nonprosecution agreement. So nothing about that 2019 indictment said anything to me about Epstein engaging in ongoing criminal conduct. And certainly, as I stated at the outset, I never saw or heard any indication of any criminal conduct on behalf of Epstein during the period of time that I dealt with him.
p. 144QIn the first sentence of the tweet, Mr. Avenatti says he can "confirm we have been retained by two victims of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein." That tweet was March 1st, 2019. The meeting you later had with Mr. Epstein and Mr. Putnam was 2 months later, May 2019. Do you recall, were there any conversations between you and Mr. Epstein or you and Mr. Putnam in those 2 months after the tweet was made?
p. 145ANot that I recall. Again, as I stated, I don't believe Mr. Avenatti ever filed any complaint on behalf of any victims. I don't remember when he got indicted for his own criminal conduct. Maybe he got waylaid. I don't know. BY MR GRANT:
p. 145QI'm going to ask you another long list of names questions.
p. 145AOkay.
p. 145QThat's become part of the repertoire of the Oversight Committee majority staff. The question is going to be, have you ever communicated with any of the following individuals regarding the crimes or allegations of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 145AOkay.
p. 145QYou can answer it yes or no to the individuals. If you indicate yes, I will come back to it.
p. 145AOkay.
p. 145QThe first name is Ehud Barak.
p. 145ANo.
p. 145QThorbjorn Jagland?
p. 145ANo.
p. 145QPhilip Levine?
p. 145ANo.
p. 145QAndrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew?
p. 145ANo.
p. 145QWoody Allen?
p. 145ANo.
p. 145QSo on-Yi Previn?
p. 145ANo.
p. 146QBenjamin Lawsky?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QGregory Poe?
p. 146AYes, about Mr. Epstein's historical conduct.
p. 146QJean-Luc Brunel?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QLeon Black?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QTerje Rod-Larsen?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QJes Staley?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QGeorge Mitchell?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QGlenn Dubin?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QEva Andersson-Dubin?
p. 146AWith respect to Glenn Dubin and Eva Andersson-Dubin, I have had a conversation with them about my experience in dealing with the media scrutiny around my association with Epstein. So not about the -- and that all relates to -- that all arises from the fact that he pled guilty to these sexual-related offenses back in 2008. But other than that, no.
p. 146QLes Wexner?
p. 146ANo.
p. 146QSteven Sinofsky?
p. 146ANo.
p. 147QHarvey Weinstein?
p. 147ANo.
p. 147QBill Gates?
p. 147ANo.
p. 147QAriane de Rothschild?
p. 147AYes.
p. 147QAny other member of the Rothschild family?
p. 147AI've spoken generally -- again, in the same -- I've spoken generally with so me of her daughters about the experience that -- with her -- the experience that I have had with the -- and that she has had -- with the media attention around anybody who was ever associated or had any meetings or communications with Jeffrey Epstein. But otherwise, no.
p. 147QPresident Bill Clinton?
p. 147ANo.
p. 147QSecretary Hillary Clinton?
p. 147ANo.
p. 147QDoug Band?
p. 147ANo.
p. 147QTed Waitt?
p. 147ANo.
p. 147QAny other elected official, politician, or world leader?
p. 147ANo.
p. 147QGoing back to Mr. Poe. You indicated yes for, I believe you said, historical conduct. Is that just talking about Mr. Epstein's previous crimes that he had already served jail time for?
p. 147AYes.
p. 147QAnd then you also said yes to Ariane de Rothschild. What specifically did you talk to Ms. Rothschild about regarding Mr. Epstein's crimes or allegations?
p. 148AAgain, just about -- not about -- directly about his crimes, per se, but about the effect that the media environment has had on people, including myself, because of having any association with Epstein. So that's what I spoke to her about.
p. 148QThank you. We're approaching the end of our hour. I have just a couple of more questions.
p. 148AI should say I probably spoke with her to explain to her what I understood about the criminal charges in 2019 after I attended the arraignment and read the charges in the indictment.
p. 148QI may have missed this earlier, so I apologize if you've already said it. When did you learn of Mr. Epstein's status as a sex offender?
p. 148AI don't recall specifically, but I knew that a condition of the nonprosecution agreement was that Mr. Epstein go to the State -- this is actually set forth in the nonprosecution agreement, which at so me point I did see. I don't remember when exactly. But at so me point I did see that the nonprosecution agreement itself required Mr. Epstein to go to the State Attorney's Office and tell the State Attorney's Office that they needed to file an additional charge against him that would require him to register as a sex offender. So that was just in my experience one of the many unusual features of that nonprosecution agreement.
p. 148QBut you never had a direct conversation with Mr. Epstein about his need to register as a sex offender?
p. 148AHis need to? I me an, I just understood that was an outcome of the criminal resolution that predated my knowing him by 6 years.
p. 148QBut he didn't explicitly tell you, "Ms. Ruemmler, I would need to -- I am registered as a sex offender"? You learned it through your own means? Am I understanding you correctly?
p. 148AI don't -- I just don't remember. I certainly knew it. When I knew it and how I came to know it, I couldn't tell you.
p. 149QUnderstood. In November of 2018, the Miami Herald came out with an explosive article detailing the Epstein and Maxwell trafficking ring. Did that article not cause any concern from you at the time?
p. 149AMy recollection of the article was that it was a criticism of the Miami U.S. Attorney's Office decision to decline to prosecute Mr. Epstein and that the premise of the story was that it was a sweetheart deal and that the deal had been the product of so me undue influence or something untoward, so me kind of collusion between Mr. Epstein's defense team and the prosecutors. So my recollection of the article was that it was all about whether or not that resolution was adequate or -- not adequate -- whether it was somehow corrupt in so me way.
p. 149QAnd my final question to you, notwithstanding the need to ask any related follow-ups. You've of course said here multiple times today that Jeffrey Epstein was arrogant. He was patronizing. He was an overt mansplainer. He became pushy at times. Knowing all of that, and understanding that you've had by all accounts a very powerful and prominent legal career, why did you keep dealing with Jeffrey Epstein for all these years?
p. 149AAgain, he remained a primary adviser to my client who remained my client until I left the law firm. At least to me, I me an, he wasn't -- he was all of those things. He was also nice, and I was nice in return, as I try to be with everybody. And in business, and particularly in the private practice of law, you deal with all sorts of people with all sorts of different kinds of personalities. And he was on sort of one end of the extreme in terms of his sort of arrogant, self-important manner. But he certainly wasn't the only person that I dealt with like that. But, again, had I known at the time everything that we know now, but most importantly that there was enough evidence to indict him in 2019, that this is someone who had intentionally gone out and sought minors for sex and for commercial sex, had I known that, I wouldn't have dealt with him. It's just a very -- and I don't me an to sound too clinical -- but as a lawyer, these concepts of intent and distinctions about one type of conduct versus another type of conduct, they matter. They matter in the law, and they matter in the law for a reason, because the law says this type of behavior should be punished in this way, and this type of behavior should be punished in that way. And I think I said at the outset and I'll say again, I regret that I did deal with him, and it was a mistake. I wish I never had. As lovely as today has been, I wish I weren't here talking to you all about it. It was a very -- he was a very -- he was not a big part of my life. He was not a big part of my legal practice. And, unfortunately, given the intense public interest in the story -- which I understand and I don't disagree is justified -- and the important work that the committee is doing, it's sort of taken on -- at least for me -- an outsized, disproportionate view as to how I felt about the dealings with him at the time.
p. 150Mr. Grant.Thank you. I apologize to our minority colleagues. I went 7 minutes over our hour. We can go off the record. [Recess.] Mr. . All right. Let's go back on the record. BY MR. :
p. 150QAt the end of the last hour, my colleague, Mr. Grant from the majority, he asked you about a series of articles that the Miami Herald published in November 2018. I think he asked you something to the effect of after reading those articles, did that change your mind about associating with Mr. Epstein, or something to that effect. When you replied, you said: I remember those articles to be about the plea bargain or the deal or something like that. I just want to remind you that that was a series of articles, many of which were focused on Jeffrey Epstein's victims. It included pictures of what they looked like at the time they were abused.
p. 151AUh-huh.
p. 151QAnd the whole world saw it. So with that, I think earlier in the day, I believe it was the majority's time, they asked you a little bit about Ghislaine Maxwell. So I will apologize if we retread a little bit of that ground. It was a long time ago of transcribed interview hours? What was your relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 151AI did not have a relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. I met her one time.
p. 151QCan you say again -- please describe that one time you met her.
p. 151AHer lawyer asked if she could use -- "she" meaning her lawyer -- asked if they could use a conference room at my law firm in New York in connection with so me legal work that was happening in New York, which I didn't -- I don't know what it was. But that's a very common thing in the private practice of law. If I have a case in -- let's say I had a case in Denver and my law firm didn't have an office in Denver. So it would be very common to reach out to another law firm and ask whether as a courtesy that you could use a conference room there. That's what this was.
p. 151QSo they reached out or --
p. 151AHer lawyer reached out --
p. 151QHer lawyer, Laura Menninger?
p. 151AYes.
p. 151QIs that right? Reached out and asked you --
p. 151ALaura.
p. 151Q-- if she could use a conference room at your law firm --
p. 151AYes.
p. 152Q-- Latham & Watkins in New York --
p. 152AYes.
p. 152Q-- for so me kind of legal work. You said yes.
p. 152AYes.
p. 152QDid you meet them?
p. 152AYes. And so I arranged for -- you have to reserve a conference room.
p. 152QUh-huh.
p. 152AI reserved the conference room. And I happened to be in the office on the day that they were in the office, and I went by the conference room to say hello and to introduce myself to Ms. Menninger, who I had not met.
p. 152QGot it. Do you remember when this was at all?
p. 152AI don't.
p. 152QAll right. Mr. . Can you give an approximation? What year?
p. 152Ms. Ruemmler.I don't. Mr. . Before 2020? Of course before 2020. Before 2018?
p. 152Ms. Ruemmler.It could have been. It could have been. It was so me time probably between 2015 and 2018, but I couldn't tell you exactly when. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit L was marked for identification.] Mr. . Let's introduce minority exhibit L, Bates number EFTA02465272. This is an April 19th, 2016, email exchange between Mr. Epstein and you. Do you think this -- this email says, "Laura and Ghislaine here tomorrow." That's from you. And then Mr. Epstein says, "Here? Where?" Were you referring to the meeting we were just talking about?
p. 153Ms. Ruemmler.Yes.
p. 153Mr. Fishman.That all you need for that document? BY MR. :
p. 153QJust a few days later, Ghislaine Maxwell was deposed in the defamation case, I think we talked about it earlier, between Virginia Giuffre and Ms. Maxwell. Do you know if that meeting between Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Menninger at your office was in any way related to that deposition?
p. 153AI don't -- I don't have any idea.
p. 153QAnd you didn't talk to either of them about the deposition or help them prepare in any way?
p. 153ANo.
p. 153QDid you recommend Ms. Menninger to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 153AHe asked if I -- for a referral, and I passed her name along. But, again, I didn't know her.
p. 153QHow did you know her well enough to pass her name along?
p. 153ABecause -- I didn't know her well enough to pass the name along. I believe what happened, which is very common, is someone asks you for a lawyer and you send out an email at your law firm saying: Does anybody have a recommendation for a lawyer to handle this kind of case?
p. 153QI remember that too. I know what you're talking about.
p. 153AYes. Those happened all the time. So someone in my law firm had recommended Laura, who, again, I didn't know and hadn't met, and I passed her contact information along.
p. 153QThat was the extent of your interaction with Ms. Menninger until this April 19th, 2016, meeting that your office hosted?
p. 153AI believe either myself or one of my colleagues had -- I don't remember specifically. But when she was contacted, I believe she was told that the referral came from Latham. And so either I or my colleague who had recommended her sort of spoke to her. She probably called to thank us for the referral, which, again, is common.
p. 154QGot it. All right. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit M was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 155QLet's introduce as exhibit M two emails, Bates numbers EFTA0124924 and EFTA01789934.
p. 155AOkay.
p. 155QThe first email, which we should note for the record is an email from Jeffrey Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell which you were not on --
p. 155AUh-huh.
p. 155Q-- I believe reflects exactly what you were just describing. The underlying email is from you to Jeffrey Epstein providing Laura Menninger's information.
p. 155AUh-huh.
p. 155QAnd then he forwards that on to Ms. Maxwell and says $50,000, "50K retainer."
p. 155AUh-huh.
p. 155QWhich in this case is not a 10-K, it's a 50k.
p. 155AUh-huh.
p. 155QThe next email, dated October 8th, 2015, is again at top an email exchange between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein.
p. 155AUh-huh.
p. 155QDo you see halfway through that first page where Ms. Maxwell says, "Called Laura. She had already requested an extension per Cathy's instructions. She can meet with me on Monday and with Cathy. Please call me. She thinks she has good grounds for dismissal." Now, Cathy here is spelled with a C.
p. 155AUh-huh.
p. 155QYou spell -- your name is spelled with a K.
p. 155AUh-huh.
p. 156QDo you understand this to be -- this Cathy to be you or somebody else?
p. 156AI don't know.
p. 156QDid you instruct Ms. Menninger at all about what to do in Ms. Maxwell's defamation case with Ms. Giuffre?
p. 156ANo. I wouldn't -- I don't instruct other lawyers. Generally, lawyers don't like to be instructed by other lawyers. I can't speculate on this other than -- at this stage one of the first things, when a complaint is filed, assuming that it has been -- had been served -- I don't have any idea whether this was or not -- but under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there's an amount of time you have to respond. And so given that I had just been asked to provide -- if I could make a recommendation or make a referral, which I did, it's possible that that's what it's referring to. But I just don't remember.
p. 156QYou don't recall whether or not you discussed filing for an extension with Ms. Menninger?
p. 156AAgain, I wouldn't have been filing any extension. I didn't -- I didn't -- I wasn't involved in this litigation other than to provide a --
p. 156QSo when Ms. Maxwell then says, "She can meet with me on Monday and with Cathy," did you meet with Ms. Maxwell and Ms. Menninger in October 2015?
p. 156ANo. I do not believe I did. And the only time I recall meeting Ms. Maxwell is the time that they asked to use a conference room in our office, which was in 2016 per the prior email that you showed me. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit N was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 156QLet's introduce as exhibit N an email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein dated April 23rd, 2016, Bates number EFTA02463487.
p. 157AOkay.
p. 157QIn this email exchange, Mr. Epstein asks, quote, "How does Laura set a perjury trap?" And you respond, quote, "Preparation. Get her to say things she has already said and then impeach her with a document that proves otherwise. The age issue is perfect for that."
p. 157AUh-huh.
p. 157QDo you remember what she was referring to -- what you were referring to when you said, "The age issue is perfect for that"?
p. 157AHe, Epstein, told me that she, meaning Ms. Giuffre, was not being truthful about her age, and that's all I remember about it. He asks something about a perjury trap. That's not a thing in my lexicon. That's not how I talk. I don't think about things like that. And I gave him a very generic response explaining sort of, frankly, "Cross-Examination 101."
p. 157QWhy were you giving Jeffrey Epstein any kind of response, any type, informal legal advice or whatever this is, on how Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer could get one of his -- Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's victims to be trapped in a deposition for perjury?
p. 157AHe was asking me a generic question. I understood him to be asking a generic question.
p. 157QBut your answer was not generic.
p. 157Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry. Can you let the witness finish, please? Mr. . Your answer was not generic.
p. 157Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry. Mr. Robinson -- Mr. . "The age issue is perfect for that."
p. 157Mr. Fishman.If you want to argue with the witness, we don't need to do that. Mr. . I don't want to argue with the witness.
p. 157Mr. Fishman.She was in the middle of answering -- Mr. . And I'm definitely not arguing with you.
p. 157Mr. Fishman.She was in the middle of answering the question. Mr. . You said there was going to be -- we can go off the record, but we're definitely going to keep going here. BY MR. :
p. 158QYou said you gave a generic answer. Your answer actually had a specific detail that defies the definition of the term "generic." "The age issue is perfect for that." So --
p. 158AAgain, he had told me that she was not truthful about her age. So, again, I'm just going off of what he told me, and I'm giving a very generic -- this is the most generic -- if you looked up "Cross-Examination for Dummies," that's what this response is.
p. 158QDo you remember what age she said she was and what age she actually was?
p. 158AI don't. I don't remember -- I don't remember the details about that issue. I do remember Ms. Giuffre's allegations that were made in the CVRA case and subsequently made public and there were allegations in there that I was inherently skeptical of.
p. 158QWere you inherently skeptical that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell abused her when she was a minor?
p. 158AI didn't -- I didn't know. But I recall that in the filing she said that she had been forced to have sex with foreign Presidents, plural, with multiple American politicians, with multiple business leaders. All of that information, which was generic, it wasn't specific, it was -- but very extreme allegations. Those allegations, again, which were made in a declaration in court, were inconsistent with anything that I had understood about the evidence that the State Attorney and the U.S. Attorney in Miami had uncovered. And I would have thought that if the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami had evidence that Epstein had trafficked an underage minor to multiple foreign Presidents or to multiple world leaders or to multiple American politicians --
p. 158QLike Prince Andrew?
p. 158A-- that that would be -- Prince Andrew was separately identified. This was an allegation that was separate and apart from Prince Andrew that said that she had been trafficked to multiple foreign Presidents and world leaders and American politicians and a former Prime Minister.
p. 159QSo when Jeffrey Epstein then says, "accountability, please help," and you say, "I will. I so wish I were doing it" --
p. 159AUh-huh.
p. 159QLet's take this step by step. What did you me an when you said, "I will" when he asked you "please help"?
p. 159AI don't specifically recall. Again, this is an email that's over 10 years ago at this time. But I, at this point in time, in 2016, I had a very active practice, including an active trial practice. I liked it. I enjoyed, as any trial lawyer does -- if you don't enjoy examining witnesses -- you seem to be enjoying this quite a lot -- then you shouldn't be doing it. And so, again, my state of mind at that time was based on the information that he told me and that I understood from things that were in the public domain was that there were allegations that any good lawyer would want to probe.
p. 159QAre you saying that any -- you think any good lawyer would want to depose one of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's victims with the goal of somehow trapping them in to committing perjury?
p. 159AThat is not what I said.
p. 159QWell, then --
p. 159AAnd that is not what I meant. Those are your words, not mine.
p. 159QThis email, he's asking you how to lay a perjury trap. You provide so me advice. Part of it -- you call it generic. There's so me very specific stuff. He says, "please help." You say, "I will. I so wish I were doing it."
p. 159ATo be clear --
p. 159QHelp me understand this email differently than exactly what it says.
p. 160ATo be very clear, I was not involved in this litigation. I was not counsel of record. There were lawyers involved in the litigation.
p. 160QAll right.
p. 160AHe asked me what I understood to be a basic layperson's question about how it is that you cross-examine a witness when you think they're not being truthful about something, and I told him. That's what this is. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit O was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 160QI'm going to introduce an exhibit. We're going to go back in time here. We were just talking about April 2016. We're going to go back to September 2015. This is going to be minority exhibit O, Bates number EFTA02486838.
p. 160AYes.
p. 160QYou write, "I want to think about whether there are any counterclaims that could be brought against VR." He says, "Thanks."
p. 160AUh-huh.
p. 160QDo you understand "VR" to have meant Victoria Roberts?
p. 160AI don't know who Victoria Roberts is.
p. 160QVirginia Roberts?
p. 160AYes.
p. 160QVirginia Roberts Giuffre.
p. 160AYes.
p. 160QWhy did you want to think about whether there were any counterclaims for Ghislaine Maxwell to bring about Virginia Roberts Giuffre in the defamation case?
p. 160AFirst of all, this says nothing about Ghislaine Maxwell in this email at all.
p. 161QWas there another litigation?
p. 161AShe was in active litigation with, I believe, with Alan Dershowitz at the time. I don't recall whether there was litigation with other people. But, again, this is -- he's sending me an email, by the way, that's in reference -- Kevin -- that is in reference to the DOJ prosecutor in the Rothschild case. And he must have asked me something -- again, my state of mind at the time, I'm a defense attorney, and he's asking me questions about someone who has made very extreme allegations about having been sex trafficked to foreign Presidents, to world leaders, to a Prime Minister, that she had been forced to have sex with Professor Alan Dershowitz on multiple occasions. These were claims that, to me, seemed to lack the indicia of credibility that one would expect and, most importantly, were entirely inconsistent with the resolution of the case in Florida, entirely inconsistent with the summary of the evidence in the letter authored by Stephanie Thacker to the Deputy Attorney General that I had read. [5:09 p. m.] BY MR. :
p. 162QI just want to quickly, you pointed out that there were possibly other cases with Virginia Roberts Giuffre related to what Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell had done to her. Were you referring about -- did you say you -- you wanted to think about whether there were any counterclaims that could be brought in another case that was active at the time?
p. 162AI don't have any memory, but what I -- what I -- specifically about this email. But Epstein was -- would ask me my views, and he's in this email asking me about something relating to the Rothschild matter, and I'm sort of in a generic way trying to show that I'm being somewhat responsive when he's asking my views. And, again, that was a common way that I would respond to him. I would say, hmm, let me think about this. Hmm, let me get back to you. You know, he was -- as I said before, he was very insistent. He was -- would ask, you know, me and others, you know, frequently, you know, these things. But it was -- it wasn't -- I didn't have any direct involvement in any of this. However, there was a lot of, particularly in sort of the more tabloid media, attention around these -- these allegations that she had -- she had raised. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit P was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 162QLet's introduce minority exhibit P, Bates number EFTA02484285, an October 12th email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein.
p. 162AUh-huh. Yes, I see it.
p. 162QMr. Epstein says, "seen as the good friend that you are. Might bring unhelpful criticism. Defense counsel might create Clinton-Obama unnecessary implication. Either way I appreciate the help, but we should be extra thoughtful, as surrounded by publicity seeking lawyers, et cetera."
p. 163AUh-huh.
p. 163QNow, help me understand this, because one way to read this case -- this email, without your knowledge, is that you had offered to appear as defense counsel in so me case related to Jeffrey Epstein or his activities, and he is thanking you and saying no thank you.
p. 163AThat's not the way I read this.
p. 163QTell me how to read it.
p. 163AI don't -- I don't know -- I me an, this is, again, not entirely coherent, but I had a client who was the primary advisor to during this period of time. And he didn't have -- I don't believe there was any active litigation with -- that Epstein was in -- that Epstein was a party to at this time, so I don't know what -- there was never -- I never offered to enter an appearance. Again, he was represented by counsel. That counsel was monitoring the CVRA litigation to which he wasn't a party. And so I don't know -- I don't have any idea what he's talking about. But I did not offer to enter an appearance on his behalf in so me case in October of 2015.
p. 163QAll right. And we'll just note an earlier exhibit where Ghislaine Maxwell misspells almost certainly your name with a C.
p. 163Mr. Fishman.I'm sorry. Are you testifying? Mr. . Oh, no, I'm definitely not.
p. 163Mr. Fishman.I'm pretty curious. Mr. . We'll go to exhibit M if you'd like.
p. 163Mr. Fishman.You said he misspelled her name. That's what you said.
p. 163Ms. Ruemmler.If you are, I'm curious to know what your views are about the inherent credibility of Ms. Giuffre's allegation. BY MR. :
p. 164QSo you still haven't actually been able to -- do you believe Ms. Giuffre was a survivor and a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, not --
p. 164AI'm sorry?
p. 164QDo you believe that Virginia Giuffre was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 164AI don't know.
p. 164QOkay.
p. 164AIf she says that she was, I don't have a reason to doubt that. However, there were allegations that she made that were, I believed based on my experience as a former prosecutor and as a defense counsel, that were of such a nature that they were -- they lacked inherent credibility. Typically, when someone says, I was sex trafficked to someone, they say who, when, where, not multiple world leaders, multiple foreign presidents. So my state of mind at the time -- and again, I didn't investigate this case. You're sitting here talking to me. We've been going for however many hours we've been going. Okay? Have you -- have you sat down and spoken to the State prosecutor who was in charge of the Epstein investigation to ask what evidence she uncovered, to ask whether she interviewed Virginia Giuffre?
p. 164QWe've talked a bit about the advice, or whatever it is we are calling it, you provided Mr. Epstein regarding public relations or media items. Did you ever reach out to anybody at a media organization about anything to do with Mr. Epstein?
p. 164ANot advocating on his behalf I did not. I did make one courtesy call to a friend and colleague of mine because I saw something air on that -- that lawyer's media platform that I thought created legal risk for the company. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit Q was marked for identification.] BY MR. :
p. 165QLet's introduce as minority exhibit Q Bates number EFTA02462711, a May 18th, 2016, email exchange between you and Mr. Epstein. Does this email reflect the courtesy contact that you just mentioned?
p. 165AIt reflects my expression of thinking about calling -- calling that person, yes.
p. 165QYou write, "I am thinking about calling the GC of NBC about those Donny Deutsch comments."
p. 165AYes.
p. 165Q"Thoughts?"
p. 165AYes.
p. 165QDid you call the general counsel of NBC?
p. 165AI believe I did. I believe I did. At this time in May of 2016, it was really, you know, an intense period in the Presidential campaign, in the 2016 Presidential election. And if Donald Trump at the time were not the formal nominee, he was certainly the de facto nominee. And my recollection is that these comments were -- that I just happened to see were the kinds of comments that could have attracted, you know, litigation particularly from Mr. Trump, who I understood to be, you know, pretty litigious around those times. And there were people at that time who were trying to -- to the best of my recollection, they were trying to connect Mr. Epstein to Mr. Trump.
p. 165QI'm going to shift gears to a topic that the majority covered in the prior hour. I think we'll be able to efficiently go through it. You talked a bit with them about your communications with your employer Goldman Sachs regarding your association with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell; discussed how those communications evolved, explained you keyed them to different public events that were reported by the Wall Street Journal. I think that is completely clear. I just want to make sure I am understanding what happened. So when you were hired -- or before you were hired, you proactively disclosed that you had an association with Jeffrey Epstein, and somebody there told you this is more than we usually get from somebody at this level of disclosure. Is that right?
p. 166AYes.
p. 166QIs that what I heard?
p. 166AYes.
p. 166QOkay. Who was that?
p. 166AIt was the secretary to the board.
p. 166QGot it. Okay. Then you mentioned the 2023 Wall Street Journal article that may have prompted something else?
p. 166AYes.
p. 166QHad you disclosed anything more to Goldman Sachs about your associations with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell before that article was published?
p. 166ANo, I didn't see any reason to.
p. 166QGot it.
p. 166AOh, actually, there was one other thing. In -- sometime in 2020, there was an article in The Daily Beast that stated that there were sources who said that they saw me in the courtroom at Epstein's arraignment. And there were anonymous sources who suggested that he wanted me to be on his defense team but that that was never going to happen. And so when I learned, because the reporter from The Daily Beast reached out to me, I went to the head of communications at Goldman Sachs and said I got this outreach from the reporter.
p. 166QWas there a point where you disclosed to Goldman Sachs before it became public that he had called you when he was arrested in 2019?
p. 166ANo.
p. 166QWas there a point where you disclosed any of the gifts you received from him before they became public?
p. 167AI can't remember whether there was anything in The Wall Street Journal article in 2023 about that, but certainly I would have. If anyone had asked me, you know, any questions, I would have. It's certainly not -- it's not something I would have felt the need to affirmatively disclose, as there was nothing improper, you know, whatsoever about accepting gifts in the professional services context.
p. 167QI believe it's been reported that you chaired a set of risk-based committees at Goldman Sachs, Firmwide Conduct Committee, Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee, and maybe you were a member of something called the firm ride -- Firmwide Enterprise Risk Committee. Is that right?
p. 167AI was the chair of the Firmwide Conduct Committee. I was a vice chair of the Firmwide Reputational Risk Committee, and I was a member of the enterprise -- Firmwide Enterprise Risk Committee.
p. 167QDid you or anybody else at Goldman Sachs raise any concerns about you continuing to be on those committees after details of your association with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell became public?
p. 167ANo, and I can't imagine why they would have.
p. 167QI think it was reported that you were helping find, I believe, the search for your successor as general counsel. Is that right?
p. 167AI am involved in the search process, yes.
p. 167QWill you commit that you will not be recommending anyone with any association with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell as your successor as general counsel at Goldman Sachs?
p. 167AI think that is not a question for me. I think -- I think that the next general counsel and the next chief legal officer, you know, will be selected by our CEO in consultation with our board of directors, and -- but let me -- let me -- let me say this. In the American legal system we hold people accountable for their conduct. We don't hold people accountable for their associations. And you all are here in the context of performing a legislative function to inform policymakers. And you haven't asked my opinion on this, but I'll give it to you anyway. It is, in my opinion, a very, very bad policy to start to impute misconduct by people solely as a virtue of their association. And I would think that that would be particularly acute and top of mind to a member -- number of Members of both this body and the Senate who publically endorsed a candidate who has been credibly accused of sexual assault. And so if we start applying a standard that somehow a mere association with someone who has been accused or, you know, convicted of criminal conduct, I think that's a very dangerous road to go down.
p. 168QHave you provided Goldman Sachs with any communications or documents pertaining to you, Jeffrey Epstein, or Ghislaine Maxwell that the Department of Justice has not yet publically released?
p. 168Mr. Kravis.Wait. Hold on.
p. 168Mr. Fishman.Don't -- yeah, that I'm not sure we can -- Mr. . Well, I can -- I can ask it.
p. 168Mr. Fishman.That's a very broad topic. Mr. . Have you provided Goldman Sachs with any documents or communications between -- pertaining to your association with Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein?
p. 168Mr. Kravis.No. Hold on. Wait. Mr. . We'll go off the record.
p. 168Mr. Fishman.We'll go off the record. We'll take a minute. [Recess.] Mr. . We're back on the record. BY MR. :
p. 168QDid you provide Goldman Sachs with any communications or documents pertaining to your association with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell?
p. 169AThe answer to that question is no. But I didn't -- I don't have an association with Ghislaine Maxwell.
p. 169QDid you communicate with Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell through other means than emails and phone calls?
p. 169AI did not communicate with Ms. Maxwell other than the brief introduction that we talked about earlier. And with respect to Mr. Epstein, no. My means of communication was email, telephone, in-person meeting.
p. 169QNo other means?
p. 169ANo other means.
p. 169QHave you ever deleted any communications with Mr. Epstein?
p. 169ANo.
p. 169QAnd did you ever communicate with Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell's attorneys without Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell being involved?
p. 169Mr. Fishman.I'm not sure what that means.
p. 169Ms. Ruemmler.I'm sorry?
p. 169Mr. Fishman.I me an, what does that -- I'm not sure I understood the question. Mr. . Well, I asked that, did you ever email any of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys without Jeffrey Epstein on an email about Jeffrey Epstein's work matters?
p. 169Ms. Ruemmler.I don't recall. Mr. . All right. The last thing I'll do is put -- enter in to the record as minority exhibit R the minority's Interim Staff Analysis, "The Price Of Non-Prosecution: The Evolution of Epstein's Trafficking Network, from Palm Beach to Paris and Beyond." Just have that for the court reporter. [Ruemmler Minority Exhibit R was marked for identification.] Mr. . We will go off the record. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 5:30 p. m., the interview was adjourned.] Certificate of Deponent/Interviewee I have read the foregoing _ _ pages, which contain the correct transcript of the answers made by me to the questions there in recorded. _ _ Witness Name _ _ Date