Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Judge Nathan Eviscerates Maxwell's Big Mouth Attorney David Markus (9/29/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Judge Nathan Eviscerates Maxwell's Big Mouth Attorney David Markus (9/29/26) · Beyond The Horizon

0:00
Speaker 1: Happened when Dr. Loftus was on the stand. Now, we
0:05
Speaker 1: know that Ghislaine Maxwell and her team have had a
0:08
Speaker 1: specific strategy this whole entire time. And that strategy has
0:12
Speaker 1: been to go after the memory of the witnesses as
0:17
Speaker 1: well as go after their credibility as a whole. And
0:20
Speaker 1: what they were hoping was that Dr. Loftus would further
0:24
Speaker 1: those ambitions yesterday. She did not. In fact, it seemed
0:30
Speaker 1: to me that the prosecution had its best day, at
0:33
Speaker 1: least procedurally, since this whole entire thing started. They had
0:37
Speaker 1: a couple of nice one-liners. A couple of times they
0:41
Speaker 1: got the room to laugh, like when they were doing
0:44
Speaker 1: the cross-examination of Kimberly. And when asked if she had
0:49
Speaker 1: ever been to Palm Beach, she says no. And then
0:53
Speaker 1: they just, you know, they end their cross there. That
0:55
Speaker 1: elicited some chuckles from the courtroom. And besides that, I
1:00
Speaker 1: think that they did a fantastic job punching holes in Dr. Loftus,
1:07
Speaker 1: her testimony. That was supposed to be strong testimony for
1:12
Speaker 1: the defense. Glenn Maxwell's team, they were hoping that Dr.
1:16
Speaker 1: Loftus would show out and make it seem like All
1:21
Speaker 1: of the stuff they have been talking about, false memory
1:24
Speaker 1: and the rest of it, is actually legit. But in reality,
1:30
Speaker 1: what happened was they kind of got in their own way. Dr.
1:34
Speaker 1: Loftus seemed to be more useful to the prosecution yesterday
1:40
Speaker 1: on the stand than she was for the defense. And
1:43
Speaker 1: coming into this, I kind of thought the same thing
1:46
Speaker 1: was going to occur. I mean, look, this is somebody,
1:49
Speaker 1: this lady, she's a hired gun. She does this for
1:53
Speaker 1: profit and there is no scumbag scummy enough for her
1:57
Speaker 1: to avoid. And I get it, right? Look, if you
2:02
Speaker 1: have the money and you're fighting for your life at
2:04
Speaker 1: a trial, I would employ all the specialists that I
2:07
Speaker 1: could afford as well. But maybe I would find some
2:10
Speaker 1: specialists that aren't involved in people losing You know, there
2:14
Speaker 1: gotta be a couple out there, right? But what it
2:18
Speaker 1: really comes down to, and I know this is going
2:20
Speaker 1: to be groundbreaking what I'm about to say, but here's
2:24
Speaker 1: an idea. Don't traffic children. Don't abuse children. Don't hurt
2:30
Speaker 1: other people. And don't commit crimes. And you won't have
2:33
Speaker 1: to worry about any of this shit. But Maxwell, her
2:38
Speaker 1: and her friends, you know, they were able to get
2:39
Speaker 1: away with it for so long that it was normalized
2:42
Speaker 1: to them. So when they get caught and they find
2:47
Speaker 1: out they have no friends left to protect them, well,
2:50
Speaker 1: it's a big shock to the system. Meanwhile, the rest
2:53
Speaker 1: of us are sitting around looking at each other like,
2:56
Speaker 1: how weren't these people arrested when Maria told the FBI
3:02
Speaker 1: about them in 96? How weren't they arrested? Insert a
3:07
Speaker 1: million times here. But now that Maxwell is... Finally, facing
3:15
Speaker 1: a jury of her peers, it's not looking good in
3:18
Speaker 1: my opinion for her. Now, obviously, they still have today
3:22
Speaker 1: to go. And remember, they said they had a witness
3:24
Speaker 1: list of 35 people. So who knows what's coming down
3:29
Speaker 1: the old chute here. But they would have to have
3:34
Speaker 1: something earth-shaking. Like ground-rattling, earth-shaking, existential world elimination event. Because
3:45
Speaker 1: what has been provided so far as testimony in defense
3:49
Speaker 1: of Glenn Maxwell, I haven't seen anything that would make
3:54
Speaker 1: the testimony of what those survivors had to say look
3:58
Speaker 1: any less impactful. Or make me question myself saying, oh man,
4:04
Speaker 1: you know, maybe none of that. There has been no
4:09
Speaker 1: material witnesses, just a bunch of what-ifs, right? That's all
4:15
Speaker 1: that Maxwell's defense has provided us. What-ifs. Well, what if
4:20
Speaker 1: the memory is faulty? What if this? What if that? Meanwhile,
4:23
Speaker 1: the survivors are sitting there across the table from Ghislaine
4:28
Speaker 1: Maxwell and saying, this is what you did to me.
4:33
Speaker 1: So I have found that to be way, way, way
4:35
Speaker 1: more impactful than the honestly, nonsensical witness list that was
4:41
Speaker 1: brought forward yesterday. Now, there might be something more to it, right?
4:45
Speaker 1: Some of the other witnesses that they brought up yesterday,
4:49
Speaker 1: the guy from the supply company, they might be setting
4:53
Speaker 1: all of that up for some sort of closing that
4:57
Speaker 1: they have prepared, but as of now, it just doesn't
5:01
Speaker 1: really make all that much sense, their witness list so far.
5:06
Speaker 1: If you're going to try and you know, prove that
5:09
Speaker 1: your client is innocent? Shouldn't you have a couple of
5:12
Speaker 1: actual like character witnesses and people who are like, there's
5:16
Speaker 1: no way this happened. I was there at the time.
5:19
Speaker 1: But really what you have when it comes down to
5:21
Speaker 1: it is four women who were girls or young ladies
5:27
Speaker 1: when they were in the clutches of Maxwell and Epstein,
5:30
Speaker 1: who are now saying, look, this is what happened to us.
5:34
Speaker 1: This is what she did. And to me, that is
5:37
Speaker 1: way more powerful than than some quote-unquote expert coming up
5:41
Speaker 1: there and telling me some what-ifs or hypotheticals or about studies.
5:48
Speaker 1: I don't need to see any studies, to be honest
5:50
Speaker 1: with you. I've read what happened here. I have seen
5:53
Speaker 1: the evidence. I have heard what the police department in
5:57
Speaker 1: Palm Beach has had to say about this from the
5:59
Speaker 1: very beginning. So I don't need Ms. Loftus to tell
6:04
Speaker 1: me about false memories. And I think that the jury
6:09
Speaker 1: is going to see it that way as well. Whereas
6:12
Speaker 1: the jury just got done listening to the testimony from
6:16
Speaker 1: the survivors, which was absolutely horrible and gut-wrenching to listen to.
6:24
Speaker 1: And then that anchored by the testimony that Annie gave.
6:29
Speaker 1: You would think that the defense is going to have
6:31
Speaker 1: to come correct. Because what the jury has seen so far,
6:35
Speaker 1: as far as a picture... Being painted. Is that Ghislaine Maxwell.
6:40
Speaker 1: Was at the nexus of all of this. She had
6:44
Speaker 1: her dirty little fingers. On the controls. And she was
6:47
Speaker 1: right there with Jeffrey Epstein. For the whole entire thing.
6:52
Speaker 1: And as far as. The defenses go so far. We
6:55
Speaker 1: haven't seen anything from them. That would make me. or
7:00
Speaker 1: I would think the jury, take a step back and say, oh,
7:03
Speaker 1: maybe we've looked at this the wrong way. Maybe we've
7:06
Speaker 1: missed something throughout this whole entire thing, and this has
7:08
Speaker 1: been the key piece of evidence that proves that Maxwell
7:11
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with this. I've been waiting for
7:14
Speaker 1: that piece of evidence for, oh, I don't know, three
7:17
Speaker 1: years now? And I certainly haven't seen it yet. So,
7:23
Speaker 1: I really wonder what the plan's going to be for
7:26
Speaker 1: the defense today. And... If they don't have something monumental,
7:32
Speaker 1: I honestly don't see how Maxwell's going to get off here.
7:37
Speaker 1: The mountain of evidence is that high, folks. And remember,
7:40
Speaker 1: we're only talking about this small scope. If this was
7:43
Speaker 1: the actual full scope of what went on, forget it.
7:47
Speaker 1: Absolutely forget it. This would be the trial of trials
7:52
Speaker 1: with all of the people that would be wrapped up
7:54
Speaker 1: in it, even just on the fringes, right? And I
7:57
Speaker 1: think a lot of people were hoping that that's what
7:59
Speaker 1: this was going to be. And I've tried to tamper
8:03
Speaker 1: down those expectations because I knew exactly what we were
8:07
Speaker 1: getting into here. This was never going to be the
8:10
Speaker 1: full Monty, the full exposure of Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts.
8:16
Speaker 1: That was never going to occur again. unless there was
8:19
Speaker 1: a RICO case. Now, the only other way that this
8:22
Speaker 1: can happen, where we can really get to the bottom
8:24
Speaker 1: of all of this, is if that non-prosecution agreement is
8:28
Speaker 1: thrown out by one of the higher courts, which would
8:30
Speaker 1: have to be the Supreme Court at this point. Now,
8:33
Speaker 1: if that happens, and all of those protections go away,
8:37
Speaker 1: then it will be a brand new day, if you will,
8:42
Speaker 1: in the world of bringing down the scumbags hanging out
8:46
Speaker 1: with Jeffrey Epstein. But that non-prosecution agreement, it was put
8:50
Speaker 1: in place for a reason. They knew what they were
8:52
Speaker 1: doing and they were looking to provide themselves protection in
8:56
Speaker 1: the future as well. And here we are, all these
9:00
Speaker 1: years later, and that non-prosecution agreement still looming large. When
9:07
Speaker 1: they were going through the process to try and get
9:10
Speaker 1: that thing done away with, it was, I was very
9:14
Speaker 1: hopeful that they'd be able to do that. But unfortunately,
9:20
Speaker 1: the panel ruled 7-4 not to do it. What I'm
9:24
Speaker 1: going to do later is I'm going to post an
9:26
Speaker 1: episode about that. That whole entire situation with the NPA
9:31
Speaker 1: and what occurred. Because it's a big deal and it's
9:34
Speaker 1: a big part of the overall story, right? But when
9:40
Speaker 1: we move back to what we saw yesterday and what
9:43
Speaker 1: we're expecting to see today, I would hope that The
9:48
Speaker 1: prosecution keeps up their good work that they really dove
9:52
Speaker 1: into yesterday, with the procedure anyway. It was nice to
9:58
Speaker 1: see them handle business. from their end. Short and sweet.
10:03
Speaker 1: They didn't get into any kind of long, drawn out,
10:05
Speaker 1: nonsensical BS. And they just hammered home their points. And
10:10
Speaker 1: getting Dr. Loftus to agree about the memory stuff at
10:13
Speaker 1: the end. That was a master stroke. Very, very good work.
10:18
Speaker 1: And just about everybody that I've talked to who is
10:22
Speaker 1: hip to how these things happen in the courtroom has
10:24
Speaker 1: said the same thing about what the prosecution did yesterday
10:27
Speaker 1: and how well things went for the prosecution. So I
10:32
Speaker 1: hope that we can see some of that today as well.
10:34
Speaker 1: I hope that carries over. But before we get there,
10:38
Speaker 1: let's take a look at some of the headlines from
10:41
Speaker 1: overnight that have to do with what we should see today. Now,
10:46
Speaker 1: one of the first headlines we're going to look at
10:49
Speaker 1: is from ABC News, and it's about how the judge,
10:54
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan, she denied the request for anonymity for the
10:59
Speaker 1: witnesses for Maxwell. Let's jump in here and see what's what.
11:04
Speaker 1: Defense attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate of serial
11:08
Speaker 1: sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, began to present their case on
11:11
Speaker 1: Thursday after a judge denied their request to allow three
11:15
Speaker 1: of their anticipated witnesses to testify under a pseudonym or
11:20
Speaker 1: using only their first names. Now... When this was all
11:24
Speaker 1: first talked about, I said, hey, whatever, who cares? If
11:26
Speaker 1: that's the way the court rolls, then fine. You know, look,
11:29
Speaker 1: I don't want to reinvent the wheel here, right? And
11:32
Speaker 1: I don't want Ghislaine Maxwell having any kind of out
11:34
Speaker 1: because of procedurals. But it is a very odd request
11:38
Speaker 1: when you talk to people who are in the know here.
11:41
Speaker 1: And I'm certainly not a court reporter, folks. I'm not
11:43
Speaker 1: even a journalist. But when you speak to people who
11:47
Speaker 1: follow this thing, this is a this kind of thing.
11:49
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a very odd request, I guess.
11:52
Speaker 1: And not something that is granted very often by the court.
11:56
Speaker 1: So you can see why Judge Nathan wouldn't allow it.
12:01
Speaker 1: This article goes on to say, So there you have it, right?
12:03
Speaker 1: If it's never happened before, certainly not bending any rules
12:06
Speaker 1: for Ghislaine Maxwell. Why would anyone want to do that?
12:32
Speaker 1: The rules have been bent for her for way too
12:33
Speaker 1: long anyway. So that's why Judge Nathan denied that request.
12:38
Speaker 1: And that's why we're not going to see any of
12:43
Speaker 1: these people come and give their testimony anonymously. That's not
12:49
Speaker 1: going to happen. So let's see. What else do we
12:53
Speaker 1: got here? We have... about Ghislaine Maxwell's ex-assistant, Kimberly Espinoza,
13:04
Speaker 1: and how she was called up and how she was
13:07
Speaker 1: gushing about Maxwell and this, that, the other thing. You know,
13:11
Speaker 1: out of all of the people that have worked with
13:13
Speaker 1: Maxwell and Epstein, this is the only one that they
13:16
Speaker 1: have found that could come up there as a character witness?
13:19
Speaker 1: So Kimberly Espinoza, she was the first witness called yesterday,
13:23
Speaker 1: and she told the jury about her time working side-by-side
13:27
Speaker 1: with Maxwell from 96 to 2002. And like we talked
13:31
Speaker 1: about yesterday, she at first thought Maxwell and Epstein were
13:35
Speaker 1: a couple, according to Espinoza's testimony. And then she... worked
13:44
Speaker 1: at the Madison Avenue office with Epstein, and then she
13:47
Speaker 1: worked as Maxwell's assistant, right? Now, Espinoza claimed that Epstein
13:53
Speaker 1: asked her to send flowers to another woman, Selena Middlefart,
13:57
Speaker 1: during that time behind Maxwell's back. What that does, what
14:01
Speaker 1: that goes to show you and why I'm bringing that
14:03
Speaker 1: up is to just to punch home the fact Maxwell
14:06
Speaker 1: and Epstein were never an exclusive couple, right? Like, you
14:10
Speaker 1: or I would be you and your significant other, where
14:12
Speaker 1: you would never think about being with somebody else, or
14:15
Speaker 1: hurting them, or anything like that. That wasn't what Epstein
14:19
Speaker 1: and Maxwell were. It was a business arrangement. And I
14:23
Speaker 1: know the official narrative doesn't state that, but the official
14:26
Speaker 1: narrative doesn't state a lot of things that have been
14:28
Speaker 1: proven to be correct. And I would think that after
14:33
Speaker 1: all of these years... That people would be hip to
14:36
Speaker 1: the fact that the legacy media is being lapped when
14:40
Speaker 1: it comes to this story. The stuff that they bring up,
14:42
Speaker 1: the stuff that they talk about, we have literally talked
14:45
Speaker 1: about years ago. For instance, Shelley Ann Lewis, Gwendolyn Beck.
14:52
Speaker 1: Those episodes, I uploaded those episodes a year and a half,
14:57
Speaker 1: two years ago in some cases. So we've been talking
15:00
Speaker 1: about these people for a very, very long time. And
15:03
Speaker 1: to see that some of them are being brought up
15:05
Speaker 1: here in the proceedings, it's certainly a step in the
15:08
Speaker 1: right direction, but they need to go further. Because there
15:12
Speaker 1: are so many other people that were involved in this
15:15
Speaker 1: that it's insane to me that we're not seeing people
15:19
Speaker 1: like Sarah Kellen Vickers or Adriana Ross. It's just almost
15:25
Speaker 1: impossible for me to understand how... people who had such
15:30
Speaker 1: a huge role in what went on here and people
15:32
Speaker 1: who have actually been fingered by survivors have been able
15:36
Speaker 1: to stay out of the firing line. And again, it
15:42
Speaker 1: goes back to the scope, right? But at the very least,
15:46
Speaker 1: these people should have been called up by the prosecution,
15:52
Speaker 1: should have been hit with some kind of indictment or
15:55
Speaker 1: pressured to come up and speak. Now, that's not what
16:00
Speaker 1: this turned into, though. This is, you know, this is
16:04
Speaker 1: very specific when it comes to the crimes that they're
16:08
Speaker 1: talking about. And the fact that it is just being
16:14
Speaker 1: brought up now, the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell was able
16:18
Speaker 1: to avoid prosecution for so long is really... one of
16:25
Speaker 1: the biggest issues with all of this, and one of
16:27
Speaker 1: the biggest issues that has to be discussed even after
16:31
Speaker 1: this case ends, this trial's over. Because the implications for
16:35
Speaker 1: what occurred here are gigantic. The fact that there were
16:40
Speaker 1: so many people who were hip to what's going on here,
16:44
Speaker 1: and people that are in positions of power. The fact
16:48
Speaker 1: that Acosta was left holding the bag when there are
16:52
Speaker 1: so many people above him That should have been clipped
16:55
Speaker 1: as well. The fact that the prosecutors in Florida the
16:59
Speaker 1: first time around worked with the defense attorneys to undercut
17:04
Speaker 1: the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses. This is
17:11
Speaker 1: the kind of thing that has been happening in this
17:13
Speaker 1: case since the very beginning. So when people are worried
17:20
Speaker 1: that things are going to continue to go that way.
17:22
Speaker 1: It's a legit concern, right? But what I will say
17:26
Speaker 1: is this, folks. So far, when it comes to this
17:31
Speaker 1: specific trial, this specific case, I don't think Maxwell has
17:35
Speaker 1: done enough as far as her defense team and the
17:39
Speaker 1: legal arguments that they have brought forward. I think that
17:42
Speaker 1: what they have so far is really nothing. They're hoping
17:46
Speaker 1: that the playbook from the early 2000s is going to
17:50
Speaker 1: be relevant now. But just like Urban Meyer found out
17:55
Speaker 1: down in Jacksonville, these are the pros. This isn't college anymore.
18:01
Speaker 1: And it's the same for Maxwell. Things have changed. The
18:04
Speaker 1: whole landscape has changed. The way people look at these
18:07
Speaker 1: kinds of crimes has changed. And whenever there is a
18:10
Speaker 1: woman involved in a manner such as this, people are
18:16
Speaker 1: not very happy about it, right? And people are not
18:21
Speaker 1: willing to look the other way. It becomes even more
18:27
Speaker 1: heinous when a woman is involved. And a lot of
18:30
Speaker 1: times when the jury sees that, they go hard in
18:32
Speaker 1: the paint. So I'm expecting, unless there's some sort of
18:38
Speaker 1: super bombshell that we can't anticipate... that we're going to
18:42
Speaker 1: get a little bit more of the same today, and
18:44
Speaker 1: that the prosecution is going to set themselves up for
18:47
Speaker 1: another great day. I just don't see how any of
18:51
Speaker 1: these witnesses that Maxwell's going to call are going to
18:54
Speaker 1: be enough or have enough knowledge of what went on
18:58
Speaker 1: here to punch holes in the argument of the four
19:02
Speaker 1: survivors and the testimony that they've brought forward. Their stories
19:08
Speaker 1: are all locked in together and everything that they talk about,
19:12
Speaker 1: you can see the pattern in each separate case, how
19:16
Speaker 1: it lines up. You could see how Maxwell and Epstein
19:20
Speaker 1: groomed them. You can see how they brought them into
19:22
Speaker 1: their orbit. And those are those foundational blocks that have
19:26
Speaker 1: been built over the first two weeks of testimony. And
19:31
Speaker 1: I think that as we get closer to a judgment
19:35
Speaker 1: on Ghislaine Maxwell's future, I'm getting a little bit more
19:38
Speaker 1: confident as these days go by. Now, I'll tell you what,
19:42
Speaker 1: I really wasn't all that confident last week when the defense,
19:45
Speaker 1: I mean, when the prosecution rested their case. I really,
19:49
Speaker 1: you know, it took some time for me to sit
19:52
Speaker 1: down and really say, all right, well, we'll see what's
19:55
Speaker 1: going to happen here. But now after yesterday and seeing
20:00
Speaker 1: how Dr. Loftus's testimony really didn't play well, I don't
20:05
Speaker 1: see how they're going to be able to bring anyone
20:08
Speaker 1: forward to punch holes in the memory argument here. If
20:13
Speaker 1: their doctor, their big shot professional couldn't do it, I
20:17
Speaker 1: doubt any of these other witnesses are going to be
20:19
Speaker 1: able to do it. So today, we're going to see
20:23
Speaker 1: what's up. We know we have three witnesses that the
20:26
Speaker 1: defense is talking about calling. One of them, Eva. Another, Michelle.
20:32
Speaker 1: And I believe one is Kelly. And for me, the
20:35
Speaker 1: most interesting out of those names is Eva. I'm wondering
20:38
Speaker 1: if it's Eva Dubin, but I highly doubt it. So
20:41
Speaker 1: we'll see in a little while, I guess. Anyway, folks,
20:45
Speaker 1: I'll be here, same as usual, taking notes, getting ready
20:48
Speaker 1: for the evening update so we can go over a
20:52
Speaker 1: little bit, at least, of what went on in the courtroom.
20:56
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, until then, I hope you all have
20:59
Speaker 1: a great day, and I will be back later. If
21:03
Speaker 1: you'd like to contact me, you can do that at
21:05
Speaker 1: bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. You can also
21:15
Speaker 1: find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I. Let's jump
21:21
Speaker 1: into this article from Law and Crime and let's see
21:25
Speaker 1: what the esteemed Adam Klassfeld has to say. Headline. Jeffrey
21:31
Speaker 1: Epstein's plea deal doesn't protect Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge rules in
21:35
Speaker 1: rejecting dismissal motions. Now, you all know how I feel
21:39
Speaker 1: about Twitter. Place is an absolute shitshow. In fact, I
21:43
Speaker 1: can't even log on to it right now. Some weird
21:45
Speaker 1: message keeps popping up. Whatever. But if you're on Twitter
21:49
Speaker 1: and you're interested in true crime and cases that are
21:51
Speaker 1: working their way through the court, I highly suggest following
21:55
Speaker 1: Adam Klassfeld. Dude's on point with all of the, uh,
22:01
Speaker 1: all of the law situations that are going on in D.C.
22:04
Speaker 1: and elsewhere, and he gives a very good overview and
22:09
Speaker 1: puts things into a way that the common person can
22:13
Speaker 1: understand what's going on, right? So, very rare I'll suggest
22:18
Speaker 1: that you even use the cesspool known as Twitter, but
22:21
Speaker 1: if you are on there and you aren't following Adam
22:24
Speaker 1: Klassfeld and you you're interested in this kind of stuff,
22:27
Speaker 1: not just Epstein and Maxwell, but other cases working their
22:31
Speaker 1: way through the courts, then I definitely suggest giving him
22:34
Speaker 1: a follow. Before being slapped with the new sex trafficking charges,
22:41
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell filed a flurry of motions trying to scuttle
22:45
Speaker 1: her case by arguing her indictment was time-barred and violated
22:50
Speaker 1: a deal the U.S. government made with Jeffrey Epstein and
22:54
Speaker 1: more than a decade ago. Now, usually federal cases are
23:00
Speaker 1: time barred by five years, but when there's a child involved,
23:06
Speaker 1: a youth involved, then you can prosecute people for their
23:12
Speaker 1: whole entire life, right? There's no getting off on statute
23:17
Speaker 1: of limitations when there's a little kid. Usually it's five years,
23:20
Speaker 1: but Not in the case of children being abused. So, Maxwell,
23:28
Speaker 1: she was trying to get all of this stuff thrown out,
23:30
Speaker 1: as you all well know. She wants all of this
23:32
Speaker 1: stuff tossed. She says none of this stuff is viable.
23:35
Speaker 1: This never happened. She, wasn't me. I wasn't there. Must
23:42
Speaker 1: have been my twin sister. And the judge just isn't
23:46
Speaker 1: having it. The judge is like, look, you're going to
23:50
Speaker 1: stand trial. You're going to face a jury of your peers,
23:53
Speaker 1: and the chips are going to fall wherever they may.
23:56
Speaker 1: But if you think you're wiggling off this hook before
23:59
Speaker 1: the trial even begins, think again. Maxwell's many motions fell
24:07
Speaker 1: flat before a federal judge on Friday, except for one,
24:11
Speaker 1: dividing her future trial into two. So... She's going to
24:15
Speaker 1: be charged in two separate trials now. The perjury charges
24:20
Speaker 1: are going to be carried into a different trial. That way,
24:24
Speaker 1: it doesn't bleed over from the defamation case into this
24:30
Speaker 1: new case with stuff that might not be admissible. It's
24:34
Speaker 1: a bunch of legal jargon type stuff, folks. You know,
24:37
Speaker 1: we all know the system isn't set up for people
24:39
Speaker 1: like us, right? It's not even set up for us
24:42
Speaker 1: to understand half the time. You have to sit down
24:44
Speaker 1: and like really dive into case law and shit to
24:47
Speaker 1: even understand half of this stuff. And when I'm engaging
24:52
Speaker 1: in that sort of research and I'm reading case law
24:54
Speaker 1: and I'm reading all this other jazz, my eyes start
24:56
Speaker 1: to glaze over. It's just so boring to me. But
25:03
Speaker 1: when you got a case like this, you have to
25:06
Speaker 1: expect all kinds of craziness and bumps in the road
25:09
Speaker 1: and curves and so on. While I never expected the
25:12
Speaker 1: case to get split into two trials, nothing shocks me
25:16
Speaker 1: at this point, right? Nothing at all. So what I
25:20
Speaker 1: hope is that the original trial scheduled for the 12th
25:24
Speaker 1: still goes on. And then this next trial maybe is
25:27
Speaker 1: the one that they do in 2022. That's what I'm hoping.
25:32
Speaker 1: But again, I have no clue how this will all break.
25:39
Speaker 1: One of Maxwell's multiple attacks on her prosecution stemmed from
25:43
Speaker 1: the peculiar provision in the sweetheart plea deal federal prosecutors
25:47
Speaker 1: in Florida signed with Epstein in 2007. A non-prosecution agreement
25:53
Speaker 1: purporting to shield Epstein's potential co-conspirators. It's so weird. Like,
26:00
Speaker 1: who gets a deal like that? I mean, look, let's
26:05
Speaker 1: be very real and very frank. If anybody thinks that
26:08
Speaker 1: I enjoy sitting here talking about this case every single day,
26:12
Speaker 1: putting all of this time into this case every single day,
26:16
Speaker 1: they're wrong. There are plenty of other things I'd rather
26:19
Speaker 1: be talking about. But when you open the curtain a
26:24
Speaker 1: little bit, and you take a look at all the
26:27
Speaker 1: wild shit that occurred in this case, and you see
26:30
Speaker 1: all of the injustice that has taken place, and you
26:34
Speaker 1: see how the federal government has basically just stomped on
26:38
Speaker 1: all of these survivors of Jeffrey Epstein for decades, I
26:42
Speaker 1: don't know how you can ignore it. I just don't
26:47
Speaker 1: know how people ignore this kind of thing. And again,
26:52
Speaker 1: I'm certainly not some sort of advocate for anybody. What
26:57
Speaker 1: I am, though, is tired of the justice system not working.
27:04
Speaker 1: And this just magnifies it to a degree that is blinding. U.S.
27:12
Speaker 1: District Judge Allison Nathan noted that Epstein signed the deal
27:15
Speaker 1: with the Southern District of Florida, not the Southern District
27:19
Speaker 1: of New York. And we've talked about this a bunch
27:22
Speaker 1: and a lot of other people did as well. People
27:24
Speaker 1: that are much more well-versed in the world of legal
27:29
Speaker 1: matters than myself have said the same thing. There's no
27:32
Speaker 1: way the plea deal was going to carry over from
27:35
Speaker 1: Florida to New York. That shit was signed in the
27:39
Speaker 1: state of Florida. So, he's not being prosecuted on those crimes.
27:47
Speaker 1: I mean, she's not being prosecuted on those crimes. They're
27:50
Speaker 1: being prosecuted on a whole new set of crimes that
27:53
Speaker 1: allegedly occurred in New York. The court concludes that the
27:58
Speaker 1: agreement does not apply in the district or to the
28:02
Speaker 1: charged offenses, Nathan wrote in a 34-page opinion. She's definitely
28:06
Speaker 1: not wrong about that, right? I mean, how can you
28:09
Speaker 1: even attempt to try and weasel your way into that
28:13
Speaker 1: plea deal that happened in Florida and try and get
28:16
Speaker 1: it to cover you in New York? That don't make
28:20
Speaker 1: any sense whatsoever. And again it's just her lawyers. Look
28:24
Speaker 1: they're running out of road folks. They are literally running
28:27
Speaker 1: out of road. What are they going to do? The
28:32
Speaker 1: time is coming. Where all the talk. All the BS.
28:39
Speaker 1: It's all going to be over with. The trial is
28:42
Speaker 1: going to start. And then we'll see. Just exactly what
28:48
Speaker 1: Maxwell has. Because as of now, she's in big trouble.
28:59
Speaker 1: When prosecutors first charged Maxwell in July 2020, the indictment
29:03
Speaker 1: related to conduct between 1994 to 1997. Though federal law
29:10
Speaker 1: typically imposes a five-year statute of limitations for most non-capital offenses...
29:16
Speaker 1: Congress granted prosecutors more latitude for crimes involving children through
29:21
Speaker 1: the passage of the Protect Act of 2003, which allowed
29:25
Speaker 1: for prosecution during any time of the life of the victim.
29:30
Speaker 1: So there you have it. That's what I was talking
29:33
Speaker 1: about a little bit ago. And, you know, it's serious
29:37
Speaker 1: jeopardy for these people. And that should have always been
29:39
Speaker 1: the case. There should be no, in this instance, a
29:44
Speaker 1: statute of limitations when there's all this evidence and all
29:47
Speaker 1: of this circumstantial evidence that's been provided to the public even.
29:52
Speaker 1: And Lord knows what the prosecution has. Videos and pictures and,
29:58
Speaker 1: I mean, come on now. When you have this sort
30:02
Speaker 1: of evidence and all of these witnesses, there has to
30:07
Speaker 1: be a remedy. So I'm glad that the PROTECT Act
30:09
Speaker 1: was passed in 2003. And I'm glad that it gives
30:12
Speaker 1: them the opportunity to attempt to right such a grievous wrong.
30:22
Speaker 1: The judge rejected the argument by Maxwell's defense counsel that
30:26
Speaker 1: the law did not have retroactive applications. Maxwell contends that
30:31
Speaker 1: it is unfair to allow the government to prosecute her
30:34
Speaker 1: now for conduct that occurred more than 20 years ago.
30:38
Speaker 1: But there is no dispute that Congress has the power
30:43
Speaker 1: to set a lengthy limitations period or no limitations period
30:48
Speaker 1: at all, the ruling states. So Congress made the ruling, right?
30:52
Speaker 1: Let's remember, Congress makes the law, right? Congress, they're the
30:56
Speaker 1: ones who pass laws, okay? It's the judge's job. to
31:02
Speaker 1: uphold those laws. Not to interpret them like the 11th
31:06
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals did, but to uphold them. So
31:12
Speaker 1: if Congress has stated with this act that they have
31:14
Speaker 1: passed that Maxwell can be pursued, then gloves are off.
31:20
Speaker 1: Whatever legal remedy there is, they should be pursuing it.
31:25
Speaker 1: I'm talking hit her with every single charge in the book. Hell,
31:30
Speaker 1: that's what they do to regular people. I've seen people
31:34
Speaker 1: get hit with a CVS, Walgreens-type receipt. You know how
31:43
Speaker 1: long those things are? Full of Ricoh charges. Mid-level, minor
31:50
Speaker 1: league-type people. getting the business thrown at them. You know why?
31:55
Speaker 1: Because the government knows that they can do that. The government,
31:57
Speaker 1: in most instances, is the biggest bully of them all.
32:03
Speaker 1: But in this case, when they should be flexing, when
32:07
Speaker 1: they should be bullies, they're not. And I think that's
32:13
Speaker 1: what's so confounding about this case. And I think that's
32:16
Speaker 1: why so many people are fired up. It is done
32:19
Speaker 1: so here, judging that the difficulty of prosecuting these offenses
32:24
Speaker 1: and the harm they work on children outweighs the defendant's
32:27
Speaker 1: interest in repose. Maxwell's fairness argument is a gripe with
32:32
Speaker 1: Congress's policy judgment, not an impermissibly retroactive application of the statute.
32:40
Speaker 1: So again, like I was just saying, it sounds like
32:43
Speaker 1: your beef is with Congress there, Ghislaine. Maybe you guys
32:47
Speaker 1: didn't give them enough money. Maybe you and Jeffrey should
32:49
Speaker 1: have given your buddies a little bit more money. How
32:51
Speaker 1: much did Chuckie Schumer get? Oh yeah, a ton. Should
32:56
Speaker 1: we go through the list again of all the people
32:57
Speaker 1: that got money? How much did good old Pete Buttigieg
33:01
Speaker 1: receive before he gave the money back? Oh, I gave
33:04
Speaker 1: the money back. Give me a break. All these clown-ass politicians.
33:08
Speaker 1: I guess you didn't go far enough though, Ghislaine. I
33:11
Speaker 1: guess you didn't grease enough hands. Stuff enough pockets. You know, before,
33:16
Speaker 1: Before you know it, folks, Ghislaine Maxwell will be talking
33:21
Speaker 1: all kinds of other rubbish, and she'll be saying how,
33:25
Speaker 1: you know, oh, well, I'm at this facility now, and
33:32
Speaker 1: they're giving me a computer, but it doesn't have Netflix.
33:35
Speaker 1: That'll be like the next argument from her. It's just
33:37
Speaker 1: so absurd. Everything about her arguments here, every sort of
33:43
Speaker 1: defense that her or her team brings up is just
33:46
Speaker 1: more ludicrous than the last one. Maxwell did manage to
33:52
Speaker 1: notch a narrow win, allowing her to cut her trials
33:55
Speaker 1: into two, and that's what I was talking about in
33:57
Speaker 1: the beginning. She's going to be charged separately for the perjury,
34:01
Speaker 1: and then for the other counts, that will be the case,
34:05
Speaker 1: the criminal portion of this case that we've been discussing.
34:11
Speaker 1: One will focus on allegations that she groomed and abused
34:14
Speaker 1: women and girls for Epstein's predation. And the other will
34:18
Speaker 1: determine whether she lied in depositions while fighting defamation claims
34:23
Speaker 1: by one of the alleged survivors, Virginia Roberts. So again,
34:27
Speaker 1: we'll have one on the perjury. It's going to focus
34:30
Speaker 1: on the lying. And I'm sure there's going to be
34:32
Speaker 1: some more sultry, disgusting information brought up in that case
34:38
Speaker 1: as well. Stuff we haven't seen yet. Stuff's going to
34:40
Speaker 1: get unsealed. We're going to get to a discovery phase.
34:42
Speaker 1: Going to be pretty gnarly, I'm guessing. And then, of course,
34:46
Speaker 1: we have the big dog. Where Maxwell's looking at life
34:50
Speaker 1: in prison. And that's these other charges. The trafficking charges
34:56
Speaker 1: and those. So, we got ourselves a bit of a
35:02
Speaker 1: split here. You know, we got one trial coming up
35:05
Speaker 1: at hopefully July 12th, and then this next trial. Who
35:08
Speaker 1: the hell knows? I mean, again, I'm certainly not a lawyer.
35:11
Speaker 1: Does this kind of thing happen concurrently? I don't even know, honestly.
35:17
Speaker 1: Although some allegations of sexual abuse are relevant to both
35:20
Speaker 1: sets of charges, many are not, Nathan wrote. At a minimum,
35:25
Speaker 1: this will expand the scope of the trial far beyond
35:28
Speaker 1: the more narrow issues presented. So... she's saying she wants
35:35
Speaker 1: to stay focused on those main charges. And with the
35:39
Speaker 1: other issues and the defamation case blending into it, it'll
35:43
Speaker 1: widen the scope massively, at least according to Judge Nathan's
35:48
Speaker 1: ruling here. And while the court agrees with the government
35:53
Speaker 1: that at least some of Maxwell's concerns are overstated, there
35:56
Speaker 1: is little question that the jury's consideration of the nature
36:00
Speaker 1: of the defamation action will require a significant investment of time,
36:05
Speaker 1: and resources to provide the requisite context. So, she thinks
36:17
Speaker 1: that two trials are going to be necessary so that
36:21
Speaker 1: things can be streamlined. At least that's the way it
36:24
Speaker 1: looks to me. She doesn't want to have this all
36:27
Speaker 1: balled into one trial. She wants to make sure it's
36:30
Speaker 1: two separate dockets so that things are moving at a
36:34
Speaker 1: proper clip. Would be my guess. The pair of new
36:44
Speaker 1: sex trafficking charges that federal prosecutors filed against Maxwell since
36:49
Speaker 1: she filed her motions are not covered by the judge's ruling.
36:54
Speaker 1: Those new charges extend the length of the alleged conspiracy
36:57
Speaker 1: until 2004 and introduce a minor victim, Four, who first
37:03
Speaker 1: agreed to be interviewed by the government last summer. So remember,
37:07
Speaker 1: it was 94 to 97 originally, and then it expanded
37:11
Speaker 1: another seven years into 2004 when they hit her with
37:15
Speaker 1: that superseded indictment. According to prosecutors, coronavirus error restrictions made
37:26
Speaker 1: an in-person interview unworkable until this past January. I mean, okay,
37:32
Speaker 1: I guess, right? That's in the past now though, right? Again,
37:35
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear these coronavirus excuses when it
37:38
Speaker 1: comes to matters of law, folks. We have to keep
37:41
Speaker 1: on getting on, right? Everything's opening up. People are going
37:44
Speaker 1: back to work. Things are starting to move in the
37:46
Speaker 1: right direction. I heard the other day like 50% of
37:51
Speaker 1: American adults have already gotten at least one jab. So
37:55
Speaker 1: the coronavirus stuff, as far as using it as an
37:58
Speaker 1: excuse legally, it's really getting to be annoying to me, honestly.
38:04
Speaker 1: We have to function and we have to keep things moving,
38:06
Speaker 1: all right? Over the next two months, the government worked
38:13
Speaker 1: expeditiously to conduct additional investigation to corroborate minor victim number four,
38:19
Speaker 1: including by interviewing additional witnesses, reviewing documents that have already
38:24
Speaker 1: been produced to the defense in discovery, and subpoenaing additional records,
38:30
Speaker 1: which the government promptly produced to the defense upon receipt,
38:34
Speaker 1: the government revealed earlier this month. So, the government saying
38:40
Speaker 1: that it has met and exceeded expectations when it comes
38:45
Speaker 1: to records and paperwork and things that have to do
38:51
Speaker 1: with the case and with Maxwell's defense according to the
38:55
Speaker 1: government they have been all over that banging it out
38:59
Speaker 1: making sure that it happens making sure Maxwell's team has
39:02
Speaker 1: everything that they need and Maxwell's team on the other
39:06
Speaker 1: hand says that's not the case the computers broke this
39:10
Speaker 1: that the other thing obviously the truth is somewhere in
39:14
Speaker 1: the middle right We're dealing with two prolific liars, folks.
39:18
Speaker 1: The federal government and Ghislaine Maxwell. So who are you
39:22
Speaker 1: going to believe? Maxwell has moved to pause her trial,
39:27
Speaker 1: which is currently scheduled for July 12th, this year. Prosecutors
39:32
Speaker 1: signaled that they will oppose this measure. Her lawyer did
39:35
Speaker 1: not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. And now
39:40
Speaker 1: in the description box, you'll find this link. And inside
39:44
Speaker 1: of this link, you'll have the whole entire ruling from
39:49
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan, all 34 pages. So I suggest if you
39:52
Speaker 1: want to give that a glimpse, that you do so.
39:55
Speaker 1: I always think it's a good idea to read the
39:57
Speaker 1: original documents. And look, folks, this is going to be
40:03
Speaker 1: a journey, right? This is going to be quite the
40:08
Speaker 1: roller coaster. So buckle up and prepare yourselves. One thing
40:15
Speaker 1: is for certain. Ghislaine Maxwell is going to be judged
40:21
Speaker 1: by a jury of her peers. If you'd like to
40:25
Speaker 1: contact me, you can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com.
40:30
Speaker 1: That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com. You can also find me on Twitter.
40:45
Speaker 1: All of the links that go with this episode can
40:47
Speaker 1: be found in the description box. As for this morning, look,
40:53
Speaker 1: we all know I'm not a big fan of David
40:55
Speaker 1: Oscar Marcus, one of Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys. But with that said,
41:01
Speaker 1: I think that the judge did the right thing here
41:03
Speaker 1: by not giving him any kind of penalty for speaking out.
41:07
Speaker 1: I think He's within his rights to speak out on
41:10
Speaker 1: the case, right? I mean, look, at this point, I
41:15
Speaker 1: don't think anything he has to say is going to
41:18
Speaker 1: sway anybody, to be honest with you. Now, with that said,
41:21
Speaker 1: he has certain guidelines he has to follow as a lawyer,
41:24
Speaker 1: just like the prosecutors, and he can't step out of
41:27
Speaker 1: line when it comes to whatever those rules are. But
41:32
Speaker 1: with his editorial, with his article in the Daily News,
41:35
Speaker 1: while I found it to be ridiculous... I don't think
41:39
Speaker 1: that it was something he should be sanctioned for. So
41:43
Speaker 1: let's jump into this article from Law and Crime and
41:46
Speaker 1: let's see what Adam Klassfeld has to say about Oscar
41:51
Speaker 1: David Marcus and the op-ed. Headline, Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer won't
41:57
Speaker 1: face discipline for writing op-ed comparing his client to Bill Cosby.
42:02
Speaker 1: This article was authored by Adam Klassfeld. Also, if you
42:09
Speaker 1: don't follow Adam on Twitter, I suggest you do if
42:13
Speaker 1: you follow the Epstein case because he has some good
42:16
Speaker 1: stuff and his legal analysis of this case has been
42:19
Speaker 1: spot on. Admonishing the attorney not write another editorial like
42:26
Speaker 1: it again before trial, a federal judge declined to discipline
42:30
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell's appellate lawyer for writing a New York Daily
42:34
Speaker 1: News op-ed claiming that his client should be freed just
42:37
Speaker 1: as Bill Cosby was. And again, I think that's the
42:40
Speaker 1: right decision, right? Look, I don't think they need to
42:43
Speaker 1: overly censure anybody, right? I believe that people should be
42:47
Speaker 1: able to speak out. I believe people should be able
42:49
Speaker 1: to have their freedom of expression and opinion for sure.
42:53
Speaker 1: But if you're a lawyer attached to this case, not
42:55
Speaker 1: just a pundit or a news person, you have to
42:58
Speaker 1: be real careful what you say, right? You're attached to
43:01
Speaker 1: the case. You're attached to the actual people who are
43:05
Speaker 1: facing trial or whatever it may be. And if you're
43:08
Speaker 1: part of that defense team, you should make sure that
43:11
Speaker 1: you have all of your P's and Q's in order,
43:15
Speaker 1: shall we say, all of your ducks in a row. Now,
43:18
Speaker 1: I thought he towed the line here, right? But I
43:21
Speaker 1: didn't think he went too far, right? I never thought
43:23
Speaker 1: he'd get censured for this. This court is cognizant that
43:30
Speaker 1: criminal matters heading toward trial are especially sensitive to extrajudicial statements, U.S.
43:36
Speaker 1: District Judge Allison Nathan said. All those associated with this
43:40
Speaker 1: case must act to ensure the case is tried solely
43:43
Speaker 1: in court. Or else they risk being deemed responsible for
43:48
Speaker 1: any trial delay or for undermining the integrity of the
43:52
Speaker 1: upcoming trial. Pretty powerful words from the judge. And that
43:55
Speaker 1: was an open-ended statement, right? She's talking to the prosecutors
43:58
Speaker 1: as well. And I think she should. I don't think
44:02
Speaker 1: that the prosecutors have to go out of bounds to
44:05
Speaker 1: nail Epstein, okay? I think there's so much evidence here.
44:08
Speaker 1: Excuse me, Maxwell. There's so much evidence here. to get Maxwell,
44:13
Speaker 1: convict Maxwell, that the prosecution doesn't have to get up
44:16
Speaker 1: to its usual tricks. And when I say its usual tricks,
44:20
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, right? You think the federal
44:21
Speaker 1: government plays fair? Yeah, right. The federal government, if you're
44:26
Speaker 1: in their crosshairs, you better batten down the hatchets, folks.
44:31
Speaker 1: You better be ready for the fight of your life.
44:36
Speaker 1: Though her ruling concerns an editorial by Maxwell's appellate lawyer,
44:39
Speaker 1: David Marcus, Judge Nathan made clear that the concern is
44:43
Speaker 1: not one-sided. Maxwell's defense attorneys previously accused the U.S. Attorney's
44:48
Speaker 1: Office of compromising the accused sex trafficker's right to a
44:52
Speaker 1: fair trial by speaking about the case when her indictment
44:56
Speaker 1: was first unveiled roughly one year ago. You know, again,
45:02
Speaker 1: I'm very... rough on the prosecution and the Department of
45:07
Speaker 1: Justice and the federal government. You all know that. I
45:09
Speaker 1: am certainly not an ally, okay? Not in the least.
45:13
Speaker 1: And when they step out of line, I like them
45:15
Speaker 1: to get slapped. Nobody is above the law, especially the lawmakers.
45:21
Speaker 1: I know, it's a novel idea. It's like you're at
45:23
Speaker 1: a TED Talk or something, right? I mean, these fucking
45:26
Speaker 1: people are unbelievable. Excuse my language, but man, they really
45:30
Speaker 1: elicit the New York Ginzaloon in me sometimes, and I
45:35
Speaker 1: want to go on a tirade that would make Tony
45:37
Speaker 1: Soprano blush. Going forward, Mr. Marcus and all lawyers associated
45:45
Speaker 1: with the pending case are now clearly on notice that
45:48
Speaker 1: their conduct falls under the purview of local criminal rule 23.1,
45:53
Speaker 1: Judge Nathan wrote in a three-page order referring to the
45:57
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York's fair trial directives. Indeed, The
46:01
Speaker 1: above concerns do not apply only to Mr. Marcus. So
46:05
Speaker 1: all of the lawyers concerned here better be on notice, right?
46:11
Speaker 1: Allison Moe, Maureen Comey, Audrey Strauss, whoever's working the case.
46:19
Speaker 1: No need for it. Keep everything close to the vest
46:22
Speaker 1: like you always do and keep on keeping on. Unless,
46:27
Speaker 1: of course, you're coming out to announce some new Charges,
46:30
Speaker 1: maybe some Rico charges, you know, might be nice. Maybe
46:34
Speaker 1: if Ghislaine Maxwell's last name was like, I don't know, Gambino,
46:42
Speaker 1: there would be some Rico charges. That's why it cracks
46:44
Speaker 1: me up when David Oscar Marcus acts like Ghislaine Maxwell
46:48
Speaker 1: is getting the world dropped on her. She's getting off light.
46:52
Speaker 1: Take a look at people who engage in sex trafficking,
46:54
Speaker 1: human trafficking, these sorts of charges, intimidation, coercion. And look
47:00
Speaker 1: at how the hammer gets dropped on them right away.
47:05
Speaker 1: So from where I'm sitting, Oscar Marcus, your client is
47:09
Speaker 1: getting the top-tier treatment. The latest dust-up over an out-of-court
47:19
Speaker 1: statement in the Maxwell case concerns an op-ed by Marcus titled,
47:23
Speaker 1: Bill Cosby is free. Ghislaine Maxwell should be too. Yeah,
47:27
Speaker 1: not so much, buddy. Apples and oranges, okay? Now, don't
47:32
Speaker 1: get me wrong. Same essence, right? We're in the same neighborhood,
47:36
Speaker 1: but it's not the same address. Bill Cosby, sick bastard.
47:41
Speaker 1: I don't think he should be free. I think that
47:43
Speaker 1: there's enough evidence there that Bill Cosby is more than
47:47
Speaker 1: likely guilty of those crimes. He should be in jail. Now,
47:52
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell, on the other hand, oh, the evidence is
47:55
Speaker 1: a mountain high, a mountain higher. How much higher do
47:58
Speaker 1: you want to go? If you go any higher, you'll
48:00
Speaker 1: be hanging out with Bezos in space. How much more
48:05
Speaker 1: evidence is needed? We don't get a MANAC charge here.
48:08
Speaker 1: There's no RICO charges. I mean, what do they think?
48:12
Speaker 1: We're all students? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did the right
48:19
Speaker 1: thing when it threw out Bill Cosby's convictions because prosecutors cheated,
48:22
Speaker 1: Marcus argued in the first line of his op-ed. And look,
48:25
Speaker 1: I agree. When prosecutors cheat, there should be repercussions and
48:29
Speaker 1: the case probably should be thrown out. Put yourself in
48:33
Speaker 1: that position or your loved one. You want your loved
48:35
Speaker 1: one to be railroaded by the federal government, the most
48:38
Speaker 1: powerful entity on earth? And that's not hyperbole, folks. So
48:42
Speaker 1: if the government's going after people, they at least have
48:45
Speaker 1: to be fair about it, right? So I get that.
48:48
Speaker 1: I'm not, I have no beef with that part of
48:51
Speaker 1: the argument. I agree. The government needs to watch its
48:54
Speaker 1: P's and Q's. How many times do we hear about
48:57
Speaker 1: the FBI having, you know, undercover FBI agents or informants
49:01
Speaker 1: incite terrorists into a terrorist act and then act like
49:04
Speaker 1: they stopped the next Al Qaeda movement? So please, we
49:09
Speaker 1: know your track record over at the FBI. Two days
49:15
Speaker 1: after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling, Maxwell's lawyers claim the
49:19
Speaker 1: accused sex traffickers... case presents a similar situation to Cosby's,
49:24
Speaker 1: in that both supposedly included promises not to prosecute. Then
49:29
Speaker 1: Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor issued a press release
49:33
Speaker 1: passing on charges against Cosby in 2005, which Cosby claimed
49:38
Speaker 1: he relied upon when he sat for a deposition in
49:41
Speaker 1: a civil case filed by his alleged victim, Andrea Constand. So, again,
49:47
Speaker 1: technicalities and loopholes. Now, are you guilty or are you
49:51
Speaker 1: not guilty, Bill Cosby? Right? These loopholes and shit. Again,
49:55
Speaker 1: you notice this isn't for Kalief Browder or your friend
49:59
Speaker 1: who's doing 10 in the penitentiary, right? They're not getting
50:02
Speaker 1: off on any technicalities. Only rich people are. You know why?
50:06
Speaker 1: Because his lawyers, well... You're not paying for their behavior
50:10
Speaker 1: in the courtroom. You're buying their connections. You're buying their friendships.
50:14
Speaker 1: You're buying the relationships that they have created throughout the years.
50:19
Speaker 1: And that's why rich people get off. And that's why
50:22
Speaker 1: you and I, well, that's why we go to jail.
50:26
Speaker 1: Maxwell's lawyers liken that to the unusual 2007 non-prosecution agreement
50:32
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors signed with Jeffrey Epstein, which purported to shield
50:36
Speaker 1: his accused co-conspirators... Of their conduct. Yeah in Florida. In Florida.
50:43
Speaker 1: Okay this has already been established. The appeals court. The
50:47
Speaker 1: judge in the irregular court. The prosecutors. The legal analysts. Experts.
50:53
Speaker 1: The only people that are still. Turning over the same
50:56
Speaker 1: ground here. Is Maxwell's legal team. And I am convinced.
51:01
Speaker 1: That's because they know. They don't have the evidence. To
51:04
Speaker 1: see their client through this. That's because they know. There's
51:08
Speaker 1: no shot. If we're just going on the evidence, we're
51:11
Speaker 1: basing this on the evidence, Maxwell's goose is cooked. There's
51:16
Speaker 1: no way they're going to be able to get her off,
51:19
Speaker 1: in my opinion. Judge Nathan already has rejected Maxwell's argument
51:25
Speaker 1: that the deal insulates her from criminal prosecution. In both cases,
51:30
Speaker 1: the alleged promises were made by attorneys with Donald Trump ties.
51:34
Speaker 1: Why should that surprise anybody at this point? Donald Trump's
51:38
Speaker 1: a fellow traveler with all these dudes. Ken Starr, Castor,
51:45
Speaker 1: you name it. So, shouldn't surprise anybody. Castor, who declined
51:53
Speaker 1: to prosecute Cosby, later went on to represent the 45th
51:56
Speaker 1: president in his second impeachment proceedings. The former U.S. attorney
52:00
Speaker 1: behind Epstein's non-prosecution deal, Alexander Acosta, later went on to
52:05
Speaker 1: become Trump's Secretary of Labor. This connection went unmentioned in
52:09
Speaker 1: the Daily News op-ed. Well, it's because it's kind of
52:13
Speaker 1: pointless to throw in there, right? Look, we all get it.
52:15
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's an unsavory character. I don't think anybody's, you know,
52:21
Speaker 1: declining that, right? We all know that Donald Trump is
52:24
Speaker 1: not a quality human being, all right? But I don't
52:31
Speaker 1: think that It would have helped David Marcus's op-ed if
52:35
Speaker 1: he would have added that little tidbit, I guess is
52:37
Speaker 1: what I'm trying to say. The day after the editorial ran,
52:42
Speaker 1: Assistant U.S. Attorney Allison Moe brought the judge's attention to
52:45
Speaker 1: the article and Marcus's comments to the newspaper's reporter, Stephen
52:49
Speaker 1: Rex Brown, during Maxwell's first in-person court appearance some months earlier.
52:55
Speaker 1: The prosecutor asked the judge to instruct Marcus to comply
52:58
Speaker 1: with local rules. Her letter did not request the attorney's
53:02
Speaker 1: discipline and the judge did not issue any, letting him
53:06
Speaker 1: and all other attorneys on the case off with a warning.
53:09
Speaker 1: And that's the right way to do this, right? I
53:11
Speaker 1: think let's reserve some punishment for when somebody really steps
53:16
Speaker 1: out of bounds. And I don't doubt that it's going
53:18
Speaker 1: to happen as the case gets closer. Guys like David
53:21
Speaker 1: Oscar Marcus can't help themselves. The better call Saul of
53:25
Speaker 1: the appellate court, he can't help himself. The sixth man
53:30
Speaker 1: on the bench, the swing man, he can't help himself. Mr.
53:37
Speaker 1: Marcus has attended a proceeding in this court, after which
53:40
Speaker 1: he spoke to the press on Ms. Maxwell's behalf. Judge
53:43
Speaker 1: Nathan noted, he has represented Ms. Maxwell on appeals of
53:47
Speaker 1: this court's pretrial bail determinations. Moreover, Mr. Marcus has identified
53:53
Speaker 1: himself as Ms. Maxwell's appellate lawyer in a published op-ed
53:56
Speaker 1: discussing his opinion of the merits of this case. These
54:00
Speaker 1: facts mean that the public, which includes potential jurors, may
54:04
Speaker 1: perceive Mr. Marcus as an authoritative source. Yeah, well, let's
54:09
Speaker 1: not get carried away, okay? And anyone thinking he's an
54:11
Speaker 1: authoritative source might need to get a little bit of
54:14
Speaker 1: comprehension work done in their brain. of information regarding the
54:19
Speaker 1: pending matter and may readily consider his remarks to be
54:22
Speaker 1: accurate and reliable. Yeah, I mean, sure, if you thought
54:26
Speaker 1: Baghdad Bob was accurate and reliable as America rolled into Baghdad,
54:31
Speaker 1: then I guess you could look at him as reliable.
54:35
Speaker 1: The judge emphasized that there will be consequences if she
54:37
Speaker 1: finds the rules has been violated. In addition to the
54:41
Speaker 1: impact it could have on this matter, Failure to comply
54:45
Speaker 1: could also result in attorney discipline, she said. Maxwell's trial
54:50
Speaker 1: has been slated for November. And inside of the article,
54:54
Speaker 1: you can see the judge's ruling like usual. This will
54:57
Speaker 1: be in the description box like usual. And once again,
55:02
Speaker 1: I didn't think that there would be any discipline. Prosecutors
55:05
Speaker 1: didn't ask for any discipline. I think it was kind
55:07
Speaker 1: of just a shot over the bow, right? Hey, look,
55:10
Speaker 1: watch your step. Don't be more of a jackass than
55:13
Speaker 1: you usually are, or there will be consequences. And I
55:18
Speaker 1: think that was the message that was trying to be
55:20
Speaker 1: sent by the prosecution in this instance. So we'll see
55:25
Speaker 1: how it all goes, but I highly doubt we've heard
55:28
Speaker 1: the last from Oscar David Marcus moving forward in the
55:32
Speaker 1: Ghislaine Maxwell trial. If you'd like to contact me, you
55:36
Speaker 1: can do that at bobbycapucci at protonmail.com. That's B-O-B-B-Y-C-A-P-U-C-C-I at protonmail.com.
55:46
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter at B-O-B-B-Y underscore C-A-P-U-C-C-I.
55:53
Speaker 1: All of the links that go with this episode can
55:56
Speaker 1: be found in the description box. All right, everybody. I
56:00
Speaker 1: will be back later on, and we will pick up
56:03
Speaker 1: where we belong. Left. Off.