What specific emails in the DOJ Epstein release reference Kathryn Ruemmler and where can they be accessed?
Executive summary
The recently released DOJ tranche of Jeffrey Epstein materials contains multiple email threads that mention Kathryn (Kathy) Ruemmler — spanning exchanges from roughly 2014 through 2019 that show invitations, gift acknowledgments and advisory messages — and those records have been published in the DOJ repository tied to the Epstein Files Transparency Act (notably referenced as part of “Data Set 9” in coverage) and have been described and excerpted by major news organizations (CBS, Reuters, Business Insider, NPR) reviewing the release [1][2][3][4].
1. What the released emails say and their date range
The documents released by the Department of Justice include email exchanges between Jeffrey Epstein (or his office) and Kathryn Ruemmler that reporters say run between about 2014 and 2019, showing repeated communications in which Ruemmler sometimes used an affectionate tone (including calling Epstein “Uncle Jeffrey”), acknowledged gifts such as an Hermès bag, boots and wine, and in at least one instance appears in an invitation from Epstein’s office to a March 2018 gathering; Reuters, Business Insider and other outlets cite those exchanges in their reviews of the DOJ files [2][3][5].
2. Specific examples cited by reporting (in lieu of unique file IDs)
News coverage highlights specific email examples: a December 2015 message quoted as Ruemmler saying she “adores” Epstein in one context, a March 2018 email from Epstein’s office inviting Ruemmler to a get-together with other figures, and threads where she thanks Epstein for gifts and discusses media responses — Reuters and Business Insider summarize these particular messages from the DOJ release [1][5][2][3]. Reporting also notes multiple mentions across the tranche rather than a single standalone file, and outlets extracted and quoted passages to illustrate the tenor of the exchanges [6][7].
3. Where the emails can be accessed
The primary source for the emails is the Department of Justice’s public release under the Epstein Files Transparency Act; news reports identify the latest upload as part of the DOJ repository and refer to the batch as “Data Set 9” in the DOJ’s release framework (CBS/News9 coverage citing Data Set 9) — journalists reviewing those files (NPR, Reuters, Business Insider, CNBC, CBS) relied on the publicly posted DOJ materials when quoting specific messages [1][4][2][3][5]. For readers seeking the original records, the DOJ’s Epstein files repository is the starting point described in multiple accounts [4][1].
4. Limitations of available reporting and what is not yet public in press summaries
Public reporting cites and paraphrases many of the emails but does not in these accounts provide universal, document-level identifiers (such as exact DOJ file names or page numbers for each quoted message), and therefore a granular inventory of every email that mentions Ruemmler — with direct file-path links or unique document IDs from the DOJ repository — is not supplied in the cited articles; outlets instead point to selected excerpts and aggregated descriptions from the DOJ tranche [2][1][3]. Journalistic summaries also stress that being named or appearing in these records is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing, and that the release contains unvetted material from many sources [4].
5. Competing narratives and responses from principals
Reporting records two clear counterpoints: Ruemmler has said her ties to Epstein were professional and has publicly stated she “regrets ever knowing Jeffrey Epstein,” while her employer, Goldman Sachs, and other spokespeople have framed the gifts as unsolicited and said the firm vetted her background; media stories explicitly note that Goldman’s CEO defended Ruemmler even as the DOJ materials show gift exchanges and advisory-style messages in the released emails [2][6][3]. Major news organizations handling the DOJ release — including Reuters, CBS, NPR and Business Insider — contextualize the excerpts differently but uniformly point readers back to the DOJ’s public repository as the primary source for independent verification [2][8][4][3].