Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files. Bondi also told president at the meeting that Justice decided to not release more Jeffrey Epstein documents because of the presence of child pornography and the need to protect victims by Sadie Gurman, Annie Linskey, Josh Dawsey and Alex Leary Wall Street Journal July 23, 2025 3:08 pm ET https://archive.ph/b5Yk3#selection-337.23-2623.18
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a “truckload” of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump’s name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.
In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn’t a sign of wrongdoing.
The officials said it was a routine briefing that covered a number of topics and that Trump’s appearance in the documents wasn’t the focus.
They told the president at the meeting that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of the officials said. One of the officials familiar with the documents said they contain hundreds of other names.
They also told Trump that senior Justice Department officials didn’t plan to release any more documents related to the investigation of the convicted sex offender because the material contained child pornography and victims’ personal information, the officials said. Trump said at the meeting he would defer to the Justice Department’s decision to not release any further files.
The meeting set the stage for the high-profile review to come to an end. Bondi had said in February that Epstein’s client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review.” Trump said last week in response to a journalist’s question that Bondi hadn’t told him that his name was in the files.
The administration didn’t publicly announce the decision until weeks later on July 7, when the Justice Department posted a memo on its website. The statement, which was unsigned, stated that a thorough review had turned up no list of Epstein’s clients, no evidence that would lead to an investigation of uncharged third parties and no additional documents that merited public disclosure. It said that much of the material would have been sealed in a trial to protect victims and to block the dissemination of child pornography.
Typically, the FBI doesn’t disclose materials that aren’t related to a charged offense.
“This is another fake news story, just like the previous story by The Wall Street Journal,” said White House communications director Steven Cheung.
A message projected on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce building across from the White House on July 18.
In a statement to the Journal on Friday, Bondi and the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution. “As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings,” they said.
On Tuesday, Blanche said on X that the Justice Department was seeking to arrange a meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in the coming days to discuss any possible information about anyone who has committed crimes with Epstein.
Maxwell was found guilty in 2021 of helping Epstein’s sex trafficking and sentenced to 20 years in prison. She has been in custody since she was charged in 2020 and didn’t testify at her trial.
One of Maxwell’s lawyers, David Oscar Markus, confirmed the discussions and said, “We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.” Maxwell has been seeking to have her conviction overturned, contending she didn’t receive a fair trial.
Both Epstein and Trump said years ago that they had a falling out. Trump has said their friendship ended before the financier was indicted for soliciting prostitution in 2006. Epstein later pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution in 2008, served time in a Florida jail and registered as a sex offender. When Epstein was arrested again in 2019, Trump said he hadn’t talked to Epstein for about 15 years. Epstein died in jail that year while awaiting trial on federal charges of sex trafficking.
FBI Director Kash Patel has privately told other government officials that Trump’s name appeared in the files, according to people close to the administration.
Patel declined to answer an inquiry from the Journal about the Epstein case, but said in a statement that the memo on the Justice Department website explaining why the department wouldn’t release more Epstein documents was “consistent with the thorough review conducted by the FBI and DOJ.”
Details of Bondi’s meeting with Trump haven’t been previously reported. Trump’s advisers had for months, including during the presidential campaign, said they would release the files, and Trump, while at times equivocal, indicated he would support the release.
Trump’s supporters, including some now serving in senior roles in the administration, claimed that the documents would expose global elites and powerful Democrats who spent time with the disgraced financier.
The decision to not release the files has triggered the most serious backlash from Trump’s political base since he launched his bid for the White House a decade ago, with a vocal group of the president’s allies seeing the move as a massive betrayal.
Trump has told administration officials in recent weeks that he wanted the growing public attention on Epstein to go away. On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson cut short the legislative session as some lawmakers demanded votes on more releases related to the Epstein files.
Grand jury testimony
Last Thursday, The Wall Street Journal published an article about a letter bearing Trump’s name that was included in a 2003 birthday album for Epstein, which was assembled before the financier was first charged. On Friday, Trump sued the Journal’s reporters, Journal publisher Dow Jones, parent company News Corp and executives, calling the letter “nonexistent” and alleging the article defamed him.
A spokeswoman for Dow Jones said, “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.”
Pages from the leather-bound album are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It’s unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump administration’s recent review.
On Thursday, Trump said he had directed Bondi to “produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval!” On Friday, Bondi and Blanche asked a federal court to do so, saying it was “a matter of public interest.”
The grand jury testimony makes up only a portion of the more than 300 gigabytes of Epstein-related material the FBI compiled as part of the recent review. Among other material, the FBI confiscated digital and documentary evidence from Epstein’s properties in the U.S. Virgin Islands and New York in 2019 when he was arrested.
Grand jury testimony is subject to secrecy protections and faces potentially high hurdles for public release. Administration officials privately acknowledge that the court is unlikely to release the testimony.
On July 15, an ABC News journalist asked Trump, as he took questions from reporters at the White House, what Bondi told him about the Epstein files: “Specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?”
“No, no, she’s—she’s given us just a very quick briefing,” Trump responded. He also said Bondi had “really done a very good job” on the Epstein review.
Bondi-Bongino clash
The decision to not release the files and the harsh fallout among the public has roiled some of Trump’s senior staff, who have staked their reputations on exposing the ties between Epstein and moneyed elites.
Patel, the FBI director, and his deputy, Dan Bongino, had been in favor of releasing more documents, people familiar with their efforts said.
Bongino has told colleagues that his association with the administration’s decision to keep the files private has eroded his credibility among the base of support that fueled his rise as a successful podcaster and media personality on the right, according to a senior administration official. Bongino didn’t respond to requests for comment.
On July 9, after ABC News reached out to the White House about Bondi’s briefing to the president, Bongino and Bondi clashed in a meeting in which Bondi alleged that Bongino secretly provided information to the media to damage her reputation, people familiar with the meeting said.
Bongino in turn exploded about Bondi, his face red, and called her a liar, a senior administration official said.
DOJ told Trump that his name is among others in the Epstein files: The report comes as president sues the Wall Street Journal for defamation by Kelly Rissman UK Independent Wednesday 23 July 2025 21:51 BST https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 94777.html
When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a "truckload" of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump's name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.
-- Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files, by Sadie Gurman, Annie Linskey, Josh Dawsey and Alex Leary, July 23, 2025
Justice Department officials told President Donald Trump earlier this year that his name, among others, appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein documents, according to a report.
Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the president in May that his name appeared in the documents, senior officials told the Wall Street Journal. His name was one of many high-profile figures in the files, the outlet reported.
However, a mention in the file does not mean there was wrongdoing. One official told the outlet that hundreds of names are in the documents.
“This is another fake news story, just like the previous story by The Wall Street Journal,” White House communications director Steven Cheung told the paper.
Last week, the Journal published a report claiming that Trump gave Epstein a 50th birthday card containing a sexually suggestive drawing and a message suggesting the men shared “secrets.” The president vehemently denied the claims and sued the paper and its owners for $10 billion.
During the May meeting, Trump was told that DOJ officials didn’t plan to release any more documents related to investigation because the material contained child pornography and victims’ personal information, the outlet reported. The president then said he would defer to the Justice Department’s decision against making any further disclosures.
The revelation comes as the president tries to distance himself from the late financier and the fanfare surrounding the case.
Last month, Elon Musk, formerly known as Trump’s “first buddy” claimed that Trump’s name appeared in the files. The billionaire later deleted that tweet. Trump has publicly denied that he was named in the files.
Attention around the case has bubbled up since the DOJ released a July 6 memo that said the department would make no further disclosures in the case. Even MAGA and prominent Republicans have since called for increased transparency around the handling of the case.
The July 6 memo stung to some, including Trump’s MAGA following, who had been anticipating more revelations in the case ever since Trump promised on the campaign trail to declassify the files.
Earlier this year, Bondi said she had a “truckload” of files to review from the FBI. In February, she even said the “client list” of high-profile associates linked to the sex offender’s trafficking scheme was sitting on her desk. That month, she also released “Phase 1” of the files, a tranche of documents that included mostly publicly available information.
Earlier this year, Bondi said she had a “truckload” of files to review from the FBI. (AFP via Getty Images)
Amid mounting public pressure, the president asked Bondi to make public any “pertinent” grand jury transcripts. Bondi then asked the judges overseeing the cases of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s former girlfriend who is now serving 20 years behind bars for her role in a scheme to abuse girls with Epstein. Experts have noted that releasing the transcripts would only account for a small portion of the files at play.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Florida rejected a request from the Trump administration to unseal the grand jury transcripts related to an investigation into Epstein in the state in the mid-2000s. A judge in New York quickly followed with a similar order.
Justice Department officials are planning to meet with Maxwell “in the coming days,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Tuesday. Later that day, the House Oversight Committee approved a subpoena for Maxwell. Trump said that the subpoena for Maxwell "sounds appropriate" during questions from reporters at the White House.
Trump has been trying to keep an arm’s length from the case, but his frustration has shown through.
The president reportedly hung up on a reporter after 30 seconds on the phone Tuesday after he asked about unearthed archived photos showing Epstein attending the president’s 1993 wedding to Marla Maples. “You’ve got to be kidding me,” Trump said before hanging up, CNN reported.
Trump has also claimed the Epstein files were a “hoax” cooked up by the Democrats.
Last week, he went so far as to attack his “past supporters” in a Truth Social post for buying into “this ‘bulls***,’ hook, line and sinker.” He slammed: “Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats’ work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore!”
**********************
Trump NIGHTMARE ARRIVES as DOJ Confirms HE’S ON IT!! by Ben Meiselas MeidasTouch Jul 23, 2025 The MeidasTouch Podcast
MeidasTouch Host Ben Meiselas reports on bombshell reporting from the WSJ that Trump was told by his own DOJ that he’s in the Epstein Files.
Transcript
Folks, Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files. A new Wall Street Journal exclusive confirms that Donald Trump was told by his Justice Department and FBI back in May that his name appeared numerous times in the Epstein files among many of the other names. Pam Bondi also told Donald Trump at the meeting that justice decided not to release more Jeffrey Epstein documents because of the presence of potential CP and the need to protect victims child pornography and protect victims. Uh, this is a bombshell report, folks. And I want you to remember that when Donald Trump was asked back in July, if he had ever been briefed that his name appeared in the Epstein files, you'll hear and you'll see Donald Trump hesitate for a second, try to stall, and then he lies and says that no, they were never in there. And then this is when he starts to say this was one big hoax against me by the Democrats. And of course, now we know he said that because his name appears in the files numerous times and that's why the DOJ is covering this up. Folks, this is exploding right now. And I want to tell you more about what Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney is doing um and how Maxwell's attorneys position this. But first, here's what Donald Trump said back on July 15th, 2025. And at this time, he was briefed and told that his name was on the list. Watch him lie right here. Let's play this clip.
[Reporter] Honestly, the attorney general briefed you on the DOJ and FBI's review, the findings of that review.
[Donald Trump] The attorney general briefed you on what? On the DOJ and FBI on what? On what subject?
[Reporter] Epstein, on Epstein.
[Donald Trump] Very very quick briefing.
[Reporter] Did she tell you what did she tell you about the review? And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?
[Donald Trump] No, no. She's given us just a very quick briefing and in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen and I would say that you know these files were made up by Comey they were made up by Obama they were made up by the Biden you know uh we and we went through years of that with the Russia Russia Russia hoax with all of the different things that we had to go through we've gone through years of it but she's handled it very well and it's going to up to her. Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release. Yeah.
[Reporter] On Texas. On Texas, how many more seats do you want the Republicans to --
All right, let's take a look at this Wall Street Journal article, folks. It says, "When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called truckloads of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump's name appeared multiple times." According to senior administration officials, in May, Bondi and her deputy informed Donald Trump at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the official said many other high-profile figures were also named. Trump was told being mentioned in the records isn't a sign of wrongdoing. The Wall Street Journal points out the official said it was a routine briefing that covered a number of topics and that Trump's appearance in the documents wasn't the sole focus. Okay. Um they told the president at the meeting that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people including Donald Trump who had socialized with Epstein in the past. Some of the officials said one of the officials familiar with the documents said that they contain hundreds of names. The article goes on to say that the meeting set the stage for the high-profile review to come to an end. In other words, the cover up. Bondi had said in February that the Epstein client list was sitting on her desk right now to review and that she had truckloads of documents. And now, of course, it's been confirmed why they are covering up releasing the truckload of documents. As we previously reported on the Midas Touch network, we believe there to be about 300 gigabytes of documents. And again, Donald Trump's names will appear on that multiple multiple times. Now, Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer uh gave a statement uh to the Wall Street Journal. His name is David Oscar Marcus. And Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer confirmed that they are in touch now with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. As I've said before, I believe in my opinion this is part of the cover up. go to Ghislaine Maxwell and try to silence her and then have her basically say, "Oh, there was nothing with Donald Trump." in exchange for a pardon or a commutation. Ghislaine's lawyer says, quote, "We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case. Maxwell has been seeking to have her conviction overturned, contending she did not receive a fair trial." That's the statement from Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer. Now, in addition, we know that the House Oversight Committee will be conducting a deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell. So, after the House Oversight Chair, James Comey subpoenaed Ghislaine Maxwell, her attorney, David Oscar Marcus, told CNN, quote, "As for the congressional subpoena, Miss Maxwell is taking this one step at a time. She looks forward to her meeting with the Department of Justice and that discussion will help inform how she proceeds as our editor-in chief Ron Filipkowski writes, which means before she agrees to lie for Trump, she wants an agreement to a sentence reduction or a commutation. Maxwell has a lot of leverage on Trump all of a sudden and she is going to use it to benefit herself. Folks, the cover up here is spiraling out of control for the Trump regime before our very eyes. Now, the fact that we now know that Donald Trump's name is in these files multiple times confirmed in this Wall Street Journal report. By the way, hat tip to Wall Street Journal for fearlessly reporting on this after Donald Trump sued them for their prior report, right, about the 50th birthday letter that Donald Trump sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, which the Wall Street Journal alleged says, you know, our enigmas will never age. Our secrets will always stay secrets. And they said Donald Trump doodled a naked girl and signed his name in the pubic region. And Trump's like, I don't doodle. I don't use the word enigma. Then all these doodles and videos of him saying the word enigma multiple multiple times came out.
xx
But all of this puts a new focus on, you know, Elon Musk statement. Who was closer to Donald Trump than Elon Musk when Elon Musk previously wrote, "Time to drop the really big bomb at real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. This is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT. Elon Musk was correct." Or when Sean Hannity back in March said, "Nah, there's going to be lots of names on the list. Lots of names in the files. So if you hear names like Trump's, don't worry about it. You remember what Hannon said, play this clip. Today, the attorney general Pam Bondi released phase one of the Epstein files. That's transparency. There are a lot of names in there. And Epstein was obviously a star chaser who wanted to hang out with people that are famous, people with money. So let me be very clear at the start here, and I said this on my radio show today. people because they're in the rolodex, they're on the list, does not mean they did anything wrong on this show. And we have done it over and over again. We don't rush to judgment. We believe in the presumption of innocence. And I am appealing to people not to rush to judgment. Even though these names are now public information, there are names that I'm certain were not involved or knowledgeable. After Donald Trump was briefed, that his name was all over the files. Where where did he go to? This is a hoax. The Democrats created it. Why? Cuz he knew there was going to be lots of allegations about him in the files and that his name was all over the files as we predicted on the Meidas Touch Network. Here's what he said in the Oval Office. Do you remember this? Mr. Mr. President, I know you want to move past all this intrigue over the Epstein files, but I do want to ask you to clarify something you said this morning. You said this was all a hoax. Has your attorney general told you this was a hoax? What evidence have you seen? It's not the attorney general. No, I know it's a hoax. It's started by Democrats. It's been run by the Democrats for four years. You had Christopher Wray and these characters and Comey before him. And uh it's a bad group. It started actually look at the Steele Dossier that turned out to be a total hoax. The 51 agents, the intelligence so-called intelligence agents, it was a hoax. Uh it's all been a big hoax. It's perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net and so they try and do the Democrats work. Uh the Democrats are good for nothing other than these hoaxes. They're bad for policy. Uh they're bad for picking candidates that can get elected. Like in uh New York, we have a communist running. He may get elected too actually, but he's going to he'll destroy the city. And I think this also sheds additional light when Donald Trump was asked by Fox about releasing the files and he goes, "Yeah, there may be a bunch of phony stuff in the Epstein file." A bunch of phony stuff. He was setting it up back then. He knew he was going to be all over those files because who's more inextricably intertwined in Epstein's life than Donald Trump. Here, play this clip. Hey, the FBI, all all those institutions. You're right. Some people think that one way to build trust is to declassify things that everyone's talking about. I know you talked earlier about I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist. So, if you were president, would you declassify You can answer yes or no to this. Would you declassify the 9/11 um files? Yeah. Would you declassify JFK files? Yeah. Would you? I did. I did a lot of it. Would you declassify the Epstein files? Yeah. Yeah, I would. All right. I guess I would. I think that less so because, you know, you don't know it. You don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. Uh, but I think I would or at least Do you think that would restore trust? Help restore trust. Yeah. I I don't know about Epstein so much as I do the others. Certainly about the way he died. It would be interesting to find out what happened there because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn't happen to be working, etc., etc. But yeah, I'd go a long way toward that one. Uh, the other stuff I would I would definitely do the January 6th because Yeah. Oh, beyond all of them because what happened? How about the unselect committee? They had a they had meetings, you know, they had all Democrats. Now, finally, let me just share with you this video from Donald Trump's biographer as well as Epstein's potential biographer, Michael Wolff, ended up being Epstein's biographer. But watch how Michael Wolff talks about their relationship and what they would do together. I mean, I think Wolf is spot on. Play this clip.
[Michael Wolff] I want to clarify something. A lot of people have taken exception to the linkage of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein saying that Donald Trump liked little girls. Let me just refocus this back to the time that we're talking about. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were obsessed with models. This was one of the key focuses of their lives. How many models did you have? How many models do you know? How do you get models? And they went through an elaborate process. They invested in model agencies. They started model agencies. Donald Trump had beauty pageants. Jeffrey Epstein became involved with Victoria's Secret, that became actually a kind of centerpiece of his personal and business life: models. And I think that it is safe to say they did not ask models for their IDs. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein emerged from the same world. To make a distinction between Jeffrey Epstein's girls, and Donald Trump's girls, is pure sophistry.
Well, there you have it, folks. Let me know what you think. Bombshell Trump in the files right now. The cover up continues. You heard from Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer right there. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.
Max Blumenthal: The Epstein Files & Rise of Anti-Israeli Sentiments in the US by Glenn Diesen and Max Blumenthal Jul 23, 2025
The editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal discusses how the Epstein Files have split Trump's base and fuelled anti-Israeli sentiments.
Transcript
Hi Ron, we're joined again by Max Blumenthal, the editor and chief at the Grey Zone to discuss the Epstein the files and the extent to which this could split Trump's MAGA base. So welcome back. Good to be back. Good to see you. So this uh Epstein files, they seemed like a very important part of uh Trump's um whole campaign of draining the swamp. Yet he moved away from it and now he seems uh well let's say very defensive as he seemingly attempts to bury the whole story. Indeed, he comes off as a man who has something to hide, even though of course I don't have any evidence for this. Uh, but I was wondering what what do you make of this? Yeah. Shift in rhetoric and the behavior around the Yeah. the Epstein files or alleged files. Well, we've seen everything thrown at Trump, including a massive legal assault accusing him of sexually assaulting Eugene Carol. There was the Stormmy Daniels case where the district attorney or or sorry, US attorney, no, district attorney in New York accused Trump of his team of fixing the books to cover up his affair with a porn actor, Stormmy Daniels. Then there was the whole Trump Russia collusion hoax. It was definitely a hoax. It was something I was calling out at the Grey Zone along with Aaron Mate. From the beginning, we were sort of isolated voices uh not within MAGA or Trump's camp calling that out. And none of it really stuck. For one, for one, the Russia Gate collusion pseudo scandal didn't stick because the Mueller investigation found that there was no collusion. Uh and and now the Trump administration is is taking advantage of that to do two things. one to punish their political enemies, Trump's predecessors from the Clinton and Obama camps, and to distract from the Epstein scandal with this massive drop of Russia gate related documents. But the point I'm making here is none of these scandals stuck because Trump, unlike every other American politician in my lifetime, commanded this loyal cultlike following within his base that would have followed him if he had switched political parties. Or as he said, if he had shot a man in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York, they would have still followed him. But suddenly Trump's mystique has been broken over the Epstein files, the Epstein client list, and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Uh the QAnon shaman. I don't know if you remember him. He's one of the most notorious figures from the January 6 capital riot. He just uh yesterday went on Twitter X and declared f Trump and f Israel. This is part of the phenomenon that Trump is facing from within his own base. And it comes from a part of Trump's base which loathes the political establishment, doesn't have maybe the most um high level of political education, but sees a kind of elite that work together across political parties who don't play by the same rules. and they decided to accuse them of the most severe thing, the most immoral, diabolical thing you could possibly do, which is pedophilia. And they referred to them as the pedophile elite. We saw various conspiracy theories uh consumed parts of Trump's base that would keep them aligned with Trump with the belief that Donald Trump would eventually crack down on the pedophile elite first through QAnon which was spawned by a telegram influencer named Ron Watkins who I think is former military intelligence with these Q drops that showed that that would illustrate how Trump was going to take on the pedophile elite. Then there was the Pizzagate conspiracy theory which was based on really strange Instagram posts from and and unusual emails that came out in the Podesta Files uh which seemed to which implicated in the minds of many Trump followers people close to Hillary Clinton as pedophiles who were molesting children in the tunnels and secret passageways underneath uh popular restaurant in northwest Washington DC called Comet Pingpong. And those all manifested as kind of anti-establishment conspiracy theories that were all leading up to something big. And you know, within QAnon circles, what people would say was a storm is coming. And they would uh you know there there were QAnon songs by Credence Clearwater revival about you know you know who will stop the rain and it was a reference to sort of a cryptic reference to who will stop the pedophile elite and eventually they're all going to be washed away in this giant storm. And the storm was going to come when Trump came back into office. When Trump came back into office after surviving miraculously an assassination attempt, very strange assassination attempt in which he apparently survived by a millimeter and seemed to have been blessed by God in the eyes of his followers to carry out some kind of holy mission. They actually saw this billionaire figure who had been fully invested in the social circles of the elite in New York City throughout his political life and had boasted of having sexual relations with young women during Howard Stern interviews had uh talked about overseeing, you know, being part of the party planning of these notorious all white parties that P. Diddy would host in the Hamptons. All white meaning everyone wears white. And uh then they, you know, they're they're als they're also known as freakoffs. But Trump boasted about that as early as 2000. So he was up in that world. And this is something that I knew that people who really knew who Trump was knew. But his base actually saw a different figure that had been marketed to him. And then so it had been marketed to them through these more underground conspiracy theories but also through um more like astroturfed highlevel Trump influencers like Dan Bongino who is the now deputy director of the FBI and Bongino was constantly promising Trump's base who were his you know who is his audience on Rumble that uh there would be some giant drop of Epstein files that the Epstein files have been obtained. Then Pam Bondi comes in, someone who is as much of a swamp creature as anyone, had lobbied for every slime corporation and foreign governments. And she promises that she's she she declares in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News that she has the Epstein files on her desk that there are witness there are accuser testimonies. I think she might have said hundreds of accuser testimonies. So this created massive for years there was just this massive anticipation among Trump's base and then all of the sudden all of a sudden Trump just just slams the door in their face. Pam Bondi declares she doesn't even want to talk about Epstein in press conferences and Trump as you said seems like he has something to hide. And this occurs at a time when Donald Trump had been betraying his base on many other promises and at a time when the the right the political right in the US the America first movement is beginning to wake up on the issue of Israel. And so Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein files become kind of a catchall for every Trump betrayal. And it fuels the correctly fuels the sense that Donald Trump is actually part of the deep state, part of the swamp that he actually had very close relationships with this so-called pedophile elite, which I see sort of I would call them like a decadent hovercraft elite. And now Donald Trump is getting his ass kicked left and right by the Democrats over this and by his own many of his own influencers. I mean I mentioned the QAnon Shaman. Now CNN is playing Nick Fuentes who you know previously support like he he was seen as supportive of Trump but he's more like the he he he he sort of presents himself as the purest America first influencer. And CNN is playing these clips of Nick Fuentes going off on Trump, just tearing Trump to shreds. So, for the first time, we're actually seeing Trump's mystique being broken, and he will never be able to recover that mystique. So, this is the most, whatever you think of the substance of the Epstein scandal, this is the most significant scandal of the Trump era because it's the first one to actually scave him. It does just from his uh persona, the way he speaks now, it does seem as if he's under immense uh stress or pressure. But one of his skills though, as you suggested, has been to manage the media. He can uh well, if there's been whatever was in the news today, he can put something else in the news tomorrow. And but it doesn't seem to be working this time. I mean, he tried to dismiss the Epstein files as he used the word boring and you know, he's been dead for a long time. uh you know why why are you even talking about this? It's and even going after his own base uh telling oh I don't need you uh trashing them. This is uh it's yeah quite quite remarkable. I think maybe he bought into the whole notion that he was uh yeah uh well untouchable. But uh one thing that I thought was strange is the way he keeps linking it to the Russia gate hoax. I mean this again was a real hoax. It was pushed by the Democrats but now he's saying that the Epstein files are a Democrat hoax. How why is he pushing these two issues together? Or is it just trying to benefit or shift the narrative or what is uh how do you read this? He's he's insulting the intelligence of his base and his followers. He thinks that they're so dumb that they'll actually believe that Hillary Clinton and Obama wrote the Epstein files in order to embarrass Trump and that they won't look any further. And these sorts of deflections have worked in the past, partly because the Clintonites and Obama camp have weaponized miss and disinformation against Donald Trump so much in the past. But I think, you know, this is a different era and younger people who supported Donald Trump or voted for him can clearly see through this there. And there there's so much more to it. As I said, this is a catchall for various other betrayals. And the biggest betrayal among many younger right-wingers is just the whole concept. They feel like the whole concept of America first has been betrayed by Donald Trump because they see him not only rearming Zalinski and turning his back on his vow to end the Ukraine proxy war, but also being controlled by Netanyahu, being controlled by this foreign state that operates through the same kind of circles that Jeffrey Epstein operated within that influence influences Trump through those circles of Zionist billionaires. Jeffrey Epstein was the money manager for Les Wexner who is one of the most powerful Zionist billionaires in the US. He controls he basically owns half of downtown Columbus, Ohio. He is the head of the board of trustees for Ohio State University. Even after he had to resign from his position as CEO of Victoria's Secret, which was his main company, over his very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Ohio State couldn't dislodge Wexner because he had contributed so much money to the school that he was basically indispensable. And Epste what he was doing was like offshoring money for Wexner and in the Virgin Islands. So he would pay no taxes and then W and then Epstein would get all these gifts from Waxner like a townhouse in the middle of New York City, a luxury townhouse for nothing. his neighbor, Jeffrey Epstein's neighbor in that townhouse who bought his townhouse through a shell company controlled by ex Wexner and Epstein was Howard Lutnik who was at the time the CEO of Caner Fitzgerald and Howard Lutnik is now Trump's commerce secretary. So, it's pretty bad optics when Donald Trump goes out there and insults his base on the tarmac. He's when he's about to get into Air Force One and Howard Lutnik is standing right there next to him. Howard Lutnik is also very influential in the Kabad Lubavich cult which uh has very close links to the Israeli settler movement and backs many of the messianic fascistic figures in Netanyahu's coalition. So, it all feeds into this sense that Trump is hiding something about his ties to Israeli intelligence. Tucker Carlson came out at TPUSA, which is the big gathering of conservative youth, hosted by someone named Charlie Kirk, whose career he was basically a conservative child influencer. Ever since he was a teenager, he's been on the track to basically lead the conservative movement. His career was completely fueled by pro-Israel money, by Zionist money. And Charlie Kirk suddenly finds himself presiding over a conference where Tucker Carlson, the keynote speaker, the most influential speaker, gets up and says, "Jeffrey Epstein was Israeli intelligence and that's why Trump is covering this up." And something that I've never seen happen before took place as a result of that. The Israelis themselves got frightened by Epstein. A domestic US scandal actually frightened the Israelis and Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli prime minister, was summoned to declare that he as prime minister dealt every day with the Mossad and Jeffrey Epstein did not work for the Mossad, was not a Mossad agent. And then he threatens Tucker Carlson and said, "We won't stand for this." Another Israeli intelligence connected figure, Amihai Chickley, who is the minister of diaspora affairs, also denounced Tucker Carlson and issued a veiled warning to Charlie Kirk because Israel has so much leverage over Charlie Kirk having funded his career. And it's all like this whole relationship between Israel and the conservative movement is cracking up over Jeffrey Epstein. It's amazing to see it and it suggests that there actually is something there. There definitely is something there. Now, I cannot say that Jeffrey Epstein is a Mossad agent, but he traveled in circles in Zionist circles and if he were alive today and not had and had not been jailed and was a free man, he would have been involved with all of these Zionist billionaires in threatening to defund Ivy League universities that allow Palestine solidarity protests. He would have been part of that world. So this is I think what why Epstein one of the reasons why Epstein threatens the movement or threatens the elites around Donald Trump and why they're seeking to bury the files as well as the fact that Donald Trump has had a very close personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and there may be photos of Donald Trump in a compromising position as the journalist Michael Wolf who knew Jeffrey Epstein who spent time with Jeffrey Epstein, who interviewed Jeffrey Epstein for many hours, has said Michael Wolf has said, and I mean he's been shown to be unreliable in the past, but he has said that the FBI seized photos, including one showing Donald Trump with uh topless girls by Epstein's pool sitting on his lap. Seized those from Jeffrey Epstein's safe. And that's what the Epstein files are. There are also 16 hours of footage recorded by Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief of staff, and he's basically refused to release those. 16 hours of footage of him and Jeffrey Epstein having friendly conversations and interviews and Bannon was very close to Epstein for many years. And what I think they both were united on their hatred for Donald Trump. That's what I think Michael Wolf has said. So I think there are two things going on here. There's the geopolitical danger of Jeffrey Epstein to the uh special relationship with Israel and there's the personal relationship that Donald Trump enjoyed in which Trump appears to have been compromised by. Well, I I thought that almost was established that he was a Mossad agent, but uh uh but but the main operation was to get uh yeah politicians, businessmen in compromising position in order to extort uh well favors for influence. But uh if he's not Mossad or a agent of Israel at least, how how else how else is his background being explained? Or do we know anything else about his associations? I mean, what we know is that he had very close relationships with figures who functioned as kind of like Israeli intelligence assets or Israeli cutouts in the United States. I mean, the way that Israel operates in the US is different than the way, I don't know, Russian intelligence would would operate or any other foreign intelligence service. Like, they work through American the American Jewish establishment and the American Jewish power elite in a very open way. And at this and the way the Mossad operates is I I know this through a mutual friend who worked on Wall Street who knew a major American Israeli um investment banker, someone who ran their own firm who was a Mossad cutout. and he would boast that the Mossad would deposit would ask him because he had so much liquid assets. They would ask they'd say, "We're going to do a black operation in a third country and we need you to deposit this much money in this shell account now and we will pay you back later and we can't tell you what it's for, but you're an Israeli patriot, so do this." And he would just do it. I I don't want to say who they are because I don't want them I don't want to get sued or anything. Um but what I'm saying is the relationship between Israeli intelligence or the Israeli state is very fluid and unregulated in the US. This other character I mentioned to you who threatened Tucker Carlson, Amihai Chickley, he is the minister of diaspora affairs. And there's a great investigative series by the journalists Jack Pollson and Lee Fong on how he has been circumventing America's Foreign Agent Registration Act, which requires foreign governments to register their lobbyists and their lobbyists to report on their activities and meetings to the Department of Justice. And what Chickley has been doing is instead of you know while the Israeli government is like paying influencers in the US they've set up a series of NOS's nonprofits in the US and are working through those and saying well this is just American but the money is foreign so it is a and it's totally unregulated. So, how can we evaluate whether Jeb Jeffrey Epstein was actually a Mossad agent who is meeting around a glass table with the Mossad chief getting instructions when the relationships are so fluid? What is clear is Jeffrey Epstein would have meetings with very influential foreign officials and salons at his townhouse. One of them was a Hood Barack who visited about 36 times um worked with Jeffrey Epstein. I think to set up a surveillance company or surveillance startup. Ahud, former Israeli prime minister also had several meetings with Epstein. Shimon Perez had some meetings with Epstein. Epstein even reportedly set up a meeting for JP Morgan executives with Benjamin Netanyahu. Jeffrey Epstein helped Peter Teal from Palunteer, who has major investments with Israeli intelligence, make uh enormous amounts of money through uh firm through an like through an investment. He helped guide his investments. So, he had he had connections with all of these intelligence connected individuals. He applied for multiple passports to travel to the Middle East and Africa. This was reported by CBS News. Jeffrey Epstein went to Israel in 2008 when he was facing his first prosecution for sex trafficking in Florida. And then there's the Daily Beast report which claimed that Alex Aosta, the Florida prosecutor, was told to back off Epstein because he quote unquote belonged to intelligence. I don't I haven't I don't know if that's dependable a dependable report or not. Alex Acosta, by the way, now is a a in the Trump administration. But it's what we can say is Epstein was intelligence adjacent and he may have also been adjacent to other intelligence agencies. Uh a Saudi passport, was reportedly found in his town home after he died or killed was killed. The last person to meet Jeffrey Epstein, I believe, was William Bar, who is Trump's attorney general. William Barr launched his career in US government as a CIA officer, and he helped write the pardons for the Iran Contra felons under uh Reagan and Bush. William Barr's father, Donald Barr, was the headmaster of the Dalton school that first hired Jeffrey Epstein. And Jeffrey Epstein had said to various journalists including Michael Wolf that he was afraid of Trump during Trump's first term um understandably because he had compromised Trump and then Epstein was placed in a compromising position in the end in a prison cell. Steve Bannon who knew him very well said he believed Jeffrey Epstein was murdered. All of this happens under Trump with all these figures who have these strange associations with Epstein. So, it's no wonder that this scandal only grows and Trump cannot dismiss it as some giant nothing burger from a long time ago. Well, when when I first saw Trump behaving in this manner, I thought either he has to be on this list or he wants to use the list somehow. uh but uh yeah for for pressure but it does appear from all of this that well his name are on on some of these flight logs so it it does look suspicious. Um my my last question though was just about what what this means for the future relationship with Israel because uh for a long time in United States it looks as if patriotism has been linked uh very close to being pro- Israel in which um yeah it's especially among the conservatives where this it's impossible to say anything critical of Israel. So this is something completely new. It seems to me that you have people not you know well so far in the media at least alternative media the Candace owns the Tucker Carlson's all them being very vocal about why are we subordinating uh our interest to Israel. Again this is the whole America first. If the US would get out of the Middle East and wars it has to put America above Israel. But do you see this uh cuz I only seen it in the media sphere so far. Do you see this having some influence on actual politics? Well, let's see. There's an interactive poll, a Polymarket interactive poll that just came out on July 21st that's showing that Trump's approval among Americans aged 18 to 29 has gone down from 55 points in early February, which is very high for a US president, especially a Republican. The Democrats typically had commanded the youth in the past. 55% in early February to 28% in July. So a 54 point negative swing for Donald Trump in just those few months. And I think a lot of it has to do with Gaza, with Palestine, with seeing images of shredded babies day after day and associating Trump with that. I mean, this really destroyed Joe Biden and Kla Harris as well. Their association with the Gaza genocide. Young people are paying attention like never before. I I yesterday I arrived in New York or uh yeah actually just like hours ago I arrived in New York City, got out of a train and saw a giant Palestine march proceeding up 7th A and I joined it and it was it stretched several blocks and you would see in the march very kind of like almost like professional managerial class looking people like people who had just gotten out of work. Uh normie looking white progressive people who just look like the kind of um urban cadre that works in New York City. And as the march proceeded up Seth Aav, people would come out onto the sidewalks to cheer for it. And cars passing by were honking in support. Vendors were cheering in support. Something is going on. And it's like bigger. It's it it is about Palestine, but it's bigger than Palestine. A backlash is taking place. So backlash is taking place in New York City in the form of Zohran Mamdani's mayoral campaign. Kind of a 34year-old assembly member slashinfluencer looks set to become the next mayor. And this is someone who favors uh who favors uh boycotting Israel and has said that he would arrest Netanyahu if he arrives in New York City, which is causing this giant meltdown. On the right, you can see there is a total lack of enthusiasm among the America first influencers for Israel. And Epstein for them is the symbol of everything that's wrong with Israel. This kind of corrupt elite that's controlling government in the United States through blackmail. It may be a little too sophisticated for them to to like to to to make Apac that symbol. So Epstein is a convenient symbol and it's going to play out for a generation. Israel is losing everyone. They're losing Catholics this week, sending out their own Zionist influencers to attack the Pope for condemning is an Israeli attack on a Catholic or Orthodox church in Gaza, attacking the Pope, the new Pope Leo as a kind of Nazi for his condemnation of that. Uh, one of the biggest Catholic youth influ influencers, Michael Nolles, has spoken out for the first time against Israel. And Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to curry influence with popular podcasters when he arrived for his last visit to the US. It was his fourth visit this year. He's constantly tending to this relationship that's that's collapsing, that's fraying at the edges. The so the Trump White House set up an interview for Don for Benjamin Netanyahu with the Neelk boys who are popular like frat bro type influencer podcasters as vacuous as they sound. They market like an uh an alcoholic seltzer and nicotine packs. There's almost no substance there. like their whole podcast is based around, you know, watching them get drunk and play pranks and so on. And the questions for Netanyahu were fed to them by Netanyahu's team. And they asked him, "Do you like uh the McDonald?" Like, "Do you like McDonald's or Burger King? Which do you like better?" And like, "Do you like the Whopper?" And they're asking him these questions while Israel is deliberately starving the children, the people of Gaza. And the images are pouring out of Gaza of skeletal children and skeletal people collapsing in the streets. This becomes a huge scandal for the Neelk boys. They wind up having to host some of the biggest anti-Israel and even anti-Jewish influencers like Nick Fuentes to uh mllify their followers. And in a follow-up uh live stream, they they declare that someone had told them that they just interviewed the modern-day Hitler, and that actually seems to be the case. So, I mean, it's just it's it's all collapsing at the grassroots level, and all Israel has is its established bribery networks like Aipac to hold on to the elite. Uh and how long can that last? Well, it is interesting though that after all of this uh not just yeah making the Ukraine war his the calling for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, every man, woman and child attack on Iran that the Epstein files is what's might sink Trump's presidency. But again um the I think you're right. I think it's probably the yeah the genocide that has uh turned most people against Israel and this I guess just yeah piles on and it's it's uh yeah it's important for those who yeah see this as the final nail in the coffin of you know their dreams of Trump being this America first to drain the swamp. So yeah, just to kind of summarize what I'm what I'm trying to say because American politics from the outside can be hard to understand. The the United States our our our unofficial religion is anti-communism. Like any critique of the capitalist economic system is officially discouraged and you are painted as uh anti-American. So, young Americans, they've grown up without having a means or a language for critiquing the system that has failed them. And anti-war activity, Palestine solidarity is painted as almost like a form of bigotry, as Jew hatred, as uh, you know, disloyalty to our military. It has been since the war on terror. So there's it it's so hard for many people to find particularly if they don't have like a higher education and didn't go through the academic world. It's hard for them to find a language to critique this system that has betrayed them that's lying to them. And so Epstein has kind of helped them find their language, but it's a catch-all for all these other betrayals and for the general hatred of the hovercraft.1% elite that was the target of so many other anti-establishment protests going back to Occupy Wall Street. Yeah, that's an excellent way of framing it. So Max, thank you so much for your time. Uh this is yeah truly yeah amazing stuff. So amazing. Thanks a lot.
Israel CAN NOT Win This – Gaza Is Just the Beginning by Katie Halper and Professor John Mearsheimer Jul 23, 2025
Transcript
I don't even know where to start with you, but I guess I'll start with um something that I heard you say on another show, which is that you actually didn't think that Trump would be a wararmonger. Can you talk about your expectation, what that was based on, and how that compares to the reality that we've been witnessing? Well, I think in the first administration, he was not a wararmonger. He did a number of things uh that you know escalated tensions in different areas. For example, he was the first president to arm the Ukrainians at least with offensive weapons. So it uh but but I think by and large in the first administration he didn't give any indication that he was a wararmonger. And when he ran uh in the campaign for the 2024 election, he went to great lengths to emphasize that he wanted to end all the forever wars and not start anymore. And then right before he took office, as you remember, uh he forced Netanyahu to Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire uh in Gaza. So at the very beginning, it looked like he was off to a good start. Uh and then with regard to Ukraine, uh I thought there he was deeply committed to ending that war and I thought that it may take him a bit more time than it should to shut that war down. But I thought he would eventually shut the war down uh and establish reasonably good relations with the Russians. But if you look at what's happened, he's failed on almost every count. Uh we used to call Joe Biden genocide Joe when he was in the White House. We could easily call Donald Trump genocide don. I mean he's continuing uh the genocide for sure. Uh and um with regard to Ukraine, he has failed to shut that war down. Uh and uh with regard to Iran, the Biden administration at least had the good sense not let the Israelis suck us into a war against Iran. The Israelis tried twice in 2024, but Biden didn't take the bite uh or take the bait. But in this case, uh with Trump in 2025, he took the bait. And on June 22nd, uh he attacked Iran. So, he has not done well in Iran. He has certainly not done well with regard to the genocide in Gaza. And he's not done well with regard to Ukraine. And I would add one other case to this and that's Yemen. You remember he went to war against Yemen. He said, "We'll end this quickly. I'm going to win decisively." After roughly 30 days, he quit and conceded defeat to uh Yemen to the Houthis in Yemen. Uh but the point is that he actually started the fight against the Houthies. So if you look at his overall performance, he looks every bit as much as a wararmonger of a wararmonger as Joe Biden. Yeah. Um you have stated that states are rational, not irrational, but our space rational. So I wanted to know uh governments are rational I should say. Um would you classify Trump's government as rational? Would you classify Biden's as rational? And if so, how? Well, the point is, let's just take uh USIsraeli relations. Uh, Israel is a strategic albatross around our neck. The policies that Israel pursues in the Middle East are not in our interest. Uh and therefore for the Biden administration or for the Trump administration to support the policies of Israel to the extent that we do is not rational in my opinion. And here I'm talking only about Israel being a strategic albatross around our neck. It's also a moral albatross. It's a double whammy from a strategic point of view and from a moral point of view. Our relationship with Israel is not rational. Uh and that was true under Joe Biden and it's true under Donald Trump. And of course the reason that we pursue this particular policy towards Israel uh is because of the lobby. Uh the Israel lobby puts enormous pressure on policymakers to support Israel uh unconditionally and that of course is what we're doing. You know, it's very interesting to listen to you talk to the previous guest and the conversation really revolves around what Israel is doing in Gaza. But the truth is it's not just Israel. It's Israel and the United States. And Israel would not be able to pursue the u policies that it's pursuing in Gaza, with regard to Iran, with regard to Lebanon, and with regard to Syria without complete support from the United States. Uh the reason that Israel is able to behave so aggressively is the United States supports it at every turn. We give the Israelis huge amounts of money, huge amounts of weaponry and diplomatic support. And that frees the Israelis up to pursue these policies that I would argue are not in America's interests, as I just said, but I would also argue are not in Israel's interest. I think what's going on in the Middle East today is a disaster for Israel. And over time, I think more and more people will recognize that. And how is that? How can you expand on what makes it a disaster for Israel? Well, I think from a moral point of view, uh the genocide is a stain uh on Israel's reputation. It's going to be everlasting. Uh it's going to be there uh forever. I mean, this is a genocide. And it's not just any genocide. It's a genocide that's basically being filmed. uh we can see it happening before our eyes with regard to the Holocaust. Hardly anybody saw any evidence of what was happening. The word got out of Europe that a holocaust was taking place or a genocide against the Jews was taking place, but we couldn't see pictures of that. We didn't really know exactly what was going on at the time. And it took really a long time to sort of unpack uh what happened uh between 1941 and 1945 in Europe. Uh but in the case of what's going on in Gaza, it's manifestly apparent what's going on. And this makes it all the more shocking by the way that it's been allowed to go on. The fact that people haven't revolted and forced their governments to shut this down is uh truly shocking. But anyway, my first point would be that this is a disaster for Israel. Second, the idea that Israel is going to have um perfect security by uh beating up on every state in the region and breaking countries apart like Syria and Iran and Egypt and maybe Turkey uh is a pipe dream. That's not going to happen. And Israel in the process is going to do enorm enormous damage to itself. Uh it's going to end up fighting wars forever and ever. And this is not in Israel's interest, especially since those adversaries uh are eventually going to get the military capability to threaten Israel in serious ways. And the best example of this is the case of Iran. The Israelis are running around and of course Donald Trump is as well and many hawks in the United States saying that we have just delivered this hammer blow to Iran. We have obliterated their nuclear program. They're never going to get nuclear weapons. Uh and if they make any steps in that direction, we'll just go back in and slam them again. Uh I I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that. Uh, I think that the Iranian nuclear program is alive. Uh, the Iranians remain committed to at least enriching uranium and I would be willing to bet that behind closed doors they're committed to developing a bomb. Uh, they're not going to advertise that, certainly not at this point in time, but uh, I would not be surprised for one second. In fact, I think it's likely that they will develop a bomb. So, Israel hasn't solved this problem. In fact, they've made the situation worse. And the idea that they've won this great victory against Iran or that we won this great victory against Iran is simply not true. Uh if anything, the key question is why the Iranians agreed to a ceasefire. If I had been playing the Iranians hand, I would not have agreed to a ceasefire. I would have let the war go on for a couple more weeks. The Israelis were in real trouble because huge amounts of damage were being done to Israeli territory. And furthermore, the Israelis were running out of defensive missiles and there was no shortage of ballistic missiles and drones and cruise missiles on the Iranian side. So, one could make good argument that the Iranians should have continued the war. All of this is to say that if the Israelis and the Americans start the war up again, I wouldn't bet that Israel and the United States are going to win that war. Just to take this one step further, and this is where the Americans come into play, it's quite clear that one of the reasons that Trump wanted to shut the war down um after the July, excuse me, the June 22 attacks was because there was evidence that the Iranians were going to mine the Persian Gulf, the straits of Hormuz. And that really spooked Trump as it should have. All of this is to say that if we have another conflict, there's a possibility that the Iranians will mine the straits. And if they mine the straits and we have a huge economic crisis, uh this will not be good for anyone on the planet and certainly for the Trump administration. So the point is that even absent nuclear weapons, the Iranians have cards to play, but the Israelis act like they can just slap the Iranians around. it has no real consequences and to the extent that it might have consequences, Iran's going to fall apart much the way Syria did. Uh I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that. Uh and I could go on and on uh with regard to this. We could talk about the, you know, the centrifugal forces that are at play inside of Israel itself. This is not a happy society. This is this is a society that has wicked fault lines and the animosity across those fault lines is not to be underestimated and when you fight wars all the time like this it invariably exacerbates uh those antagonisms. So I think if you look at the body politic and you look at uh Israel's situation in the broader region, I think the idea that they're in great shape and they just need to apply a little bit more force and get a little bit more support from the United States uh is not uh the way you want to look at this. So why did Iran not do what you were suggesting they could have and should have done? Do you think it's very hard to say uh exactly what was going on? Uh I mean it seems to me that the Americans were probably talking to the Russians and to the Chinese and the Russians and the Chinese were talking to the Iranians and they were probably putting pressure on the Iranians to shut this one down. You want to remember that the Chinese get a lot of oil uh out of the Gulf and uh they did not the Chinese did not want to see the straits or Hormuz shut down. So they had an incentive to put an end to this war. Uh I think the Russians worry about the war as well. They don't want to get dragged in. They don't have any real deep-seated interest. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranians were getting pressure uh from the Russians and the Chinese. The other thing is that almost all of the reporting on Iran tells us that there is a pretty profound split inside Iran between hardliners and softliners. And there are actually a lot of people inside of Iran who want to have good relations uh with the West. Uh and in fact I think these people would be willing to work out some sort of motus for vendai with the Israelis if the Israelis would shut down the genocide. But there is you know a moderate wing inside of Iran. And I wouldn't be surprised if they made the case as well that we should shut this down now uh and if need be we can go back to fighting the war. We have the missiles to do that. So that'd be my best guess as to what happened here. So, this may be a kind of basic question, but I'm I'm genuinely confused about how um rational acting works in the real world. Is it that states act rationally but for certain things like ideology or like extenduating circumstances or the lobby? Because you just gave a bunch of examples of like for the United States and Israel that they're what they're doing is is it's not rational. Correct. So, how how how does this work? Well, just focusing on the American case, which is what I was talking about. The first point you want to remember is that states don't always act rationally. Uh Sebastian Rossado and I wrote this book that argues states uh act rationally most of the time, but there are exceptions for sure. Uh if you were to look at the Bay of Pigs operation which President Kennedy uh executed shortly after he took office, he came into office on January 1961 and then he launched the Bay of Pigs operation uh in April of 1961. It was a total fiasco and it is very easy to prove that that was a nonrational or irrational decision. So the point I'm making to you Katie is that there are examples out there. Now, I think as I said before that if you look at American policy toward Israel, whether it's under Joe Biden or it's under Donald Trump, it does not make strategic sense. It's not rational. And in almost all cases, the reason states pursue nonrational strategies or irrational strategies is because of domestic politics. Domestic politics overwhelms strategic calculations. Uh and in this case it's the lobby. Uh the lobby as you know is enormously influential in the United States. It's much less influential these days at controlling the discourse as is evidenced by the fact that you and I are having this conversation which tens of thousands of people will watch. So in terms of controlling the discourse, the lobby is in deep trouble. But in terms of influencing policy makers, they basically have every policy maker or almost every policy maker in their back pocket. Uh and it doesn't matter whether you have Joe Biden in the White House, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, you name it. Uh the lobby gets its way uh with policy makers. And that's domestic politics at play. And in those cases you will find instances of irrationality and this is certainly a case of irrationality. So what drives Israel? I know these are like very kind of existential questions but what what motivates Israel right? So if in America if the it's to be irrational, right? Because if in the United States it's the lobby, right? So, what makes Israel do things that are so not only morally reprehensible, but um as you're arguing, let's uh not good for Israel in the long run. Well, I'm not sure I would argue that Israel is irrational. Uh I think that they're uh policies are wrongheaded, but uh you want to remember that whether a policy is moral or not, and I abhore what the Israelis are doing. I I've been arguing for a long long time that this is a genocide and I am super critical of the Israelis. But whether a policy is moral or not is very different from whether it's rational or not. The question you have to ask yourself is what are the Israeli goals here? Is what are they trying to do? And if you go back, you know, to the early 1900s, you know, when the first, second, third alias came from Europe to Israel or what was then Palestine. And you ask yourself, what did they intend to do? What they wanted to do was create a Jewish state. And they wanted to create a Jewish state that controlled a lot of territory. uh some wanted to control more territory than others, but they had grand ambitions. They were not talking about creating a tiny state, but they understood that they couldn't do this all at once. And the end result is that over time, the size of Israel has grown incrementally. Um they in 1948 got a rather small state. uh which was then significantly expanded in 1967 when they got uh what are called the occupied territories which is Gaza and the West Bank. And as we all know those are only temporarily occupied territories. The Israelis have every intention of making the occupied territories part of greater Israel. And now if you look at what the Israelis are doing in um Lebanon, southern Lebanon that is, and in Syria, southern Syria that is. You can see that they're interested in Leman's route. They want more living room. They want that greater Israel to be even bigger than just Green Line Israel uh and uh the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They want to go beyond that. And I wouldn't be surprised if at some time at some point they try to take uh uh territory in the Sinai and maybe territory in what's now Jordan. You do not want to underestimate their appetite. And the Israelis have never said these are our borders. We have fixed borders and that's the end of the game. uh the Israelis are interested in creating a much larger state than they now have. So that's point one. Point two is at the very most they want the population to be comprised of 20% Palestinians. This was the number that David Bengurian used to use. He said the state had to be 80% Jewish, 20% non-Jewish. one of the leftist leaders of Israel. Worth noting. Yeah. Yes. For sure. Uh or at least the centrist. Uh right. Yeah. But nominally, right? Part of labor. I mean, it's just it's just funny that this is in in Israel that you still get to be called like the left and say that you want 20% maximum Palestinians. If we could just get off on a sidetrack here. When I first started studying Israel and how it worked, uh, I I tended to think that people like Bengurian were moderates and people like Monol Bean, who was one might say a mortal foe of Bengurians were they were the bad guys. Uh, Bengurian and people of his ilk were basically liberal Zionists. They were the good guys and it was people like Vean who were the bad guys. And I came to believe with the passage of time that there really wasn't much difference in what their goals were. It's just that Bengurian was very good at uh covering up uh with soft language uh the harsh realities of what Israel was doing and wanted to do. And Bean was more of what I call a Texas chainsaw massacre kind of guy. He he'd tell you exactly what he was doing. And uh the more time went on, the more I came to appreciate Bean, his basic honesty. And and this revolves around the 1967 war. Uh the argument that people like Michael Orurin and so-called liberal Zionists like to make is that in 1967, uh the Arab countries were about to attack Israel and destroy it. And by some miracle, the Israelis beat them to the punch. It was a preemptive strike and they won this stunning and unexpected victory. That's the conventional wisdom. It bears little resemblance to the truth. And I remember when Monakam began said, "Let's be honest about this. It was a war of choice. We didn't have to fight this war." Began understood full well that Israel was Godzilla going up against Bambi or a series of Bambi. And that's why of course the Israelis won this great victory, great set of victories in 1967. Uh but Bean was a straight shooter. You don't have to like what he said, but he told it like it is. It can be helpful. It can be very helpful. Yeah. clarifying and and that was not true of of people like David Bengurian. I believe one could argue that Bengurian was what Israel needed. Uh he was more sophisticated. He understood the importance of soft power and forth and so on. But anyway, first point I want to make to you is that Israel was interested in creating lots of Laban's realm. Second point is they did not want many if any Palestinians inside of greater Israel. I think 80% was the number that number of Jews that Bengurian aimed for but in an ideal world it would be an all Jewish state. Uh third point you want to keep in mind is that even if you create a greater Israel that occupies a lot of territory and has a lot of military might, you want to make sure that your neighbors are especially weak. So from the beginning, the Israelis have had a deep-seated interest in breaking apart their neighbors. And you see this today in Syria. And by the way, if you go back to the famous or infamous clean break study of the mid 1990s that was done by Richard Pearl, Paul Wolawitz and others uh for government. Yes. By the neocons, right? Syria was the first target of that strategy. Uh and of course they're trying now to do the same thing with Iran. They want to break these states apart. uh they want to create uh uh dysfunctional rump states on on their border. And then the fourth strand of the strategy is they want to have a great power that backs them to the hilt. Uh and of course today that is the United States. So the lobby works overtime here in the United States and the Israelis themselves work overtime. uh to keep the United States uh on Israel's side. And you want to understand, getting back to my first three sets of points, that if you have that kind of ambitious agenda, you're creating Laban's realm, you're wrecking your neighbors, you're trying to push all the Palestinians out, you really need a great power to help you. And this is why the United States is so important to Israel today. And of course, Israel's supporters understand that, if not explicitly, intuitively, they understand that Israel needs the United States not simply to survive, but it needs the United States to pursue this ambitious agenda. So you're I mean what what you're saying basically is or I will say this because I don't want people to to take anything out of context but a a policy can be rational and genocidal right because morality has nothing to do with rationality with reason so if the goal is is ethnic cleansing and genocide then being genocidal is not irrational. That's correct. But you're also I think just very quickly I think people find that very hard to accept. Yeah. When you say that genocidal policy can be rational, people recoil at that argument. But for analytical purposes, what is going on here is that you separate separate rationality from morality, right? Because rationality here is basically instrumental rationality. It's how you go about achieving your goals. It's not the goal itself. So if your goal is uh to uh in effect drive all the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank and you have to pursue a genocidal policy uh to do that, one can argue, as I certainly would that that is morally bankrupt in the extreme. Uh it violates international law. it violates basic human precepts and so forth and so on. But you can make the argument that it is rational given what the goal is and what the Israelis are doing. Uh again, that's not to justify it, just to say that it's not irrational. And by the way, the I think the classic case here is Hitler. I was just going to ask you about that. Yeah, please. Yeah, I I I teach a lot about World War II, the 1930s, and I I talked a lot about Hitler. I've written a lot about Hitler. One of the reasons that Hitler was so dangerous and so difficult to deal with was that he was in many ways a first class strategic thinker. He was no dunk. He was very clever and therefore he was very dangerous. Now, am I defending Adolf Hitler and saying that he was a good guy and what he was doing made sense and so forth and so on? Of course not. But I'm just saying it's important to understand that even though he was immoral to the in the extreme, right? We're talking about Hitler here. The fact is that as a strategist, as someone who was making calculations about how to achieve his goals, he was very, very good. And that's what made him so difficult to deal with. If you look at what he did between 1933 and really 1941 when he invaded the Soviet Union, that was his fatal mistake. On June 22nd, 1941, he invaded the Soviet Union. And thank God that's what led uh to his demise. But up until June 22nd, 1941, uh he had one success after another. uh he looked like a remarkably skillful uh strategist and many people have said that if he had you know been hit by a car uh on June 21st 1941 he would be celebrated as one of the great strategists one of the great military and diplomatic strategists of all time. I don't know if I'd go that far but you get what I'm saying here right? So my my bottom line here is because I'm saying some state or some states person is rational that's not to say that that person is moral. Right. Yeah. And I think you did I mean that that example that you just provided with Hitler I think lays it out very well. Right. There's no question of Hitler's moral uh immorality uh evil. But that but if your goal is right if your goal is to uh do certain things that are immoral then you have certain strategies and you have that can be seen as rational but I guess what I'm curious about is that you you said that um you thought that what um Israel was doing was actually some of what they were doing was not strategic right you said that that will exacerbate the fault line so what is it in your opinion that you think that Israel is doing that is um I guess shooting itself in the foot versus just pursuing genocide as usual. Well, one could argue that Netanyahu is rational, right? Again, we got to separate rational right from Well, that's why I'm glad that with the I think the Hitler thing probably put everything to bed, right? With any if anyone had any doubts about the relationship between morality and rationality, you're you're invoking Hitler, I think, makes it very clear. But yes, um yeah, but uh just to go to Netanyahu, yeah, Netanyahu is, and I'm choosing my words carefully here, he's an extremely clever politician. Uh you know, a lot of people tend to think that he's a fool, he's an idiot, and uh it's it's just a result of serendipity that he's managed to stay in power for as long as he has. Uh I I think that's a misreading. Uh this is a remarkably skilled politician. He's a very smart man uh in lots of ways. And he has a set of goals uh which I just described to you in the context of describing what I think Israel's four goals are. Uh, I think that Netanyahu shares those four goals uh to a tea. There's just no question about that. And you can make a case that that's a smart strategy. I disagree with that. The fact is, Katie, on many policy issues, people can fundamentally disagree on what the smart strategy is for dealing with a particular problem. And let me give you a really good example that highlights this. Jeff Sachs and I are very good friends and we have basically the same views, same exact views on Ukraine and on Palestine/Israel issues and Iran as well. But on China, we have a fundamentally different view. Uh we just think about that situation very differently. Now, I would not want to be in the situation where I said Jeff is irrational because I don't think he's irrational at all. He just has a different way of thinking about how to deal with China. Now, I believe that his way is wrongheaded and if we pursued Jeff's uh policies for dealing with China, we'd get ourselves into trouble. Jeff believes the reverse about me. He thinks that John has wrongheaded views about China and we're going to get into trouble if we pursue John's views. So what I'm saying to you is you could have a situation where two people think about how to deal with a problem in very different ways where both of them are behaving rationally now but at the same time both sides think the other side is foolish. if that makes sense. I'm sure many viewers are having difficulty absorbing that argument, but the example of me and Jeff, I think, gets at it. But anyway, with regard to how to deal with Israel's present situation, there are lots of very smart people who think that Netanyahu is doing the right thing, that it makes good sense to create a greater Israel. And if Israel could get rid of all the Palestinians and create an all Jewish state, that would be in Israel's interest. That's what they actually think. And you could tell a story where that makes strategic sense. I believe it doesn't make strategic sense for the reasons I laid out to you. I think ultimately Israel is going to get into one heck of a lot of trouble pursuing these policies. But what I'm saying is that different people have different views on what is the best way forward for Israel. And both of those sets of views can be rational. Yeah. I mean, I think that you you recently said something that really resonated with me um about how uh with more and more time or over as more time goes on, sorry, let me I just had the the the quote here. Um um as time goes on, sorry, one second. Where is that quote? Um, okay. The more time goes by, and I'm reluctant to say this, but I believe it is true. The Israelis look like the Nazis. Their rhetoric, their behavior, it's truly appalling. A Jewish state is behaving like the Nazis did. So, can you talk about this evolution? Um, why why you say that? What the parallels are that stand out to you? Um, and when you when you started thinking this way. Well, I think that uh when the war first broke out uh on October 7th, uh for about the first two months, uh I did not think it was a genocide. Uh I thought there was no question that the Israelis were creating were committing war crimes, but I didn't think it was a genocide. Uh but I think by mid December of 2023 it was becoming clear to me that it was a genocide. And of course as you remember I think it was December 31st of 2023. Uh I think that's when South Africa filed its brief uh with the International Court of Justice. Uh, and I read that brief and then I watched what was going on and I was convinced that it was a genocide and I've thought so since. But as time has gone by and I've watched this genocide evolve, uh, the more I am reminded of what the Nazis did in uh, World War II. Uh, this is the period 1941 to 1945. And I I actually teach on the Holocaust. Uh I give lectures on it and I've done an enormous amount of research. At one point I thought about writing a book on it. So I I know quite a bit about it. Um I haven't done a lot of research in recent years but I know the case uh quite well. And uh when you sort of look at the Israelis uh the parallels are quite striking. Uh first of all, just the rhetoric uh and this was evident uh on October 7th and shortly after October 7th. Uh and one could argue there was evidence of this kind of rhetoric even before October 7th. But it seems to me that if you listen to Israeli leaders talking uh after October 7th, uh they sound hardly different from the Nazis at all. Uh things that they say are just reprehensible, shocking. Uh it is hard to believe that the Jews and of course Israelis are Jews would say such a thing given what the Germans said back in the day. Um and the second thing is you know uh before the Holocaust got started really uh the planning was uh set in place in the spring late winter early spring of 1941. Uh the Germans were not sure what exactly they were going to do with the Jews and they had this plan uh called the Madagascar plan which was to move the Jews to Africa. Uh and you have Jews today, Israelis today talking about moving the Palestinians to Africa. uh uh and you just sort of scratch your head and say, "Boy, I've heard that one before, right?" Uh, and then if you look at the pictures, uh, especially the starving children, uh, if that doesn't remind you of Oshwitz, uh, not only the death camps, but the concentration camps that were inside Germany, it just, I mean, the pictures look so similar to the pictures that have survived uh, from the Holocaust that uh I think you can't help but think uh that you know this is a very uh similar situation and then this is not exactly on the genocide but you know I was talking about layman's realm before and a number of people have now begun to talk about layman's realm I mean you want to remember with regard to with regard to the Germans in World War II when they invaded the Soviet Union they were not only talking about murdering huge huge numbers of people. And it's very important to emphasize here that they murdered uh more non-Jews than they murdered Jews. I mean, this was a murderous regime like we've never seen before in my opinion. Uh and uh you want to remember that the official number that the Soviets give for uh Soviet citizens who died uh in World War II is 27 million. 27 million and I would estimate that about 8 million of those casualties are military or those deaths. So 8 million of the 27 million uh that's telling you that probably 198 17 million civilians were killed, right? Uh, and my estimate is that roughly 1 million of those uh, Soviet citizens who were murdered were Jews. Uh, because most of the Jews were uh, in Poland and in Romania/Hungary. Um, and uh, but anyway, I'm just telling you this was an incredibly murderous regime. And not only was it a murderous regime, it was interested in creating Laben's route. I mean, they talked openly about that. And when you watch what the Israelis are doing, the want and murder, right? Then of course they're murdering the Palestinians and this is a genocide. And I would not argue that what's happening in Lebanon is or Syria or with regard to Iran is a genocide. That's not a genocide. Period. End of story. But nevertheless, the wanting killing of civilians in those countries by the Israelis is shocking to me. And I'm a good oldfashioned realist. It's not like I'm some pussycat, right? I understand that international politics is a rough and tumble business, but when you watch what the Israelis are doing in terms of just killing civilians and carving out layman's realm in countries like Syria, countries like Lebanon uh and so forth and so on and just all the horrible absolutely horrible things that are happening in Gaza and to some lesser extent uh in the West Bank. It certainly does look like the Germans. Yeah. And less people think that you're uh taking this uh too far, this is a Times of Israel post that was deleted, but it this is from this uh it is from 2024 and it says uh Leen's RAM needed for Israel's exploding population. Israel's population is is projected to grow to 11.1 million by 2030, 13.2 million by 2040, and 15.2 2 million by 2048. That's why hanging on to the West Bank is such a contentious issue. Lebanon's realm. Uh, these people need places to live in a nation short of land mass. Compare Israel to its neighbor Jordan. And it goes on and on. Now, this was deleted, but it was also written. And deleting just shows that there's good damage control. Here's something from 2014, also from Times of Israel when genocide is permissible. So uh again this can be like we were talking before sometimes these things are useful they're they're clarifying um it's so that's why also they can be deleted but um you know the the idea that uh that the lesson of the Holocaust is is being uh perpetrated against Palestinians. I mean the idea that never again somehow means I mean well we know what it means. It means never again to a certain group of people and whatever it takes to another group of people. But what I think is so interesting about um this whole question of of what's rational is that it can really get to what the goal of a state or a government are. Right? So sometimes things don't look rational to us, but that's only because we think that the ultimate goal is something that it may not be. So if the goal of Israel is to keep Jews safe, let's say, I don't think that Israel is a rational project, uh, for many reasons. I mean, we've talked about the uh the Hannibal directive, the treatment of the hostages. Um the way that they are I would say Israel is creating I mean, what what can create more more anti-semitism than claiming that you are acting in the name of Jews as you live stream a genocide? But if so, it's not rational if that's the goal. But then if it is more of a if it is a much more aggressive ambitious project, then it is more rational, right? So you can almost like retro like you can almost work backwards and figure out what the real goals of a of a government are by looking at what they're doing that can it can it can like it can um you can see through the the the lie you you get to see the difference between what the claims are and what the realities are. Yeah. I mean, I think you're basically saying what I was saying uh about, you know, what is rational and what is not rational. You can have an absolutely horrible goal and be very rational in your pursuit of that goal. Right? And that doesn't mean you're behaving morally. It just behaves means that you're behaving strategically. Right. And again, as I said before, Adolf Hitler was a remarkably uh he was a remarkably smart strategist. He made mistakes and thankfully he made the ultimate mistake of invading the Soviet Union, but he was not a fool. And that's what again what made him so dangerous. Uh but you know I want to make another point uh based on what you were saying uh when you were reading from that I think it was the article about Laban's realm uh where Israel has this exploding population right uh first of all Israel in my opinion probably has about 7 this is inside greater Israel today you have probably about 7.3 million Palestinians and about 7.3 million Jews Uh, and if they expel all the Palestinians like they want to, you probably have 7.3 million Jews. But the other question you have to ask yourself is what's going to happen to all those Israeli Jews over time? How many are going to stay there? Uh, how many have already left? How many will leave when the shooting stops? I mean, what is the future of Israel? Uh, and I would argue it's not a very bright future. Uh, I talked about the fault lines inside the society before and what that means for the future. U, I think all of this war, it really spooks people. And when you see that you have neighbors uh that have missiles that can hit you and you get into, you know, fights like the fight that the Israelis just got into with the Iranians, you want to ask yourself, what are the consequences of that for the population? Will people leave? Uh are people going to go to Israel? Uh I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that and I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of people leave because they just don't feel safe there. And by the way, we were talking about the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons. What if Iran gets nuclear weapons and at the same time Israel and Iran continue to have uh poisonous relations between the two countries? Uh would you want to live in Israel? I'm not sure about that. You know, it's the size of a postage stamp. Uh and you have this country, Iran, and we're hypothesizing that it might have a couple nuclear weapons. uh this is not a good situation. Uh and uh anyway, I I think that if you look at this country, it does not have a bright future. Now, I think that Benjamin Netanyahu would disagree with that and he would tell people that if you follow my policies and the Americans support us hook, line, and sinker, uh we're going to create a greater Israel and live happily ever after. But, uh I don't think so. So it's it's it's kind of his his mistake his strategic mistake you think is relying on the goodwill or the the unwavering support of the west because part of me thinks maybe it is rational because no no one is standing up to this starvation to this like genocidal behavior that invokes so many comparisons to the Holocaust. And I have to say that I'm working on this documentary about Holocaust survivors speaking out against the genocide. And I've interviewed people who are survivors, the children of survivors, but also people who are just involved in um uh the Middle East. And I interviewed Daniel Levy the other day um who used to be an Israeli negotiator. He's English, but he spent a lot of time in Israel. Um and he said that you know he used to always avoid uh comparisons between the Nazis and Israelis uh and that it's very forbidden verboden right Israel you're not allowed to do that only Israel can weaponize the the Holocaust no one else can uh use it so they they get to call other people Nazis they get to call Hamas Nazis but you can't make any parallels but what Daniel Levy said was that it's almost like Israel is daring people to compare them to the Nazis with their actions. Yeah. Yeah. I I think that's right. I think the key piece here, by the way, I mean, I've read a number of pieces by Daniel and I know him quite well and have great respect for him. But the key piece is the uh the writings or the key pieces are the writings of Omar Bart. Yeah. Who is an Israeli by birth, served in the IDF uh and has been a historian of the Holocaust at Brown University for a long time. I actually have taught his uh books uh over time in my classes and he is highly regarded and he has said uh that he believes that what the Israelis are doing is a holocaust or is a genocide. Yeah. And uh that really I think has had a big impact. And of course, you know, all sorts of individuals and organizations with real standing like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, various people uh in the United Nations have said that this is a holocaust uh or a genocide. And so I think that that uh that label is now beginning to stick in ways that leaves many Israelis and certainly the Israeli government very uncomfortable. uh and they'll go to great lengths to cut against that. But uh the more this goes on, the more difficult that becomes. Uh and you want to remember here, we just want to think about this just when we're assessing the strategy. Uh what's the ending here? Yeah. You know, h how does this end? Uh, I'm hoping every day I hope that Trump moves in and says enough is enough and the Israelis are forced to accept uh a ceasefire and uh supply trucks flow into Gaza. Let's assume that that happens. Uh that would be wonderful in a certain sense, but at the same time it hardly goes anyways towards solving the basic problem. These people have no homes. Gaza's been made unlivable. They really have no place to go. Uh unless the Madagascar option is realized. And uh I don't think that's going to happen either. Uh but what's the end result here? And you know, the Israelis don't like the idea of having 7.3 million Palestinians in their midst. Okay, but you can't get rid of them. Therefore, you have 7.3 million Palestinians inside your borders and those people are living in the most horrible of conditions. Uh what does this mean? The world is going to mobilize against you. Maybe the US government will protect you and it will limit the leverage of the so-called international community. But nevertheless, the consequences for your country are going to be horrific. Right? you're going to be uh the moral stain on your reputation is going to be huge. And what does that mean for people who live inside Israel? And furthermore, just to take this a step further because we want to think about where this train is headed, what about the lobby? You know, the lobby is already overexposed from its own point of view. It's out in the open. It's playing smashmouth politics. It's acting in ways that are fundamental fundamentally at odds with basic American values like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. Is the lobby going to be forced to continue acting this way for year after year? This will be disastrous for the United States. This is a terrible situation inside the United States. The situation with the lobby is terribly unhealthy for liberal America. And I don't mean liberal in the sense of a liberal democratic party. I mean liberal in the lockian sense of the term. Liberal in the sense that we're all part of a liberal society. Having the lobby, you know, act the way it's been acting in recent years for the foreseeable future would be disastrous. So if you sort of think about where we are and how we get out of this, I don't see any solution at all. And I think pursuing Netanyahu's policies just make the situation worse. But again, if you go to the I think vast majority is probably too strong a word. But the clear majority of Israel's supporters in the United States and tell them that we're in a terrible situation, they would agree. And if you say, "How do we get out of it?" They would say, "More force. More force. Just, you know, pound the Palestinians, pound Israel's neighbors. That's the solution." And I've long ago come to the conclusion that there are real limits to what you can do in any situation like this with military force. But Israel and its supporters, they reject that line of argument. They think that you can solve political problems uh with the big stick, with the iron wall, with military force, but I don't think so. Yeah. The iron wall of course, which is uh of course reminds one of uh Jabatinsky, who's another Texas chainsaw massacre type of uh leader who again in a very refreshing clarifying way said the quiet part out loud. You know, Israel is a coloniz is a colonial project. I mean, he talked about how natives always resist colonizers and he was referring to the Palestinians um and the Israelis, you know, he wasn't obviously being critical. He was embracing it. Um he and other revisionist Zionists were in some ways it's much easier to deal with because you know what what you are dealing with. Um, so I mean, if we look at at history though as a as a as an example, like will will Israel be just fine as long as it doesn't uh try to invade Western Europe or Eastern Europe? Well, it's not going to be just fine. Uh, it's not stopped, I should say. It's at war with a handful of its neighbors. Uh it's a highly aggressive state uh prone to violence. Uh and uh there's no evidence that that's going to change. It has this huge looming problem with Iran. It has powerful centrifugal forces at play inside the body politic. And I believe the situation with the lobby here in the United States is u not sustainable over the long term. Uh I I think now that what the lobby does is out in the open and now that the lobby's pay playing smashmouth politics the can't go on forever and uh so I I think again I think Israel is in real trouble. Yeah. Uh well I mean I hope I hope so. I mean I hope it it's it's to me it's just like whether it will be stopped. When will it be stopped? What would it what will it take for it to be stopped? some kind of domestic pressure on the west that that makes the west finally cut off the pull the plug on it. I don't know. I I don't I I your question is a great question. Requires clarification. You and I are on the same wavelength. So I think about that question all the time. Lots of people ask me that question. And what I really wish is I had a happy I wish that I had a a happy story to tell you. I wish I could say, Katie, listen, I think these two things are going to happen over the course of the next year and then this situation is uh going to come to an end. I mean, I I to be very honest find it hard to believe that the genocide in Gaza continues. I I just can't believe it. Especially now that we have all these pictures of starving children, you just sort of shake your head and say, "How can this be? How can people not shut this one down, right? Uh and I mean it's not like Israel is that powerful visav the West and especially the United States. We have tremendous leverage here. You want to remember as we talked about before, President Trump the day before he became President Trump sent Steve Whit to the Middle East. This is uh uh January 19th uh to affect a ceasefire, right? because Trump didn't want uh what was going on in Gaza to be going on on January 20th. So, they shut it down. And it looked like there was a pretty good ceasefire agreement that might form the basis of a lasting agreement uh or an agreement that would last for maybe a couple years. But that all went up in smoke uh quite quickly and here we are. But anyway, I I I can't I I'm I'm sad to say I can't tell a happy story. Well, Brad brought up this uh image, speaking of the greater Israel, you know, saying the quiet part out loud. Here's an image of Netanyahu. Oops. With uh the new Middle East. Uh and um Brad, what do you want to say about this? um uh uh just about uh it just reminded this image came to mind when Dr. Amir Shimemer was, you know, speaking about the Leban um just the greater colonization. And it was just remarkable to me at least that uh I believe this was September uh 2023 that he Netanyahu felt comfortable enough to present this in the to the United Nations. Um, and as a uh little uh less substantial aside, um I'm actually not at home now. I'm visiting my dad and he and I went to see the Superman movie uh yesterday evening. This literally is in the movie. Like the villain literally shows a map. I mean, they're they're fictitious places, but uh it it was hard for me not to be like, "Oh my god, this is literally like what we talk about on the show all the time." Yeah. People are very angry about it apparently. Oh. Oh jeez. About Superman. Oh wow. Okay. Well, um I just wanted to show one clip just to kind of remind people what we're talking about uh to to ground it in in the in reality. Um, so here is a clip uh of Cindy McCain um who is talking about the uh the the death and destruction that uh is being experienced in Palestine right now. Um and this is interesting because of course she's uh you know this is the the widow of of the late uh John McCain. She's not someone who's particularly um a bleeding heart liberal. Um particular doesn't come from a particularly humanitarian uh tradition. You know, her her husband uh joked around saying bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. But uh it is interesting and significant uh that uh this in this CNN interview with Cindy McCain uh where she talks about the recent massacre of of Palestinians. Uh she let's I think we should just watch this so people are reminded of what's at stake right now. This is one of the worst tragedies we've seen so far in this in this particular war. Uh what happened was is we were had clearance to go through the Zakim uh uh gate. It was we were through the gate. The Israelis had had, as you know, they clear everything and they and they uh they they decide when and if you go in. And we began our our truck down the road and what we saw were thousands of people running towards us and they were hungry. They're starving. Uh and and all of a sudden, uh the Israeli tanks, Israeli guns, uh Israeli weapons from all kinds started firing on the crowd. And it was just it's it's something that I I hope never happens again. But more importantly, uh our our our group WP, our people that work for us were there, too, and they were put in grave danger as a result of that. No humanitarian aid workers should ever be a target of anything. Well, this follows a trend over the last two months where over 800 Palestinians have been killed around aid distribution sites. The majority of those are at the controversial USbacked and Israel supported Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Can you be very specific? Are you coordinating in any way or supporting in any way that operational model? And what is your view on the GHF? Well, we are not coordinating and we do not work with GHF. As you know, we're a UN agency and so we have our UN uh the the way the way way the UN operates is different from what GHF is doing. I don't really have any information about them at all because we don't even talk. And that of course is the Gaza Humanitarian Fund, which isn't just a fake aid organization in that it doesn't provide aid, but it is so much more sinister than that. It is actually luring people to their deaths. I mean, that is that is one of the things that I I can't get out of my mind. I mean the how diabolical this is uh and it's with the help of you know US contractors uh and they are luring people to their deaths with the promise of food and as Gabbor Mate pointed out um in an interview he did uh in a forthcoming podcast. Um this is something that we saw in the Holocaust. You know, Nazis would lure the Jews onto the out of the concentration camps, uh, onto the trains with promises of food. I'm sorry, out of the ghettos, onto the trains, tourists, concentration camps with promises of food. Yeah, it's a well Norman Finkelstein makes the point and uh I know enough that about the Holocaust that I I believe he's he's right and he of course knows more than I do. But his point is that what is quite different between the Holocaust and what the Israelis are doing is that the Germans by and large did not um do it gleefully. uh that they they were aware that they should hide what they were doing. In a very important way, they knew they were doing something wrong. Yeah. Um those are my words, but uh there was no real glee here. They felt like they just had a job to do, right? And I'm not justifying what they did. But in the case of the Israelis, they're just all sorts of videos that are shocking because you see that they're just killing Palestinians like it's a sport, like it's a game. They're having fun. Yeah. Just hard to believe uh what's going on. Uh, but just back to Cindy McCain. My question is why aren't there more people like Cindy McCain? This is what I don't understand for the life of me. You know, this is the year 2025. uh given where we are, you would not expect uh that the body politic in the west or the various body politics in western countries would allow this to go on. Uh it's it's sh it's so shocking. I I just I can't figure it out. Uh what's going on here? H how could Joe Biden and uh Tony Blink and Jake Sullivan allow this to go on? These are people who view themselves as liberal Democrats, believe in human rights. H how could they do this? Uh even Donald Trump, okay, Donald Trump's not a liberal Democrat, but doesn't his, you know, sense of decency just tell him that you can't do this? Uh but anyway, the number of people who are speaking out um down below is very great, right? You and I are two examples of that. But the number of people in the upper echelons who are speaking out and doing something about this is remarkably small. And I honestly don't understand it uh at all. Uh I I just find it hard to believe that uh people haven't shut this one down. Yeah, it is. I mean, it is unbelievable. And it's painful to think about. Um and I mean, just the starvation killing of children. I mean, because they're the ones who are most vulnerable to starvation. And it just is like what was the point of never again? What was the point of all these lessons that we subject children to if it's just going to be applied again? just in to a different population which coincidentally had nothing to do with the Holocaust. I mean be one thing if this were being done to Germans. Not to not that not all Germans, John, of course, but it would be one thing if this were being done to Germans, which I would oppose, but it would be there would be a coherence to it, right? But doing it to Palestinians who have nothing to who had absolutely nothing to do with this is just it's it's absolutely it's stunning. And as you referred to um and Norman Finkelstein has referred to this, it's the you know, it's the it's kind of like the opposite of the benality of evil that um Arent talks about. Yeah. It's like the the um the gleeful execution of evil. Yeah. Yeah. Exa. Exactly. That I like that language. It's not the benality of evil. And again, that's as you well know, not to justify anything. The No, not at all. Right. It's just a different sh It's just a different shade of it. I mean, it's like But it is the opposite. It's not the mechanization and the depersonalization of it and the distance from it. It's the glee and the um documentation. Yeah. So, but you know, if you think about the creation of Israel, going back to what we were talking about before, uh there were hardly any uh Jews in what was Palestine around 1900. And those Jews who were in Palestine were not Zionists, right? And when the Zionists came, and this gets back to your comments about Yabatinsky, they understood full well they were going to have to do horrible things to the Palestinians. There's just no way you create a Jewish state in a sea of Palestinians without doing horrible things to the Palestinians. And this has gone on and on and on for many, many decades, for well over a century now. Right. And in the process, you've uh you've dehumanized the Palestinians to the point where it's rather easy to get into a situation where murdering them is acceptable. By the way, to go back to the Germans, you had a similar situation with regard to how they talked about Jews. And not only Jews, it's how they talked about Poles, how they talked about Slavs, how they talked about uh the Roma and so forth and so on. They deumanized people. They were animals. Uh they're grasshoppers. And and and when you dehumanize people, uh and you do this for, you know, huge periods of time, it becomes easy to then go out and murder them because you don't think you're killing human beings, right? uh you're killing subhumans and uh this is obviously what's going on here. Yeah. Uh but then on top of that is that the pathological uh they all want to kill us, you say, as you are literally wiping them out. So it's like almost it's it's such a sick um combination of dehumanization while also playing the victim at the same time, which is totally exonerating. You know, you can do whatever you want if you claim that you're in fear, living in fear, or this the the the myth of self-defense, as if any of this is self-defense, like you just have to starve children to defend yourself. Um Yeah. Yeah. Well, thank you so much. You've been, as always, so generous with your time. Um and any any final thoughts that you want? We only we there's so much to talk about here, so we next time we'll have to do Russia, uh China, but there's a lot here. So, any any final words you'd like to share? I would also point out that we hardly touched on Iran, right? Other than to point out that from an Israeli point of view, that is possibly the greatest threat they face. Yeah. A threat they have made worse, right? And I I mean I it if I'm I want nukes now much more than I did before. Yeah. Yeah. It's But there's plenty to talk about the next time we get together. I'm sad to say. And and the worst part of it, to be honest, is that the Gaza genocide will probably still be going on in one form or another. So horrible. So awful. Well, thank you for speaking out and also people should know you were at, you know, you were at the forefront of this taking on the lobby in your in an article that you couldn't get published, which then thank God for that because then it became a great book that you wrote uh with Steve Baltz. So everyone uh owes you everyone who cares about this issue owes owes you a lot of gratitude because you were rather fearless in taking on this third rail. Um, and um, I just want to thank you so much for everything you do.
Librarian's Comment: These are the kinds of allegations that I'm sure are in the Epstein file, that Trump does NOT WANT TO BE REVEALED!
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.
6. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, also did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.; 1985 by conspiring to deny Plaintiff Johnson her Civil Rights by making her their sex slave.
7. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only a minor of age 13.
8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.
9. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
10. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing her mouth upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
11. On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance.
12. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fucking abortion".
13. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to disrobe into her bra and panties and to give a full body massage to Defendant Epstein while he was completely naked. During the massage, Defendant Epstein physically forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis with her bare hands and to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
14. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was again forced to disrobe into her bra and panties while giving Defendant Epstein a full body massage while he was completely naked. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was also present as he was getting his own massage from another minor, Jane Doe, age 13. Defendant Epstein forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis by physically placing her bare hands upon his sex organ and again forced Plaintiff Johnson to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
5. Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a "Jew Bastard" as he yelled at Defendant Epstein, that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to "pop the cherry" of Plaintiff Johnson.
16. The third and final sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Kati Johnson, took place after Plaintiff Johnson had been brutally and savagely raped by Defendant Trump. While receiving another full body massage from Plaintiff Johnson, while in the nude, Defendant Epstein became so enraged after finding out that Defendant Trump had been the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity, that Defendant Epstein also violently raped Plaintiff Johnson. After forcing Plaintiff Johnson to disrobe into her bra and panties, while receiving a massage from the Plaintiff, Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's anal cavity with his erect penis while trying to restrain her. Plaintiff Johnson attempted to push Defendant Epstein away, at which time Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's vagina with his erect penis. This attempt to brutally sodomize and rape Plaintiff Johnson by Defendant Epstein was finally repelled by Plaintiff Johnson but not before Defendant Epstein was able to achieve sexual orgasm. After perversely sodomizing and raping the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff Johnson that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who "took her cherry, not Mr. Trump", before she finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein.
17. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was fully warned on more than one occasion by both Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, that were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse that she had suffered as a sex slave for Defendant Trump and Defendant Epstein, that Plaintiff Johnson and her family would be in mortal danger. Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and Plaintiff Johnson's family unless she remained silent forever on the exact details of the depraved and perverted sexual and physical abuse she had been forced to endure from the Defendants.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
18. Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Despite being subject to constant terroristic threats by Defendants Epstein and Trump to never reveal the details of these underage sex parties at which scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump, witness Tiffany Doe refuses to be silent any longer. She has agreed to fully reveal the extent of the sexual perversion and physical cruelty that she personally witnessed at these parties by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
19. Material witness Tiffany Doe fully confirms all of Plaintiff Katie Johnson's allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of Plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein's guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details directly to Defendant Epstein. Defendant Epstein also demanded that Tiffany Doe tell him personally everything she had overheard at these parties explaining to her that "knowledge was king" in the financial world. As a result of these underage sex parties, Defendant Epstein was able to accumulate inside business knowledge that he otherwise would never have been privy to in order to amass his huge personal fortune.
20. Material witness Tiffany Doe will testify that she was also present or had direct knowledge of each of the three instances on which Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein physically and sexually abused the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
The list of those who were in Epstein’s orbit is a who’s who of the rich and famous. They include not only Trump, but Bill Clinton, who allegedly took a trip to Thailand with Epstein, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Secretary of the Treasury and former president of Harvard University Larry Summers, cognitive psychologist and author Stephen Pinker, Alan Dershowitz, billionaire and Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner, the former Barclays banker Jes Staley, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the magician David Copperfield, actor Kevin Spacey, former CIA director Bill Burns, real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman, former Maine senator George Mitchell and disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who reveled in Epstein’s perpetual Bacchanalia.
They also include law firms and high-priced attorneys, federal and state prosecutors, private investigators, personal assistants, publicists, servants and drivers. They include the numerous procurers and pimps, including Epstein’s girlfriend and daughter of Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell. They include the media and politicians who ruthlessly discredited and silenced the victims, and strong armed anyone, including a handful of intrepid reporters, seeking to expose Epstein’s crimes and circle of accomplices.
There is a lot that remains hidden. But there are some things we know. Epstein installed hidden cameras in his opulent residences and on his private Caribbean island, Little St. James, to capture his high-powered friends engaging in sexual romps and abuse of teenage and underage girls and boys. The recordings were blackmail gold. Were they part of an intelligence operation on behalf of the Israeli Mossad? Or were they used to ensure that Epstein had a steady source of investors who funneled him millions of dollars to avoid being outed? Or were they used for both? He shuttled underage girls between New York and Palm Beach on his private jet the Lolita Express, which was allegedly outfitted with a bed for group sex. His coterie of famous friends, including Clinton and Trump, are recorded as traveling on the jet numerous times on released flight logs, although many other flight logs have disappeared.
Author TELLS ALL on Trump as BOMBSHELLS DROP Legal AF July 23 2025
In this explosive episode of The Court of History, Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz sit down with journalist and author Michael Wolff to reveal shocking inside accounts of the Trump-Epstein fallout, Rupert Murdoch’s unfiltered views, and a jaw-dropping moment aboard Sean Hannity’s private jet.
Transcript
Welcome to the Court of History. I'm Sydney Blumenthal. I'm here with my colleague Sean Walen of Princeton amidst the uproar over Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. I'm here in Washington and it's chaos. Rupert uh Murdoch is being sued by Donald Trump because the Wall Street Journal has published a birthday card that Donald Trump sent Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday, which he signed with his name as the pubic hair. Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, is now racing to a prison to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell and try and get her to testify, possibly dangling a pardon. Congress has decided that it will adjourn rather than discuss Jeffrey Epstein. They're in a state of flight and Trump is attempting to distract with whatever gorilla dust he can throw up. What do you think, Sean? Have you ever seen anything like this?
No, I've seen plenty of cover-ups before, but this is, you know, a nuclear cover up, you know, and also the fact that they've been trying to spin the press, you know, on the fact that there's nothing there either. I mean, Steve Bannon has been spinning the New York Times, CNN, others to say, well, you know, we've really handled it now. The base is all it's all untrue. So they're really going out of their way to try and stop this thing, and we'll see. But the the business of Maxwell and and Todd Blanche, that's extraordinary and that has to be watched very very closely, I'd say.
Yeah. Well, there's no one who's a better observer of all of this than Michael Wolff. And we're delighted to have him back for another discussion with us. He needs no introduction, but here's the introduction. He's received two national magazine awards among his many books. He is the biographer of both Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch. He's written two biographies of Murdoch the man who owns the news in the fall. And I want to welcome back Michael Wolff.
Hey guys, nice to be here. You know, the other thing, the interesting point about everything that's got the cover up, as Sean says, is that it's in plain sight. I mean, most coverups are, you know, there's some shame attached and they're carried out in the dark of night. Not this one. We're going down to speak to Ghislaine and it would seem evident that we're gonna offer her inducements to say what we want her to say. And those inducements might be as much as a pardon, which Donald Trump has considered before, when Ghislaine was on trial, he began to speak to people around him, what what will she say? What can she say? Should I pardon her? Did you know Ghislaine? I've met Ghislaine. She was largely out of Jeffrey Epstein's life post his legal difficulties that began in 2004.
Mhm. Did he say anything to you about going?
Yes. I mean, although I would say he regarded this as one of the compartments that he didn't open very often, but this was obviously a sensitive and difficult and I think complicated subject. I think that their leave taking was with an amount of animosity. You know, I think I think when his legal problems began, she fled. I think he regarded that as a betrayal. At the same time, I think that their relationship was peculiarly unequal in many respects. They were involved briefly, and then she became a kind of factotum [a person employed to do all types of jobs for someone]. And this was also involved with Epstein's relationship to her father.
To briefly recap, her father was a significant British press baron who pilfered his company's pension fund, and was caught for this ultimately and then who died mysteriously by slipping off the back of his yacht. This was in the early 90s and Robert Maxwell, the law was converging on him, and that would have jeopardized a lot of his not insignificant fortune. So he offloaded part of this money, and this is not the first instance, to Jeffrey Epstein.
And that was a part of Jeffrey's early work, wasn't it? Yes. I mean, you know, Jeffrey was I mean, one of the things that he did, he hid assets. I mean, it was a complicated thing, you know, because in there a whole area here part of his early work was in fact um of finding assets um and then he became a hider of assets. Maybe those two things are are are quite finely related. Yeah. How susceptible do you think Glain will be to the intreaties of somebody like Todd Blanch acting on behalf of Donald Trump to cover up Trump's relationship with Epstein? Well, I I I I have no way of knowing that, but I do know that that I certainly would be susceptible if I were in um in in in prison with little hope of getting out in the near or medium future um and someone came along and said, "If you say this, um we'll um we'll make your life much easier." Yeah, I'll I'll I'll take that deal. Yeah. Well, door number one is the rest of your life in France. Door number two, you can stay here in prison, right? That's what it is. So, um, so Rupert Murdoch, um, is stalwart, uh, unlike ABC and CBS in, uh, publishing that birthday card, um, the salacious birthday card from Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. And, um, Trump is suing him. Um, what does Murkdo really think of Trump? Well, I he can't stand the guy. Um, I mean, tell us about your relationship with Murdoch. Well, I I I became Murdoch's biographer in um um in 200 um and eight and nine and published published a book based on a year's worth of conversations with with with Mer with Murdoch with everybody in his company with his family. Um I have actually interviewed Rupert Murdoch's mother. Um and um um and then my book u um uh The Man Who Owns the News was was published in late 200 um nine. Um one forgets when these books were published. Um but um but so I am uh you know kind of kind of have have the to say the least for for journalists who don't work for Murdoch I I have been the had the inside track. Yeah. So this is the real succession story. But Murdoch was indispensable to the rise of Trump and yet uh yes it's such a confusing thing for Mur for Murdoch. Yes, he was indispensable um or Fox News was indispensable and Murdoch has always had a a ambivalent relationship with Fox News. Loves it because it makes so much money. um uh dislikes it because it's um uh it um uh it it's I mean because he knows he he knows what it is. He's a he's a he's a newsman. He can tell what's going on there. And also, you know, he doesn't he has an ambivalent relationship to television. Um he's made an enormous amount of money from television, but he is at heart a newspaper man. Um, and Fox News was largely run um throughout most of its history by Roger Als, a friend of Trump's. Um, and Murdoch had little to do with Fox News. Um, but but you know, but clearly it enabled helped enabled the election of Donald Trump. Um, you know, and it's an other interesting thing that that Murdoch always dreamed of electing a president uh in the in the United States. I mean, he's he's elected leaders in Australia. He's elected leaders in um um in in the UK. Um um and and so a a part of his ambition was he wanted his his president um and the irony is that the president that he got was Donald Trump, a man who he finds to be unserious, unfit um um a a tabloid character. His tabloid character, excuse me, private about Trump, he says he's an um and um a And there's a whole litany of Murdoch words that he has applied to Trump. I mean, I think he could not be any more dismissive and contemptuous of a um of of another person in public life as he is of Donald Trump. In a way, he's trapped by Trump, isn't he? Yeah. Yeah. No, I think I think it's it I think it has diminished his you know I mean Rupert is 94 and it has been a painful part of his um of his later years. Um I mean there's been a lot of pain in his later years because his children don't speak to each other and he's had to sell the bulk of his company because of this and but but and and curiously Trump is one of the things at the center of that. his children don't speak to each other partly because because because Fox has alienated um uh several of them because of his support for uh for for Donald Trump. Roger Als knew a lot about Trump's personal life and his uh relationships with women and Als himself had needless to say yes uh difficult um problem in harassment of women. No, abs. Absolutely. But but also um uh Als who I have also known very very well was himself very dismissive and and incredulous that um that that Donald Trump had become a um um a first a presidential candidate and then second the president. I mean he was kind of kind of um this is a man who knew Trump intimately and who told you these things? Als told me this. We spend a lot of time talking about this. Yeah. What did he say um uh about Trump's personal life and his habits? Anything to you? Um yeah, I mean he was I I mean there are more revealing people on on Donald Trump's personal life, namely Jeffrey Epstein. But I I I think I think Als was fond of Trump but considered him a a clown, a joke. Um you know, not again not a serious person. You were on Al's funeral plane, his plane to his funeral with interesting group of people. Um extremely interesting group of people. Yes. Kimberly Gilfoil. Kimberly Gilfoil. Yeah, that was uh um What was she wearing? Um well, as my wife uh uh pointed out at the time, um she was not wearing undergarments. U so yes, that that was I mean this was Sean Hannity's plane that that we went that um that we went down on and my wife my wife came to me came with me. the the funeral was in Palm Beach and um um and that was that was that was uh quite a trip. Eyeoping for my wife. It's interesting that uh Murdoch is uh being sued but um you know truth is always a defense. Uh well, Murdoch Murdoch will, you know, Murdoch has been sued certainly as much as as much as any human being in the media. And um um and this is this is this is, you know, kids stuff for him. He will he will handle this with um uh with with limited concern and um and the back of his hand. And like the overwhelming number of Trump's lawsuits against the media, it will be um dismissed in um you know sooner rather than later. Yeah. Like the Woodward suit was dismissed by many many of them. Um all all of them. I mean the the curious thing they are 100% of them actually but we are now in this climate where CBS has settled a lawsuit um with Trump and ABC has settled a lawsuit with Trump. They've all settled them because as the president of the United States he's basically threatened to use the power of his office to disrupt their business interests. So the um the parent company of these news organizations um has made the decision to um uh to settle um which is which is you know which is something new in the American media. It's new that a president of the United States would sue them. It's new that a president of the United States would use his his his power to threaten them beyond the lawsuit um to use his leverage to get a settlement. Um and and it's new that news organ reputable news organizations would be so willing to capitulate. Um so that's the environment that we are in. Rupert Murdoch is not going to capitulate. Um um you know he just he I mean you can say a lot of bad things about about Murdoch but one of the things that you have to say is that he always stands up for his newspapers. Um um um you know he I mean he go he goes to the he goes to the brink on this on this um on on this issue. Still I would say you know that that this has two effects. Um first thing it's a chilling effect on other media organizations who who are not like Murdoch and who can't afford to be sued or who have parent companies who can't afford to be sued and therefore therefore everybody in the news business is now living with this threat. we say this, we're going to be sued. Do we can we tolerate that? Do we want that? Is it worth it? The other um interesting thing is and and Trump has this gift for for understanding the the the weakness the weaknesses of of other people. Um, and he's been going around saying that um, Rupert is going to die at any minute and the son is a weakling. Um, um, Rupert's son, you know that Trump is saying that. Yes. Yes. You hear that? Yes. He calls up. You know, it's easy to track what Trump is saying if you're if you if you speak to the people who Trump speaks to, which over this 10 years of covering this story, I So So he has for Rert, too, and he wants him dead. Well, I I think he actually has awe for Rupert Murdoch. um you know and and has always tried to curry favor with him and has always felt dissed by by um by Murdoch. Um but at this point in time, I think he fairly sees the obvious. I mean, Rupert is is um is extremely old. Um and um and Rupert's son, Lachlan Murdoch, who will in theory take over this company, is a weakling. Um, and you could easily see that he would take over and well Trump settle a lawsuit. Trump recognizes weak sons. Well, he's he's stating the obvious in many ways, too. I mean, it's that that's there. It also speaks to how much how much he thinks about Rupert. I mean, Rupert Murdoch is someone that he is in awe of, as you say, and uh he's a serious guy, so he's he's going he's jumping to the next step, even though he's old, but he's not dead yet, as they say, and he's still there. Yeah. No. and and Rupert and and Rupert will certainly hold on and and I and I think that there is a very good chance that Rert will live long enough to have this suit dismissed because it's a it's a um it's a preposterous suit. It it has um um it it will it won't last very long at all. Um but as I say, you know, there is this broader chilling effect. Let's talk for a minute about the model industry that um both Epstein and Trump were involved in. You know, I I mean, as I've been having these conversations, these rather public conversations about about Epstein and what he said said to me and his relationship with with Trump, people have said said, "Well, you don't mean that Donald Trump likes little girls." Um, and I'm, you know, that's sort of perplexing and goes to the way that we have the that that the media has has um has demonized spun the Epstein story and demonized um Epstein in a way to suggest that that um I you know I suppose he's a pedophile and that calls to mind six years old and seven year olds and whatever. Um but but the fact of this and I can't speak to that. I mean possibly I don't I don't know what what what I can speak to is that both of these guys Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump were obsessed with models models. And let me let's do air quotes. um um that that you know this was a and this was a moment in the moment in Zeitgeist time the late 80s through the '9s models were um were a a a cultural touchstone. This had a meaning. I mean if you were a model that means actually your your age was kind of in in the regard in the public regard irrelevant. You were a model. Um and um uh and these guys were were relentless in their pursuit. They started modeling agencies. They invested in modeling agencies. Uh Trump had his beauty pageantss. Epstein was deeply involved with Victoria's Secret that the comp that company and and the girls who who modeled for Victoria's Secret. And so the the the the issue of age and what age what the age of the girls that Trump was interested in again he was interested in models. What's the age of models? Um you know I it's under 20. It's you I don't know 14 to 20 15 to 20. Um and um and as as I have said that I think we can count on the fact that neither neither of these um of these men were asking for IDs. Uh Epstein um wanted to create his own model agency and asked Trump for advice about what were called T models or Trump model management. Um, and he uh also was involved with a man named Jeanluke Brunell maybe. And also a man named John Kasablancas, right? They were all involved in together in this um and including Yes. including Trump and and remember you know that's Melania comes out of this moment in time and out of this millu in this culture. Yes. Absolutely. Yes. Who introduced Melania to Trump? Um, yeah, I I I may know this, but I if if so, I forget the detail. Um, there are an accumulation of so many details, but I do remember the um the the pointed detail that Epstein said that that um Donald Trump and Melania first had sex on his airplane. He told you that? He did. Um, where were they flying to? I that that that detail is um what was relationship with Melania? Yeah, he thought she she was dumb as a brick. He was not interested in her. Uh that I I don't know. He he may he may well have been. They were models. He was interested in all all models. Um but but actually in in the in the the dynamic um at least in Epstein's telling um Trump was was more frequently interested in Epstein's uh in the women or the girls who Epstein was with. Um and and Epstein introduced him to some of these women. There's court testimony from some of the victims where Trump comes in and Epstein says to him, um, this one's not for you. And so, yeah. No, I mean, this is what these two guys lived. I mean, their interest, they had two interests and only two interests, which was um, which was women, girls, um, sex and models um, and money. That's it. Their lives were were, you know, I don't what what what do we call they were cberites. Um um yeah. So what what Melania sort of depicts herself as outside of all this, but she's in the center of this, isn't she? And what does she know and when did she know it? Well, I I would say um you would have to ask her, but I doubt you will get an answer. Mhm. Yeah. But she knows what goes on, doesn't she? Yeah. I mean, she's I mean, lived a life right out of that that world. I mean, I I I think that she more than um you know, perhaps more than anyone. She actually knows what what goes on and what went on. Um, now there's a curious sort of, you know, Netflix has has paid uh her $40 million to participate in a documentary about Amazon. I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Not not Netflix. Thank you. Um, uh, Jeff Bezos and Amazon. Um, to participate in this in this documentary about herself. Um, so I mean I I I doubt we will see her um see her fully revealed in this in this docu documentary. I actually read read her book hoping for a a window into something. Nothing. It's as blank as you can possibly be. Matter of fact, my my suspicion is it may be an AI written book. Yeah. The House uh there's a House committee yesterday voted to rename the opera house in the Kennedy Center the Melania Trump Opera House. Um and yet at the same time they're calling the another committee wants to call Golain Maxwell as a witness. We can um be guaranteed that is not going to happen. But great idea S. And what would what would what could they learn from Melania if she were to testify? You know, I mean, I I don't know. I mean, that that's one of one of Melania's charms, so to speak, is that she's possibly the most locked down person I have ever ever encountered. Yeah. So, what exactly? Well, Go ahead, Sydney. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, I just was I mean going back to Maxwell, I mean, what is it that that that Todd Blanch and uh Trump are so worried about? I mean, what what what is she? They they may not be they they may not be worried as much as they may see an opportunity here. And the opportunity is um what we we will offer you whatever inducements are necessary and you'll say that you had no knowledge of the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Um I guess that would be their their home run. But presumably they know that she has a lot of knowledge of that about Epstein and Trump, right? Yes. I I mean, yeah. And I think it's I I don't I I mean, they were they were involved together and and I mean, I think uh Galain had a separate relationship with with with Trump and um um and obviously she was involved with with uh with Epstein and they saw each other on a social basis and yes, I mean she knows an enormous amount about that. Yes. Did you ever meet Jeanluke Brunell or uh encounter him or know about him? Um he was the head of a model agency in Paris and was a procurer for Epstein in Paris as well and also had a um a condo in Trump Tower. Had relations with Trump. Yes. I I No, I didn't. Not Not He's not exactly what what I would think of as someone in my set. Yes. But um he hanged himself after he was arrested um in a French prison. Right. But he's very much part of their world, isn't he? Yes. Very very much. I mean it this was and there world was not an exclusive world. Um, you know, the you you know, the the modeling world was a a significant piece of of culture, of media, of um uh of of the of the general of the general commerce of of media and fashion and um um and um you know, the the the the greater entertainment culture. Yeah. Well, um the media seems not to have discovered it recently um yet. Um while the rest of the world's in an uproar over Trump and Epstein. Oh, no. No. I think it's a totally remarkable thing that that that the the media has divided between between the internet which is Epstein um 247 and the and the and the um and the the mainstream media if if you will which regards this story with um uh with distaste. Um um you know I mean I did a uh uh I did a podcast with David Remnik the other day. The uh of the New Yorker. Yes. My former colleague. Yeah. Yes. Of of the New Yorker. And um you know I mean I've always thought of of of David as as possibly the most condescending man in America. But um but he was even more it was really dripping here. It was like, you know, why do we have to talk about this this this this story? This story is so unworthy of of us. And in fact, you know, The New Yorker, to my knowledge, has has um hardly if ever mentioned mentioned the name Jeffrey Epstein. And yet this goes to the center of understanding the man who was president, doesn't it? Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Um, and um, and I I'm not sure. I mean, I think I think it's a multi- a multi-levelled reluctance here, you know, having um having turned Epstein into this into this complete stick figure, this, you know, just the personification of of of evil. um in in which in which you can only talk about him from the victim's point of view. It sort of robs him of any authority to to be a witness to the president of the United States. Um um and then for a long long time for many years uh did Yeah. I mean they were friends for more Yes. close friends, the best friends, perhaps the singular relationship in the lives of of each of them for more than a decade. Yes. So Trump says that he threw Epstein out of Mara Lago because he was a creep. Um and that's why their relationship Yeah. Completely a lie. I mean just another another Trump lie. And the reason they broke up was because real estate. And and also also by the by the way um and and there's no evidence of this. I mean um um Epstein was never a member of Mara Lago. Um um you know and Epstein always had a kind of you know I mean part of that relationship and the dynamic was was like many people's relationship with Trump was having a certain a certain contempt for Trump at the same time the same time they pled around. It's like Roger Als a certain contempt for Trump cuz because he was a clown. Um um you know Epstein say say what you want about about about about him was also an intelligent person um deeply engaged in um in in in the affairs of in the affairs of of of um um in in economic economic matters, foreign policy matters, all of these things that Trump was was not interested in he wanted to hang around Harvard. Epstein did. I mean, you know, the the irony there. I mean, he was, you know, talking to people at the at Harvard. We just talked to the Scotchbull about that the other day. I mean, that was Jeffrey Epstein, right? So, you know, I'm very curious about what's hidden here about Trump's relationship. Um Trump had a past history that he hides which has been documented as an FBI informant. He's attacked the FBI as the deep state and so on. But he was an FBI informant um certainly on a man named Dan Sullivan who was in his employee um through the Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City uh who was suspected of mob ties which he did not have. But Trump eagerly in order to avoid scrutiny from the FBI itself um served as an informant and I wonder um in the early uh investigation of Epstein given Trump's character whether you believe he might have been in Well, I I know I I know that's what Epstein believed. Epstein believed that in 2004 they had this um uh disagreement over over a piece of real estate. Um a a a significant disagreement and um Epstein began to threaten Trump. May maybe I should just go through through this. Epstein. There was there was a there was a house in Palm Beach that Epstein believed he was the top bidder on at $36 million. He brought his friend Trump with him to look at the house and advise him on moving the swimming pool. His friend Trump immediately went behind his back and bid $40 million for the house and got it. Um, Epstein, let me just be and I don't want to stop your narrative here, but Trump at the moment was headed towards bankruptcy. Yes, Epstein under loan him money and the time was about to go belly up at that moment. So, it's a very curious thing of where he gets the loan and we don't know where the money goes. Well, yes. St. Epstein Epstein uh understood this and um and understood that Trump didn't have the money so therefore that he must be fronting for someone and Epstein began to make noise that he was going to um uh sue Trump and reveal this and go to the press. Who did he think he got the money from? The man who ultimately bought the house. So Trump bought the house for4 million. Less than two years later, it was sold for 95 million to a Russian oligarch named Ryalev. Um, and he was a Putin oligarch close to Yes. And so Trump believed that he was that he was fronting for Epstein believed that Trump was fronting for Ryelv. So Ryelv um and the Russians in other words money. Yes. And this would be a money laundering scheme to have bought the house for 40 million. I I I mean it's a comp a complicated thing, but but it it would be a a um a traditional way to launder money. So anyway, um Epstein confronts Trump about this and at that point the um uh the investigation of Epstein began and Epstein began as um um began by Epstein believed that it began because Trump notified the police about what was going on at Epstein's house, which Trump was fully aware of because he was a frequent visitor to the house. So Trump So Epstein believed that Donald Trump was an informant or in Trump's own words a rat. Yes. Um and Epstein told you this? He did. M and what was his and what was his view of Trump for serving as um front man a snitch? Yeah. Epstein Epstein believed that Trump that Trump dropped a dime on him and that began his legal difficulties. Um and that's a I think a significant window into Donald Trump. But the perhaps the broader point is that Trump was aware of what was going on in Epstein's house for a for a very long time before this. And and um and because of because of that awareness which he had not previously uh disclosed, he then used that against Epstein. But he'd also um been a participant as Epstein showed through the photographs he displayed to you. Yes. I mean that that is all I know is that is that Donald Trump knew what was going on at Jeffrey Epstein's house. There was a set of photographs in which he was with um girls of uh indeterminant age around Epstein's pool. I mean, let me not go further than that. That's what I know. Yeah. Well, um, thank you very much again, Michael. And, um, this, um, uh, scandal is hardly over. We're, I think, in the early innings. And, uh, we look forward to, uh, speaking to you again and, uh, and I look forward to speaking to you guys. Thanks so much. from the Court of History and for Sean Ment. Um, thank you very much for viewing and listening. Can't get your fill of legal AF. Me neither. That's why we formed a legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where? Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe. [Music]
5. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.
6. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, also did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.; 1985 by conspiring to deny Plaintiff Johnson her Civil Rights by making her their sex slave.
7. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only a minor of age 13.
8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.
9. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
10. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing her mouth upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
11. On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance.
12. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fucking abortion".
13. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to disrobe into her bra and panties and to give a full body massage to Defendant Epstein while he was completely naked. During the massage, Defendant Epstein physically forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis with her bare hands and to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
14. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was again forced to disrobe into her bra and panties while giving Defendant Epstein a full body massage while he was completely naked. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was also present as he was getting his own massage from another minor, Jane Doe, age 13. Defendant Epstein forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis by physically placing her bare hands upon his sex organ and again forced Plaintiff Johnson to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
15. Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a "Jew Bastard" as he yelled at Defendant Epstein, that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to "pop the cherry" of Plaintiff Johnson.
16. The third and final sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Kati Johnson, took place after Plaintiff Johnson had been brutally and savagely raped by Defendant Trump. While receiving another full body massage from Plaintiff Johnson, while in the nude, Defendant Epstein became so enraged after finding out that Defendant Trump had been the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity, that Defendant Epstein also violently raped Plaintiff Johnson. After forcing Plaintiff Johnson to disrobe into her bra and panties, while receiving a massage from the Plaintiff, Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's anal cavity with his erect penis while trying to restrain her. Plaintiff Johnson attempted to push Defendant Epstein away, at which time Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's vagina with his erect penis. This attempt to brutally sodomize and rape Plaintiff Johnson by Defendant Epstein was finally repelled by Plaintiff Johnson but not before Defendant Epstein was able to achieve sexual orgasm. After perversely sodomizing and raping the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff Johnson that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who "took her cherry, not Mr. Trump", before she finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein.
17. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was fully warned on more than one occasion by both Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, that were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse that she had suffered as a sex slave for Defendant Trump and Defendant Epstein, that Plaintiff Johnson and her family would be in mortal danger. Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and Plaintiff Johnson's family unless she remained silent forever on the exact details of the depraved and perverted sexual and physical abuse she had been forced to endure from the Defendants.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
18. Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Despite being subject to constant terroristic threats by Defendants Epstein and Trump to never reveal the details of these underage sex parties at which scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump, witness Tiffany Doe refuses to be silent any longer. She has agreed to fully reveal the extent of the sexual perversion and physical cruelty that she personally witnessed at these parties by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
19. Material witness Tiffany Doe fully confirms all of Plaintiff Katie Johnson's allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of Plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein's guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details directly to Defendant Epstein. Defendant Epstein also demanded that Tiffany Doe tell him personally everything she had overheard at these parties explaining to her that "knowledge was king" in the financial world. As a result of these underage sex parties, Defendant Epstein was able to accumulate inside business knowledge that he otherwise would never have been privy to in order to amass his huge personal fortune.
20. Material witness Tiffany Doe will testify that she was also present or had direct knowledge of each of the three instances on which Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein physically and sexually abused the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v.- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
THE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America
Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel -
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 55
Table of Contents
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....... 1 I. Background .... 3 A. The Investigation ....... 3 B. The Charges ...... 4 C. Summary of Proof at Trial .. 5 1. Sexual Abuse of Jane ...... 8 2. Sexual Abuse of Kate ...... 9 3. Sexual Abuse of Annie Farmer ....... 10 4. Sexual Abuse of Virginia Roberts .. 12 5. Sexual Abuse of Carolyn ....... 12 6. Sexual Abuse of Melissa ........ 14 II. The Pre-Sentence Report and Sentencing Guidelines 14 A. The 2004 Sentencing Guidelines Manual Applies ........ 16 1. The Court, and not the Jury, Determines Which Manual to Apply ...... 19 2. The Sex Trafficking Conspiracy Continued to 2005 ...... 19 3. The Court Should Apply the 2004 Manual ....... 21 B. The Four-Point Leadership Enhancement Applies ........ 28 C. The Two-Point “Undue Influence” Enhancement Applies .... 28 D. The Five-Level Enhancement in Section 4B1.5 Applies ....... 31 III. Discussion ....... 34 A. The Defendant’s Conduct Warrants a Term of Imprisonment Within the Guidelines Range of 360 to 660 Months’ Imprisonment ........ 34 1. The Nature and Seriousness of the Offense ...... 34 2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant ... 41 3. The Need to Promote Respect for the Law and to Afford Adequate Deterrence ....... 43 B. The Defendant’s Arguments for a Lenient Sentence Are Unpersuasive ....... 44 IV. Financial Penalties ....... 50 CONCLUSION ........ 53
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Ghislaine Maxwell played an instrumental role in the horrific sexual abuse of multiple young teenage girls. As part of a disturbing agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, Maxwell identified, groomed, and abused multiple victims, while she enjoyed a life of extraordinary luxury and privilege. In her wake, Maxwell left her victims permanently scarred with emotional and psychological injuries. That damage can never be undone, but it can be accounted for in crafting a just sentence for Maxwell’s crimes.
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in connection with the sentencing of Maxwell in the above-captioned case, which is scheduled for June 28, 2022, and in response to the defendant’s June 15, 2022 sentencing memorandum and objections to the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report prepared by the United States Probation Office. For the reasons set forth below, the Government maintains that under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”), the applicable sentencing range is 360 months to life imprisonment. Because the statutory maximum penalty is 660 months’ imprisonment, the Guidelines range becomes 360 to 660 months’ imprisonment.
Given the exceptionally serious nature of the defendant’s years-long participation in the sexual abuse of minors, consideration of the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighs heavily in favor of a sentence within the Guidelines range of 360 to 660 months’ imprisonment. Most significantly, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the harm to victims, the need to promote respect for the law, and the history and characteristics of the defendant weigh heavily in favor of a Guidelines sentence.
The Government addresses each of these factors in turn below. However, certain aspects of the defendant’s submission bear addressing up front. First, the Court should reject the defendant’s request for a reduced sentence in light of conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center. The defendant’s claims are inaccurate—and in fact, the defendant has enjoyed remarkable privileges as a high-profile inmate that vastly exceed the benefits accorded to the average inmate. It is unsurprising that a woman who had led a life of incredible luxury should complain about her life as a prisoner, but that fact does not come close to meriting leniency at sentencing, much less the extraordinary degree of leniency the defendant seeks.
If anything stands out from the defendant’s sentencing submission, it is her complete failure to address her offense conduct and her utter lack of remorse. Instead of showing even a hint of acceptance of responsibility, the defendant makes a desperate attempt to cast blame wherever else she can. On that score, the defendant’s attempt to cast aspersions on the Government for prosecuting her, and her claim that she is being held responsible for Epstein’s crimes, are both absurd and offensive. Maxwell was an adult who made her own choices. She made the choice to sexually exploit numerous underage girls. She made the choice to conspire with Epstein for years, working as partners in crime and causing devastating harm to vulnerable victims. She should be held accountable for her disturbing role in an extensive child exploitation scheme.
The Government agrees that the defendant should be sentenced for her own conduct: she committed terrible crimes that caused irreparable harm to vulnerable children. Her own criminal actions demand that she serve every day of a Guidelines sentence in prison.
I. Background
A. The Investigation
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York opened its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators in late November 2018. The investigation was prompted by investigative journalism, and not, as the defendant claims, by civil litigants who pressed for criminal charges. In light of the covert nature of the investigation, the Government interviewed a small group of witnesses and charged Epstein as soon as it was able to, obtaining an indictment against Epstein approximately six months later, on July 2, 2019, and arresting Epstein on July 6, 2019. (PSR ¶ 21). That initial phase of the investigation remained intentionally narrow in order to keep the circle of people aware of a federal investigation into Epstein small to avoid jeopardizing the investigation before Epstein could be apprehended.
The Government’s investigation expanded upon charging Epstein, and several additional victims came forward after the charges were announced. After Epstein’s death in August 2019, the Government continued that same investigation, which included interviewing several victims. Among the victims the Government interviewed were individuals identified on the record in this case as “Jane” and “Kate” (both of whom agreed to be interviewed by the Government for the first time) as well as Annie Farmer. The Government obtained the original Indictment against the defendant—which related to the abuse of Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer—in late June 2020. In March 2021, the Government obtained a superseding indictment charging the defendant—which added counts relating to the defendant’s abuse of an additional minor victim, Carolyn—based on new evidence that was not available to the Government at the time the defendant was indicted in late June 2020 or at the time Jeffrey Epstein was indicted in 2019. Throughout its investigation, the Government followed the facts where they led, without fear or favor.
B. The Charges
On June 29, 2020, a grand jury sitting in this District returned an indictment charging the defendant in six counts. (Dkt. No. 1). On July 2, 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) arrested the defendant. (PSR ¶ 77). On July 8, 2020, a grand jury sitting in this District returned a superseding indictment containing the same charges, with ministerial corrections. (Dkt. No. 17).
On March 29, 2021, a grand jury sitting in this District returned a superseding indictment (the “Indictment”) which charged the defendant in eight counts. (Dkt. No. 187). Count One of the Indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts from in or about 1994 through in or about 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two charged the defendant with enticing Minor Victim-1 to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charged the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts from in or about 1994 through in or about 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charged the defendant with transporting Minor Victim-1 to participate in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Count Five charged the defendant with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Six charged the defendant with sex trafficking of Minor Victim-4, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 2. Counts Seven and Eight charged the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.
C. Summary of Proof at Trial
On November 29, 2021, the defendant proceeded to trial on Counts One though Six.1 On December 29, 2021, the jury returned a guilty verdict on Counts One, Three, Four, Five, and Six. The proof at trial established that over the course of a decade, the defendant facilitated and participated in the sexual abuse of multiple young girls. From 1994 to 2004, the defendant and Epstein worked together to identify girls, groom them, and then entice them to travel and transport them to Epstein’s properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and elsewhere. (PSR ¶ 22). The girls—some of whom were as young as 14 years old—were then sexually abused, often under the guise of a “massage.” (Id.).
Beginning in approximately 1991, the defendant had a close and intimate relationship with Epstein. (PSR ¶ 23). The defendant was Epstein’s girlfriend for many years, until in or about the early 2000s; after that point, the defendant and Epstein remained close friends. (Id.). For over a decade, the defendant traveled with Epstein, a multi-millionaire, on his private planes and mingled with rich and famous people. (Id.). As the defendant wrote in an essay, she and Epstein were “a couple” who were “rarely apart,” “great partners,” and “the best of friends.” (Id.). The defendant enjoyed a life of extraordinary luxury with Epstein. (Id.). The defendant and Epstein spent time together in Epstein’s various properties, including his mansion on the Upper East Side in Manhattan, his villa in Palm Beach, his ranch in New Mexico, his apartment in Paris, and his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. (Id.). During the timeframe of the conspiracy, Maxwell received exceptional benefits from Epstein. Beyond the lavish lifestyle that she enjoyed side-by-side with Epstein, Maxwell also received a townhouse that Epstein bought for her in New York City, and Epstein transferred a total of approximately $23 million to Maxwell during the timeframe of the conspiracy. (Id.).
In addition to her role as Epstein’s girlfriend, the defendant also supervised Epstein’s households and enjoyed a lifestyle of extraordinary wealth. (Id.). The defendant relished her role as “the lady of the house.” (PSR ¶ 24). When the defendant took charge of Epstein’s homes, she imposed strict rules for staff. For example, the defendant helped author and implement a household manual, which contained rules for operating the Palm Beach house to “anticipate the needs of Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell and their guests.” (Id.). Staff were directed to have two sizes of notepads marked “Ghislaine Maxwell” and “Lady Ghislaine,” in addition to Epstein’s notepads. (Id.). Staff were also instructed on Epstein and the defendant’s breakfast preferences, and the items to keep in Epstein and the defendant’s respective bathrooms. (Id.). The defendant’s instructions extended to massages: she specified the massage oils and lotions for the Palm Beach house. (Id.). In short, the defendant was waited on hand and foot.
To protect her criminal activities from exposure, the defendant also fostered a culture of silence at Epstein’s homes. (PSR ¶¶ 25, 79). The Palm Beach household manual made clear that staff were to “see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, except to answer a question directed at” that staff member. (PSR ¶ 25; see also PSR at 49 (manual instructed employees to “NEVER disclose Mr Epstein or Ms Maxwell’s activities or whereabouts to anyone”)). And the defendant reinforced the messages of the household manual. She directed Juan Alessi, the former manager of Epstein’s Palm Beach villa, to speak to Epstein only when spoken to and not to look Epstein in the eyes. (PSR ¶ 25). Alessi explained during his trial testimony that he understood he was to be “blind, deaf and dumb” and “to say nothing of their lives.” (Id.).
This culture of silence provided space for the defendant and Epstein to operate a playbook through which they sexually abused young girls. At trial, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, an expert in psychology with a specialized expertise in traumatic stress and interpersonal violence, explained that children are most frequently sexually abused through grooming and coercion in the context of a relationship. (Tr. 713). Dr. Rocchio explained that abusers use a series of deceptive tactics to engage a child in sexual abuse. (Tr. 715-20). The defendant and Epstein used such tactics throughout the life of the conspiracy. In the early phase of the conspiracy, from at least approximately 1994 through approximately 2001, the defendant identified vulnerable girls, typically from single-mother households and difficult financial circumstances. (PSR ¶ 26). The defendant and Epstein then isolated the girls, spending time with them away from their family and friends. (Id.). During that time, they groomed the girls through techniques such as giving them gifts, pretending to be friends, and building trust. (Id.). The defendant and Epstein then normalized sexual situations and sexual touching. (Id.). Finally, they transitioned to sexual abuse, often through the pretext of giving Epstein a massage. (Id.). This earlier phase required the defendant and Epstein to identify one girl at a time to target for grooming and abuse.
In the later phase, from approximately 2001 until at least approximately 2004, the defendant and Epstein developed a scheme that created a constant stream of girls who recruited each other to visit Epstein at his Palm Beach residence. (PSR ¶ 27). This new approach replaced some of the early grooming and trust-building steps with money provided to girls from struggling families. (Id.). Specifically, the defendant and Epstein paid young girls hundreds of dollars in cash in exchange for meeting Epstein to be sexually abused—again, often under the pretext of giving Epstein a massage. (Id.). Once a girl was introduced to these sexualized massages, she was offered more money if she brought other teenage girls to engage in sexualized massages with Epstein. (PSR ¶ 28). As a result, the defendant and Epstein no longer had to identify and recruit victims themselves. (Id.). Instead, they used money to convince impoverished girls to bring other victims to provide Epstein with sexualized massages. (Id.). Once the girls were in Epstein’s home, the defendant engaged in grooming behavior that normalized the sexualized massages that were taking place with Epstein. (Id.).
As set forth in the PSR, the defendant targeted vulnerable victims for sexual abuse, causing significant and lasting harm. The trial evidence focused on six girls who suffered abusive sexual contact as a result of the defendant’s criminal actions: Jane, Kate, Annie, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa. Details concerning the evidence at trial with respect to the abuse by the defendant and Epstein of the six girls are provided in the PSR at ¶¶ 30-74, 80-82. The defendant was instrumental in the abuse of these girls. She personally engaged in sexual abuse when she fondled the breasts of Jane, Annie, and Carolyn. And she used her role as a supposedly respectable, glamorous, older woman to lure these victims into a false sense of security. By behaving as though the sexual abuse was normal, the defendant prevented these girls from understanding just how wrong the abuse was. The defendant also provided Epstein with the cover of an age-appropriate romantic partner, to put other adults at ease when interacting with Epstein and when allowing their children to spend time with him.
1. Sexual Abuse of Jane
The defendant and Epstein met Jane when she was just 14 years old in the summer of 1994 at a summer camp for talented kids. (PSR ¶ 30). Jane was particularly vulnerable, as her father had just passed away (a fact which she had told both Epstein and the defendant upon meeting them), and her family was struggling financially. (PSR ¶¶ 30-31). The defendant and Epstein cultivated a relationship with Jane, spending time with her at Epstein’s Palm Beach home and taking her to the movies and on shopping outings. (PSR ¶ 32). The defendant and Epstein gave Jane gifts, and Jane came to look up to the defendant like an older sister figure. (PSR ¶¶ 32-33).
The defendant and Epstein abused that relationship of trust in the worst way imaginable. They sexually abused Jane starting when she was just 14 years old, and the sexual abuse continued for years. (PSR ¶ 36). When Jane was still only 14 years old, the defendant and Epstein instructed Jane to follow them to Epstein’s bedroom where the defendant and Epstein fondled each other, casually giggling about it, while Epstein asked Jane to take her top off. (PSR ¶ 34). While this was happening, “there were hands everywhere,” Epstein began to masturbate, and the defendant rubbed, kissed, and fondled Epstein. (Id.). After this initial sexual interaction, the defendant and Epstein continued to sexually abuse Jane. (PSR ¶ 35). The defendant and Epstein taught Jane how Epstein liked to be massaged and gave Jane instructions about touching Epstein’s penis. (Id.). Jane was 14 years old, and the defendant tried to make Jane feel like this was “very normal” and “not a big deal.” (Id.). Jane was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein between the ages of 14 and 16 years old, and the defendant was frequently in the room when the abuse happened. (PSR ¶ 36). Over time, the abuse escalated, and Epstein used vibrators on Jane, masturbated, put his fingers in Jane’s vagina, and asked Jane to straddle his face. (Id.). The defendant sometimes touched Jane during these incidents; in particular, Jane recalled that the defendant touched her breasts. (Id.). The sexual abuse was not limited to Palm Beach, Florida, as Jane traveled with the defendant and Epstein to Epstein’s townhouse in New York City and his ranch in New Mexico. (PSR ¶ 37). Jane was sexually abused during those trips. (Id.).
2. Sexual Abuse of Kate
The defendant and Epstein’s sexual abuse of Kate started in 1994, around the same time that the defendant and Epstein started sexually abusing Jane. (PSR ¶ 39). After Kate, then 17 years old, told the defendant that she lived alone with her mother and that things were difficult at home, the defendant introduced Kate to Epstein in London. (PSR ¶¶ 39-40). The defendant delivered Kate to a naked Epstein in the defendant’s own home for massages and told Kate to “have a good time.” (PSR ¶¶ 41-42). During these massages, Epstein initiated sexual contact with her, putting her hand on his penis and grabbing Kate’s breasts and in between her legs. (Id.).
Kate traveled to meet both Maxwell and Epstein in Palm Beach, Little Saint James, and New York City when she was between approximately 18 and 24 years old. (PSR ¶ 43). Epstein initiated sexual activity with Kate every time she spent time with him from when she was 17 years old through her early thirties. (Id.). The defendant brought up sexual topics with Kate, ranging from talking about how sexually demanding Epstein was to asking if Kate knew of anyone to give Epstein a blow job to remarking that Epstein liked cute, young, pretty girls like Kate. (PSR ¶ 44).
When Kate was approximately 18 years old, Kate visited Epstein and Maxwell at Epstein’s villa in Palm Beach. (PSR ¶ 45). The defendant had left a schoolgirl outfit for Kate in the guest room and told Kate that she thought it would be fun for Kate to take Epstein his tea in the outfit. (Id.). Kate—alone with only Epstein and the defendant in a place she had never previously visited—complied. (Id.). Epstein raped Kate by engaging in forced intercourse with her. (Id.). Later that day, Maxwell asked Kate if she had fun and told Kate that she was a “good girl” and “one of [Epstein’s] favorites.” (Id.). Epstein engaged in unwanted sexual activity with Kate multiple times during that same trip. (Id.).
3. Sexual Abuse of Annie Farmer
The defendant also took steps to normalize sexual contact with Annie Farmer, who was then 16 years old. In the spring of 1996, Annie’s mother, at Epstein’s request, agreed to send Annie to Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico for a retreat for a group of 20 to 25 students (both boys and girls) that were academically gifted to discuss college plans and international trips. (PSR ¶ 49). Annie did not want to go to New Mexico after Epstein had caressed and held Annie’s hand and rubbed her foot and leg while watching a movie at a theater in New York in December 1995. (PSR ¶ 48). Despite those misgivings, Annie felt more comfortable going to New Mexico once she understood that the defendant, a grown woman in a romantic relationship with Epstein, would be there with Annie. (PSR ¶ 49). Yet, when Annie found herself alone at Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico with just Epstein and the defendant, she found that the defendant was anything but a protector. (PSR ¶ 50). Instead, Annie found that the purpose of the trip was to groom her for sexual abuse.
During the New Mexico trip, the defendant took steps to normalize sexual contact under the ruse of massage. The defendant asked Annie if she had ever had a professional massage, and said that she wanted Annie to have that experience and that she would be happy to give Annie a massage. (PSR ¶ 52). After telling Annie to get undressed, the defendant gave Annie a massage on a massage table while Annie was naked. (Id.). During the massage, the defendant rubbed Annie’s body and directed Annie to roll over so that Annie was laying on her back. (Id.). After Annie complied and rolled to her back, the defendant pulled the sheet down and exposed Annie’s breasts. (Id.). Then, while Annie was naked and isolated on a ranch in the middle of nowhere, the defendant rubbed Annie’s breasts. (Id.). Annie testified that she wanted “badly to get off of the table and have this massage be done.” (Id.). The defendant sexually abused a teenage girl in an effort to groom her for further abuse.
Following through on that plan on this same New Mexico trip, Epstein later got into Annie’s bed, cuddled with her, pressed his body into her, and rubbed against her. (PSR ¶ 53). But when Annie managed to extricate herself from the situation by running to the bathroom, thereby denying Epstein further sexual contact, the defendant seemed “very disinterested” in Annie. (Id.).
4. Sexual Abuse of Virginia Roberts
Beginning in or about the summer of 2000, the defendant and Epstein entered a new phase of their scheme to sexually abuse teenage girls. That summer, Maxwell recruited a 17-year-old girl named Virginia Roberts from the parking lot of Mar-a-Lago to provide Epstein with massages. (PSR ¶ 56). Over the next several months, Virginia was paid to provide Epstein with sexualized massages at his Palm Beach residence, in exchange for hundreds of dollars in cash for each massage. (PSR ¶ 55). Virginia also traveled with Epstein and Maxwell to other locations, including New York and the Virgin Islands, on Epstein’s private plane. (PSR ¶ 57). Virginia brought other teenage girls to Epstein’s Palm Beach house. (PSR ¶ 58). One of those girls was a 14-year-old girl named Carolyn who Virginia introduced to the defendant and Epstein at the Palm Beach villa in 2001. (PSR ¶¶ 58, 59). Thus began the pyramid scheme phase of the defendant and Epstein’s abuse of teenage girls.
5. Sexual Abuse of Carolyn
Carolyn visited Epstein’s Palm Beach residence more than 100 times, during each of which she was sexually abused during paid sexualized massages. (PSR ¶ 59). Carolyn met the defendant the very first time she went to Epstein’s house, and she interacted with the defendant multiple times thereafter. (Id.). On Carolyn’s first visit to the house, the defendant greeted Virginia, who introduced Carolyn to the defendant. (PSR ¶ 62). The defendant then told Virginia, “You can bring her upstairs and show her what to do,” after which Virginia showed Carolyn how to perform a sexual massage on Epstein. (PSR ¶¶ 62-63). Carolyn performed over 100 paid sexualized massages for Epstein when she was between 14 and 18 years old. (PSR ¶ 64). The vast majority involved the same course of abuse. At some point during each massage, Epstein rolled over and began masturbating himself. (Id.). Epstein then directed Carolyn to touch his nipples and he touched Carolyn’s breasts and buttocks. (Id.). On one occasion, Epstein attempted to touch Carolyn’s vagina with a vibrator, but Carolyn pulled away, so he stopped. (Id.). On two occasions, Epstein brought other females into the room with Carolyn, who engaged Carolyn in oral sex, and on one occasion Epstein raped Carolyn by penetrating her vagina with his penis. (PSR ¶ 72). Every massage ended with Epstein ejaculating. (PSR ¶ 64).
The defendant personally scheduled Carolyn’s massages for approximately the first year or two, when Carolyn was between the ages of 14 and 15. (PSR ¶ 66). When the defendant scheduled Carolyn for an appointment, she sometimes sent a car to pick Carolyn up. (Id.). At the time, Carolyn was 14 or 15 years old and did not have a license. (Id.). Indeed, the defendant knew Carolyn’s age and much of her background because she had multiple conversations with Carolyn about Carolyn’s life. (PSR ¶ 67). During these conversations, Carolyn revealed that she had previously been sexually abused by a relative, that her parents were separated, and that her mother struggled with addiction. (Id.). The defendant invited Carolyn to travel with the defendant and Epstein, but Carolyn explained that because she was only 14 years old, she would not be able to get permission to travel. (PSR ¶ 68). Carolyn was paid several hundred dollars in one-hundred-dollar bills after each massage. (PSR ¶ 65). Usually, the money was laid out on the table or by the sink in the bathroom, but the defendant personally paid Carolyn after a few massages. (Id.).
The defendant saw Carolyn fully nude in the massage room on approximately three occasions. (PSR ¶ 69). This happened when Carolyn had already undressed in preparation for the massage but before Epstein had come into the room. (Id.). One particular instance stands out in Carolyn’s mind. (Id.). When Carolyn was 14 years old, she had set up the massage table and was fully nude when the defendant walked into the massage room. (Id.). The defendant told Carolyn that she had a nice body and touched Carolyn’s breasts. (Id.).
At some point, Epstein asked Carolyn if she had any young friends she could bring for massages. (PSR ¶ 71). Carolyn ended up bringing multiple girls to massage Epstein, including multiple minors. (Id.). When Carolyn brought girls to massage Epstein, both the girl and Carolyn would be paid hundreds of dollars in cash. (Id.). During those massages, Epstein masturbated and touched Carolyn’s and her friend’s breasts and buttocks. (Id.).
6. Sexual Abuse of Melissa
One of the minor girls Carolyn brought to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein was named Melissa. (PSR ¶ 80). Melissa was just 16 years old when she went with Carolyn to Epstein’s Palm Beach residence. (Id.). Melissa went to Epstein’s residence to provide Epstein with massages on multiple occasions when she was under the age of 18. (Id.). When Melissa and Carolyn went to the Palm Beach house, they remained in the home for about an hour and then returned with hundreds of dollars in cash. (Id.). An entry entitled “Melissa’s cell (Carolyn’s friend),” as well as multiple entries with Carolyn’s full name and an entry entitled “Virginia (parents)” were listed in the defendant and Epstein’s black address book under the heading “Massage – Florida.” (Id.; PSR ¶ 57). Thus, as a direct result of the pyramid scheme that began with Virginia and continued with Carolyn, Melissa suffered repeated sexual abuse.
II. The Pre-Sentence Report and Sentencing Guidelines
The United States Probation Office, in its Pre-Sentence Investigation Report, recommends a sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. In making that recommendation, the Probation Office characterized the defendant’s offense conduct as “heinous and predatory in nature.” (PSR at 67). Regarding the defendant’s role, the Probation Office emphasized that “[t]he gravity of Maxwell’s involvement in the offense is immense,” and that she was essential to “fostering a culture for the abuse to continue.” (Id.). Moreover, the Probation Office observed that the defendant’s conduct reflected a dark world view: “it appears that the defendant viewed the victims as objects who could be manipulated for her and Epstein’s own selfish purposes without any regard for their personal wellbeing, health, or safety.” (Id.). As the PSR reflects, the United States Probation Office has calculated an applicable sentencing range under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines of 292 to 365 months, based on a total offense level of 40. The Government does not object to the calculation set forth in the PSR, except that the Government respectfully submits that, as noted in the Government’s objections to the PSR, the Guidelines calculation should include two additional groups relating to two victims: Virginia Roberts and the victim identified at trial as Melissa. (PSR at 45). Pursuant to the Court’s discovery order, the Government notified the defense by letter on September 13, 2022 that the Government intended to prove at trial that the conspiracy involved six victims, including Virginia Roberts and Melissa. The Government did just that at trial. (See, e.g., Tr. 2874, 2882-84 (discussing evidence demonstrating the abuse of Virginia Roberts and Melissa in summation); PSR ¶¶ 55-58, 80). The PSR notes that Virginia Roberts and Melissa do not appear by name in the indictment, but Application Note 6 to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3 expressly instructs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction includes “prohibited sexual conduct in respect to more than one minor, whether specifically cited in the count of conviction, each such minor shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the offense level should be increased by two levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(d)(1). As a result, the applicable sentencing range is 360 to 660 months’ imprisonment, based on an offense level of 42.
In a memorandum dated June 15, 2022, the defendant urges the Court to adopt a sentencing range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment, which reflects a small fraction of the applicable sentencing Guidelines range. The defendant reaches this low number by disputing four aspects of the Probation Office’s calculation. For the reasons set forth below, the Court should reject the defendant’s Guidelines objections in their entirety. It would be both strange and anomalous for the Sentencing Guidelines to recommend such a short sentence for a defendant who spent years sexually exploiting teenage girls. The Sentencing Guidelines do not provide for a such an outcome.
A. The 2004 Sentencing Guidelines Manual Applies
In the ordinary course, the Sentencing Guidelines instruct courts to use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced, which here would result in applying the 2021 Guidelines Manual (the “2021 Manual”). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a). Where, as here, the current Guidelines Manual provides a higher range than the Manual in effect at the time of the offense conduct, using the current manual would violate the Ex Post Facto clause. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1); Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 544 (2013). Here, the 2021 Manual calls for a substantially higher guidelines calculation than the Government seeks. For example, under the 2021 Manual, the base offense level would be 30 before any enhancements are applied, whereas the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines Manual (the “2004 Manual”) provides for a base offense level of 24 before enhancements. In other words, under the 2021 Manual, the offense level is at least six levels higher. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(a) (2004) with U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(a)(2) (2021). As a result, the Court may not apply the 2021 Manual, but the Supreme Court has made clear that subsequent increases in the Guidelines may be a reason the sentencing court may deviate upwards from the applicable Guidelines, and sentencing courts are “free to give careful consideration to the current version of the Guidelines as representing the most recent views of the agency charged by Congress with developing sentencing policy.” Peugh, 569 U.S. at 549.
Where the Guidelines have increased after the offense conduct has concluded, “the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was committed.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1). Furthermore, Application Note 2 provides that “the last date of the offense of conviction is the controlling date” for determining which manual to apply. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1), app. n.2. That is true even if the Guidelines were amended during the course of the offense conduct. The Second Circuit has explained that “[w]here a conspiracy began while one version of the Guidelines was in effect and ended after another version became effective, application of the later version to the coconspirators does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.” United States v. Meneilly, 28 F. App’x 26, 32 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
Here, the offenses of conviction spanned from 1994 up to and including 2004, as set forth in the Indictment, and as the proof established at trial. As a result, for Guidelines purposes, December 31, 2004 is legally the last date of the offense conduct, and the 2004 Manual applies. In her objections to the PSR, the defendant claims that the Ex Post Facto clause requires the jury, and not the Court, to determine the last date of the offense of conviction. The defendant further claims that, as a factual matter, the offense conduct ended before November 1, 2004, the date upon which the 2004 Manual became effective. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant is wrong as a matter of law and as a matter of fact. The Court should apply the 2004 Manual.
1. The Court, and not the Jury, Determines Which Manual to Apply
The defendant claims that a jury must determine which version of the Sentencing Guidelines to apply, but the defendant offers not a single case that has ever so held. That argument is inconsistent with the plain text of the Guidelines and established Second Circuit precedent. The Court should reject this argument.
As an initial matter, it is well settled that a question of fact that increases a defendant’s offense level under the Guidelines need not be submitted to a jury. United States v. Fusco, 560 F. App’x 43, 45-46 (2d Cir. 2014); United States v. Morel, No. 10 Cr. 798 (PAC), 2021 WL 2821107, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021). In addition, with respect to the sentencing court’s determination of which Guidelines Manual to apply, the text of the Guidelines expressly contemplates that the court should determine the last date of the conspiracy. Application Note 2 provides the following example of a calculation of the last date of the offense: “For example, if the offense of conviction (i.e., the conduct charged in the count of the indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted) was determined by the court to have been committed between October 15, 1991 and October 28, 1991, the date of October 28, 1991 is the controlling date for ex post facto purposes.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1), app. n.2 (2004) (emphasis added). As the underlined language makes plain, the Guidelines direct sentencing courts to make this factual determination, and not juries.
As the defendant acknowledges, not one of the cases cited in the defendant’s motion involved increases in the Sentencing Guidelines, and instead, the defendant rests her argument entirely on cases involving Ex Post Facto challenges to increases of the applicable statutory penalties. (Dkt. No. 662 (“Def. Mem.”) at 3-4). The law is clear that, so long as a fact at sentencing does not increase the statutory maximum or minimum penalty, that fact is for the sentencing court to resolve, and not the jury. Fusco, 560 F. App’x at 45-46 (citing United States v. Norris, 281 F.3d 357, 369 (2d Cir. 2002)).
Lacking any authority for her argument, the defendant cites Peugh and offers her own sweeping conclusion that, essentially, the Sixth Amendment requires that all Ex Post Facto issues be resolved by juries. But as the Supreme Court explained in Peugh, “the Sixth Amendment and Ex Post Facto Clause inquiries are analytically distinct” and “[n]othing that we say today ‘undo[es]’ the holdings of Booker, Rita, Gall, Kimbrough, or our other recent sentencing cases.” Peugh, 569 U.S. at 549-50. It is thus unsurprising that the defendant has not located a single case, anywhere in the nation, that has concluded, in the nine years since Peugh was decided, that the determination of which Guidelines Manual to apply implicates the Sixth Amendment. Thus, even after Peugh, a sentencing judge’s fact-finding authority continues to include the authority to find when an offense ended for purposes of deciding which Guidelines Manual to apply.
2. The Sex Trafficking Conspiracy Continued to 2005
The Indictment charged that the defendant participated in a conspiracy “from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 2004,” and that is exactly what the Government proved at trial. (Dkt. No. 187 at 1). There can be no question that the evidence establishes that the conspiracy ran past November 1, 2004, consistent with the charging language in the Indictment. At trial, Carolyn testified that she continued to perform sexualized massages for Epstein when she was 18, which was in 2005. Carolyn’s birth certificate was admitted at trial as GX 11. Carolyn turned 18 in 2005, which is after November 1, 2004, the day that the 2004 Manual went into effect. In particular, Carolyn gave the following testimony:
Q: And about how old were you the last time you went over to his house?
A: Eighteen.
(Trial Tr. 1525). Carolyn further testified:
Q: Why did you stop going to Jeffrey Epstein’s house?
A: Because I became too old.
Q: How old were you?
A: 18.
(Tr. 1549). That testimony alone confirms that the offense conduct spanned the entirety of 2004, and thus that the 2004 Manual applies.
The thrust of the defendant’s argument is that the Court should, at sentencing, discredit the testimony of a crime victim, when a jury has credited that victim and found the defendant guilty. Indeed, the jury convicted the defendant of Count Six, which solely relates to Carolyn. In service of her lawless argument, the defendant asks the Court both to reject Carolyn’s testimony and to do so in the face of documentary evidence that establishes that Carolyn told the truth at trial about when the offense conduct ended. As the defendant acknowledges, a message book seized from the Palm Beach residence contains two messages from Carolyn, using her first and last name: one in November 2004 (GX 4B), and one dated March 1, 2005 (GX 4F). The defendant asks the Court to ignore this evidence that Carolyn told the truth at trial, speculating that perhaps the message book is not authentic, because the Government did not offer these excerpts at trial. That speculation is baseless. As the defendant knows, the Government streamlined its proof at trial and elected not to call several witnesses, including employees who worked for Epstein in 2005 when this book was used. Given the volume of messages relating to Carolyn that were admitted at trial, and her own testimony about the duration of the conspiracy, the testimony from the additional employees was unnecessary. The book is authentic, and the defendant offers no basis for concluding otherwise.2
The Court should reject the defendant’s argument and make its determination regarding the final date of the conspiracy based on the language of the Indictment (which plainly encompasses all of 2004) and the trial testimony of Carolyn (who testified that the offense conduct ran past 2004). The 2004 Manual applies.
3. The Court Should Apply the 2004 Manual
The defendant also claims that the “goals of sentencing are not served” by applying the 2004 Manual. (Def. Mem. 8 (capitalization removed)). Not so. The law plainly provides that the 2004 Manual applies here, and it would be unjust to provide a substantial break in the Sentencing Guidelines for a defendant who engaged in an extensive child exploitation scheme, especially when both Congress and the Sentencing Commission have since further increased the applicable penalties for these offenses.
Moreover, the Court should not credit the defendant’s claim that she broke away from Epstein in 2002, based on the testimony of a sole defense witness who said that the defendant had “moved on” in 2002. (Def. Mem. 9). To be clear, “once it has been established that there existed a conspiracy of which the defendant was a member, [her] membership is presumed to continue unless and until the defendant proves that the conspiracy was terminated or that [she] took affirmative steps to withdraw.” Meneilly, 28 F. App’x at 32 (citations omitted). The defendant has not claimed, as a legal matter, that there is any evidence that she withdrew from the conspiracy, nor could she. Instead, she argues, as a policy matter, that the 2004 Manual should not be applied because the defendant had “moved on,” an expression that has no legal meaning.
More importantly, documentary evidence establishes that the defendant remained a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein for multiple years after 2002. In particular:
• Flight records reflect that the defendant flew on Epstein’s private jet 49 times in 2003, 19 times in 2004, and 16 times in 2005. Regarding 2004 in particular, the flight records for that year reflect that the defendant flew on Epstein’s private jet twice in November 2004 and once in December 2004, which makes clear that the defendant was still traveling with Epstein after the Guidelines were amended and while the conspiracy was ongoing. (GX 662).
• In October 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department executed a search warrant at the Palm Beach residence, and discovered the defendant’s desk, upon which a notepad with her named stationary was sitting. (GX 285). The setup of the defendant’s desk—and instructions that make clear the defendant was a forceful presence in the house—are set forth in the household manual, which is dated February 14, 2005. (GX 606).
• Travel agency records from Shopper’s Travel—offered by the defendant at trial—reflect that Epstein paid for the defendant’s flights through at least 2006. (DX RS-1 (listing a May 1, 2006 flight on Epstein’s account)).
• Bank records reflect that, as of 2007, Epstein transferred $7,759,793.40 to the defendant’s personal bank account.
What the record makes clear is that the defendant remained a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein and continued to profit from their criminal relationship, long past 2004. There is nothing punitive about applying the 2004 Guidelines, which apply here as a matter of law. If anything, the fact that the defendant will be sentenced under the 2004 Guidelines, and not the higher range under the 2021 Guidelines, should be a factor that warrants a higher sentence. Indeed, the Supreme Court has expressly noted that sentencing courts may consider subsequent increases in offense levels for precisely that purpose. See Peugh, 569 U.S. at 549.
B. The Four-Point Leadership Enhancement Applies
The Government agrees with the Probation Office that the enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 applies because the defendant was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was “otherwise extensive.” The defendant’s conspiracy spanned at least five victims in three states, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including at Epstein’s various properties, which the defendant ran, over the course of a decade. It involved the participation of numerous members of the defendant and Epstein’s staff, whether knowing or unknowing, and the use of minor victims to recruit other minor victims. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 app. n.3 (“In assessing whether an organization is ‘otherwise extensive,’ all persons involved during the course of the entire offense are to be considered,” and use of “the unknowing services of many outsiders could be considered extensive.”). For instance, Carolyn testified that she was recruited by Virginia and that Carolyn recruited other minor victims. Juan Alessi testified that he was driving when the defendant stopped to recruit Virginia. Two pilots testified about transporting minor victims on Epstein’s planes. That alone is five individuals involved in the criminal activity, without even counting the defendant herself, Epstein, and Sarah Kellen. See United States v. Kent, 821 F.3d 362, 369 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining that a scheme is “otherwise extensive” if it involves “the functional equivalent” of “one involving five or more knowing participants” (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)). Accordingly, there is ample basis in the record to impose this enhancement.
The text of U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) calls for the application of its enhancement if “the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that” either “involved five or more participants,” or “was otherwise extensive.” The defense correctly points out that Application Note 2 to this Guidelines provides, “To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants. An upward departure may be warranted, however, in the case of a defendant who did not organize, lead, manage, or supervise another participant, but who nevertheless exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization.” Application Note 1 defines a “participant” as “a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.” Despite those Application Notes, however, the Government is not aware of any Second Circuit case requiring that, where the enhancement turns on the “otherwise extensive” prong, rather than the “five or more participants” prong, the defendant must supervise a knowing participant. Indeed, the defense fails to cite a single case holding that the “otherwise extensive” prong requires that the defendant supervised a knowing participant.
Instead, the Second Circuit has articulated three factors that sentencing courts should consider when evaluating whether the “otherwise extensive” enhancement applies. See United States v. Carrozzella, 105 F.3d 796, 803-04 (2d Cir. 1997), abrogated in part on other grounds, United States v. Kennedy, 233 F.3d 157, 160-61 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Kent, 821 F.3d at 369 (applying Carrozzella factors); United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Skys, 637 F.3d 146, 156-58 (2d Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d 93, 99 (2d Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. Rittweger, 274 F. App’x 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). Specifically, when evaluating whether the “otherwise extensive” prong applies, the sentencing court must consider “(i) the number of knowing participants; (ii) the number of unknowing participants whose activities were organized or led by the defendant with specific criminal intent; (iii) the extent to which the services of the unknowing participants were peculiar and necessary to the criminal scheme.” Carrozzella, 105 F.3d at 803-04. In setting out these factors, the Circuit emphasized that “[t]he number of knowing participants” is “relevant” to the analysis “because a criminal scheme with four knowing participants that is aided by unknowing participants is more likely to be ‘otherwise extensive’ than a scheme with a single knowing participant.” Id. at 804. Additionally, when evaluating the number of unknowing participants, the Circuit emphasized distinguishing between service providers, such as taxi drivers, from individuals who function more like knowing participants who receive direction from a defendant “with the specific intent” to further the criminal activity.
In this analysis, the Circuit did not articulate or rely on any requirement that a defendant must have supervised at least one knowing participant. Id. Rather, the Court expressly contemplated that the enhancement might apply to an organization involving multiple unknowing participants. See id. Consistent with that understanding, and contrary to the defense’s proposed interpretation, the Circuit has affirmed the application of § 3B1.1 under the “otherwise extensive” prong to two defendants who were themselves the only two knowing participants identified in the scheme. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d at 99. That outcome makes clear that the Circuit does not require a defendant to supervise any other knowing participant in the scheme. Of particular note, the Rubenstein case applied the “otherwise extensive” enhancement” where the two knowing participants worked together, with one serving as a “right-hand man” to the other, while they organized “as many as seven participants who were unknowing,” who worked under the defendants’ direction. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d at 99. The same analysis applies with equal force here. Even if the defendant and Epstein were the only two knowing participants—which, as discussed below, they were not—their joint supervision and organization of a large array of unknowing participants created an otherwise extensive organization that qualifies for the enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3B1.1.
Here, the defendant acted as an organizer and leader of a massive operation that spanned many years. In operating as the lady of the house and as Epstein’s right hand, the defendant was responsible for overseeing and organizing extensive logistics involved in facilitating the sexual abuse of multiple minors and ensuring a culture of silence that prevented that scheme from being uncovered. Epstein and the defendant were two knowing participants who took the lead in identifying, enticing, and grooming minor girls to be abused. Additionally, Sarah Kellen, who handled the responsibilities of scheduling sexualized massages and took nude photographs of Carolyn (PSR ¶ 66; Tr. 1554-55), constituted a third knowing participant, which number the Circuit has found sufficient, together with additionally necessary unknowing participants, to be sufficient for the enhancement. See Archer, 671 F.3d at 166.
Beyond those three knowing participants, Virginia and Carolyn both recruited other minor girls to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein, thereby furthering the scheme and filling a crucial role in the scheme’s later pyramid phase. Juan Alessi provided an essential role transporting Jane and Virginia to see Epstein, as well as scheduling appointments for massages, cleaning up the massage room after Epstein received sexualized massages, and putting away sex toys in the defendant’s bathroom after Epstein received sexualized massages. (PSR ¶¶ 24, 57; Tr. 836-38). Those duties were essential both to the continued functioning of the scheme, by ensuring that minor girls were available to be abused, and to the avoidance of detection by ensuring that someone who had been trained not to ask questions and who worked in a culture of silence carried out those necessary tasks. Both Larry Visoski and David Rodgers played the essential role of transporting minor victims to different locations, providing a discreet means of ensuring that Epstein had access to minor girls for his sexual gratification when he traveled. The defendant organized all of those individuals by telling Virginia to show Carolyn what to do, by scheduling Carolyn’s appointments, by giving Alessi innumerable directions, and by providing instructions to both pilots. (PSR ¶¶ 24, 62, 66). Additionally, the defendant supervised all of Epstein’s staff for years, thereby running an extensive operation. Those individuals more than satisfy the definition of an extensive operation in which the defendant served as an organizer.
In any event, this enhancement applies even under the defense’s interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 because Maxwell also supervised at least one other knowing participant in Sarah Kellen. Larry Visoski testified that he understood Sarah Kellen to be one of Maxwell’s assistants. (Tr. 140). Even if he was not certain that Kellen had that precise title, his understanding is consistent with Maxwell’s role as second in command beneath Epstein over all other employees. (Tr. 139). Consistent with Visoski’ s recollection, David Rodgers testified his understanding was that “Sarah was more of Ghislaine’s assistant, but actually she was probably both,” an assistant to the defendant and an assistant to Epstein, again confirming that the defendant supervised Kellen. (Tr. 1890). Rodgers also testified that Maxwell was “number two” below Epstein among Epstein’s employees. (Tr. 1809-10). Alessi testified that he did not know exactly what Kellen’s job responsibilities were, but Kellen took over the “scheduling of massages” in approximately 2002. (Tr. 833). Carolyn also recalled that even after Kellen took over calling to schedule massages, Maxwell was still present inside the Palm Beach residence when Carolyn arrived for massage appointments. (Tr. 1527). Moreover, the household manual makes clear that as of 2005, Maxwell was still the lady of the house, supervising other staff, (GX 606), and flight records make clear that the defendant and Kellen flew together on Epstein’s private planes approximately thirty-nine times in 2003 and approximately ten times in 2004, confirming their continued overlap, (GX 662).
The combination of this evidence demonstrates that Kellen joined the conspiracy when Maxwell was still second in command under Epstein. Given Maxwell’s role in the household and in the conspiracy, she certainly exercised authority over Kellen. The clear inference from this record is that Maxwell instructed Kellen regarding how to schedule massages and run the part of the scheme that Maxwell had previously handled, at which point Kellen switched to making calls to schedule appointments following Maxwell’s directions. Thus, even if the defense were correct that the defendant needed to supervise a knowing participant in the scheme for the leadership enhancement to apply, the record amply supports the conclusion that Maxwell did so with respect to Kellen.
Given the breadth of the defendant’s criminal scheme, spanning multiple continents, abusing multiple victims, and employing numerous underlings to accomplish the conspiracy’s goal over the course of multiple years, the defendant clearly warrants the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 contemplated by the PSR.
C. The Two-Point “Undue Influence” Enhancement Applies
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B), two levels are added if “a participant . . . unduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.” This enhancement applies where “a participant’s influence over the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” Id. app. n.3(B). Where, as here, “a participant is at least 10 years older than the minor,” the Guidelines provide for “a rebuttable presumption . . . that such participant unduly influenced the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct. In such a case, some degree of undue influence can be presumed because of the substantial difference in age between the participant and the minor.” Id.
On the facts, the defendant does not resist application of this enhancement to any victim other than Carolyn. As to Carolyn, the defendant ignores the presumption, instead arguing that the record lacks evidence of additional acts of undue influence. (Def. Mem. 21-22). None is required: the age difference alone provides a basis for the Court to apply the enhancement. See United States v. Watkins, 667 F.3d 254, 264-65 (2d Cir. 2012) (applying the presumption and noting that the defendant “failed to offer any evidence rebutting the presumption on this basis,” even though the defendant argued that the “evidence demonstrated that [the defendant] failed to compromise the voluntariness of [the victim]” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). And, in any event, the record shows that the defendant directed Virginia to show Carolyn how to sexually gratify Epstein (Tr. 1521), called to set up appointments with Carolyn at Epstein’s lavish Palm Beach mansion (Tr. 1527), sent cars or cabs to pick her up (Tr. 1532), gave Carolyn what, to Carolyn, were large sums of money needed to fuel her drug addiction (Tr. 1528-31, 1541), and helped Epstein send Carolyn gifts, including lingerie (Tr. 1541-42). The record also shows that the defendant talked with Carolyn about her family problems, traumatic personal experiences, and goals (Tr. 1534-35), and complimented her body (Tr. 1536), which—as Dr. Rocchio explained—can help to build a relationship of trust and attachment. Although the defendant suggests that Carolyn’s behavior was entirely voluntary, this was no arms-length transaction. The defendant and Epstein encouraged Carolyn to engage in sex acts for money. That is undue influence. See, e.g., United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431, 443 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming application of an undue influence guideline where the victim “had never worked in prostitution before the defendant encouraged her to try it” and “was destitute and penniless”). In support of her claim that Carolyn’s behavior was voluntary, the defendant argues that Carolyn did not do “whatever [Epstein and Maxwell] asked of her”—noting that Carolyn did not travel with them to Little Saint James. (Def. Mem. 21). But that shows only that their undue influence was not all-consuming, not that they lacked influence whatsoever. The standard is “‘undue influence,’ not coercion.” United States v. Montijo-Maysonet, 874 F.3d 34, 52 (1st Cir. 2020).
The defendant also argues that application of this enhancement would constitute double-counting because the base offense level for Counts Three, Four, and Six covers her conduct enticing and coercing minors. (Def. Mem. 20). This argument lacks merit. As the defendant correctly notes, “[ i]mpermissible double counting occurs when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase the defendant’s sentence to reflect the kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by another part of the Guidelines.” Watkins, 667 F.3d at 261. But “when the challenged part of the Guidelines aim[s] at different harms emanating from the same conduct, there is no impermissible double counting,” and “[e]nhancements are not duplicative when they reflect different facets of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. at 261-62 (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted).
The relevant inquiry therefore is whether the base offense level is aimed at the same harm as the enhancement. Here, it is not: the base offense level (which refers to § 2G1.3) captures the category of sex offenses against minors, and § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) applies to the use of undue influence. See United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App’x 444, 446-47 (2d Cir. 2021) (describing the focus of § 2B1.3(b)(2)(B)); United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F. 3d 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2020) (“By its plain terms, § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) focuses on a different aggravating factor (undue influence) than § 2G1.3 (minor victims) . . . . As such, subsection (b)(2)(B) does not ‘consider’ the same factor as these other Guideline provisions.”).
The defendant’s argument to the contrary—that her particular crime involved undue influence of minors—does not demonstrate double-counting. The fact that the defendant’s course of conduct triggers both the harm targeted by the base offense level and the harm triggered by an enhancement shows that the enhancement applies, not that the enhancement is redundant with the base offense level.3
D. The Five-Level Enhancement in Section 4B1.5 Applies
Section 4B1.5 has two provisions, depending on whether a defendant has a prior sex offense conviction. Where, as here, the defendant does not have a prior conviction, § 4B1.5(b) adds five offense levels and sets a minimum offense level of 22, so long as the defendant satisfies that section’s three requirements: (1) the offense of conviction must be a “covered sex crime,” (b) the defendant is neither a career offender nor a repeat offender, and (c) the defendant “engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” Id. § 4B1.1(b). “Prohibited sexual conduct,” in turn, covers any offense under Chapters 117, 109A, or 110, and any state law offense that would be a federal offense under those chapters if committed “within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 2426 (2003); see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 app. n.4(A) (incorporating that definition); see also, e.g., United States v. Phillips, 431 F.3d 86, 90 & n.6 (2d Cir. 2005) (applying these requirements).
All three of these requirements are satisfied here. The offense of conviction is a “covered sex crime.” See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 app. n.2 (stating that offenses in Chapter 117 of Title 18 are covered sex crimes); 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (located in Chapter 117). The defendant is neither a career offender nor a repeat offender. And the defendant “engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” As discussed at length above, the defendant transported Jane to New York, a Chapter 117 offense, she transported Virginia, and she touched Jane and Carolyn’s breasts—which would be Chapter 109A offenses had they occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2244, 2246 (2003) (defining “sexual contact” to include the touching of the breast with the intent to “gratify the sexual desire of any person,” and criminalizing knowingly engaging in sexual contact with a minor under the age of 16). This is well more than required by the Guidelines. See United States v. Telles, 18 F.4th 290, 303 (9th Cir. 2021) (applying the enhancement where “Telles sexually abused T.B. on two separate occasions—the first night he arrived in the United Kingdom and the second night of his trip”).
The defendant has no serious argument that the text of the Guidelines is inapplicable on these facts. Instead, she argues that the Guideline is only intended to apply to continuing sexual offenders, and so should not be applied to her. (Def. Mem. 11-14). The background commentary incorporates her principle, she adds, and such commentary is “authoritative.” (Id. at 14). This argument fails at each step.
First, applying § 4B1.5(b) to the defendant is entirely consistent with the Guidelines commentary. That commentary explains that the enhancement is meant to prevent repeat sexual offenders from committing further crimes, as the defendant notes. But it also explains that the Guideline was enacted in response to a congressional directive to “ensure lengthy incarceration for offenders who engage in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 background cmt.; see Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-314 § 505 (“Pursuant to its authority . . . the United States Sentencing Commission shall . . . promulgate amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to increase penalties applicable to [certain offenses] in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.”); see id. § 502 (directing the Sentencing Commission to “ensure that the sentences, guidelines, and policy statements for offenders convicted of [Chapter 117 offenses] are appropriately severe and reasonably consistent with other relevant directives with other Federal Sentencing Guidelines”). That is, while one concern motivating the Guideline is protection of the public from future offenses, another is just punishment for the seriousness of criminal conduct involving the abuse of multiple minors or a minor on multiple occasions. See also, e.g., U.S.S.G. Amend. 615 (explaining that this Guideline was promulgated to “increase penalties in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor” (emphasis added)); Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Proceedings and Debates Before the Senate, 105th Cong., 2nd Session (Sept. 17, 1998) (statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch), available at 144 Cong. Rec. S10518-02, S10521, 1998 WL 636904 (“[T]he bill will also recommend that the Sentencing Commission reevaluate the guidelines applicable to these offenses, and increase them where appropriate to address the egregiousness of these crimes.”). In any event, Guidelines commentary is not binding over the text of the relevant Guideline. The commentary on which the defendant relies is not “interpretive or explanatory,” but “background” commentary. United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515, 523 (2d Cir. 2005); see Def. Mem. 14 (“The government ignores the background commentary to § 4B1.5 . . . .” (emphasis added)). Background commentary, which “merely provides . . . reasons underlying promulgation of the guideline,” is not binding. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Parkins, 935 F.3d 65, 67 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Sash). And even when Guidelines commentary is explanatory and binding, it is “akin to an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rules,” and therefore does not control where it is “inconsistent with the regulation.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 45 (1993) (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)). If the Guidelines commentary were flatly inconsistent with the plain text of the Guideline itself—because the Guideline squarely applies where the commentary says it should not—the Guideline itself would control. See Sash, 396 F.3d at 522 (“We need not resort to background commentary interpretations when the language of the Guidelines is plain.”).
Finally, the defendant’s argument that the public does not need to be protected from her is an available argument under § 3553(a), but it is not a justification for deviating from the text of the Guidelines.4
III. Discussion
A. The Defendant’s Conduct Warrants a Term of Imprisonment Within the Guidelines Range of 360 to 660 Months’ Imprisonment
1. The Nature and Seriousness of the Offense
The defendant stands convicted of sexually exploiting multiple underage girls. Her crimes were monstrous, and the Court should impose a sentence that reflects her role in serious federal crimes. For the reasons set forth below, the nature and seriousness of the offense weigh in favor of a Guidelines sentence, in light of the role the defendant played in the conspiracy and the irreparable harm the defendant caused to her victims.
The Defendant’s Role in the Conspiracy
Maxwell’s conduct was shockingly predatory. She was a calculating, sophisticated, and dangerous criminal who preyed on vulnerable young girls and groomed them for sexual abuse.
Although there are many unsettling aspects of the defendant’s conduct, what stands out from the trial record is that she worked with Epstein to select victims who she knew were vulnerable to exploitation. As the trial record establishes, Maxwell met Jane shortly after her father passed away, and her family was struggling to make ends meet. Annie’s mother was struggling to raise her daughters alone. Carolyn was living alone with her mother, who was an addict. It is not a coincidence that all of Maxwell’s victims came from single-mother households. Not only did her conduct exhibit a callous disregard for other human beings, but her practice of targeting vulnerable victims reflects her view that struggling young girls could be treated like disposable objects.
Once the victims were selected, Maxwell played an essential role in the conspiracy by grooming victims for abuse. Maxwell did this by forging trust with her victims so that they could be sexually exploited. As Dr. Rocchio explained, the psychological harms of sexual abuse are greater where, as here, the abuse arises from a relationship of trust with the abuser:
Trust is central often in the treatment of someone who’s been sexually abused, because it’s often the part that is most confusing and also causes the most – the most harm. We know that the more they trusted the individual, then, of course, the more they feel betrayed, the more betrayal there’s been. And to the extent there’s been betrayal in the relationship, then the individuals are really struggling to a much, much greater degree, often trying to understand what happened, how it happened and why, and what its effect is certainly.
(Tr. 742-43). Maxwell’s victims trusted her: she was a seemingly respectable woman who showed interest in them and promised to help them. She was key to the entire operation of the scheme, and Epstein could not have committed these crimes without her.
Maxwell befriended her victims, won their trust, slowly broke down their boundaries, and normalized sexual abuse. For example, Jane testified that the defendant showed her how Epstein liked to be massaged and how he liked his penis touched. The defendant did this when Jane was only 14 years old. The defendant was an adult, in her thirties, helping to normalize abusive sexual conduct with a young teenager. The defendant’s demeanor was “casual, like it was – like it was very normal, like it was not a big deal.” (Tr. 309). When Jane was in her twenties, she described Maxwell this way to her boyfriend, who remembered years later how Jane told him that Epstein had abused her, and the defendant had made her feel comfortable. (Tr. 644).
The degree to which the defendant manipulated her victims is an aggravating factor in this case. But her abusive conduct did not end with the grooming and manipulation of the victims. She also participated in the sexual abuse of her victims. Not only was Maxwell the person who was most frequently in the room when Epstein abused Jane (Tr. 289), but multiple victims testified that the defendant groped their breasts. (Tr. 310 (Jane), 2224 (Annie), 1536 (Carolyn)). In particular, Annie described a terrifying encounter in which she found herself alone with Maxwell at Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, and Maxwell told her to remove her clothing so she could give Annie a “massage” during which she rubbed Annie’s breasts. (Tr. 2224; PSR ¶ 52). That so-called massage was the defendant sexually abusing a teenage girl.
The conspiracy in this case was extensive and sophisticated by any metric: it involved multiple victims, at multiple properties in different states, over a span of many years. In order to operate the scheme, Maxwell and Epstein used many employees: pilots, household staff, personal assistants, and drivers. Maxwell was central to operating the scheme and managing employees at these properties. Most importantly, the offense conduct was extensive because so many young girls were sexually exploited as a direct result of the defendant’s conduct. At trial, the evidence established that Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa were all exploited as a direct result of the defendant’s actions.
The trial record also makes clear that there were many other victims who were harmed by this conspiracy. First, Carolyn testified that she brought multiple additional minors, including Melissa, to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein. Although these minors did not necessarily interact directly with Maxwell, they were subjected to sexual abuse as a result of the pyramid scheme that Maxwell and Epstein set in motion. Carolyn specifically recalled bringing girls named Tatum and Amanda when they were under the age of 18 to provide paid sexualized massages for Epstein. (Tr. 1543-44). Second, the defendant’s black book contained dozens of entries under the heading “Massage – Florida,” and included entries referencing individuals’ parents. (GX 52). Third, records recovered from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence during a 2005 search by the Palm Beach Police Department reveal that additional minors provided Epstein with sexualized massages between 2001 and 2004. In particular, message pads seized from the residence contain multiple messages from underage girls who called to schedule massage appointments. (GX 1, 2, 3, and 4). Lest there be any doubt that the individuals named in the message pads were in fact minors providing sexualized massages to Epstein, many of the girls identified in the messages were listed as identified minor victims of Epstein in connection with his resolution of the investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”). Specifically, in a letter dated July 10, 2008, the USAO-SDFL identified a total of thirty-two minor victims, including Carolyn and Virginia.5 Of those thirty-two individuals, thirteen appear in the message pads, again including Carolyn and Virginia.
The Government notes that, from interviewing many of these victims during the course of its investigation, the Government has learned that, in the later phases of the conspiracy, victims primarily scheduled appointments with—and interfaced with—Epstein’s personal assistants, who were in their early twenties.6 Although the Government does not seek to include these minors as victims for purposes of the Guidelines calculation, the scope of the pyramid scheme that the defendant helped devise with Epstein bears emphasis when evaluating the harms that the defendant’s criminal conduct ultimately caused.
It is difficult to capture in words the harm that Maxwell caused to her victims. They were children who experienced what can only be described as a recurring nightmare: again and again, they found themselves alone with Maxwell and Epstein in terrifying mansions where they were sexually abused and physically violated. They were trapped in an exploitative relationship with Maxwell and Epstein that, for many victims, lasted for years.
Often, in cases involving sexual exploitation, the Court is left to consider the harms the victims have suffered during the offense conduct and to predict the likely effects on their lives going forward. What is remarkable in this case is that the Court need make no such predictions here. The Court has seen firsthand the lifetime of harm that the defendant’s crimes caused her victims. It was evident on the witness stand that the victims have carried the trauma of these crimes throughout their adulthood, and that the defendant’s actions have forever altered the course of their lives. As Dr. Rocchio testified at trial, victims of child sexual abuse suffer ongoing trauma:
We know that although all adverse events that occur during childhood can place children at higher risk for adverse outcomes, we know that among those, child sexual abuse in particular increases risk for a very, very high number of various health problems and mental health problems and also increases risk for the severity of those problems.
(Tr. 741-42). That is true for all of the victims in this case.
The repeated sexual abuse that Jane experienced has had lasting effects. During the years of abuse, Jane felt hopeless and thought about physically hurting herself. (PSR ¶ 38). Jane continues to struggle with the abuse. As Jane explained at trial: “It ruined my self-esteem, my self-worth,” and it “led me to not trust people.” (Id.). She remarked: “How do you navigate a healthy relationship with a broken compass? I didn’t even understand what real love is supposed to look like.” (Id.). Jane’s pain was evident as she sobbed leaving the courtroom after her testimony.
In a letter7 to the Court in connection with sentencing, Annie explained: “One of the most painful and ongoing impacts of Maxwell and Epstein’s abuse was a loss of trust in myself, my perceptions, and my instincts. When predators groom and then abuse or exploit children and other vulnerable people, they are, in a sense, training them to distrust themselves.” She further explained: “This toxic combination of being sexually exposed and exploited, feeling confused and naïve, blaming myself all resulted in significant shame.”
Kate has explained that “the consequences of what Ghislaine Maxwell did have been far reaching for me.” In a letter to the Court in connection with sentencing, Kate shared: “I have struggled with, and eventually triumphed over, substance use disorder. I have suffered panic attacks and night terrors, with which I still struggle. I have suffered low self esteem, loss of career opportunities. I have battled greatly with feeling unable to trust my own instincts, in choosing romantic relationships.”
Carolyn’s testimony at trial made clear that she, too, has suffered greatly as a result of the defendant’s crimes. Over her years of abuse at Epstein’s hands, Carolyn fell deeper into drug addiction, and she has experienced significant struggles with mental health and addiction throughout her adult life. (PSR ¶ 59). When explaining the trauma she experienced, Carolyn expressed, “my soul is broken and so is my heart.” (Tr. 1678). Her pain was palpable on the witness stand as she described the horrifying years of abuse she suffered.
As the foregoing makes clear, the defendant played an essential role in a child exploitation conspiracy that caused lasting harm to many young girls. The defendant preyed on vulnerable young girls, manipulated them, and served them up to be sexually abused by Epstein, a prolific predator and abuser of children. Years of sexual abuse, multiple victims, devastating psychological harm: none of this could have happened without Maxwell. A Guidelines sentence is necessary to reflect the gravity of the offense conduct and the pain and trauma the defendant inflicted upon her many victims.
2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
The history and characteristics of the defendant also weigh in favor of a Guidelines sentence.
Although many defendants come before sentencing courts with compelling mitigating factors from difficult upbringings, Maxwell is not among them. She has enjoyed a remarkable life of privilege, having lived in luxury and moved in social circles among the famous and powerful. And while the defendant may have had a marginally less positive experience than other exceptionally wealthy children, it is difficult to see how stern conversation at the family dinner table is an excuse for participating in a child exploitation scheme.
Moreover, the record at sentencing makes clear that the defendant has engaged in a significant pattern of dishonest conduct, which speaks volumes about her character. The defendant’s record includes the following:
• In 2016, the defendant testified under oath in a civil deposition in connection with a lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts and lied repeatedly during her testimony. For example, she denied, among other things, having given Annie Farmer a massage. (PSR ¶ 75-76). As the evidence at trial established, that was a lie.
• Upon her arrest, the defendant was interviewed by Pretrial Services, and told them that the home she owned in New Hampshire was owned by a corporation, and that she was “just able to stay there.” (PSR ¶ 149). That was a lie, as were her statements to Pretrial Services about her finances. In an Order denying the defendant’s renewed application for bail, the Court remarked on the defendant’s “lack of candor” about her finances and concluded that the defendant had “misrepresent[ed] key facts to Pretrial Services and, by extension, the Court.” (PSR ¶ 172, December 28, 2020 Opinion at 14-16).
• On November 1, 2021, the Court allocuted the defendant about whether she had engaged in plea discussions with the Government. Although the Court’s question called for a yes or no answer about plea offers, the defendant elected to volunteer the following: “I have not committed any crime.” (November 1, 2021 Tr. at 113). That was a lie.
• In preparation for sentencing, the defendant was interviewed by the Probation Office, and she refused to provide any information about the circumstances of her marriage and, accordingly, the Probation Office was unable to verify these facts. (PSR at 145). Moreover, the defendant reported that she had almost no assets, a sharp contrast from the defendant’s earlier representation to the Court—in pursuit of bail—that she had approximately $22 million in assets. (PSR ¶ 172). In short, the defendant apparently decides when she wishes to disclose facts to the Court, and those facts shift when it serves the defendant’s interests.
Moreover, even now, at sentencing, the defendant has shown no acceptance of responsibility, and her submission fails to even mention, much less accept responsibility for, the harm she has caused her victims. Instead, her entire submission is an effort to cast herself as a victim: of her father, of Epstein, of the media, of prosecutors, of the Bureau of Prisons. Although much of the defendant’s sentencing memorandum aims to cast aspersions on the Government, these claims are baseless. This Office did what it always does in any case: it followed the facts and law. The investigation uncovered that the defendant committed terrible crimes, and that is what this case is about. The Court should see the defendant’s attack on the Government’s motives for exactly what it is: a desperate attempt to shift the blame for her own crimes and distract from the gravity of her offense conduct.
In short, the defendant has lied repeatedly about her crimes, exhibited an utter failure to accept responsibility, and demonstrated repeated disrespect for the law and the Court. The defendant’s history and characteristics weigh in favor of a Guidelines sentence.
3. The Need to Promote Respect for the Law and to Afford Adequate Deterrence
The importance of promoting respect for the law and affording adequate deterrence further supports imposing a sentence within the Guidelines range. Given the magnitude, breadth, and sophistication of the conduct in this case, those interests are best served by a significant term of imprisonment. The defendant’s pattern of exploitative conduct, and her lies to evade responsibility for her crimes, should be met with punishment that holds her accountable for the full measure of her criminal conduct and the abuse and horror for which she is responsible. A Guidelines sentence would also deter those who would facilitate sexual abusers in positions of power. As the Government has emphasized throughout this case, Jeffrey Epstein could not have committed these crimes without the defendant. The defendant, an adult woman, was able to provide a cover of respectability to Epstein that lulled the victims and their families into a false sense of security. This case sends the important message that those who would conspire with sexual predators will be held responsible for their significant role in these crimes. Accordingly, a Guidelines sentence is necessary to afford deterrence.
The lenient sentence the defendant seeks would send the message that there is one system of laws for the rich and powerful, and another set for everyone else. It would also send the message to victims that, even if they have the courage to report their abusers and undergo the excruciating experience of testifying in court, there will be no meaningful accountability. As the Probation Office recognized in its report, a significant sentence “should promote general deterrence against the exploitation and degradation of humans made possible by this offense, as well as untouchable individuals who feel their privilege and affluence entitle them to victimize others without fear of consequence.” (PSR at 67).8
B. The Defendant’s Arguments for a Lenient Sentence Are Unpersuasive
The defendant spends the majority of her sentencing submission complaining that her conditions of pretrial confinement warrant a downward variance. Not only are the defendant’s claims inaccurate, but the defense overlooks the extraordinary steps that the Court has taken throughout the pendency of this case to oversee the conditions of this defendant’s confinement. Indeed, the Court received regular updates regarding the defendant’s conditions of confinement throughout this case, which were based on regular communications between the Government and Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) legal counsel. As a result, the Court already has exceptional insight into the defendant’s conditions of pretrial confinement and is well aware of the many privileges the defendant has received while in custody. Although the defendant has clearly disliked her experience at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”), the conditions she in fact experienced do not rise to a level of extremity that warrant a downward variance, much less the extent of a variance the defendant seeks.
Unlike the vast majority of inmates at the MDC, the defendant has been able to receive almost immediate attention from legal counsel at the MDC, the Court, and the Government when raising issues regarding her confinement. Her lawyers have not hesitated to alert the Court to issues requiring its attention, and the Court has ensured that the defendant was able to prepare for trial and participate in her defense. In addition, the defendant has filed numerous administrative complaints with the BOP, all of which have apparently been evaluated as unfounded. For example, the Government understands from legal counsel at the MDC that the BOP has investigated the defendant’s complaints of physical abuse and concluded that they are unfounded. Legal counsel at the MDC further informed the Government that all pat-down searches of the defendant that took place pretrial were, in fact, video recorded.
Taken together with the defendant’s perjury in her civil deposition, her lies to Pretrial Services, and her blatant lies about her own weight while in BOP custody, the Court can fairly reject many of the defendant’s complaints about her conditions of confinement. Simply put, the defendant lies when it suits her. It apparently suits her to spread horror stories about her experiences in jail to the press in an attempt to garner public sympathy. See, e.g., Laurence Dollimore, Exclusive: Ghislaine Maxwell Speaks from Behind Bars for the First Time in the Mail on Sunday: Heiress Tells How ‘Creepy’ Guards Have Forced Her to Stop Taking Showers, Rats Live in Her Cell, and Why She Has No Hope of a Fair Trial, DAILY MAIL, Nov. 15, 2021 (available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... unday.html) (last visited June 20, 2022). She is trying the same tactic now with the Court.
The defense’s attempts to compare the defendant’s conditions of confinement to that of a defendant under Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) are stunningly off-base. As the Court is well aware, before she was placed in general population, the defendant was permitted out of her cell into a day room for thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. In the day room, the defendant had exclusive access to a telephone, a television, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, and a shower. The defendant had access to recreation time and programming, as well as multiple hours each day to meet with her attorneys. Those conditions are a far cry from the 23-hour-per-day lockdown experienced by inmates in SAMs, and indeed, a far cry from many inmates in general population during the COVID-19 pandemic, who were often locked in their cells for significant periods of time to prevent the spread of the virus.
The defendant baselessly claims that her conditions of detention “thwart[ed] her ability to participate in and prepare her defense.” (Dkt. No. 663 at 25). The Court was actively involved in ensuring that the defendant’s conditions of confinement did not interfere with the ability to review her discovery materials and confer with her counsel in order to prepare for trial. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 49, 92, 116, 131, 265, 268, 282). Indeed, the Court repeatedly found that the defendant has had sufficient time to confer with defense counsel and review her discovery. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 49, 106). As the Government has repeatedly informed the Court throughout the pendency of this case, Maxwell received more time to review her discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. She was permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. During her pretrial confinement, Maxwell had access to both a desktop computer provided by the MDC and a laptop computer provided by the Government in November 2020 on which to review discovery. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant had access to the MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys. Maxwell also had as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. She received five hours of VTC calls with her counsel every weekday, for a total of 25 hours of attorney VTC calls per week, and she had access to in-person visits with her attorneys.
Additionally, the defendant’s attorneys had full copies of her discovery and were able to review all discovery material with her during their ample time for attorney visits both by VTC and in person. The Government also took numerous steps to address the defendant’s complaints about unreadable files within her discovery, including by providing a laptop (in addition to the BOP-provided desktop computer) on which to review her discovery, providing new copies of discovery, and conferring with defense counsel regarding specific files the defendant had difficulty viewing. As the Government has previously informed the Court in response to the defendant’s allegations regarding her emails, legal counsel for the MDC has conveyed that per BOP policy, all inmate emails are routinely purged every six months. In response to complaints from the defense regarding prematurely deleted emails, MDC staff examined the defendant’s inmate email account. According to legal counsel for the MDC, that examination revealed that the defendant had herself deleted some of her emails and had archived others, but it revealed no evidence to suggest that MDC staff deleted any of the defendant’s emails. As the Government has previously informed the Court in response to the defendant’s complaints about delivery of mail, Maxwell’s legal mail was processed and delivered to her in the same manner as mail for other inmates at the MDC. During trial, MDC legal counsel permitted the Government to bring hard drives and disks containing legal materials to court and Maxwell was permitted to bring those materials back with her to the MDC.
As the Government has previously informed the Court in response to the defendant’s complaints regarding nighttime checks, legal counsel for the MDC had indicated that staff conduct flashlight checks at night for all inmates as a matter of course throughout the facility for the safety and security of the inmates at the institution. During these flashlight checks, MDC staff point a flashlight at the ceiling of each cell to illuminate the cell sufficiently to confirm that the inmate is present in the cell, breathing, and not in distress. Legal counsel for the MDC has explained that staff conduct flashlight checks every 30 minutes for inmates housed in the Special Housing Unit and conduct flashlight checks of inmates in the general population multiple times each night at irregular intervals, but at an average of at least once per hour.
The defendant’s repeated claims about jail food and her weight should be rejected out of hand as a basis for a downward variance. Legal counsel for the MDC has informed the Government that when the defendant was housed outside of the general population, her meals arrived in containers that were both microwavable and oven safe, and her meals were heated in a thermal oven as of at least April 6, 2021. As the Government previously informed the Court in response to the defendant’s complaints about her weight, during her time at the MDC, the defendant’s weight has fluctuated between the 130s and the 140s. Medical records reflect that the defendant weighed 146 pounds when she was arrested, and she weighed 144.5 pounds when she was last weighed in April 2022. In short, the defendant’s claims of extreme weight loss are not true.
At bottom, the defendant’s complaints about jail seem to come down to the vast gulf between the conditions of her confinement and the defendant’s lived experience up until her arrest and detention on July 2, 2020. Until July 2020, the defendant spent her entire life living in extraordinary luxury. Her childhood and adolescence were filled with wealth and privilege. That access to wealth continued into adulthood when the defendant found a benefactor in Epstein, who provided her with millions of dollars and invited her to share in his luxurious lifestyle of mansions, house staff, private chefs, and private planes. After leaving that relationship, the defendant remained exceptionally wealthy, residing in palatial estates and owning multiple homes. It is no wonder, then, that she found jail jarring. Going from being waited on hand and foot to incarceration is undoubtedly a shocking and unpleasant experience. The massive difference between the defendant’s prior life and the life of an inmate may feel extreme to the defendant, but when compared to the experiences of other pretrial detainees in this District, her experience is by no means so shocking as to merit a downward variance.
If anything, the defendant’s privilege remained intact while at the MDC, as demonstrated by the exceptional benefits she received. No other inmate received the kind of access to discovery and to counsel that the defendant did. The defendant had her own shower, her own television, her own desktop computer, her own laptop, and her own space to spend the day outside of her cell. The defendant was able to get any concerns, no matter how small, immediately brought to the attention of MDC legal counsel through her attorneys. Comparing that treatment to SAMS is out of touch with reality. In many respects, the defendant’s conditions of confinement were preferential and more beneficial than those experienced by other inmates.
Tellingly, the defendant’s complaints about the MDC seem internally inconsistent. On the one hand, she complains that she was removed from general population. On the other hand, she claims that she should not have been moved abruptly into general population after the conclusion of her trial.9 On the one hand, she claims that she would have had more freedom in general population. On the other hand, she asks the Court for a lesser sentence because the general population lost visitation and was locked into their cells for excessive periods because of COVID-19. On the one hand, she complains that a camera was always on her. On the other hand, she claims that multiple abuses, all of which BOP has concluded were unfounded, were somehow not caught on camera. At bottom, the defendant does not like jail. But the defendant’s experiences at the MDC come nowhere near justifying a downward variance from the Guidelines range.
Finally, it bears emphasizing that the defendant has told blatant lies about her conditions of confinement. She repeatedly claims to have suffered significant hair loss, but anyone who has seen the defendant in court can easily see that is not true. She repeatedly claims to have lost an extreme amount of weight, but, as noted above, BOP medical records make clear that she has not. The defendant is perfectly healthy, with a full head of hair. Throughout trial, she was visibly engaged in her defense, often actively communicating with defense counsel throughout each stage of the trial. Given the defense’s exaggerated claims that the conditions of confinement somehow deteriorated the defendant to the point of struggling to assist in her own defense, the Government respectfully requests that the Court put on the record at sentencing the Court’s own observations of the defendant’s appearance and demeanor throughout the proceedings in this case.
IV. Financial Penalties
In addition to a Guidelines sentence of incarceration, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should impose the maximum fine allowable under statute. Because each of the three counts of conviction carries a maximum fine of $250,000, the maximum total allowable is $750,000. That amount constitutes a mere drop in the bucket for a multi-millionaire like the defendant, but it nevertheless sends the message that a defendant who uses wealth to accomplish criminal activity will suffer financial losses in addition to the loss of liberty. No amount of money can undo the harm that the defendant’s crimes have done, but given the defendant’s substantial means, the majority of which appears to have come from her co-conspirator, a hefty fine is certainly warranted in this case.
Money is a key theme underlying the criminal conduct in this case. The defendant’s access to wealth enabled her to present herself as a supposedly respectable member of society, who rubbed shoulders with royalty, presidents, and celebrities. That same wealth dazzled the girls from struggling families who became the defendant and Epstein’s victims. That same wealth enabled the defendant and Epstein to hire a parade of staff to transport victims and maintain the fabulous properties where those victims were abused. That same wealth motivated the defendant to make sure that Epstein’s repulsive desire for sexual contact with teenage girls was always met. That wealth was the defendant’s reward. The defendant has lived a life of extraordinary privilege, and she profited from her relationship with Epstein. It is only right that she should suffer some small financial penalty for the incalculable harm she has caused.
The defense’s submissions to the Probation Office suggest that the defendant is attempting to make the outrageous claim that she cannot afford a fine. (Dkt. 106). This Court has already found that the defendant has attempted to conceal the full extent of her assets in connection with this case. After getting caught in her lie to Pretrial Services that her only asset was her London townhouse, the defendant provided a very different picture when seeking bail in December 2020. The breakdown of the defendant’s finances provided then demonstrated that the defendant is a remarkably wealthy woman. (See Dkt. No. 97, Ex. O). That wealth appears to have primarily come from Epstein. The primary source of funds reflected in that financial breakdown was the sale of the defendant’s Manhattan townhouse. Kate testified at trial that the defendant told Kate that Epstein obtained the New York townhouse for the defendant. (Tr. 1194). Additionally, the evidence at trial demonstrated that Epstein transferred a total of approximately $23 million to the defendant. (PSR ¶ 23). The defendant’s dishonesty surrounding her finances is an aggravating factor weighing in favor of an above-Guidelines fine in this case. The defendant’s assets range in the multiple millions of dollars. A $750,000 fine will hardly impact her financial outlook, but it is the most the law will allow in this case. The Court should impose it without hesitation.
With respect to forfeiture, the Government is not seeking to forfeit any property because the Government has not identified specific property used in the offense conduct that the defendant herself owned.
Finally, because each of the identified victims has already received monetary compensation for the harms caused to them by the defendant’s criminal conduct, the Government does not seek restitution in this case. Restitution is not available where victims have received compensation for their losses from another source. Each of the six victims identified at trial—Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa—has received funds from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund and/or civil settlements as compensation for the harms they suffered as a result of the defendant’s and Epstein’s crimes. The Government is not aware of any otherwise recoverable losses for which these victims have not received monetary compensation. Accordingly, there is no legal basis for restitution in this case.
CONCLUSION
Ghislaine Maxwell sexually exploited young girls for years. It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of her crimes and the harm she caused. Her crimes demand justice. The Government urges the Court to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range of 360 to 660 months’ imprisonment.
Dated: New York, New York June 22, 2022
Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys
_______________
Notes:
1 On April 16, 2021, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial. (Dkt. No. 207). The Government intends to move to dismiss the perjury counts at the time of sentencing in light of the victims’ significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again. (Dkt. No. 574).
2 In any event, the Government will bring the message book to sentencing so that the Court may examine it if it deems such an assessment necessary. If the Court desires additional testimony in the record, a case agent would be prepared to testify at the sentencing hearing based on the FBI’s investigation that this message book was seized by the Palm Beach Police Department along with the other three message books admitted at trial, and was transferred into the custody of the FBI, which has maintained it ever since. It is well established that hearsay is admissible at sentencing. See United States v. Martinez, 413 F.3d 239, 242 (2d Cir. 2005) (“the right of confrontation does not apply to the sentencing context and does not prohibit the consideration of hearsay testimony in sentencing proceedings.”).
3 The defendant also argues that the enhancement does not apply as to Jane and Annie because, under the 2003 Guidelines, the undue influence must occur with the object of having the minor engage in a commercial sex act. (Def. Mem. 21). As explained above, the 2004 Guidelines manual applies, and it contains no such provision. In any event, Jane testified that she received money during the course of her abuse (Tr. 301-02), and Annie testified that she was promised a trip to Thailand which she ultimately received (Tr. 2059, 2090-92). See U.S.S.G. § 2G1.1 app. n.1 (incorporating the definition of “commercial sex act” in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1)); 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1) (2000) (defining a “commercial sex act” and “any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person”).
4 The defendant also argues that application of the Guideline to her would yield absurd results, because she would have a lower sentencing range if she had been convicted of a prior sex offense, and (she claims) the same sentencing range that Epstein would face. (Def. Mem. 14-16). But Section 4B1.5(a) is structured differently than Section 4B1.5(b), setting floors for the offense level and criminal history category rather than imposing a five-level increase. See U.S.S.G. Amend. 615 (explaining that § 4B1.5(a)’s penalties rely on the prior conviction but § 4B1.5(b) does not). Because the Guidelines have different structures, where—as here—a defendant is near the top of the Guidelines by virtue of her criminal conduct on her one and only conviction, the five-level enhancement is more significant than § 4B1.5’s penalty floors. That result is not absurd, but a reflection of the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct.
5 The letter was marked with Jencks Act control number 3505-022. With the exception of Carolyn and Virginia, none of the other thirty individuals named in this document have been publicly identified on the record in this case. Those victims retain significant privacy interests.
6 Of course, there can be no comparison between the defendant—a woman in her forties in the 2000s—and the young women (often in their very early twenties) who worked as personal assistants, and whose roles and life circumstances dramatically differed from those of the defendant.
7 The victim impact statements referenced in this submission have been provided to defense counsel in accordance with the Court’s June 21, 2022 Order (Dkt. No. 668). Subject to the process outlined in the Court’s Order, the statements will be publicly filed.
8 The defendant argues that she should not be “sentenced as if she were Harvey Weinstein” who was convicted of forcible rape following a state jury trial. (Dkt. No. 663 at 20). These are different cases, under different sentencing regimes, with different facts. It is pointless to compare a state rape case involving adults to a federal case involving child exploitation. The defendant should be sentenced under the applicable federal Sentencing Guidelines for her extensive crimes against children. Defendants engaged in sexual abuse of minors are regularly sentenced to significant sentences of imprisonment in this District. See, e.g., United States v. Maria Soly Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW) (defendant sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for a non-violent child trafficking scheme, notwithstanding mitigating factors, including defendant’s poverty and personal experience with sexual abuse). The defendant is not an exception.
9 The defendant also makes the sensational claim that she was the target of a “credible death threat.” (Dkt. No. 663 at 7). The Government has conferred with legal counsel for the MDC and has been informed that the MDC conducted an internal investigation of the purported threat and determined the following: an inmate at the MDC remarked to someone in passing, in sum and substance, “I’d kill her if someone paid me a million dollars.” Someone else overheard that remark and reported it, resulting in the inmate being moved out of the housing unit. The MDC’s investigation revealed that the inmate had not actually been paid to kill the defendant and had not actually threatened Maxwell.
The Biggest Names from Jeffrey Epstein’s Unsealed Court Documents by Koh Ewe and Solcyré Burga Time Magazine Updated: February 27, 2025 4:45 PM EST | Originally published: January 4, 2024 12:05 PM EST https://time.com/6552063/jeffrey-epstei ... documents/
The names of acquaintances and associates of wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein—including that of former U.S. presidents and British royalty—were released on Jan. 4, 2024, in a set of court documents that were part of a suit against Ghislaine Maxwell in 2015.
The unsealed documents are part of a defamation lawsuit filed by victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Maxwell has previously called Giuffre a liar after she alleged that Epstein and Maxwell had abused her. (That case was eventually settled in 2017, but Maxwell was later sentenced to 20 years in prison for recruiting young girls for Epstein to sexually exploit in a criminal investigation of Epstein’s acts after his death.)
Names of figures that were previously associated with Epstein, such as Prince Andrew and former presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, were mentioned in the court documents, but there was little new information outside of what was already known to the public. Some documents had previously been released in other court cases, while Epstein’s high-profile contacts have been covered extensively in the media.
In December 2023, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ordered the documents to be released, though she gave people until Jan. 1, 2024, to appeal the order in case they did not want their name to be revealed. The names of victims who were minors when they suffered abuse were not released, though some have previously spoken out about Epstein’s actions in media interviews.
Here’s what to know about the documents released in 2024 and earlier—and whose names appeared in them.
What the documents reveal
For the most part, the documents say little about the actions taken by individuals outside of Epstein, though there is a 2016 deposition from Johanna Sjoberg, one of Epstein’s victims, that mentions politicians and figureheads in the U.S. and abroad.
While celebrities like Bruce Willis, Cameron Diaz, Cate Blanchett, Kevin Spacey, Naomi Campbell, and Leonardo DiCaprio are also mentioned in the records, they have not been accused of helping Epstein in any capacity. Sjoberg was only asked if she had met the aforementioned people, which she denied.
Connections to Epstein previously led high-level executives to resign from their positions, including Barclays chief executive Jes Staley. Jean-Luc Brunel, a French modeling agent suspected of scouting girls for Epstein, killed himself in a Paris jail in 2022 while awaiting trial for rape accusations.
The documents on Wednesday confirmed the scale of both Epstein’s alleged sex-trafficking ring and his powerful social network. Prince Andrew—the younger brother of King Charles III—was one of the names referenced in the documents, mentioned by a witness for touching her breast.
Andrew was also previously accused of raping Giuffre when she was a teenager. After a lawsuit filed by Giuffre in 2021 and amid growing public pressure, Andrew was forced to relinquish his military titles and public duties—even as he repeatedly denied the allegations. The two settled the lawsuit in 2022 after Andrew paid Giuffre an undisclosed sum of money.
The case against Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender who would lure young girls under the impression that they would be giving him massages that would then “become increasingly sexual in nature,” according to the 2019 indictment against him. Jennifer Araoz, one of the victims, said that Epstein would invite her to his house and pay her hundreds of dollars after her visit. While they initially spoke about her life and goals, he later became abusive, Araoz said.
Epstein had long avoided facing any consequences for his actions. He was first investigated for sexual misconduct in 2005 after a woman claimed that he had molested her teenage stepdaughter. Palm Beach police eventually charged Epstein with counts of unlawful sex with a minor in May 2006, but then State Attorney Barry Krischer sent the case to a grand jury, which indicted him with one count of soliciting prostitution. The charge was minor, leading to much criticism and causing the FBI to open a federal investigation against Epstein. But Epstein ended up serving a short 18-month sentence in 2008 for recruiting an underage girl for prostitution after he struck a plea deal with U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta to avoid being charged with any federal crimes.
Epstein later came back under scrutiny in 2018, after the Miami Herald looked at Acosta’s role in negotiating a short sentence for Epstein. In July 2019, Epstein was arrested after federal prosecutors looked at his behavior between 2002 and 2005.
The case against him revealed that the victims, some as young as 14, were paid to provide sexual services to him and his friends, and to recruit other young girls to his circle of victims. Epstein’s employees would also sexually abuse the young girls.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.
6. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, also did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.; 1985 by conspiring to deny Plaintiff Johnson her Civil Rights by making her their sex slave.
7. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only a minor of age 13.
8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.
9. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
10. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing her mouth upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.
11. On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance.
12. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fucking abortion".
13. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to disrobe into her bra and panties and to give a full body massage to Defendant Epstein while he was completely naked. During the massage, Defendant Epstein physically forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis with her bare hands and to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
14. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was again forced to disrobe into her bra and panties while giving Defendant Epstein a full body massage while he was completely naked. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was also present as he was getting his own massage from another minor, Jane Doe, age 13. Defendant Epstein forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis by physically placing her bare hands upon his sex organ and again forced Plaintiff Johnson to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.
15. Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a "Jew Bastard" as he yelled at Defendant Epstein, that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to "pop the cherry" of Plaintiff Johnson.
16. The third and final sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Kati Johnson, took place after Plaintiff Johnson had been brutally and savagely raped by Defendant Trump. While receiving another full body massage from Plaintiff Johnson, while in the nude, Defendant Epstein became so enraged after finding out that Defendant Trump had been the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity, that Defendant Epstein also violently raped Plaintiff Johnson. After forcing Plaintiff Johnson to disrobe into her bra and panties, while receiving a massage from the Plaintiff, Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's anal cavity with his erect penis while trying to restrain her. Plaintiff Johnson attempted to push Defendant Epstein away, at which time Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's vagina with his erect penis. This attempt to brutally sodomize and rape Plaintiff Johnson by Defendant Epstein was finally repelled by Plaintiff Johnson but not before Defendant Epstein was able to achieve sexual orgasm. After perversely sodomizing and raping the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff Johnson that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who "took her cherry, not Mr. Trump", before she finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein.
17. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was fully warned on more than one occasion by both Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, that were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse that she had suffered as a sex slave for Defendant Trump and Defendant Epstein, that Plaintiff Johnson and her family would be in mortal danger. Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and Plaintiff Johnson's family unless she remained silent forever on the exact details of the depraved and perverted sexual and physical abuse she had been forced to endure from the Defendants.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
18. Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Despite being subject to constant terroristic threats by Defendants Epstein and Trump to never reveal the details of these underage sex parties at which scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump, witness Tiffany Doe refuses to be silent any longer. She has agreed to fully reveal the extent of the sexual perversion and physical cruelty that she personally witnessed at these parties by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
19. Material witness Tiffany Doe fully confirms all of Plaintiff Katie Johnson's allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of Plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein's guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details directly to Defendant Epstein. Defendant Epstein also demanded that Tiffany Doe tell him personally everything she had overheard at these parties explaining to her that "knowledge was king" in the financial world. As a result of these underage sex parties, Defendant Epstein was able to accumulate inside business knowledge that he otherwise would never have been privy to in order to amass his huge personal fortune.
20. Material witness Tiffany Doe will testify that she was also present or had direct knowledge of each of the three instances on which Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein physically and sexually abused the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.
He was facing charges for sex trafficking and conspiracy in July 2019 when one month later, he died by suicide in a New York federal jail. The investigation continued after his passing, leading prosecutors to convict Maxwell for sex crimes in connection to her dealing with Epstein.
Here are other names high-profile mentioned in the documents:
Bill Clinton
The former president was mentioned in the documents released on Wednesday, in Sjoberg’s testimony that Epstein had told her “Clinton likes them young, referring to girls.” She also said that she knew Epstein had “dealings” with Clinton but did not know they were friends until later media reports.
The former president’s ties with Epstein has long been the subject of media scrutiny—intensified in the wake of the financier’s indictment. The two had connected while Clinton was working on his nonprofit group the Clinton Foundation, and in 2002, they took a trip to Africa on Epstein’s private jet.
In 2019, Clinton’s office said that the former president did not know about Epstein’s “terrible crimes,” and that he had not spoken to Epstein in “well over a decade.” A spokesperson for Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it has “been nearly 20 years since President Clinton last had contact with Epstein.”
Records show that Giuffre’s attorneys wanted to get a deposition from Clinton. Giuffre, the plaintiff in the defamation lawsuit against Maxwell, did not accuse the former president of doing anything with her, but attorneys saw Clinton as a “key person who can provide information about his close relationship with Defendant and Mr. Epstein and disapprove Ms. Maxwell’s claims.”
Donald Trump
The former president—whose relationship with Epstein was also widely reported—was also mentioned in Sjoberg’s 2016 deposition. Sjoberg testified that she and Epstein once made an impromptu stop in Atlantic City due to poor flying weather. Asked if she had given Trump a massage, Sjoberg said no. Trump once called Epstein a “terrific guy,” but later said he had a falling out with him. “I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years. I was not a fan of his,” Trump said in 2019.
Michael Jackson
Sjoberg recalled meeting late musician Michael Jackson at Epstein’s house in Palm Beach, but said no when asked if she had massaged him.
Sarah Kellen
Kellen, Epstein’s former assistant, was named in testimonies of victims detailing their encounters with Epstein. She was said to have helped schedule his “massages,” which his victims said was a euphemism for sexual services.
A judge had described Kellen as “a criminally responsible participant” in Epstein’s scheme.
But Kellen was never charged and has remained out of the public eye. Kellen said through a spokesperson in 2020 that she herself had been sexually and psychologically abused by Epstein for years.
Jean-Luc Brunel
Jean-Luc Brunel, a French modeling agent suspected of scouting girls for Epstein, killed himself in a Paris jail in 2022 while awaiting trial for rape accusations.
Giuffre said in her deposition that she was sent by Maxwell to have sex with Brunel “at many places.”The documents also say that Brunel would bring girls as young as twelve "to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein."
Bill Richardson
Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico who died in September, was also mentioned. Giuffre said in her deposition that Maxwell had instructed her to give Richardson a massage. In 2019, a spokesperson for Richardson denied he ever met Giuffre, according to Las Cruces Sun News.
Leslie Wexner
Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands (which owns Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works), was also mentioned in Maxwell’s deposition. When asked if she had ever provided Giuffre with “an outfit of a sexual nature to wear for Les Wexner,” Maxwell said “categorically no.”
Epstein was Wexner's money manager and a trustee of the Wexner Foundation During an L Brands investor conference in Sept. 2019, Wexner called Epstein's action "abhorrent." Wexner says he cut ties with Epstein in 2007.
Glenn Dubin
Hedge fund manager and billionaire Glenn Dubin was mentioned in the documents, with Giuffre testifying that “Ghislaine told me to go to Glenn Dubin and give him a massage, which means sex,” Giuffre said in her deposition.
Dubin has previously denied Giuffre’s allegations.
Dubin’s wife, Eva Andersson-Dubin, was also referenced in the unsealed documents. Maxwell said in her deposition that she was friends with Andersson-Dubin.
Alan Dershowitz
Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s lawyer, was also mentioned in the newly-released records. The documents say that Epstein forced a minor to have sex with the former Harvard law professor multiple times. The documents also say that Dershowitz “was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein’s co-conspirators.
Dershowitz would later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Epstein’s behalf.” NPA stands for non-prosecution agreement, which allowed Epstein to avoid serving a severe sentence when he was first charged with soliciting a minor for prostitution.
“Of course I’m on that list, I was his lawyer. I flew on his plane,” said Dershowitz in a Youtube livestream after the list came out.
Marvin Minsky
Computer scientist and former MIT professor Marvin Minsky was also mentioned in the documents. Giuffre said she was asked to have sex with Minsky when he went to Epstein’s island in the U.S. Virgin Island
Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper on the True History of Jeffrey Epstein and Ongoing Cover-Up by Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper Streamed live on Jul 17, 2025 The Tucker Carlson Show [Lightly edited]
The true history of the Jeffrey Epstein case, from America’s most honest historian. Darryl Cooper, live.
Darryl Cooper is the creator of The Martyr Made Podcast, and is the co-host of The Unraveling w/Jocko Willink, and Provoked w/Scott Horton. He lives with his family on his farm in Idaho.
Transcript
Daryl Cooper, ladies and gentlemen. It feels so naughty and forbidden to be sitting here with you. It's like getting caught in a strip bar. Just kidding I'm so grateful that you came.
Not everyone feels that way.
I just want to dispense with the political aspect of this by reading a verbat. I don't have the tape for some reason, but this was my old friend Marc Levin on his show today. And this is the transcript that I got and it actually says in parentheses, "screaming like an old woman." I don't know if that was actually on Fox or not, but I'm quoting, "Why are these insane, knuckleheaded, know nothings, these propagandists, these demagogues, given platforms?"
Someone gave us a platform? Amazing "By God, I'm gonna take this crap on for as long as I live because it's destroying our youth and destroying their minds."
Glad he's standing up. Somebody has to.
That guy sounds like a monster. Who's he talking about? You and me? So I think it'd be really fun to spend maybe three hours, you know, being mean to Mark Levin. I've already done that. I want to create a documentary record. You've already done this with your podcast, but for people who haven't seen it, I want to create a documentary record here of everything that we know, or think we know, without too much speculation. Just like, stick to the facts about Jeffrey Epstein, the basic questions of Jeffrey Epstein. I feel like I know a lot about this topic. You know much more than I know. So without further preamble and just being clear, I'm not here to make political points about this, or comment on the unfolding drama around it, which is quite remarkable. I don't really understand it. So people tuning in to learn what is happening at the White House or in the Congress about this, I can't really say at this point. There will be time for that. But for right now, I'd really just like to learn about Jeffrey Epstein. So with that, who was Jeffrey Epstein?
Jeffrey Epstein just started out as a normal guy. Born in Coney Island, 1953, in the 1950s. First record we really have of him, when he appears for us, is in 1974, when he's hired to teach mathematics at the Dalton School, which is an elite private school in New York City. Now I'm not familiar with New York city K-12 education system, but I'm told it's a very elite place that can have their pick of mathematics teachers from all over the world if they want it.
And so they hire a guy who's 20 years old, who dropped out of college after two years at Cooper Union, with no teaching experience, to teach math at this school, basically at the age of 20?
At the age of 20, basically, on the strength of a meeting with the headmaster of the school at the time, a guy by the name of Donald Barr.
Who was Donald Barr?
Yeah, so that name might sound familiar. Donald Barr is a very interesting character, not least because his son, Bill Barr, was the Attorney General who had Jeffrey Epstein arrested and oversaw his death in the federal jail that he was in.
Can I just ask you. I already said I wouldn't interject, but I'm asking to pause already. What are the statistical actual odds that the Attorney General of the United States who arrested Jeffrey Epstein, oversaw his death, declared his death a suicide before the investigation ended, is the son of the guy who hired Jeffrey Epstein at age 20, with no teaching experience or college degree, to teach at one of the most prestigious schools in Manhattan? What are the odds? If you were like, hey, Grok, what are the odds? What do you think the odds are of that?
Well, whatever the odds are, let's add a few more zeros to that. Okay, so Donald Barr was also somebody who used to work for the OSS, which was the precursor to the CIA, back during World War II. So he has that connection. Donald Barr also dabbled in science fiction writing in his spare time. One of the books that he wrote is called Space Relations, and he wrote it right around this time that he hired Jeffrey Epstein. And I've read the book, and you can go read about it on Wikipedia. It's close enough to basically what the plot is, if you want to get the idea of it. The long and short is --
But you read the book?
Oh, yeah, I have. I have a copy. I make sure I get a copy of things like that. I've got a copy of it. You know, I went out and made sure I got a copy of the Architectural Digest in Washington, Life magazines that profiled Tony Podesta's house and art collection. Just in case, you know, just in case it disappears.
And so, yeah, I got a copy of it. I read it. It's not a good book. It's a pulpy kind of L. Ron Hubbard style science fiction book, sort of. But the basic plot of it involves the main character who is kidnapped and sold into slavery on this alien planet that's ruled by seven oligarchs who just have been corrupted by their power and their wealth to the point where they're basically insane. And they spend most of their time breeding young slaves and kidnapping children from around the universe to bring them home and use them as sex slaves. And the main character, he is given to the one female oligarch on the planet. And at first, you know, he's sort of one of her slaves and victims, but then she takes a liking to him and he joins her and, and participates in what's going on. And there are scenes in there right near the beginning, there's a scene of these grotesque aliens that kidnapped the guy, one of them makes the prisoners watch while he rapes a 15 year old virginal redhead. And so these are the books that Donald Barr, former OSS agent, father of Bill Barr, the Attorney General who had Jeffrey Epstein arrested and oversaw his death wrote. These are the kind of books that he was writing at the time that he hired the most notorious pedophile in American history. So whatever the odds of the first part were, you can probably add a few zeros to that. And we can keep adding zeros if you want.
I do. I mean, it's hard to believe that this is real, but it is real. What you're describing is real.
Yeah, totally real, totally verifiable. This is not stuff you're going to find on fringe websites. You can find it in any mainstream story about it, Wikipedia even, whatever.
So Bill Barr himself, you know, he was an intelligence connected guy, very deeply. His first job out of college was as an intern for the CIA in the mid-70s. And that doesn't sound like much until you learn that he was a legal intern with the CIA whose job was to be the liaison to Congress during the Church & Pike Committee hearings that were really like the first and only time that the CIA has faced a real threat of of oversight and and clamping down on its activities. And so this was a very, very critical time when a lot of the agency secrets were coming out and they were facing the possibility of, well, they didn't know. I mean, the Agency might have gotten shut down, you know, if this had gone badly for them. And so Bill Barr is the legal intern, who is the liaison. And what that meant was, you know, he was the guy that when Congress requested some documents, he goes back to the agency and says, here's what they want, okay, well, here's what we can give them. And he goes back and convinces them that this is all there is, or that they don't need the rest, or anything like that. He was that guy who smoothed that over and made it work. And he apparently did a very good job because the boss of the CIA at the time was George H.W. Bush. George H.W. Bush was elected president 1988, took over in 89, and he brought in Bill Barr to be his Attorney General, who's really who spent most of his time like, at least the big story that was going on at the time was cleaning up what was left of the Iran Contra affair. And so you have the guy who was the legal intern for the CIA during the Church and Pike Committee hearings brought in by the director of the CIA at the time to be the Attorney General who is cleaning up the Iran Contra affair that took place, obviously, while Bush was the Vice president. Bill Barre goes into the private sector for a while, then reemerges when Donald Trump needs an Attorney General of his own. Not for any particular reason, I guess, he just happens to arrest the guy that his father gave his first job to, a job that he was totally unqualified for, and to a guy who had proclivities that most of us find very strange and unacceptable and are very, very rare, but coincidentally happened to be the very topic that Donald Barr, Bill Barr's father, liked to write books about.
So very strange. It could all be a coincidence, but the odds are against that. That's a remarkable story.
And I believe, and I said it to him, that Bill Barr as Attorney General helped cover up Epstein's death, the details of his death.
Again, we hear the facts. The facts are that he declared it a suicide before they'd finished the investigation or even really began the investigation. So that alone suggests dishonesty, Or lack of rigor or something.
What happened to Jeffrey Epstein at Dalton? How long was he there?
He was there for about a year and a half, two years only, and then he was fired for poor performance, is how it got written up. And maybe it was that he had no teaching experience, and no college degree. It may have just been he was a bad math teacher. But there are people who had children as students at the time who actually say he was a good math teacher. So maybe it had to do with something else. Maybe it had to do with the fact that there were already allegations. So maybe it had to do with something else. Maybe it had to do with the fact that there were already allegations against Jeffrey Epstein by the girls he was teaching at this high school of inappropriate behavior. He would even show up to high school parties sometimes where kids were drinking and partying, and he would show up as the teacher, the adult, and kind of just try to join in. So there were those complaints that were going on. But while he was at Dalton School before he got run out, the father of one of the students he was teaching was the CEO of the investment bank Bear Stearns at the time. Ace Greenberg, he's known as. And Epstein approached, I've heard it was Barr himself. I don't know if that's the case, but he approached somebody who was one of his bosses, or one of the people who had brought him into the school, and asked if he would make the introduction to Ace Greenberg, and put in a good word for him. And so he meets Greenberg, and when he gets run out of Dalton, he brings him on at Bear Stearns and they put him to work. So by this point, Jeffrey Epstein's like 22, 21, thereabouts. This is 1976. I think he was born in 53. So yeah, 23 years old maybe. With no college degree, but two years of college at Cooper Union, and he's been a high school math teacher. And he got basically fired from that job. And he gets hired at Bear Stearns.
He gets hired at Bear Stearns. Is that normal?
I couldn't tell you, especially back then. I'm not really sure.
Does it sound normal? It doesn't sound normal, but whatever.
So he gets brought in and the story goes that they put him on the options desk at first, but he was not very good at it, or not very engaged or interested. And so they put him in their special products division where Jimmy Cain, who took over as CEO of Bear Stearns from Ace Greenberg, described what Epstein did there in the special products division. And basically, in Wall street financial speak, he said that his job was to help wealthy clients hide their money and to create tax advantageous transactions, that kind of thing. But it was to help wealthy clients hide their money. And while he was doing that, he met and came into contact with a lot of well known people who became very important for the rest of his life. Wealthy clients. And one of them was Edgar Bronfman, who will come up later in our story. He's one of the heirs to the Seagram's liquor fortune. A very connected guy. We'll probably get to that in a while. But that only lasts four years. He's there at Bear Stearns from 76 to 1980, and then he gets run out of Bear Stearns for a regulatory violation. And the story kind of goes like that. The official story from the people who were all involved in it at the time was that he was breaking the rules and they were very, very, very upset about it. But apparently he stayed friends, close friends, with Ace Greenberg and Jimmy Kane for a long time after that. And he banked with Bear Stearns all the way up until the time the investment bank collapsed in 2008. So there weren't that many hard feelings apparently. But he left. And I think the reason for it is probably pretty obvious. He just got a little too aggressive, and flew a little too close to the sun doing the job that they had hired him to do, and so he had to leave because there was a violation. They didn't want the attention and everything. But he landed on his feet. He stayed friends with the people who hired him, and this is where it gets really interesting.
So again, to go over his resume, he does two years of college, drops out, gets hired as a high school math teacher, is run out of that job ignominiously, either for poor performance or for harassing his female students. Then he goes to work for Bear Stearns, does that for just a few years, and gets run out of there for a regulatory violation. And that is his resume at this point.
There's nothing else I'm leaving out. The very next year, this would make him, I guess, 28 years old in 1981, we have him on a private airplane with a big time British arms broker named Douglas Lease, who was a very big player back in the 1980s. He's on a private plane to go to a meeting at the Pentagon with this guy.
Okay, not for the first time, I'm going to stop you and say it doesn't make any sense at all.
Not if you're looking at it in a conventional way, it doesn't. Not if you assume the world works in the ways that we're told it works. That doesn't make any sense, right? And so you have to ask what is it that a guy like Douglas Lease would want? What interest would he have in a guy like Jeffrey Epstein even if he was a money man of some kind? Presumably a guy like that can have any money man he wants. Why does he need a guy like Jeffrey Epstein? And I think the answer is, and this is the answer that a lot of researchers have come to over the years, and I think it's the most obvious one, at least the simplest, is that when you look at the kind of things that somebody like Lease would do, it's not as if Lease owned a weapons manufacturer. That's not what he did. He was a fixer. He was a guy who made the deals happen. He made sure the right people got paid off and that everything was kind of smoothed over so that these things would go through. He was mentioned, for example, in the UK Parliament in the 1980s in reference to the Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest weapons deal in UK history, I think to this day. BAE Systems alone has made $46 billion off this deal over the years. And I think that was up through 2010 or something. So it's probably higher now. But there have been allegations from politicians, from lawyers, journalists, other weapons companies who were upset about their competition getting a leg up this way, that there was bribery, there was all kinds of shady stuff going on behind the scenes to make sure that the deal went the way that they wanted it to go. And, you know, you think a guy like Lease, whose job is to go around and make sure that people are being paid off with illicit funds that cannot be traced, because then you end up like Lockheed Martin did when they got caught bribing officials in Japan to sign off on a weapons deal there, and nobody wants that, you got to hide your money better. You got to figure out how to do that in a way that nobody's going to track it. And that's why you need a guy like Jeffrey Epstein. You're not going to be able to walk in the front door of Goldman Sachs and say, "I need to talk to one of your money managers. Hey, can you launder this money for me?" You need a guy who's morally compromised, who is willing to get down in the dirt and do this kind of work. And that is what Jeffrey Epstein had just spent the last four years at Bear Stearns doing. I can't remember ever coming across how it is he met Lease. It was probably through the wealthy clients that he was working for there at Bear Stearns. So that when he did get run out, they made sure he landed on his feet, and he was doing something that he could actually succeed at.
And so you go through the 1980s, and Lease is the guy who introduces him to Robert Maxwell. He introduces him to a lot of big players and figures in European politics and in the economy, and introduces him to Maxwell. And Maxwell introduces him to his daughter Ghislaine, who became his partner in crime, I guess you'd say, over the years. And Robert Maxwell's a super interesting character because, you know, this is the reason that I brought up near the beginning that there's a lot of people out there who just want to talk about the Epstein list. They want there to be a safe that the FBI opens up, or drills a hole and cracks into, and then there's a ledger signed in blood. "I, Jeffrey Epstein, compromise these famous movie stars and politicians on these days." That's what people want. They're not going to get that. That kind of thing doesn't exist. The really interesting aspect of it is encapsulated in just one incident, and I guess this came out after Epstein was arrested during the first Trump administration, that Alexander Acosta, who was Trump's Labor Secretary at the time, he had been the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida in charge of prosecuting Epstein's first sex crimes case back in the mid 2000s. And we'll get to all this later, but Epstein was given a very, very, to call it a light sentence is being very generous. I'll get into the details of how it all came together and what the actual sentence was later. But he was asked in his vetting process, Alexander Acosta, "Hey, if this comes up, this is a potential scandal. You gave this pedophile with all these victims, and they had like 40 witnesses in the 2007, 2008 case on the record, corroborating each other's stories independently. I mean, this was the most open and shut case you can imagine." We'll get into the case here in a bit. But he was asked, "How could you? What's your excuse for giving this guy the deal that you gave him? Because it's kind of crazy." And he said, "Well, I was told that Epstein belonged to Intelligence, and to leave it alone." Now this is from an unnamed source in the administration who was involved in that vetting process, as told to the journalist Vicki Ward. I don't think Ward would make that up, and I don't think she would embellish it.
Well, I have something to add to this, which is true, and I would be delighted to talk to Mr. Acosta anytime, by the way, so I say this with a caveat that he's not said this to me, but I believe that he's been asked about that, and that he did not deny it. And that his response was, "That's true, but I don't remember who said it to me." Well, how many people can tell the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida to drop a case against a pedophile with 40 on the record witnesses corroborating each other's stories? There's not very many people who can tell them to do that. There's not many people who can murder an inmate in federal lockup in Manhattan either. I mean, who's Acosta going to take that order from that has enough juice that he's going to say, "Yes, boss," and actually go do that? The Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General, maybe. I mean, there's just not that many people who can do that. And we'll get into this later. It was just incredibly shady how it was handled from day one. Anyway, I'll put that aside, because the interesting thing is, I don't know if they put people under oath when they do these vettings -- probably not -- but he told somebody in a setting where it mattered, and where he wasn't being watched. It's behind closed doors. He said that Epstein belonged to Intelligence, which could mean a lot of things. A lot of people want to hear that he worked for the CIA, or the Mossad, or something like that. But there's a lot of wiggle room there.
I think Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli prime minister, just came out recently and said, "I can say categorically that Jeffrey Epstein did not work for the Mossad." Okay, so he wasn't an employee of the Mossad. Was he an asset of Israeli military intelligence? You know, Bennett's not lying, but he's kind of not telling the whole truth either. And so you got to be careful with the wiggle room in the words that people use. Maybe I'm missing something here -- I'm not a journalist or anything -- but I would think that when there is a story like the Jeffrey Epstein story, that every time any little piece of information has dropped about the Epstein story ever since he was arrested, it doesn't matter what it is, any little drib and drab, it goes viral. It is the number one story that night. It gives the highest ratings of any show or anything. Whoever talks about it, whatever it is, everybody wants more information on this story. It's just too good to be true from like a network or newspaper perspective, right. You talk about a billionaire playboy who has connections with world governments and the U.S. Government, including wealthy famous people, business owners, people that everybody has heard of and sees on TV all the time, that he was running a mass pedophile ring. And the labor secretary under Donald Trump, who was the guy in charge of prosecuting him in 2007, said that he belonged to intelligence. I would think that every newspaper in the country, and every cable news channel in the country, would have a team of reporters camped out on that dude's lawn to stick a microphone in his face every time he left his house and say, "What did you mean by that? Can we get some kind of clarity on whether this pedophile belonged to Intelligence? But we don't get that. And when you don't get things like that, you get a lot of room for speculation. It's kind of justified speculation. And instead you get a lot of emphasis on the sex part, which deserves attention, of course. These are sex crimes that are in some cases against minors. It's horrible, not acceptable. But the other parts are completely ignored. Like what was this guy doing, this Cooper Union non graduate who worked at Bear Stearns? And then he's with an arms dealer flying to a meeting at the Pentagon. Like take three steps back. What is that? Hired by a guy in his first job who had connections to intelligence through the OSS, and whose son was a CIA connected guy.
So the reason I threw out all of these intelligence connections, all this circumstantial stuff that doesn't attach necessarily, the fact that Donald Barr worked for the OSS back during the war, that his son Bill Barr worked for the CIA, that doesn't mean anything about Epstein. I think his son Bill Barr spent six years at the CIA. So he wasn't just an intern, he was an employee. But it's not just circumstantial because you have apparently the former labor secretary, former U.S. attorney, federal prosecutor, saying he belonged to Intelligence. So anyway, I'm not trying to justify my interest in this, because I don't think it needs justifying. But I think the people who haven't covered the material parts of the story that actually matters, they need to justify their lack of interest in it. It's natural to start asking questions when a question that would occur to anybody who just heard a five minute synopsis of the story, and they're from Mars, and they have never heard any of it before, you tell them the short story, a five minute version of it that I just told you, and the first thing they're going to ask is, "Well, what did he mean when he said that Epstein belonged to Intelligence? What's going on there?" And you can't get a journalist to ask that question, right? And so it's natural for us to start wondering why that is. Because this bears on the purpose of this interview, the purpose of all questions that I've ever raised about Epstein, the central question is, "Who runs the world? Who's making the decisions, and on whose behalf?" This idea that there are 100, whatever, nation states, each acting on its own, that's not true. And so what is true? This may point us in that direction.
When we go back to the 1980s, I mean, it's just such a fascinating time, because in the Iran Contra deal, -- Mike Benz likes to point this out, and he's great on all of the Epstein stuff in the 80s, and a lot of the intelligence shenanigans in general going on back then -- is that it really provides a window into the question you're asking right now. "Who runs the world? Who's actually in charge of everything that's going on? How is power structured, and how does it operate? And if you go back to the Church and Pike Committee hearings, then you roll into the Carter administration where he brings Admiral Stansfield Turner to run the CIA, and basically gives him a directive to pare down the agency's operational commitments and the things that it does in the field, and you start focusing more on what Truman thought he was getting himself into, which was, you know, a bunch of analysts to help keep the President informed as he made decisions, and by all accounts, Admiral Turner tried to do that job with some enthusiasm, then you get to the point where by the 1980s, the CIA's ability to operate is under a lot of scrutiny, and limited in ways that it never had been before. I mean, if you go back to 50s, 60s and 70s, I mean, the CIA were just cowboys.
They're dosing elephants with LSD. They're visiting Jack Ruby in prison and turning him crazy.
And so it's right at the time their activities are being curtailed, and they are under a lot of scrutiny, that you start to see the emergence of the system that we have now that, that pops up again and again whenever we end up in a place like Ukraine, or just anywhere, where you have institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy, or USAID, a lot of these organizations that are not actually the CIA. You have like one of the former heads of the National Endowment for Democracy in an interview almost bragging in his tone, saying, "We do all the jobs that the CIA used to do." And so the CIA was outsourced. You know, the CIA is under scrutiny of course. And so that's when you get guys like Epstein who are, you know, they're not economists, or finance guys that are hired by the Agency and given an office in the CIA, a GS rank or something. They're freelancers; they're mercenaries. They work for the CIA today, they might work for MI6 tomorrow, and they might work for the Mossad or Israeli Defense Intelligence the next day. And so that's one of the things a lot of people want to hear, that he was an agent of this organization and have it nice and patent tight like that. And it may be that he did more work for one than the other, he had more loyalty to one than the other, and things like that. When you look at his various connections, that we'll get into, maybe there's conclusions to draw there. But he was one of these guys who was kind of a freelance fixer, that would be used by the intelligence communities of various countries. I assume he wouldn't go run off and do it for Russian intelligence back in the 1980s. But as you said, you know, the idea that there's 100 something independent nation states all acting in their own interest, that's a fiction today, and it was a fiction yesterday, and it was a fiction in the 1980s. So where exactly is the line? And it shifts from decade to decade depending on what's going on. But where exactly is the line between the CIA and MI6? They're different. They compete with each other in various ways and so forth. But to say that they're two just totally separate independent agencies that are acting alone, that's obviously just not true. And so Epstein was an asset of this network of intelligence agencies that would do these things together.
And you know, he was deeply involved with the money side of the Iran Contra scandal. One of the men that Douglas Lease introduced him to, besides Robert Maxwell, was Adnan Khashoggi, and the last name probably sounds familiar to people from the news recently. His nephew was the Washington Post columnist, or editorialist, who was chopped up into little pieces in the Turkish Embassy by the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul by the Saudis who had taken him. And Adnan Khashoggi was his uncle and he's the real Khashoggi.
They're only like four families that control the world. So far we have the Bush's, the Barrs, the Khashoggi's. So everybody's reoccurring in this story. Well, even the Khashoggis are kind of an example of what I'm talking about here where it's useful to not be a part of the royal family; he's a cutout. These people are cutouts, because that's what you need. But it gets to a point where. they get a little bit too loose, too public, they start doing things that are drawing too much attention, so you can cut them loose without cause real internal strife. And that's what happened with Adnan Khashoggi, who eventually went to jail.
So Adnan Khashoggi was like the comic book version of your Arab billionaire. Just sort of very decadent. Everything gold. A crazy giant yacht that was later bought by Donald Trump, actually. But Adnan Khashoggi had a harem, the whole thing. Like whatever you think that somebody like that would be like, that's what he was. And at the same time, he was apparently a very devout Muslim, which seems like a contradiction. But people I know who knew him say he's a good guy. Yeah, isn't that funny?
Immediately after he left, the tall blonde who had been talking to another man came over to sit next to me.
"I see you know my boyfriend," she said cockily.
"No, I don't know him. Is he your boyfriend? Who is he?" I replied innocently.
"Why, he is the host of this party. He owns this house. Really, don't you know him?"
"No. Tony invited me here, and he didn't tell me whose party this was."
The girl saw that I was obviously not competition.
"Why, that's Adnan Kashoggi," she replied as if I should know him.
"I never heard of him," I said.
She threw back her head and laughed.
"He is just the richest man in the world, that's all. Where are you from anyway? You will surely hear about him if you stay here very long," She left and went over to her "boyfriend," giving him a playful kiss on his bald head....
We met our most generous givers at parties where Sharon and Breeze were commissioned to sing. At one of these parties I met Adnan Kashoggi again. We had been invited by Salim to sing for a small affair to be held in a private room in the Hotel de Paris. By the way he described the event, I understood that we could flirt. I brought both Sharon and Breeze, and from the amount of money Salim gave me for the party, I knew this was important. It turned out to be a special dinner party for a rich Arab business associate of Salim, and his girlfriend. My experience had taught me that the presence of girlfriends had no bearing on anything. As soon as I entered the dark, paneled room, I recognized our honored guest as the famed Kashoggi from the Cannes party I had attended more than a year ago. His new girlfriend was a stunningly beautiful Italian. Kashoggi did not indicate that he had seen me before, but he was visibly impressed with our music and especially our message. He wanted to know what the lyrics meant, so I translated songs that were not in English for him.
Discussing the event afterward, we thought that Kashoggi had been making eyes at Sharon. However, when Salim met with me later that evening, he gave me surprising insight into the thoughts of the Arab billionaire.
"Adnan would like to know if Sharon is married," he said, when I arrived in his suite after midnight, as planned.
"Yes, she is," I answered. "However, she will be glad to spend time with him if he likes her."
"No. Adnan would not allow that to be," responded Salim gravely. "He will not willingly be with another man's wife."
"Is that because of his religion?"
"I cannot answer you truthfully. I have many friends who are Muslim, and this does not bother them. But Adnan will not do that."
"You know that I am still married," I said quietly, with my eyes averted. I was not sure if Salim had ever considered that fact.
"Of course I know. However, you have been separated from your husband for years, and he is living with another woman, who has his child."
"You know that?" I asked, surprised that Salim could remember details of my personal life with all the international business affairs he was involved in.
"Yes, I know more, too," he responded, looking deeply into my eyes. He broke into a warm smile. "And besides, I am not Muslim. I am Christian Lebanese, remember?"
"So, what did Adnan say? Was he interested in us?"
"Yes, he is very interested. He noticed that you and I pass forbidden glances to each other. He noticed that Sharon is a mother and a mother-to-be. He also notices that Breeze could be exciting in the bedroom."
"He can read people well," I said, amazed at the accuracy of judgment that Adnan achieved through such a brief contact.
"Of course, that is why he does so well in business. Do you think spirituality stops at the doors of religion?"
"Well, would he like Breeze to see him?"
"Yes. A chauffeur will come for her tomorrow night. Will she be at home?"
"I will make sure she is," I responded with my impresario authority. Of course, this transaction made me more of a madam than a manager, but it was for a good cause. Do the ends justify the means? That is always the big question, and I had decided that sometimes it does not have a yes or no answer. It depends on what ends and what means. Witnessing to Adnan Kashoggi, who clearly had great influence over a large number of people, seemed comparable to the role of Queen Esther, in the Bible, given in marriage to a heathen king in order to eventually save her people. And as with Queen Esther, who was only one of many wives available to the king, Breeze was pursuing a good end. If she hadn't been sleeping with strangers while here in the Family, she would be doing it out in the world and might end up with a terrible disease. Or a broken heart. At least here, she was protected by God's Spirit.
Breeze began a long and prosperous relationship with Adnan that lasted for years. Every time she met with him for a few hours, she returned with wonderful testimonies of his spiritual growth, and an envelope stuffed with thousands of dollars. With both Adnan and Salim as regular fish, we would never have had financial worries again, had it not been for Timothy's economic plan.
Good guy. But he was one of these fixers. He was in fact, probably in the 1980s for a long time, probably the most prominent fixer when it came to weapons brokering, and things like that. And this really kicked into super high gear in the 90s. But it's already going on in the 80s as the Soviet Union was starting to fall apart. Russia had a first world empire's military arsenal that was just going on sale by every colonel who had control of an armory or something, who were putting this stuff on the market because everybody could look around and realize that the ship's sinking, and they are pulling the nice brass doorknobs and sink fixtures off of things so they can escape. And that was happening even in the 1980s. And that's why, when you look around the world back then, there were civil wars, and militias kicking off revolutions. And everyone had AKs, and all the Russian made gear, because it was all being sold off by whoever could get their hands on it in the Soviet Union. We're talking billions, tens and hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons that are hitting the world black market, right? And Adnan Khashoggi, at this really critical time in the history of the post war order, but also the history of the intelligence communities in the west and other places, just like Douglas Lease, he doesn't own a weapons manufacturing company. He's the guy who makes the deals happen. He's a fixer. He's a guy who goes between different parties who maybe don't speak the same language, whatever. And he makes sure the right people get paid. He knows who gets paid for all these things. So, in the 1980s, when he was working on the books for companies like Lockheed Martin, there was one year where they paid him like $180 million, which in the 1980s was probably half a billion dollars in today's money. Another year, they paid him $210 million. And he's not manufacturing anything. He's not actually buying anything.
He's merely the middleman, correct?
He is the middleman, and the deal man. That's a lot. That's a big vig. And so a lot of that money is not being kept by him. It's being paid out to the people who will make all this happen. But a huge amount of it's going to him.
So after Jeffrey Epstein leaves Bear Stearns, and around the same time that he ends up on that private plane with Douglas Lease on his way to the Pentagon, he starts his own company. And as far as anybody's ever been able to find out, as far as I've ever been able to find out, and I have looked, he had one client, and that client was Adnan Khashoggi. And so that's just another connection.
So I was alive and reading the newspaper then. Adan Khashoggi was one of the most famous people in the world. He was in the New York Times and the National Enquirer and the New York Post. Like, everyone knew who he was. How does this guy with two failed jobs, and two years at Cooper Union, end up starting a company where his only client is Adnan Khashoggi? No, I'm serious.
Well, I think the answer is that the company was set up so that he could do a job, right?
So how does he get connected With Adnan Khashoggi?
Through Douglas Lease.
How does he get connected to Douglas Lease?
Well, I assume through his wealthy clientele when he was laundering money at Bear Stearns. That's how he met a lot of the people that would later become important to him.
So you got to admire his pluck. He was a hustler, man. You know, that's definitely true. I think when people get up to that level of power, even athletes, political figures, or anyone like that, there's often an obsessive impulse that drives them to be very successful, but often disorders the personality, according to people I know. But it's interesting. It's amazing how many people he intersected with.
I remember when Anthony Blinken became secretary of state. And I had been following the Epstein story, and all the connections with it, for a long time by then. So I knew that Anthony Blinken's stepfather was Robert Maxwell's closest confidant, his lawyer, and the last person to speak to him before he died, before he was murdered. And we'll get to that, too. But I've learned over the years not to place too many demands on our ruling class. I don't want to get all crazy. I'm not going to tell you guys to stop taking bribes. That's all fine. Just keep the bribes, whatever. Can we have one major public official that is not at least a single degree separated from Jeffrey Epstein? Is that possible? Because apparently it's not possible. You got Donald Trump talking about the issue the other day on camera, and the guy standing next to him is Howard Lutnick, who was Epstein's neighbor for years. Can we just get one important person who's not one degree or less separated from the most prolific mass pedophile in United States history? Is that possible? Because apparently it's not.
You may be answering the question, "Why is the press not as interested in this story as they would under other circumstances be?" I have the feeling if you were accused of being a mass pedophile, there would be more media interest in it than Epstein.
They would love that. Yeah. When you're somebody like me, or probably somebody like you, it's good that we don't drink, and we lead pretty boring lives.
So Douglas Lease ends up on this plane with Epstein, and goes to a meeting at the Pentagon, presumably about arm sales. We're not exactly sure how he got into the company of Douglas Lease, but we assume it's because he was set up by one of his clients at Bear Stearns, from which he was fired, and in a job that he was apparently set up by Donald Barr to get. Then he sets up this company to work with or for Adnan Khashoggi. What happens next?
So there's not a whole lot of detail on Epstein during this period, but there is a lot of detail on guys like Adnan Khashoggi. And so you can kind of read between the lines as he progresses through Adnan Khashoggi, who was the chief guy that we used in the Middle east to broker and fix the Iran side of the Iran Contra deal. And maybe younger people aren't familiar with what Iran Contra was. Probably a lot of people watching this are fans of Reagan, and the Reagan administration, and all that, and that's fine. But I mean, the Iran Contra deal, if it wasn't high treason, especially on the Iran side, it was an inch away from it. I mean, this is a declared enemy of the United States. We have a law, an embargo, forbidding the United States government, or any company that is in the United States, from selling weapons to the Iranians. And that's what we were doing.
So the brief summary of the Iran Contra scandal was we had two things that our intelligence agencies, our security establishment, wanted to do, but they were not allowed to do them. One was the Iran-Iraq wars going on. And our interest in that war, at the time at least, was just to keep it going as long as possible. There is something really evil, I think, about funding and providing support to both sides of a war for the express purpose of just making it go on longer. But from a cold hearted strategic perspective, you can understand what people were thinking at least. But that's what we wanted to do. Saddam Hussein was having success on the battlefield. We wanted to make sure that the Iranians stuck around a little bit longer, and Saddam didn't get too powerful, because that's what we were worried about at the time. And the other thing we wanted to do is provide support for The Nicaraguan Contras, who were fighting the Sandinista government down in Nicaragua. In the early 1980s, an amendment to a budget was passed in the House called the Boland Amendment, which passed 477 - 0 which, if you're a President, you can defy Congress to a degree, but if it's 477 - 0, you're probably playing with fire if you want to do that.
So we really, really, really wanted to support the Contras against the communist government in Nicaragua. And the Boland Amendment, what it said was you can't send any U.S. Government funds to the Contras. It can't go to them as weapons. It can't go to them as cookies.
So you got two things that the security establishment really wants to do that they're forbidden by law from doing. And they bring both of those things together, and figure out how to make one hand kind of wash the other. The idea was that we're going to sell weapons to Iran, which we're also not allowed to do, but we are allowed to sell weapons to Israel. And Israel has a lot of the same weapon systems that we want to send to Iran. So we're going to sell them to Israel, working through guys like Adnan Khashoggi, who are going to get those weapons to Iran. And we're not selling anything to Iran, we're selling to Israel. Iran's going to pay a premium for these weapons, and that premium is off the books. And that is going to be used to support the Contras. So that was basically the scheme.
Now when you're doing something like that, all you have to do is look at any big mafia court case, or watch a mob movie where they go to court, to see it's always the money. The money is how you get caught doing stuff like this. People think of money laundering as this boring sideshow when it comes to organized crime, or their cousins in the intelligence community. It's not a sideshow. It's right at the center of the thing. The whole operation relies on money laundering, because you have to be able to hide what you're doing. Following the money is the easiest way to trace out networks, and what they're doing, and who is a part of them. I mean, you can figure out everything from it. Who the most significant players are in the network, and all these things just by looking at their money. And so you have to have guys like Jeffrey Epstein, who spent four years at Bear Stearns, and a few years since then when he starts working for Khashoggi, who figure out how to move money offshore, move it around through different countries, over time, changing jurisdictions. Because, you got to remember, this was back before the Internet or anything like that. It was not exactly an easy process to just hop on your computer and look at how these transactions are being passed, right? Of course, the global financial system is a different world today for that reason, it's tougher. Back then, you probably had to send investigators to the country, go to that bank and look at their records kind of thing. But still, you needed a guy like Epstein who was skilled at moving money around, and hiding it in ways that would be hard to trace. And it would pass at first glance. If you get a really skilled forensic accounting team at the Department of Justice, who really dedicates themselves to it, they can figure it out, but it just needs to pass at a glance, so that some congressman's not taking a look at it, you know. So Epstein is one of the guys, presumably one of multiple guys, who was working the financial side. I'm not sure 100% about that, but I presume they weren't only relying on this one guy for all these things that were going on.
Who was handling the money and making sure that was done in Iran Contra?
Well, he was working for Adnan Khashoggi doing that. I don't have any document or anything that says Jeffrey Epstein specifically was working with the intelligence agency on Iran contra, or anything like that. We know he was doing work for Khashoggi that involved this kind of thing, because that's what the company did. And he's an American, who, due to Donald Barr, has rubbed up against people who are familiar with the intel world.
Also, if you're working with people like Douglas Lease, Adnan Khashoggi, Robert Maxwell, you're right in the middle of it. And that's the thing that just blows my mind, that there's a connection between Jeffrey Epstein and Iran Contra. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I mean, Iran Contra, is sort of like Patient Zero for understanding the power structure in the modern world. In a lot of ways, it really is. It's so fascinating. I remember it well, and knew people who were involved in it very well. And I thought it was all fake. It was years before I realized it was a meaningful thing. And I think many conservatives and Republicans -- I'm still a conservative Republican, but I try to be more honest and thoughtful than I once was. So that is a big thing that the intelligence agencies did. And no one was ever really punished for it. And the people that were are kind of celebrities now. And I just want to say for the record, I think a lot of those people were patriots. But you get caught up in the cult of the Cold War. And sometimes I tell people that I don't like a lot of the stuff that went on in the Cold War. There are a lot of things that the U.S. did that I wish weren't in our history books, that historians 500 years from now are going to read about us. But for the people at the time, I knew them.
No, I agree. And Ollie north is the famous one. And what a nice man! What a good man! So I just want to say that, but Ollie north is not the one who designed the scheme. He was a colonel at the time, in the Marine Corps. He was doing what he was asked to do, whatever. So that's just amazing that Epstein was involved in that. So what does he do after that?
So let's pause here for a minute because there's a lot to unpack here. So Robert Maxwell was also one of the main money conduits for Iran Contra as well. Let's talk about Robert Maxwell. He was a really fascinating guy. He was another guy like Epstein who, when you look at him, he's kind of amoral, a beast in a lot of ways. But at the same time, he's a force of Nature who figured in history.
So Robert Maxwell was born in Czechoslovakia, and he was 18 or 19 years old, very, very young, when the Germans invaded Czechoslovakia, and he managed to escape. He wasn't called Robert Maxwell at the time. He changed his name eight or nine times over the course of the years. But he managed to escape to France in May 1940, which, if you know the story of World War II, is not the best time to escape to France. So he hooks up with what's left of the Czechoslovakian resistance in France, and follows the British retreat, and somehow manages to talk his way onto a boat and get over to Britain where he hooks up with the Czech government in exile in London. He becomes disenchanted with the government in exile pretty quickly. We'll get to that next part in a minute.
So at first, he's working for the Czech government in exile. He gets a little disenchanted, and joins the British army. He's part of the Normandy invasion. He was in heavy combat all the way to Berlin. He won the second highest medal that the British army gives out, not just to foreign volunteers, but to anybody. So it's the Distinguished Service Cross, or the Navy Cross here in the U.S. and you don't get those just for showing up on time every day for duty. He got it for storming a machine gun nest, and saving a bunch of people's lives. So he was a physically courageous guy, a very resourceful, ballsy guy, to make it across Europe at such a young age and do all these things.
After the war is over and we occupy Germany, he goes to work for British Intelligence, first as a translator. I don't know how many languages he spoke back then, but later on he allegedly was fluent in nine (9). Maybe that's an exaggeration, but he was fluent in five (5) and functional in four (4). That's pretty damn impressive. So he was a guy who had connections behind the Iron Curtain that was emerging. He's from that side of the line. He was a soldier who had fought valiantly for the British, and now he's working for British Intelligence. And he's actually pretty valuable to him. And he gets involved in some dirty work. He was involved in interrogating captured SS soldiers, for example, which I imagine weren't always pleasant experiences. This didn't come out till quite a bit later when he was an older guy. Soon before his death he was actually fingered in an investigation for murdering a bunch of unarmed German civilians while he was there. It never went to the point of having to be proven in court or anything, but it was something that was out there. He was named in the investigation.
So Maxwell is working for British Intelligence for a while in Berlin, which is a pretty hot assignment, especially as the Iron Curtain's starting to come down. And when the war ends, he goes back to Britain. He's changed his name to Robert Maxwell by this point, and gets British citizenship. And one of the first things we have him doing in the late 1940s, after the war, when he gets back to Britain, is from the other side of the line. He's got connections with people across Europe. He's involved with British intelligence. And he hooks up with the British Zionist movement in contravention of British law at the time, helping smuggle weapons, aircraft parts were his main bag, through Czechoslovakia, down to the Zionist movement in Israel to fight the Arabs. And he's 25 years old, something like that, at this point. Maybe 27, 28. He's a young guy. And not fighting just the Arabs, but the British also. And he's now a British citizen. That whole thing is a little bit of a tangent, but that stuff is interesting because if you have a situation like the Zionists in Palestine in the late 1940s, who were facing down the possibility of war with several countries around them, and you kind of drove the British out of the country, you got to figure out how to hold on to it. And the British were the main European foreign presence in the region, and there is a weapons embargo against you. You need to get weapons and supplies. How are you going to do it? Well, you need guys like Robert Maxwell, because not everybody knows how to do it. If they called me on the phone and said, "Hey, Darrell, we need you to get us 800 RPGs at this port, and blah, blah, blah," I'd be like, "Don't look at me, call Robert Maxwell. That was something he was able to do.
Lyndon Johnson did that. There were several articles written about it, one in the Times of Israel, a laudatory article, that is very grateful to Lyndon Johnson. But this is back when he was still in the U.S. Congress, back in the 30s and 40s. He was working with a Zionist friend of his in Texas to illegally, in contravention of American law, as a U.S. congressman, to ship weapons and other supplies to the Zionists in Palestine in crates marked Texas Grapefruit. And the main guy who did the research on this is a Jewish scholar named Louis Gamalek. And you can't find the paper online. It's only in the reading room at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., and fortunately, before I came on your show last time, I visited the place, and read it, but they might have somebody tackle me at the door if I tried to go there now. But I read it, and it's fascinating, because he really lays out in detail that you really can't deny that Lyndon Johnson was involved with this. And there's some evidence that Jack Ruby too was involved in that also, which I think that's where I was going to go next: how Lyndon Johnson smuggled weapons to Palestine. So who knows how to do that kind of thing? Organized crime knows how to do that kind of thing. So when the intelligence community and their cousins in the organized crime world, get into these kinds of things, and they've always been directly next to each other, intersecting, Maxwell is part of that, at the time Israel is founded. Then he kind of just moves on as a British citizen, making his way in the world.
