[0:00][Music] Hi everybody. I'm Britney Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me now is criminal defense attorney Danny Rubin. Danny, thanks so much for joining me.
[0:12]>> Britney, thanks for having me. I appreciate being on. >> Now, even years after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested, charged, and then subsequently died, there has been renewed interest in his case and calls
[0:23]for transparency. There are more seemingly questions than answers when it comes to this saga. And someone who people think could hold a lot of those answers is Galileain Maxwell, a longtime
[0:33]Epstein associate who in 2021 was found guilty of heinous sex crimes, even sex crimes involving minors. She met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch back
[0:44]in July. So to start off the conversation, what questions do you think she could answer? What answers does she hold? What information does she she have that wasn't covered in her
[0:53]trial a few years back? I mean, I think that it's important to note that when you meet with a prosecutor uh in federal in the federal court system, um really
[1:04]you're trying to get your el your your self out of hot water. Um usually when you meet with the prosecutor, you're given some sort of immunity in talking about all the things that happened. So
[1:15]during her trial, it's more likely they talked about the things that the prosecutors know happened or the things that they alleged and that the trial was limited to what was in the indictment.
[1:26]Um it probably wouldn't be in Ms. Max Miss Maxwell's interest to start talking about some of the other people that she knew that had frequented Epstein's
[1:37]properties um who she was affiliated with. um that would probably draw the eye of those people and at the same time it would probably give the prosecutor more evidence with which to bury her. So
[1:48]I think that when they met most recently they probably had a very frank conversation of how deep this rabbit hole went and probably more specifically what she could do for the president.
[1:59]>> That's really interesting. I mean, could this put her potentially in a worse position because she was meeting with the number two at the DOJ or is this
[2:08]only in her benefit? I mean, what really does that look like? >> Um, so when you meet with the prosecutor, like I said, you get some sort of immunity agreement. you wouldn't uh proceed without some sort of immunity
[2:19]agreement or at least some sort of offer agreement where um you're going to exchange some information um and then receive some benefit from the prosecutor, either a lighter sentence or
[2:31]um something else. Um it seems that the prosecutors have already demonstrated good faith by moving Miss Maxwell from a maximum security prison to a minimum
[2:41]security prison in Bryant, Texas. Um, I think that there's a lot they want to discuss. I think they've met for about nine hours, over two days, um, in the
[2:52]last month or so. Um, and she probably do want to know how how much she knows and like I said again, what she can do to probably benefit this administration. >> And she has been referred to Jeffrey
[3:03]Epstein's madame. She has been referred to as the Bonnie to the body, Bonnie and Clyde when it comes to her and Epstein. So, it seems like she would know a lot. And according to her attorney, she was
[3:15]asked about quote 100 different people. And apparently, she didn't hold anything back. So, I mean, my question to you once again as a defense attorney is why
[3:26]would you hold those cards back in your trial? And, you know, I mean, how much do you think she has to give them? Because they did, like you said, seemingly act in good faith by moving
[3:37]her to a different jail. >> Well, it's a a loaded question. So, which uh which would you like me to start with? >> Let's let's start with it. Let's start with the first one, which is, you know, like why wouldn't she implicate someone
[3:48]else, reveal other people in that trial? Why is she holding her cards a few years later when she's meeting with the prosecutor now or meeting with the number two at the DOJ? >> Well, let's let's talk about the most
[3:59]important thing, right? And that's what's what's relevant. Um the only thing she's allowed to talk about at trial is what's pertaining to her indictment. So bringing in a boatload of other people that may not actually deal
[4:10]with the the the terms of her indictment is only going to hurt her. Um and even so getting your it's not the time to get your whole story out. It's a time to defend yourself saying that I wasn't
[4:22]with these people. I didn't do what you're accusing me of. Um so it's actually probably the opposite of what she's doing with the prosecutor now. Um, additionally, when you're dealing with a trial, the judge is going to limit
[4:33]whatever you can bring in to whatever is, uh, salient, whatever is relevant to the subject matter. So, um, as you said before, you know, she's talking about a bunch of the people that no one talked
[4:44]about at trial. The judge would even let that in. Um, I don't think also would have helped her because if she's going to talk about all the things that did happen, um, it would kind of get in the way for defenses saying that certain
[4:56]things didn't happen. Um, I mean, as you know, she's she talked about about a hundred different people um and their involvement. Um, but she made very clear
[5:06]or her attorneys made very clear to single out Trump as having quote unquote no cause for concern um or nothing done nothing of concern relative to her and
[5:16]Jeffrey Epstein. Um, I think that this is really her trying to to um deal with
[5:26]the prosecutor. Um, at this point, she's relegated to a 22-year sentence in a maximum security prison. She's has no real hope of
[5:36]getting out except to trade what she knows. And now with the Epstein case becoming very very big in the news, um it's sort of become like wouldn't you
[5:47]say like the embodiment of corruption, I mean everyone looks at the Jeffrey Epstein files and and is trying to think to themselves, well how deep does this go? Um and and Maxwell seems to have
[5:57]that answer. Um if and again looking at what the pro what the the administration has said recently, they've said something like well there are no Jeffrey Epstein files, right? are
[6:08]there is no list, right? There's no there first there was a list, then there's not a list. They can't find the list. Maybe maybe they're looking at Miss Maxwell as the list, and she seems to have a lot of information on some
[6:20]people that would have been on this, you know, hypothetical list. Um, so she's trying to take this opportunity now to trade whatever card she has in exchange
[6:29]probably for either u some sort of uh lesser deal or lesser sentence, um, a pardon potentially. um transfer to a minimum security prison, which has
[6:41]already happened. Um probably a number of other things. It seems like there's a lot she can do for this administration. >> I want to talk about that transfer
[6:51]because that got a lot of attention. She went um from a lowcurity Florida prison to a minimum security prison. It's been described as a cushy prison, a country
[7:01]clubesque prison. I mean, it's still prison, but it's it's one of the better ones. It's a prison camp. And it doesn't sound like the place that someone who was charged with really heinous sex
[7:11]crimes, including sex crimes involving minors, would go. I mean, what do you make of that move? Does that signal to you as a defense attorney that she provided really valuable information?
[7:22]Perhaps she snitched on someone. I mean, what does that really look like? >> So, before you actually give a an information proper as a client, as a defendant, you have an attorney proper.
[7:33]Um, attorney prompers are basically the attorney having a long conversation with the prosecutors and saying, "Here's a preview of what you can expect my client
[7:42]to give you." Um, those offers, by the way, can be held or whatever is gleaned in those profiled against the client. So, it's really important that you are able to provide
[7:53]some information, but are you hold back enough that you're not totally giving away the farm, so to speak. Um, but in your when you're giving them this
[8:03]proper, you're you're you're putting your reputation on the line, showing that your client can provide this information and that this information is
[8:12]going to provide some uh some value to the prosecutor because the prosecutor sees no value in this in this profer, then they're not going to go forward
[8:22]with it. Um, so it's that that's probably why she was moved to a minimum security prison uh at this point. Um, also because it's probably easier to
[8:33]access for the prosecutors. Um, but it's probably a show of good faith that what she has is going to be well taken. Um,
[8:44]we won't know for sure. I mean, we can't really know, right, what what was said in between the prosecutor, the attorney, um, and Miss Maxwell. But, I mean, don't you think that there's got to be
[8:55]something that she's given so far to lead her to be transferred somewhere which is far better than where she was before? >> I mean, that it's a good question and I
[9:05]think a lot of people have that question is I mean, my assumption would be you had to have given up something good to get to that really good prison. That is what people say that that's that's a
[9:16]great prison to be if you are in fact in prison. And as we know, there has been renewed scrutiny over the relationship between President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, who had a 15-year or so
[9:28]friendship. And like you said, reports have indicated that Gain Maxwell said she never saw President Trump engage in what has been described as concerning behavior. She said that during her
[9:39]conversations with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch in July. Do you think that nugget of information was good enough for her to get transferred or is that just do you think information from those nine-hour meetings are going
[9:50]to just drip drip drip out? >> I mean, I it's that's a very good question. We we probably won't know until that actually happens. Um but I I think that her talking about President
[10:00]Trump is a very good precursor or a a very um important precursor to what we can expect her to say down the line. Um, I think it's obviously in her best
[10:11]interest that even if something happened between uh Epstein and the president, and the president was there at one point, um, to leave his name out, to
[10:21]talk about him positively, um, to essentially back him to show that the corruption doesn't extend to him. Whether that's truthful or not is going
[10:31]to be up to the public to decide um, and really up to the prosecutor to decide. Um, it's I I I think that at the very least it's
[10:41]a showing of good faith. Um and I don't know if that alone was enough was enough from her to get her transferred to a minimum security prison, but I think it's definitely taking steps and what we
[10:52]can see from her going forward. Um I also think that depending on how she go how hard she goes on the president, that's what her her subpoena sorry what
[11:04]her hearing is going to look like. um right now that both houses are controlled but the house and senate sorry are controlled by the Republican party. They have the ability to grill
[11:15]her strenuously um completely or to throw a bunch of lowball questions and have her sort of monologue as to what's going on. U they can also turn around and say that they
[11:26]think this is a giant uh miscarriage of justice when they're given opportunities to speak. We don't really know yet. Um, I think that how she uh describes the
[11:38]president and the her involvement with the president is going to determine how Congress deals with her and uh ultimately what she gets at the end. >> I think that's a really interesting
[11:49]point. I'm curious, is she a trustworthy person right now? I mean, in the eyes of the government, or does that not really matter if because I mean, she's been
[11:59]convicted of really just disgusting crimes and especially crimes against um minors. But does it matter so much of her trustworthiness or what she says
[12:09]about the president? Because so far she's been um flattering according to reports to President Trump. She's saying, "I never saw anything concerning." I mean, can we believe her? Can we take her at her word or cuz we
[12:20]already know that she's eyeing clemency. her attorneys have said she would welcome clemency from the president. I mean, is that her goal and she'll say whatever she wants to get there?
[12:31]>> I don't think it's so cut and dry. I think that she may be honest when it pertains to certain people and maybe not honest for others. She's certainly self-interested, right? I mean, she she
[12:42]has a vested interest in not spending the next two decades or more in custody. Um the person that can guarantee her that is President Trump. um he's already
[12:52]said that he's contemplating a pardon um potentially as a show of his good faith that he wants to be removed from the situation and knows that she has the
[13:01]power to do it. Then again, if she goes and talks about his um either his adversaries or other other people that are unrelated to President Trump and is
[13:13]truthful about their involvement, she actually or she actually may be truthful about that. Um she she actually may be forthcoming about certain people that she was involved with that Jeremy sorry
[13:24]that that Jeffrey Epstein was involved with. Um but uh she may not necessarily be truthful about Trump. Then again she
[13:34]may be. It really just depends. Um I think we should look for first and foremost the fact that she is self-interested. Um we should look at the fact that she does have a vested
[13:45]interest here of not spending time in custody. Um, but we also need to look at this thing may go very very deep and include a great number of people. Some of whom may be in Trump's orbit, some of whom may not be or may be opposed to
[13:57]Trump. Um, so I don't think we can just simply discount her honesty or veracity because she said one or two things about President Trump. Um, I think it really remains to be seen what she is going to
[14:08]say, the extent to which she's going to say it, and about who she's going to say it. And Galileain Maxwell is just I mean her position right now isn't great, right?
[14:17]As you said, she's in custody for uh 20 years. She that that's the better part of her life. Almost the rest of her life will be spent behind bars. She was
[14:28]convicted of really bad crimes. Her reputation internationally is just in the gutter right now and I mean probably for the rest of her life. Does she have
[14:38]anything to lose right now? It's a really good question. Um, and I think that she has probably more to gain than to lose. Um, she's been around some
[14:48]very powerful people for a great many years. Um, those people may have certain reach at some point when she's released. Um, they may not, it may not affect her
[14:58]anymore. I mean, who really knows? But I think it's really important to note that if this were a uh a trial, this were a court of law, whatever she says about other people would be regarded as
[15:09]hearsay, um something that she's seen might potentially be salient, but the weight of whatever she's going to talk about is going to be diminished unless there's some third-party evidence that
[15:20]can be uh discovered to support her. Um, that's really going to be the job of every news organization after whatever she says becomes public, trying to discover whether or not what she said
[15:32]was honest and accurate and if anyone can find anything else to bolster or detract from her arguments. Um, I just I think that listening to her is not
[15:43]really going to be the entirety of the story just because there are so many variables here. The tr that President Trump can affect directly uh her life
[15:54]going forward. Um, and other people who are also extremely powerful and whom she may have been associated with can also affect her life either positively or negatively.
[16:04]And you made a really good point with by saying the Trump administration said there's no client list, but they could be looking at Glain Maxwell as the
[16:14]client list, so to speak. Do you think then from that perspective that she could be the beginning domino and then from there there's almost a Pandora's
[16:24]box and this whole thing's uncovered? There's a lot of people implicated in this sex trafficking operation and then there's criminal investigation out of criminal investigation. I mean, I'm sure
[16:35]people are really hoping that happens, but as an attorney, what's the likelihood of that happening? >> As I said before, um, what Miss Maxwell says can be considered hearsay and
[16:47]certainly wouldn't have a lot of weight attached to it by itself. I think that if you're looking for any sort of criminal case to come out of this, there's got to be something more to
[16:57]establish probable cause before a grand jury. Um, so again, I don't know if what she says is going to lead to some uh to criminal cases and certainly whether
[17:09]that's going to lead to convictions. But I think what we've learned over the course of the last five or ten years is that we can have a really sensational news story that shows egregious criminal
[17:20]behavior. Um but at the same time that leads to virtually no prosecution at all of any of those people. So, it's it'll be interesting
[17:30]whether this changes that because um I think that the Epstein files here, the Epstein case really has become the embodiment of corruption in
[17:42]America. And whether or not the public stands for the prosecutor's office doing nothing about it or virtually nothing
[17:51]about it remains to be seen. And I think that's why exactly that the interest in this case has not died. And in fact, calls for justice have just gotten
[18:02]louder and louder. Calls for transparency and justice. I mean, as an attorney here, what questions do you still have and what faith do you have that they're going to get answered?
[18:14]>> I mean, the first question I have is what can be substantiated? I mean, Miss Maxwell can say whatever she wants. she can say, you know, whoever was there, whoever wasn't there, but if there's
[18:26]nothing else to back up her statements, how well, how much can we trust her, um, it's going to be sensational obviously, but I would want to know what other
[18:35]facts and documents she has to substantiate what she's saying. That's number one. Um, number two is who else can substantiate it? If it's not documents and other evidence, who else
[18:47]can corroborate it? Um, and number three, what are going to be the um, uh, the discrepancies between what she says and what someone else uncovers about
[18:58]what may or may not actually have happened. Um, so those are the few things that I would want to see just off the top of my head. Um, and again, as as an attorney, uh, more evidence um, in a
[19:10]case like this would be better because we want to establish either M. Maxwell's credibility or or lack of credibility
[19:20]>> between now and when, if at all, we see the conversation between Galain Maxwell and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. What specifically are you looking out
[19:29]for next? I think that the first thing we should look out for is any sort of uh any sort of answer or any sort of um
[19:40]response from this current administration that may that may show where this is going to go. Um we may want to look out for any official statement from the prosecutor's office
[19:51]um from the US attorney's office. Um, we want to look out for um what the what the Supreme Court says about her case. We're going to want to look for what um
[20:02]what comes out in her hearing. I I imagine Congress is going to want to hear from her eventually. Um but I I imagine that the Trump administration is going to want this to go a certain way.
[20:12]Um the Epstein files have been a thorn in his side politically since the beginning of this administration. And it's it seems that the fervor around it is getting louder and louder and it's
[20:23]something that we all agree on that we want to know more about. And it's something that so far the administration has been unwilling to share with us if they have anything on it at all. Um there's a possibility they've been
[20:34]completely honest that they have that they have nothing to share. Um but I don't personally believe that but it's
[20:42]it is possible. Um, and seeing how that narrative changes is going to be very interesting going forward. And right now there, M. Maxwell does not hold all the
[20:54]cards and the prosecutor's office doesn't hold all the cards. So, it's going to be interesting to see how they interact and the the statements made by both parties moving forward. >> I think that's a good point and I know
[21:05]that Republicans at least were really loud in saying we will find exactly what happened here. will release the Epstein files then when there are Republicans in
[21:16]office. That is seemingly not the case right now. I know you're saying both sides don't hold the cards right now or all of the cards rather. If you were
[21:26]advising Glain Maxwell, would you tell her you cannot talk unless you have immunity and unless you're promised immunity? I mean, what would be beneficial? Why would she talk if she
[21:37]doesn't have immunity from a strategic point? Do you think >> there's a certain amount of opakeness of uh of trust you have to put in the prosecutor when you provide a pro when
[21:48]you provide a proper um you aren't guaranteed something upfront normally especially not before the attorney proper. Um, and I and that's exactly why I think she was moved to a minimum
[22:00]security facility because while they can't promise, you know, necessarily immunity or that she would get um uh
[22:08]some sort of uh plea agreement or a commuted sentence as a result of her talking about her client list or whatever she has she has to share. I
[22:19]think that there was certainly a showing of good faith like I said before and that will go a long way. Um, also the fact that there's been a back and forth between the Trump administration and and
[22:31]her council saying uh that Trump wouldn't rule out the possibility of a pardon and that in return, you know, Trump didn't didn't c didn't do anything
[22:42]of concern around her when when he was when he was certainly around her. Um, I think there is sort of a give and take there. So, it's it's very abnormal for the prosecutor's office to promise
[22:52]immunity, to promise a plea agreement before hearing what a client or defendant has to say. So, you're looking for asurances from the other side that they're going to honor their their
[23:04]agreement and not get something for free. Um, her being transferred is one of those things. Um, her getting a meeting with uh someone high in the organization is one of those things.
[23:15]um Trump responding in kind in person is one of those things. Um and the fact is also that the administration is very interested. So you as an attorney have
[23:25]to feel those those variables out and find what what your defendant is going to do and what you'd allow your defendant to do. >> I think based on this conversation that
[23:36]there's certainly a lot to look out for. There are signposts along the way. There's a lot to look out for and until we get to that next biggest development, you gave us a lot to run through and I
[23:47]hope that Danny you can come back on and join me once we either see what the conversation between Galain Maxwell and Todd Blanch was or if there's a significant development after that. Thank you so much for your insight
[23:59]today, your expertise. You are welcome back anytime. >> Thank you very much. It was such great being on the show and um I look forward to next time. Thank you.