Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: The Deal That Should Have Never Been Given To Epstein (9/14/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: The Deal That Should Have Never Been Given To Epstein (9/14/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: Been talking a lot about the non-prosecution agreement for a
0:04
Speaker 1: few weeks now. And as we get prepared for this
0:08
Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement to go in front of the 11th Circuit
0:13
Speaker 1: Court on December 3rd, I thought it would be the
0:16
Speaker 1: perfect time to pull out an article from 2009 that
0:22
Speaker 1: was run by the Palm Beach Post. And even at
0:26
Speaker 1: the time, 2009, When they talked about the non-prosecution agreement
0:33
Speaker 1: and former federal prosecutors talked about the whole situation surrounding it,
0:41
Speaker 1: it was very irregular even then. The people that knew
0:47
Speaker 1: what the deal entailed and the prosecutors who used to
0:52
Speaker 1: work for the federal government who had an idea about
0:57
Speaker 1: what it entailed couldn't believe what they were seeing. So
1:02
Speaker 1: when people talk about how, oh, I had no idea
1:05
Speaker 1: what was going on, and we had no idea what
1:07
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein was, it's a bunch of BS. From this
1:14
Speaker 1: first investigation, just the one in Palm Beach, just the
1:18
Speaker 1: one in Palm Beach, there was 30, 40, 50 girls
1:24
Speaker 1: involved in that first investigation. And these are high school girls.
1:28
Speaker 1: From the Palm Beach area. The surrounding areas. Etc. All
1:34
Speaker 1: of those girls. Were investigated. It was all in the report.
1:39
Speaker 1: And all of these people. Who act like they had
1:41
Speaker 1: no idea. What Jeffrey Epstein was. Are obviously lying. But
1:49
Speaker 1: at the time. In 2009. It was apparent even then.
1:54
Speaker 1: That this non-prosecution agreement. was straight garbage. So, like I said,
2:02
Speaker 1: this article is from 2009. It was published on June
2:08
Speaker 1: 10th of 2009. And the headline, Epstein's secret pact with
2:13
Speaker 1: feds reveals highly unusual terms. And this article was posted
2:19
Speaker 1: in the PalmBeachPost.com. I can't find a author, so I'm
2:25
Speaker 1: wondering if it was just staff or But either way,
2:29
Speaker 1: the article will be posted in the description box like usual,
2:33
Speaker 1: the link to the article, so you can go check
2:35
Speaker 1: it out yourself. A secret non-prosecution agreement with multi-millionaire financier, pedophile,
2:44
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, struck with federal prosecutors is being called highly
2:49
Speaker 1: unusual by former federal prosecutors and downright outrageous by attorneys
2:55
Speaker 1: now representing young women who were victimized by him. So
3:06
Speaker 1: even then, all right, you had the prosecutors calling it
3:10
Speaker 1: highly unusual and the attorneys for the survivors, well, these
3:16
Speaker 1: guys obviously knew that this shit didn't pass the sniff test.
3:20
Speaker 1: How many clients had they represented on the other side
3:23
Speaker 1: of things? How many times were they representing people charged criminally?
3:28
Speaker 1: And I bet you their clients never ever walked out
3:30
Speaker 1: of there with one of these kind of deals. Oh yeah,
3:34
Speaker 1: this deal's for me, my friend, my other friend, my
3:36
Speaker 1: other friend's friend, their cousin, their nephew Joseph, their cousin John,
3:41
Speaker 1: Michael McGee, and... Really? It's all a bunch of BS.
3:45
Speaker 1: Nobody gets those kind of deals. And these lawyers knew that.
3:51
Speaker 1: The deal reveals that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
3:54
Speaker 1: Office investigated him for several federal crimes... including engaging minors
3:59
Speaker 1: in commercial sex. So, child prostitution, I'm using air quotes,
4:06
Speaker 1: basically the abuse of children, since children can't consent to
4:10
Speaker 1: be prostitutes. And we're talking about girls that are 14,
4:14
Speaker 1: 15 in some cases here. We're not talking about 19
4:18
Speaker 1: or 20 year old girls. We're talking about 14, 15,
4:20
Speaker 1: 16 years old in some cases. And.
4:27
Speaker 1: Commercial sex that is what they're the the terminology used
4:32
Speaker 1: in the article now remember this is all the way
4:34
Speaker 1: back in 2009 right so the terminology certainly isn't what
4:40
Speaker 1: it is today when you have a lot of these
4:42
Speaker 1: outlets who have wised up and started calling these gals
4:46
Speaker 1: survivors instead of victims etc etc so you see that
4:51
Speaker 1: here too and how much things have changed Especially since
4:55
Speaker 1: the Me Too situation occurred. The crimes are punishable by
5:01
Speaker 1: anywhere from 10 years to life in prison. Imagine, and
5:05
Speaker 1: he got 13 months folks. 13 measly ass months that
5:11
Speaker 1: wasn't even real time. He wasn't eating bologna sandwiches. Right?
5:15
Speaker 1: He was watching as much TV as he wanted from
5:17
Speaker 1: his office. His 13 hour adventures while he wasn't Being
5:22
Speaker 1: kept in the stockade. And he was out gallivanting all around.
5:26
Speaker 1: Lord knows where. Abusing lord knows who. Under the supervision
5:31
Speaker 1: of some. Obviously. Lame ass. Easily paid off. So called guard.
5:40
Speaker 1: How does any of this. Sit comfortably with anybody. Especially now.
5:46
Speaker 1: When we have hindsight. To guide us. When we're looking
5:49
Speaker 1: back at things like this. It is just so abhorrent
5:52
Speaker 1: what occurred, and it is beyond negligent, right? There's negligence,
5:58
Speaker 1: and then there is willful negligence, and that's what we
6:03
Speaker 1: have here in my opinion. But federal prosecutors backed down
6:08
Speaker 1: and agreed to recall grand jury subpoenas if Epstein pleaded
6:13
Speaker 1: guilty to prostitution-related felonies in state court, which he ultimately did,
6:18
Speaker 1: He received an 18-month jail sentence of which he served
6:22
Speaker 1: 13 months. And again, I know people that have served seven,
6:27
Speaker 1: eight years for way less than what Jeffrey Epstein was
6:32
Speaker 1: involved in. Victimless crimes, money crimes, right? And these people
6:38
Speaker 1: get six, seven years for something as mundane as quote-unquote
6:44
Speaker 1: illegal sports gambling. But Jeffrey Epstein, his friends, they get
6:49
Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement. They get that cush stockade life. They
6:54
Speaker 1: get to do whatever the hell they want whenever they want. Oh,
6:57
Speaker 1: you just got to come here and sleep here at night, Jeffrey.
7:00
Speaker 1: But we'll keep the door open. You can go to
7:02
Speaker 1: the room to watch TV, etc., etc. And I know
7:08
Speaker 1: a lot of people are pissed off at Acosta, and
7:11
Speaker 1: I get it. Acosta's a dirtbag, a spineless scumbag. But
7:15
Speaker 1: he ain't where all of our furor and fury should rest.
7:20
Speaker 1: He should get a little taste of it, which he
7:22
Speaker 1: has already. And if there are any more sanctions that
7:27
Speaker 1: could be brought upon him, or if there's anything negligent
7:31
Speaker 1: criminally that can be found, then yeah, he should be charged.
7:34
Speaker 1: But besides that, I don't hear Mukasey's name brought up
7:38
Speaker 1: nowhere near enough, or his underlings, Philippe and the rest
7:42
Speaker 1: of them. So I think that it's just like if
7:49
Speaker 1: you're trying to get rid of a drug problem in
7:54
Speaker 1: a neighborhood, you don't go and bust the street level dealers.
7:58
Speaker 1: I mean, you do, but you're not. You're just spinning
8:00
Speaker 1: your wheels. They're just going to have the next block
8:05
Speaker 1: boy up moving and ready to take over with a
8:09
Speaker 1: pocket full of stones. And it's the same stuff here.
8:19
Speaker 1: The U.S. Attorney's Office also agreed not to charge any
8:22
Speaker 1: of Epstein's possible co-conspirators, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Leslie Groff,
8:29
Speaker 1: and Nadia Marcinkova, a.k.a. the Core Four. And we all
8:36
Speaker 1: know what sort of important, intimate role all four of
8:42
Speaker 1: them had in their capacity as far as working with
8:46
Speaker 1: and for Jeffrey Epstein. We know that they were integral
8:51
Speaker 1: to the situation going off without a hitch, to everything
8:54
Speaker 1: running smoothly, and for all cylinders to be firing at
9:00
Speaker 1: the same time. And they all worked in coordination in
9:03
Speaker 1: this criminal enterprise, with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell pulling the strings.
9:11
Speaker 1: The deal was negotiated in part by heavyweight New York
9:14
Speaker 1: criminal defense attorney Gerald Lefcourt, Now, Gerald Lefcourt's an interesting cat, right?
9:20
Speaker 1: He's on record saying that Epstein was a major donor
9:27
Speaker 1: to the Clinton Global Initiative to the tune of millions
9:32
Speaker 1: and millions of dollars. So Gerald Lefcourt is a pretty
9:36
Speaker 1: credible guy, right? I mean, he's a big-time lawyer, wouldn't
9:41
Speaker 1: just be saying that shit if it wasn't true. So
9:45
Speaker 1: that's another question that people haven't really dug too deep on.
9:51
Speaker 1: What the hell was Jeffrey Epstein getting in return for
9:56
Speaker 1: giving Bill Clinton and his foundation secrets? much money? And
10:01
Speaker 1: then also remember Ghislaine Maxwell's nephew, Alexander De Rossi. Well,
10:07
Speaker 1: he had himself a nice cush job at the State
10:09
Speaker 1: Department under, you guessed it, Hillary Clinton. And it would
10:14
Speaker 1: be nice if the legacy media would start connecting some
10:17
Speaker 1: of these dots. It would be nice if they asked
10:20
Speaker 1: a couple of hard questions, a few rude questions, perhaps.
10:24
Speaker 1: I mean, we see it on a daily basis right now.
10:27
Speaker 1: So what's the difference? Why don't they want to ask
10:29
Speaker 1: Clinton these hard questions? It really makes you wonder, doesn't it?
10:35
Speaker 1: Because the ties between the Clintons and Epstein are just
10:41
Speaker 1: completely over the top. And now again, I'm not saying
10:45
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton was abusing girls with Jeffrey Epstein. There's nobody
10:48
Speaker 1: who has come out and said that yet. There's no
10:50
Speaker 1: evidence of that. That's not what I mean. I'm talking
10:53
Speaker 1: about their connection financially, their connection professionally, and that's right,
11:00
Speaker 1: their connection personally. Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein were thick
11:06
Speaker 1: as thieves. And Gerald Lefcourt coming out and talking about
11:10
Speaker 1: how Epstein was such a huge donor to get the
11:15
Speaker 1: initiative for Clinton off of the ground it's a big
11:18
Speaker 1: deal that a lot of people overlook unsealed on Friday
11:24
Speaker 1: after attorneys for some of Epstein's survivors and the Palm
11:27
Speaker 1: Beach Post sought its release it offers the first public
11:30
Speaker 1: look at the deal Epstein's high-powered legal counsel brokered on
11:35
Speaker 1: his behalf and it's there's a problem right folks when
11:41
Speaker 1: we're relying on local outlets like the Palm Beach Post
11:46
Speaker 1: or the Miami Herald even to be the ones to
11:49
Speaker 1: force this into light. This should just be transparency expected
11:55
Speaker 1: right away in situations such as these. Again, this is
12:00
Speaker 1: not some sort of national security situation. This is not
12:03
Speaker 1: some sort of new weapons that have to be protected
12:07
Speaker 1: kind of situation. It is nothing like that. It is
12:11
Speaker 1: something that all of us as taxpayers and as citizens
12:15
Speaker 1: should have access to. Of course, anything that could harm survivors,
12:20
Speaker 1: redact their names, obviously. I'm talking about the overall documentation.
12:26
Speaker 1: It should be out there. It should be public. And
12:28
Speaker 1: there shouldn't be any of this, oh, it's sealed and
12:32
Speaker 1: it's hidden and you can't see it, blah, blah, blah.
12:35
Speaker 1: That stuff is all garbage. I'm really sick of that stuff, honestly.
12:43
Speaker 1: Mark Johnson of Stewart, a former federal prosecutor, described the
12:47
Speaker 1: disparity in potential sentences as unusual, but even more so
12:52
Speaker 1: a provision on attorney payment. So there's a lot, right,
12:59
Speaker 1: that goes into this. And let's just start with the
13:03
Speaker 1: disparity of potential sentences. That is highly unusual. In fact,
13:08
Speaker 1: it is unheard of. It's the only time a deal
13:11
Speaker 1: like this has ever been struck in the United States,
13:14
Speaker 1: according to many people who are familiar with the circumstances.
13:20
Speaker 1: And you want me to believe with all of the
13:22
Speaker 1: other things that have occurred in this case, with all
13:25
Speaker 1: of the people that Epstein was buddy-buddy with, that all
13:29
Speaker 1: of this just happened to be a coincidence. All of
13:32
Speaker 1: this is a coincidence. I'm sorry, but I cannot agree
13:37
Speaker 1: with that or buy into that. The first draft of
13:42
Speaker 1: the agreement in September 2007 required that Epstein pay an
13:47
Speaker 1: attorney tapped by the U.S. Attorney's Office and approved by
13:50
Speaker 1: Epstein to represent some of the survivors. That attorney is
13:55
Speaker 1: prominent Miami lawyer Bob Josephsburg. Now, again, another little nugget, right?
14:02
Speaker 1: We don't talk about this too much either.
14:03
Speaker 2: And that first draft of the agreement that had the
14:09
Speaker 2: requirement to pay Josephsburg to represent some of the victims
14:15
Speaker 2: is just.
14:16
Speaker 1: Way beyond weird. I mean, way, way, way beyond weird.
14:22
Speaker 1: Epstein shouldn't have anything to do with providing a lawyer
14:25
Speaker 1: for those he victimized. So the whole thing was foobar.
14:30
Speaker 1: The whole thing was trash. The whole thing was garbage.
14:33
Speaker 1: And I can only hope that the 11th Circuit Court
14:36
Speaker 1: of Appeals... will act in a manner that is fitting
14:45
Speaker 1: of people who are there to uphold justice. And if not,
14:48
Speaker 1: I swear, if it was me, if I was one
14:50
Speaker 1: of the lawyers involved in this, I would go all
14:53
Speaker 1: the way to the Supreme Court if I had to.
14:55
Speaker 1: Whatever it takes, folks, because it's obvious that this non-prosecution
15:00
Speaker 1: agreement has to go. The only thing that's propping it
15:03
Speaker 1: up are technicalities and the fact that the government doesn't
15:08
Speaker 1: want that egg on their face. But an addendum to
15:13
Speaker 1: the agreement signed the following month struck Epstein's duty to
15:17
Speaker 1: pay Joseph, Joseph's Berg. If he and the victims did
15:20
Speaker 1: not accept settlements capped at $ 150, 000 and instead pursued lawsuits.
15:26
Speaker 1: Sure sounds a lot like the fund that they set up, huh?
15:29
Speaker 1: The survivor's fund. Now I get why they would set
15:32
Speaker 1: that up to expedite the payments, but, This is the
15:35
Speaker 1: kind of shit that these girls have been dealing with forever.
15:38
Speaker 1: People like Epstein, what's 150,000 racks to Jeffrey Epstein? So
15:43
Speaker 1: for Jeffrey Epstein, a couple of pennies and some pocket
15:48
Speaker 1: lint is all it takes for him to get off
15:51
Speaker 1: on abusing children? For him abusing the most exposed amongst us?
16:00
Speaker 1: That's all it takes, huh? 150,000 dollars? I mean, don't
16:04
Speaker 1: get me wrong, it's a lot of money, right? For
16:06
Speaker 1: the average folks, for us. But for Jeffrey Epstein, that
16:09
Speaker 1: ain't shit. And he was obviously more than willing to
16:13
Speaker 1: pay that off and to pay these girls for their silence.
16:19
Speaker 1: And $ 150, 000? Give me a break. That's insulting. Johnson said
16:25
Speaker 1: it appears the government was trying to balance the lesser
16:28
Speaker 1: sentence for Epstein with recovering $ 150, 000 for each survivor. I've never,
16:35
Speaker 1: ever seen anything like that in my life, he said.
16:37
Speaker 1: It's highly unusual. Yeah, it's basically gag money, right? And
16:41
Speaker 1: the government was helping facilitate it. So that's, look, this
16:47
Speaker 1: is the history of the case here, folks, right? This
16:49
Speaker 1: isn't me making it up. This isn't me just speculating here.
16:53
Speaker 1: This is what occurred. This is what occurred right here
16:57
Speaker 1: in black and white. And it's some of the stuff
17:00
Speaker 1: that's forgotten about. Stuff that we might not talk about
17:03
Speaker 1: too much. Stuff that doesn't come up in the newer
17:05
Speaker 1: articles too much. And that's why it's important to go
17:09
Speaker 1: back and yank these older articles and add them to
17:12
Speaker 1: the catalog and go through them. Because this is crazy.
17:18
Speaker 1: The government facilitating $ 150, 000 in hush money, basically? And you
17:23
Speaker 1: mean to tell me? No, the question I guess I
17:25
Speaker 1: should ask is, Is the 11th Circuit Court going to
17:28
Speaker 1: have this in front of them as well? Or are
17:31
Speaker 1: they going to just, you know, forget about this, just
17:33
Speaker 1: like what we learned from the, air quote, internal investigation
17:39
Speaker 1: by the DOJ? The deal does not say whether any
17:45
Speaker 1: survivors were contacted or consulted before the deal was made.
17:49
Speaker 1: They obviously weren't. And that's the big rub here. That's
17:53
Speaker 1: one of the things that the 11th Circuit Court is
17:58
Speaker 1: going to be looking at. Were all the parameters followed?
18:03
Speaker 1: Was the law followed to a T? And it most
18:06
Speaker 1: certainly was not. And all you have to do is
18:09
Speaker 1: look at those amicus briefs filed by the lawmakers who
18:12
Speaker 1: actually wrote this law. So I would think that the
18:17
Speaker 1: 11th Circuit Court would have that information in front of them,
18:20
Speaker 1: at the very least, those amicus briefs, I mean, Attorney
18:25
Speaker 1: Brad Edwards of Fort Lauderdale, who represents three of the
18:28
Speaker 1: young women, believes that none of the 30 to 40
18:32
Speaker 1: women identified as victims in the federal investigation were told
18:36
Speaker 1: ahead of time. Edwards said his clients received letters from
18:39
Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney's Office months after the deal was signed,
18:44
Speaker 1: assuring them Epstein would be prosecuted. 30 to 40 women.
18:47
Speaker 1: 30 to 40 women. And I bet you they weren't women, folks, okay?
18:54
Speaker 1: We're going to say children because we know what he
18:57
Speaker 1: was doing in Palm Beach. We know about the sex
18:59
Speaker 1: pyramid scheme he had running there. And we know how
19:02
Speaker 1: prolific he was when it comes to abusing girls in
19:06
Speaker 1: Palm Beach and high school age at that. So again,
19:10
Speaker 1: in hindsight, this is all very damning for them. Very,
19:14
Speaker 1: very damning for them and their hopes of keeping this
19:18
Speaker 1: NPA in place. Never consulting the survivors is probably the
19:25
Speaker 1: most outrageous aspect of it, Edwards said. It taught them
19:28
Speaker 1: that someone with money can buy his way out of anything.
19:32
Speaker 1: It's outrageous and embarrassing for United States attorney's offices and
19:36
Speaker 1: state's attorney's offices. 100% egg on their face. And see,
19:41
Speaker 1: Brad Edwards has been consistent here, folks. Remember, this is 2009,
19:44
Speaker 1: 11 years ago, 12 years ago, almost. And Brad Edwards
19:50
Speaker 1: was on the front line with his gloves on punching
19:53
Speaker 1: his way up and he makes a great point what
19:57
Speaker 1: this shows these survivors is that Jeffrey Epstein was able
20:02
Speaker 1: to do and get away with whatever the hell he
20:05
Speaker 1: wanted and that their lives their dreams their hopes meant
20:09
Speaker 1: nothing in comparison to what Jeffrey Epstein wanted. Epstein now
20:17
Speaker 1: faces many civil lawsuits filed by the women, who are
20:21
Speaker 1: represented by a variety of attorneys. In many, the allegations
20:25
Speaker 1: are the same, that Epstein had a taste for teenage girls,
20:32
Speaker 1: identified poor, vulnerable ones, and used other young women to
20:37
Speaker 1: lure them to his Palm Beach mansion. They walked away
20:40
Speaker 1: with between $ 200 and $ 1, 000. And the money was always
20:45
Speaker 1: for him to fall back on and cry prostitution, right?
20:48
Speaker 1: That was always the point of the money. What do
20:51
Speaker 1: you mean? I didn't rape anybody. I paid her. I'm
20:55
Speaker 1: just a John. And that was always going to be
20:59
Speaker 1: the defense. And they used it to a T and
21:02
Speaker 1: perfectly to get him out of that jail sentence the
21:05
Speaker 1: first time around. Former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, also representing survivors,
21:12
Speaker 1: called the agreement a sweetheart deal. Why was it so
21:16
Speaker 1: important for the government to make this deal, Berger said rhetorically.
21:20
Speaker 1: We have not yet had an honest explanation by any
21:23
Speaker 1: public official as to why it was made and why
21:26
Speaker 1: the survivors were sold down the river. And even back then,
21:30
Speaker 1: the fury of people who were involved in the case
21:33
Speaker 1: is apparent and the shock and discontent is apparent. It
21:38
Speaker 1: is gross what occurred here, folks. I mean gross. Former
21:43
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Ryan McCabe described the agreement as very unorthodox. Yeah,
21:48
Speaker 1: that's an understatement. Such agreements, he said, are usually reserved
21:52
Speaker 1: for corporations, not individuals. Well, yeah, corporate overlords, you can't
21:57
Speaker 1: really destroy the golden goose, right? We've established that. If
22:01
Speaker 1: you're a banker or a corporate overlord, boy, you get
22:04
Speaker 1: hooked up. You get to live your life. We'll have
22:07
Speaker 1: a deferred prosecution, whatever that means, for your stealing of
22:11
Speaker 1: $ 500 billion. It's such a shell game, and it's so rigged.
22:16
Speaker 1: It is so damn rigged. I don't know how anyone
22:18
Speaker 1: can look at the whole system and not shake their
22:21
Speaker 1: head in disgust. It's very, very rare. I've never seen
22:27
Speaker 1: or heard of the procedure that was set up here,
22:29
Speaker 1: said McCabe, who has no involvement in the Epstein litigation. Now,
22:33
Speaker 1: this is an ex-prosecutor, folks, right? You know, I always say,
22:36
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea, but from
22:38
Speaker 1: the way where I'm sitting and from what I see, well,
22:41
Speaker 1: looks like this lawyer certainly agrees. This kind of shit
22:44
Speaker 1: does not happen. He's essentially avoiding federal prosecution because he
22:53
Speaker 1: can afford to pay that many lawyers to help those
22:55
Speaker 1: survivors review their cases. If a person has no money,
22:59
Speaker 1: he wouldn't be able to strike a deal like this
23:01
Speaker 1: and avoid federal prosecutions. It's so sick. God, the way
23:06
Speaker 1: these girls were preyed upon by Epstein and the Department
23:11
Speaker 1: of Just Us. It is absolutely obscene. The backroom deal
23:19
Speaker 1: with federal prosecutors is all the more interesting in light
23:22
Speaker 1: of the legal powerhouses who have worked for Epstein, including
23:25
Speaker 1: Harvard professor Alan, I kept my underpants on, Dershowitz, and
23:29
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton investigator Kenneth Starr. Lefcourt is a past president
23:35
Speaker 1: of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and those
23:39
Speaker 1: guys alone right there constitute some of the most powerful
23:42
Speaker 1: lawyers in the land at the time, and still to
23:44
Speaker 1: this day. Gerald Lefcourt, Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz, those are
23:50
Speaker 1: all high-profile attorneys, even though they're scumbags. Epstein's local defense attorney,
23:57
Speaker 1: Jack Meoff Goldberger, issued a statement Friday saying he had
24:01
Speaker 1: fought the release of the sealed agreement To protect the
24:04
Speaker 1: third party's name there. Mr. Epstein has fully abided by
24:08
Speaker 1: all of its terms and conditions. He is looking forward
24:11
Speaker 1: to putting this difficult period in his life behind him.
24:14
Speaker 1: He is continuing his long-standing history of science philanthropy. Let
24:20
Speaker 1: me translate that. He's looking forward to continuing to abuse
24:23
Speaker 1: and destroy lives. And nobody's going to stop him. And
24:27
Speaker 1: he'll use his charitable givings as a shield. That makes
24:32
Speaker 1: more sense, right? The investigation triggered tensions between police and prosecutors,
24:37
Speaker 1: with then-Palm Beach Chief Michael Ryder saying in a May
24:41
Speaker 1: 2006 letter to then-state attorney Barry Krischer that the chief
24:45
Speaker 1: prosecutor should disqualify himself. I continue to find your office's
24:50
Speaker 1: treatment of these cases highly unusual, Ryder wrote. He then
24:54
Speaker 1: asked for and got the federal investigation that ended in
24:58
Speaker 1: the sealed deal. And Ryder was one of the only
25:01
Speaker 1: heroes in this whole case, in my opinion. Chief Ryder
25:05
Speaker 1: was an OG triple OG in this case. He did
25:09
Speaker 1: real good work, real good investigative work, and he delivered
25:12
Speaker 1: a case to prosecutors that should have been a slam dunk.
25:17
Speaker 1: I'm talking Shaquille O'Neal over Spudweb level slam dunk. But no,
25:23
Speaker 1: they screwed it up. They found a way to be,
25:25
Speaker 1: air quotes, negligent. They found a way to, air quotes,
25:30
Speaker 1: exhibit poor judgment. And meanwhile, Jeffrey Epstein and his band
25:37
Speaker 1: of disgusting abusers continued on their merry way. The Jeffrey
25:46
Speaker 1: Epstein matter was an experience of what a many million
25:51
Speaker 1: dollar defense can accomplish, writer told the Palm Beach Daily
25:55
Speaker 1: News upon his retirement. And it's so true, right? That's
26:00
Speaker 1: another thing we talk about quite a bit here on
26:02
Speaker 1: the podcast. If you got ducats and you got some
26:05
Speaker 1: fazools and money and you can afford these top line lawyers,
26:09
Speaker 1: even if you're guilty, they're going to get you off
26:11
Speaker 1: on some sort of technicality. And that is exactly what
26:15
Speaker 1: we're seeing here in this Epstein case. And we're certainly
26:19
Speaker 1: seeing it now in real time in the Ghislaine Maxwell
26:21
Speaker 1: case as they search for that hole, as they search
26:24
Speaker 1: for that chink in the armor of the prosecution to
26:28
Speaker 1: latch onto that technicality And to have one of these
26:31
Speaker 1: scumbag judges rule in their favor. The good thing, though,
26:39
Speaker 1: is it seems that Judge Nathan and certainly Judge Preska
26:44
Speaker 1: are not playing their games and that they're pursuing justice
26:49
Speaker 1: and not looking to make friends. If you'd like to
26:54
Speaker 1: contact me, you can do that at Bobby Capucci at protonmail.com.
26:58
Speaker 1: That's B O B B Y C A P U
27:01
Speaker 1: C C I at protonmail.com. You can also find me
27:05
Speaker 1: on Twitter at B O B B Y underscore C
27:08
Speaker 1: A P U C C I. All of the links
27:12
Speaker 1: can be found in the description box. And for those
27:16
Speaker 1: of you who have donated to the podcast and will
27:18
Speaker 1: have helped out, uh, with, uh, helping me create content,
27:24
Speaker 1: sending me articles and stuff like that. I really appreciate
27:27
Speaker 1: all of you. Thank you very much. All right, folks,
27:30
Speaker 1: I'll be back later on tonight with the Daily Drop
27:32
Speaker 1: and we will go over some of the documentation and
27:37
Speaker 1: some of the stuff that has been unsealed as of today.
27:42
Speaker 1: So have that to look forward to and I will
27:46
Speaker 1: catch you folks then. What's up everyone and welcome back
27:50
Speaker 1: to the Epstein Chronicles. One of the most absurd things
27:55
Speaker 1: you hear when talking about co-conspirators in the Jeffrey Epstein
27:59
Speaker 1: criminal enterprise is that this non-prosecution agreement in Florida protects
28:05
Speaker 1: them everywhere. That is just absurd. And the SDNY and
28:10
Speaker 1: the prosecutors in New York, well, they prove that by
28:14
Speaker 1: prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell. Now the question becomes, how come they're
28:19
Speaker 1: not going with the same vigor or the same gusto
28:23
Speaker 1: after the other co-conspirators? Considering there is precedent here with Maxwell,
28:29
Speaker 1: who was certainly protected under the non-prosecution agreement, getting prosecuted here,
28:35
Speaker 1: you would think that the prosecutors would continue to dismantle
28:40
Speaker 1: this criminal enterprise and bring these people to heel. But
28:44
Speaker 1: that has not happened. We've had a lot of lip service,
28:48
Speaker 1: we've had plenty of platitudes, and we've had a lot
28:50
Speaker 1: of promises from the Department of Justice and the SDNY. Yet,
28:55
Speaker 1: none of it has materialized. Have any of the other
28:59
Speaker 1: co-conspirators been brought up on charges? What about the people
29:02
Speaker 1: using the services of Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein? Still nothing.
29:09
Speaker 1: No subpoenas, no huge commissions, no huge hearings, nothing like that.
29:15
Speaker 1: It's as if all of these people in power just
29:18
Speaker 1: want this to go away. Well, unfortunately for them, that's
29:22
Speaker 1: not going to happen. All of the authorities that were
29:25
Speaker 1: involved in this, they have some answers to give us.
29:29
Speaker 1: Let's remember here, we don't live in some country where
29:32
Speaker 1: the secret police run the whole world. These people have
29:36
Speaker 1: to be accountable to the taxpayers. And when there's no accountability, well,
29:41
Speaker 1: what's left? They're able to do whatever they want, whenever
29:45
Speaker 1: they want. And we've seen it time and time again.
29:48
Speaker 1: You know, it's not because they don't have the evidence, folks.
29:51
Speaker 1: It's they don't have the willpower or the spine to
29:55
Speaker 1: go after the rest of these co-conspirators because they understand
29:58
Speaker 1: that Just what sort of Pandora's box that would be opening.
30:02
Speaker 1: And they can't have that, right? They can't have their
30:05
Speaker 1: faves get in trouble. They can't have their bag men
30:08
Speaker 1: get in trouble. Who's going to fund their campaigns? Today
30:12
Speaker 1: we have an article from Law and Crime. Headline, SDNY
30:17
Speaker 1: rejects absurd notion that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement still protects
30:22
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell. This article was authored by Colin Kambacher. And
30:28
Speaker 1: it was published on July 13th, 2020. So right out
30:33
Speaker 1: of the gate, if the SDNY is rejecting the absurd
30:37
Speaker 1: notion that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement protects Maxwell, then why
30:42
Speaker 1: aren't they going after the rest of the co-conspirators using
30:46
Speaker 1: this as precedent? If it's absurd for Maxwell, it's absurd
30:49
Speaker 1: for the rest of them. The U.S. Attorney for the
30:55
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York argued against Ghislaine Maxwell's bail
30:59
Speaker 1: request in an aggressive motion filed with the Manhattan-based federal
31:03
Speaker 1: court on Monday. The prosecution's argument against pretrial release for
31:09
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking accomplice notably focused on one of
31:13
Speaker 1: the most visible, criticized, and controversial aspects of the case,
31:18
Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement. that infamously purported to shield any of
31:24
Speaker 1: Epstein's potential co-conspirators from federal charges. And now, nobody gets
31:29
Speaker 1: a deal like that, where it shields potential co-conspirators, people
31:35
Speaker 1: that aren't even named. How in the world do you
31:38
Speaker 1: get yourself a deal like that, unless you have friends
31:41
Speaker 1: on high? That doesn't just materialize for anybody. But Jeffrey
31:46
Speaker 1: Epstein's gross ass, well, he gets that kind of deal.
31:51
Speaker 1: In 2007, as part of Epstein's sweetheart deal inked with
31:55
Speaker 1: the Southern District of Florida, an office that was then
31:58
Speaker 1: led by President Donald Trump's one-time labor secretary, Alex Acosta,
32:02
Speaker 1: but administered by Mukasey and the rest of them. Let's
32:05
Speaker 1: not forget that. They conveniently leave that kind of stuff out.
32:09
Speaker 1: And remember, folks, lies of omission are still lies. The
32:14
Speaker 1: mysteriously wealthy financier, pedophile, and alleged serial sexual abuser, no
32:19
Speaker 1: more alleged, of young girls was able to secure a
32:22
Speaker 1: criminal justice bargain. In exchange for pleading guilty to state
32:26
Speaker 1: prostitution charges and a 13-month sentence with work-from-home privileges, Acosta
32:32
Speaker 1: and the whole U.S. government, DOJ, immunized Epstein for any
32:37
Speaker 1: further associated crimes along with his named and unnamed alleged co-conspirators.
32:43
Speaker 1: So that should never happen in any situation. There should
32:47
Speaker 1: never be a deal that is such an umbrella that
32:50
Speaker 1: it covers even non-named co-conspirators. That should never be okay.
32:57
Speaker 1: And there should never be a federal prosecutor or a
33:01
Speaker 1: director of the DOJ Attorney General that signs off on
33:05
Speaker 1: anything like that. And I can't slam the point home
33:09
Speaker 1: enough that Acosta was just a middle manager. How many
33:13
Speaker 1: of you work at a job and have a middle
33:15
Speaker 1: manager whose basically his only job is to set the
33:18
Speaker 1: schedule and make sure you show up at work? It's
33:21
Speaker 1: basically what Acosta is, right? Just another middle manager. How
33:25
Speaker 1: many of these field attorney generals are there around the country?
33:30
Speaker 1: A whole bunch of them. So Acosta isn't some special
33:33
Speaker 1: guy who had all these special powers. It was his
33:38
Speaker 1: bosses from on high who were okay with this deal.
33:41
Speaker 1: All the Kirkland Ellis lawyers that have all of these relationships.
33:46
Speaker 1: And remember, with these lawyers, you're not buying what they're
33:48
Speaker 1: going to do in the courtroom. You're buying their connections
33:51
Speaker 1: outside of the courtroom. You're buying the fact that they
33:54
Speaker 1: can walk into the judge's chamber, sit down with the judge,
33:57
Speaker 1: and know he's an old buddy from Harvard. That's what
34:00
Speaker 1: you're paying for. Under the aegis of what most see
34:05
Speaker 1: as a self-evidently corrupt non-prosecution agreement, Maxwell sought shelter from
34:11
Speaker 1: the federal charges filed against her in late June. Charges
34:14
Speaker 1: that were unsealed after she was arrested in early July.
34:19
Speaker 1: So she had tried to use the fact that she
34:21
Speaker 1: has this non-prosecution agreement down in Florida to protect herself
34:26
Speaker 1: in New York. And we all know that doesn't fly.
34:28
Speaker 1: And the fact that the federal government has basically let
34:32
Speaker 1: them get off because of this non-prosecution agreement is just unacceptable.
34:39
Speaker 1: Arguing the government's case is subject to significant challenges. Maxwell
34:43
Speaker 1: defense attorney Mark S. Cohen and Jeffrey S. Pagliuccia said
34:48
Speaker 1: the client's prosecution is barred by Epstein's September 24, 2007
34:53
Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, which covers any
34:57
Speaker 1: potential co-conspirators of Epstein. I mean, wow. There's really not
35:04
Speaker 1: even much to say about it. How can anyone look
35:08
Speaker 1: at that deal he got, and especially Monday morning quarterbacking
35:12
Speaker 1: it with hindsight as our guide, and not see how
35:15
Speaker 1: screwed up it all was? And not see how corrupt
35:18
Speaker 1: it all was? And the fact that nobody who was
35:20
Speaker 1: involved in administering that deal ever had any sanctions hit
35:24
Speaker 1: against them is just beyond, beyond absurd. The SDNY attempted
35:32
Speaker 1: to rubbish that line of argument in full. So this
35:35
Speaker 1: is important right here, right? If they're arguing that this
35:39
Speaker 1: is rubbish here, how come it's not rubbish for, say,
35:42
Speaker 1: Sarah Kellen Vickers? The defendant's motion alludes to defenses in
35:46
Speaker 1: this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature,
35:50
Speaker 1: and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in
35:52
Speaker 1: favor of bail. Monday's detention support memo notes... To begin with,
35:57
Speaker 1: the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by
36:00
Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement, NPA, between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S.
36:05
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida is absurd.
36:09
Speaker 1: That agreement affords her no protection in this district for
36:14
Speaker 1: at least three reasons. So again, the reason we're going
36:18
Speaker 1: back and talking about this is... SDNY themselves are saying
36:22
Speaker 1: that there's precedent here to go after the co-conspirators non-named
36:27
Speaker 1: or named as Epstein associates. Yet they have not done so.
36:32
Speaker 1: And the question is why? If they have precedent, if
36:34
Speaker 1: they have the evidence, what are they waiting for? First,
36:40
Speaker 1: the defendant was not party to that agreement nor named
36:43
Speaker 1: in it as a third party beneficiary and the defendant
36:46
Speaker 1: offers no basis to think she would have standing to
36:50
Speaker 1: claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites
36:55
Speaker 1: no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was
36:58
Speaker 1: not party to and that does not even identify her
37:01
Speaker 1: by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution.
37:06
Speaker 1: I think that applies for All of the co-conspirators, right?
37:09
Speaker 1: Once again, all of the co-conspirators are using this non-prosecution
37:14
Speaker 1: agreement as their basis for not being charged. Second, and
37:19
Speaker 1: equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District
37:23
Speaker 1: of New York, which was not party to the agreement.
37:25
Speaker 1: See the United States v. Anabee, 771 F. 2D 670-672 2nd
37:27
Speaker 1: District Circuit, 1985. A plea agreement binds only the office
37:38
Speaker 1: of the United States Attorney for the district in which
37:41
Speaker 1: the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
37:45
Speaker 1: agreement contemplates a broader restriction. And this is something I've
37:48
Speaker 1: talked about from the beginning. Look, I'm certainly not a
37:51
Speaker 1: legal mind, right? I don't know the law inside and out.
37:56
Speaker 1: But I do know for a fact that if you
37:59
Speaker 1: have a plea agreement with one district, that doesn't get
38:02
Speaker 1: rid of all your crimes in a different district. You
38:04
Speaker 1: haven't sat down with the attorneys in insert district here
38:08
Speaker 1: and done your 302, signed your proffer agreement and became
38:11
Speaker 1: king for a day at the San Diego rescue. This
38:15
Speaker 1: rule applies even when the text of agreement refers to
38:17
Speaker 1: the signing party as the government. Third, and perhaps most important.
38:22
Speaker 1: Even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this
38:25
Speaker 1: defendant and bind this office, which are both legally unsound propositions,
38:30
Speaker 1: the indictment charges conduct not covered by the NPA, which
38:33
Speaker 1: was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001
38:36
Speaker 1: to 2007, a time period that postdates the conduct charged
38:42
Speaker 1: in the indictment and to violations of statutes not charged
38:46
Speaker 1: in this indictment. So what they're saying is the original charges,
38:51
Speaker 1: the original non-prosecution agreement doesn't even cover the charges that
38:55
Speaker 1: SDNY was talking about here. And again, just to slam
38:59
Speaker 1: it home, the same could be said of the other co-conspirators.
39:06
Speaker 1: The prosecution memo continues. In this respect, the government further
39:10
Speaker 1: notes that the indictment brought in this district is entirely
39:14
Speaker 1: independent of the prior SDFL investigation and two of the
39:19
Speaker 1: survivors referenced in the indictment were never approached or interviewed
39:23
Speaker 1: by the SDFL and never spoke to law enforcement until
39:26
Speaker 1: they met with our office in 2019. Bingo. Done and done.
39:32
Speaker 1: But still, the rest of the co-conspirators are somehow hiding
39:36
Speaker 1: using this as a defense. The SDNY is spot on here,
39:42
Speaker 1: and Maxwell's argument stands essentially no real chance. Former SDNY
39:46
Speaker 1: assistant U.S. attorney and current CNN legal analyst Eli Honig
39:50
Speaker 1: told Law and Crime in an email, At least Epstein
39:53
Speaker 1: had the shred of an argument that he was party
39:56
Speaker 1: to the NPA and could enforce it against the government.
40:00
Speaker 1: Maxwell is neither a party to the agreement nor even
40:03
Speaker 1: one of the names of beneficiaries. And as the SDNY notes,
40:08
Speaker 1: the charged conduct falls entirely outside the time frame stated
40:13
Speaker 1: in the NPA. So the NPA isn't carte blanche, right?
40:17
Speaker 1: When you sign a non-prosecution agreement and a 302, you
40:22
Speaker 1: tell the government of all of the crimes that you
40:23
Speaker 1: have committed up to that point. And up to that point,
40:26
Speaker 1: you get relief for all of those crimes that you
40:29
Speaker 1: have committed if you have been honest with the government.
40:32
Speaker 1: Anything that happens after that, however, well, that's still on you.
40:38
Speaker 1: Julie Randleman, a former homicide prosecutor and currently a defense
40:42
Speaker 1: attorney working in New York City. She serves as a
40:45
Speaker 1: legal analyst on the Law and Crime Network. Rendleman agreed
40:48
Speaker 1: with the SDNY's reasoning to why Epstein's NPA is inapplicable
40:53
Speaker 1: to Maxwell's bail request, but noted that Maxwell's defense attorneys
40:57
Speaker 1: are more or less bound to exhaust any plausible excuses
41:01
Speaker 1: to get their client out of jail. Well, that's for sure.
41:04
Speaker 1: They're going to utilize whatever they can to try and
41:06
Speaker 1: get their client out of jail. And if there's a
41:08
Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement on the table, they're certainly going to try
41:12
Speaker 1: and use that. The attorneys for Maxwell are, for the moment,
41:17
Speaker 1: focused on getting her out on bail pending trial. Rendleman
41:20
Speaker 1: told Law and Crime, to that end, they are including
41:23
Speaker 1: every potential argument that either supports the position that she
41:27
Speaker 1: is not a flight risk or undermines the federal government's
41:30
Speaker 1: case in general. The raising of Jeffrey Epstein's NPA is
41:34
Speaker 1: just one example of their effort to present potential cracks
41:38
Speaker 1: in the government's case, she added. The problem for Maxwell
41:41
Speaker 1: is is that the NPA, even if valid, seems to
41:45
Speaker 1: only bind the Southern District of Florida, not New York. Further,
41:49
Speaker 1: as Maxwell was not a party to the NPA, nor
41:52
Speaker 1: named in it, it would seem a stretch to think
41:55
Speaker 1: this would save her from facing charges in New York,
41:59
Speaker 1: or in New Mexico, or in the Virgin Islands, or
42:02
Speaker 1: an insert place here. That's why when they only had
42:05
Speaker 1: one federal investigation going on, and not parallel investigations in
42:08
Speaker 1: these states, I had something to say about it. So what?
42:12
Speaker 1: We're going to rely just on the federal government as
42:15
Speaker 1: an attorney general of a state like Balderas in New Mexico.
42:20
Speaker 1: Your duty is to protect the citizens of your state.
42:23
Speaker 1: You can't punt that to the federal government. So you
42:26
Speaker 1: need to step up and have a parallel investigation and
42:30
Speaker 1: maybe bring state charges because those state charges, she's not
42:33
Speaker 1: protected from those state charges under the NPA, right? and
42:38
Speaker 1: neither are the other co-conspirators. So again, I ask you,
42:41
Speaker 1: why is it that the government has not brought a
42:44
Speaker 1: RICO case here? Why is it that the government has
42:46
Speaker 1: not used this precedent to go after Jeffrey Epstein's other co-conspirators?
42:53
Speaker 1: Alright folks, that's going to do it for this episode.
42:55
Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
42:57
Speaker 1: at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. You can
43:06
Speaker 1: also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The
43:14
Speaker 1: link that I discussed can be found in the description box.
43:17
Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
43:20
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. One of the most fatal flaws when it
43:24
Speaker 1: comes to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and then the
43:28
Speaker 1: pursuit of a conviction is the fact that they entered
43:31
Speaker 1: into this non-prosecution agreement. And the fact that they'd even
43:35
Speaker 1: negotiate this thing is a scandal unto itself. But even
43:41
Speaker 1: worse than that and more egregious is the fact that
43:44
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein was in breach of the terms of the NPA.
43:48
Speaker 1: And that, of course, makes the NPA invalid. And that's
43:52
Speaker 1: why I've talked about the NPA so often. And keeping
43:56
Speaker 1: in mind the fact that all the evidence has already
43:58
Speaker 1: been provided that Epstein was in breach, the DOJ could
44:02
Speaker 1: rip that NPA up today if they wanted to. But
44:05
Speaker 1: the truth is, the DOJ has no desire to get
44:08
Speaker 1: rid of the NPA. They've had many chances to go
44:13
Speaker 1: in there and readjust the NPA or get rid of
44:16
Speaker 1: it completely considering all the evidence that's been provided. And
44:20
Speaker 1: what have they done? Not a damn thing. Instead, we've
44:24
Speaker 1: seen them defend the NPA and act like it was
44:27
Speaker 1: all on the up and up. But the truth is,
44:30
Speaker 1: it's never been on the up and up. Not then,
44:32
Speaker 1: and certainly not now. And unlike the rest of these
44:35
Speaker 1: people out here that are just telling you, well, trust me, bro,
44:39
Speaker 1: I have some receipts to back me up. So in
44:42
Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to dive into an email sent
44:44
Speaker 1: by Alex Acosta to Roy Black all the way back
44:48
Speaker 1: in 2008. saying directly that Jeffrey Epstein was in breach
44:54
Speaker 1: of the non-prosecution agreement. So if Alex Acosta was saying it,
44:58
Speaker 1: and the DOJ was saying it, how come nobody enforced
45:01
Speaker 1: the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was breaching the contract that
45:04
Speaker 1: he signed with the federal government? So not only did
45:08
Speaker 1: they give him a sweetheart deal, nobody enforced anything on
45:11
Speaker 1: the back end when he was quote-unquote serving his sentence.
45:15
Speaker 1: And as we all know now, while he was under
45:18
Speaker 1: the supervision... of the Palm Beach Police Department and Probations,
45:22
Speaker 1: he was still abusing people according to multiple reports. So
45:25
Speaker 1: just right there, I've brought up two situations that should
45:29
Speaker 1: have made the whole entire NPA invalid, but somehow, it's
45:33
Speaker 1: still kicking around, and nobody wants to talk about it.
45:36
Speaker 1: So like usual, that's exactly what we're going to talk about.
45:41
Speaker 1: Dear Roy, On Thursday, I learned that Mr. Epstein applied
45:45
Speaker 1: for and was admitted to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's
45:48
Speaker 1: Office work release program, and that he has been on
45:50
Speaker 1: work release for the past several weeks. For the following reasons,
45:54
Speaker 1: the office believes that Mr. Epstein's application to and participation
45:59
Speaker 1: in work release program is a material breach of the
46:02
Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement. Not me telling you, Alex Acosta saying it,
46:06
Speaker 1: and not only saying it, but putting it in an
46:09
Speaker 1: official DOJ email. Accordingly, the United States demands that Mr.
46:13
Speaker 1: Epstein withdraw his application to participate in the program and
46:17
Speaker 1: complete his 18-month term of imprisonment in accordance with the
46:21
Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement. That never happened. So who's the asshole here? Me?
46:28
Speaker 1: For demanding accountability? Or the idiots that are still covering
46:32
Speaker 1: it up? I'll leave that up to you to decide.
46:36
Speaker 1: The non-prosecution agreement provides that Epstein shall be sentenced to
46:39
Speaker 1: consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months in county
46:43
Speaker 1: jail for all charges without any opportunity for withholding adjudication
46:48
Speaker 1: or sentencing and probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment.
46:53
Speaker 1: I have more than a dozen emails between myself and
46:56
Speaker 1: Jay Lefkowitz discussing the U.S. Attorney's insistence on 18 months
47:00
Speaker 1: of incarceration. You will recall at one meeting you and Ms.
47:03
Speaker 1: Sanchez raised the idea of of Mr. Epstein hiring sheriff's
47:07
Speaker 1: deputies to guard him as equivalent to imprisonment. Mr. Acosta
47:12
Speaker 1: specifically rejected that suggestion. It's our understanding from the sheriff's
47:16
Speaker 1: office that Mr. Epstein's paying off-duty sheriff's deputies to guard
47:20
Speaker 1: him while he works at Mr. Goldberger's office building each day.
47:24
Speaker 1: As you remember, shortly before Mr. Epstein's change of plea, Mr.
47:28
Speaker 1: Goldberger sent me a copy of the proposed plea agreement
47:31
Speaker 1: with the state. On June 27, 2008, I sent a
47:34
Speaker 1: letter containing the following language to you and Mr. Goldberger.
47:39
Speaker 1: The U.S. Attorney's Office hereby provides notice that the proposed
47:42
Speaker 1: sentencing provision does not comply with the terms of the
47:46
Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement. The second sentencing paragraph of the proposed plea
47:51
Speaker 1: agreement reads, On 08-CF-00-9381-AMB, the defendant is sentenced to 18
47:59
Speaker 1: months of community control, one, as a special condition, Of
48:04
Speaker 1: this community control, the defendant must serve the first six
48:07
Speaker 1: months in the Palm Beach County detention facility. The non-prosecution
48:11
Speaker 1: agreement specifically provides Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms
48:17
Speaker 1: of 12 months and six months in county jail for
48:20
Speaker 1: all charges without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment.
48:25
Speaker 1: How'd that work out? And how come these terms were
48:27
Speaker 1: never enforced? And who made the decision not to enforce them?
48:32
Speaker 1: Those are the questions that need to be answered. Thus,
48:37
Speaker 1: the proposed plea agreement with the state attorney's office does
48:39
Speaker 1: not comply with the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. To
48:43
Speaker 1: comply with the agreement, Mr. Epstein must make a binding
48:47
Speaker 1: recommendation of 18 months imprisonment, which means confinement 24 hours
48:52
Speaker 1: a day at the county jail, and the judge must
48:54
Speaker 1: accept that recommendation. Community control must follow that term of incarceration.
49:01
Speaker 1: As I specified in the letter, the non-prosecution agreement calls
49:04
Speaker 1: for confinement 24 hours a day. In response to that letter, Mr.
49:09
Speaker 1: Goldberger agreed that he would revise the state plea agreement
49:12
Speaker 1: to include the word imprisonment to make clear that Mr.
49:15
Speaker 1: Epstein would be incarcerated for the full 18 months and
49:18
Speaker 1: would change the language of of the state agreement to
49:21
Speaker 1: match the language of the federal agreement. Mr. Goldberger and
49:25
Speaker 1: I also discussed the situation and he made clear that Mr.
49:29
Speaker 1: Epstein would not be asking for or receiving work release
49:32
Speaker 1: and would remain in jail around the clock. In early
49:35
Speaker 1: August redacted and I raised the same issue with you
49:39
Speaker 1: When we heard that Mr. Epstein was considering applying for
49:42
Speaker 1: work release on August 6, 2008, Ms. Redacted and I
49:47
Speaker 1: had a conference call with you wherein you again stated
49:50
Speaker 1: that Mr. Epstein would not apply for or receive work
49:53
Speaker 1: release and would spend his 18 months incarcerated 24 hours
49:58
Speaker 1: a day in the Palm Beach County Stockade. In preparation
50:01
Speaker 1: for this letter, I obtained a certified copy of Mr.
50:04
Speaker 1: Epstein's state court file. On June 30, 2008, on the
50:08
Speaker 1: procurement of minor charges, Judge Pachulo entered the following sentence.
50:13
Speaker 1: The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the
50:15
Speaker 1: Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida for a term of
50:18
Speaker 1: six months. It's further ordered that the defendant shall be
50:21
Speaker 1: allowed a total of one day as credit for time
50:24
Speaker 1: incarcerated prior to the imposition of this sentence. It's further
50:29
Speaker 1: ordered that the composite term of all sentences imposed for
50:32
Speaker 1: the court-specified in the order shall run consecutive to the following,
50:36
Speaker 1: specific sentences 2006 CF 9454 AXX. The following provisions apply
50:45
Speaker 1: to the sentence imposed, followed by a period of 12
50:48
Speaker 1: months on community control, I under the supervision of the
50:52
Speaker 1: Department of Corrections. As I learned on Friday, when I
50:57
Speaker 1: received the state court file, you neglected to inform our
51:00
Speaker 1: office that, on July 21, 2008, Judge McSorley modified the
51:04
Speaker 1: judgment to an order of Community Control 1. This same
51:10
Speaker 1: language was the basis for the objection in my letter
51:13
Speaker 1: of June 26, 2008 and directly contradicts the language of
51:17
Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement. I also note that the state plea agreement, Mr.
51:22
Speaker 1: Goldberger did not insert the word imprisonment as agreed prior
51:26
Speaker 1: to the change of plea. Instead, the words jail sentence
51:30
Speaker 1: are included. The office agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein
51:33
Speaker 1: was based upon its determination that 18 months incarceration, i.e. confinement,
51:38
Speaker 1: 24 hours a day, was sufficient to satisfy the federal
51:42
Speaker 1: interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S. Attorney's Office
51:47
Speaker 1: hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated the non-prosecution
51:50
Speaker 1: agreement by failing to remain incarcerated 24 hours a day
51:55
Speaker 1: for the 18-month period and term of imprisonment. The United
51:59
Speaker 1: States will exercise any and all rights it has under
52:03
Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement unless Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists
52:08
Speaker 1: from this breach of agreement. Sincerely, Alexander Acosta and redacted.
52:13
Speaker 1: So look, right there it tells you he was in breach.
52:17
Speaker 1: What more do we need? Does somebody have to show
52:21
Speaker 1: up with some crayons and put it on a board
52:23
Speaker 1: for everybody? Because if that's what's required, give me the crayons.
52:28
Speaker 1: I'll draw you a picture. But what I refuse to
52:30
Speaker 1: do is accept the narrative that they're trying to pitch.
52:33
Speaker 1: Certainly don't accept the nonsense they're telling us about the
52:35
Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement. And here's exactly why. I told you years
52:40
Speaker 1: ago that he was in breach of that non-prosecution agreement.
52:44
Speaker 1: That he was in breach of probation. That he was
52:47
Speaker 1: in breach of his registration. And nothing ever happened. They
52:51
Speaker 1: want to talk about the case is closed. There's nothing
52:53
Speaker 1: left to see. There is no accountability. Fuck that. There
52:57
Speaker 1: needs to be accountability. Who made these decisions? Who signed
53:00
Speaker 1: off on it? Who okayed it? Who decided to ignore it?
53:04
Speaker 1: When you have a strongly worded letter like this, you
53:06
Speaker 1: would think that Maine Justice is going to act, right? Well,
53:09
Speaker 1: they didn't. Instead, they sat on their hands, ignored it,
53:12
Speaker 1: and let Epstein do whatever he wanted, even though he
53:15
Speaker 1: was in breach of his agreement. Can you imagine them
53:18
Speaker 1: doing that for anybody else? For you or me? John Gotti?
53:22
Speaker 1: El Chapo? El Mayo? Luigi Mangione? They wouldn't do it
53:27
Speaker 1: for anybody. But when it comes to Epstein, they can't
53:29
Speaker 1: wait to bend over backwards and give him special circumstances. So,
53:34
Speaker 1: once again, the question is, why? And who made the
53:37
Speaker 1: decision to do so? And that, my friends, is what
53:40
Speaker 1: they really fear. They fear us having that knowledge. They
53:43
Speaker 1: fear us having those receipts. Because their narrative dies where
53:47
Speaker 1: those receipts begin. And if this isn't a receipt, I
53:51
Speaker 1: don't know what is. All of the information that goes
53:55
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found... In the description box.