Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara. Over the last few weeks, Donald Trump and the Justice Department have found themselves at the center of a bipartisan furor over the case files of Jeffrey Epstein and the administration’s about face on making those files public. Since then, I’ve been talking with a group of my friends and colleagues, many of whom you’re likely familiar with about the news surrounding the so-called Epstein files, both about the complications of the case and about the politics emerging from it. And we wanted to take our conversation and analysis out of the group chat into your ears.

So joining me this week is former Westchester District Attorney Mimi Rocah, former assistant U.S attorney Elie Honig and lawyer and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa. They are also all CAFE contributors where they deliver sharp analysis of current events to your inbox. We’ll be talking about the latest in the Epstein story. That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Jeffrey Epstein is back in the news in a big way. I’m joined by three former government officials who also happen to be my friends and CAFE colleagues, Elie Honig, Mimi Rocah, and Asha Rangappa to discuss the news and politics surrounding Donald Trump, DOJ, and the so-called Epstein files.

Asha, Mimi. Elie, welcome to the show. It’s a pleasure to have you. So I guess we’re going to continue to talk about the Jeffrey Epstein case, all sorts of issues arising from it. I can’t think of a better group of people to talk about it, but I thought first before we get into what is going on today or what happened last week or the possibility of a pardon or why the Deputy Attorney General is going, interviewing her personally for two days with or without an FBI agent. Before we get to any of that, can we just remind people what it is that Ghislaine Maxwell is not only alleged to have done but was convicted of what the evidence was generally speaking, why she was convicted, why she got 20 years in prison? Mimi, do you want to start with that so we understand what we’re talking about here?

Mimi Rocah:

Sure. So Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in 2022 in the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to entice minors to travel and engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting minors, etc. You get the drift. Basically conspiring, aiding, facilitating a sex trafficking operation that was mainly run by and for the benefit of Epstein and others, I guess, depending on who you ask-

Preet Bharara:

On the list. The people on list, Mimi.

Mimi Rocah:

The people on the list, right, exactly. And she was… I’ll talk about the conduct a little bit more in a second, but I think it’s important to point out that she was sentenced to 20 years by Judge Nathan, Alison Nathan of the Southern district, 240 months, which is a serious sentence. And this is the judge who presided over the trial. So who saw her conduct up close in as much detail as anyone could.

And what Maxwell’s role was, I think this is kind of intuitive and so you don’t need to be a prosecutor or a lawyer to understand this, but when you’re trying to get young girls or young women to engage in something that they otherwise might not do, like have sex with some older man repeatedly or without getting too graphic, engage in sexual conduct that isn’t based on their own personal relationships that exist already with other peers, you need to earn their trust.

And we know that sex traffickers target, in particular young women and girls who are vulnerable, who are going through puberty, who are going through hormonal changes, who may have things going on at home. And there’s always in these kinds of rings, a mother figure who earns their trust, who shows them compassion actually initially and brings them into the circle and lets them think that they can have a better life through this person. That was Maxwell. And testimony after testimony showed that she was the groomer, the recruiter, and she was very, very good at it. I’ll leave it at that.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Okay. So that’s important as we talk about what’s going to happen to her and why people are talking to her. Just one more follow up question for Elie and Asha based on what Mimi said. Is there anything that you were aware of in the record or in the appeal or anything at all that should cause us to feel empathetic towards Ghislaine Maxwell or sympathetic towards her or to date anything that suggests that she is worthy of clemency or forgiveness or a reduction in her sentence? Asha?

Asha Rangappa:

I would just say zero that I am aware of. And I just want to add to what Mimi said. I’m not sure if this was in the trial record, but I have seen witness statements that she participated in the sexual abuse herself. So it wasn’t just that she was recruiting these, she was actually later on along with Jeffrey Epstein also engaging in these sexual acts with these young girls.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. So Elie, I want to ask you about her appeal.

Elie Honig:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

But do we have a consensus here that Maxwell richly deserved her sentence of 20 years?

Elie Honig:

Oh my God, yes. It was the max. I would assume it would’ve been more if there was a higher max than 20. And if I can just add, I agree with Asha. I was going to say nothing mitigating in Ghislaine Maxwell’s favor, and we should call this out because there is a slowly growing subtle, becoming less subtle effort to soften some of the edges around who Ghislaine Maxwell is. You’ve seen the clips of certain pretty far right media figures. Someone said, I don’t even want to give it too much credence, but she might be a victim. Even last night I was on air with CNN, Chris Sununu started saying, “Oh, she could be the Rosetta Stone.” I don’t trust this woman as far as I could throw her. Are you kidding me? And you guys know-

Preet Bharara:

We’re going to get to whether she can cooperate or not. Absolutely in a moment. But she made an appeal as is her right to the appropriate appellate court Second Circuit and she lost, correct? She’s working on, or has she filed a petition with the Supreme Court for Certiorari?

Elie Honig:

She has a petition that was just filed with the US Supreme Court and I’ll lay out the issue. So this has nothing to do actually with her factual guilt or non-guilt. There’s no genuine appellate issue relating to the trial itself or the proof against her. It’s a technical issue, but it’s actually an interesting issue. I give her a slightly better chance than the average litigant of getting to the Supreme Court. So back in 07/08, the Southern District of Florida US attorney’s office prosecutes Jeffrey Epstein. Gives him an insane sweetheart deal. I know Asha is going to dig into that in a minute.

In addition to all the crazy benefits they give Jeffrey Epstein, there is a provision I have never used. I’ve never even heard of… Tell me, have you guys ever heard of a provision saying none of your co-conspirators will be prosecuted. Mimi’s saying No. There’s probably 50 years if not more, of prosecutorial experience on this call and FBI experience and possibly-

Preet Bharara:

Have you ever heard of an occasion, Elie, where a particular target… This I believe maybe sometimes happens, where a target will say, “I want it to be understood that you’re not going to arrest my wife, you’re not going to arrest my son a family member,” but that is it.

Elie Honig:

Yeah, we’ll do that.

Mimi Rocah:

Specific carve out, but not a blanket anyone who-

Asha Rangappa:

This included people unknown.

Mimi Rocah:

Yeah, exactly.

Elie Honig:

This deal says it lists four co-conspirators by name, not Ghislaine Maxwell, but it also says, and any other. So it’s like anyone who ever went near Jeffrey Epstein gets a pass. Okay, fast-forward. So that’s ’08. 2020 comes along the SDNY then indicts, Ghislaine Maxwell and she says… She argues both in the district court and the court of appeals. “Hang on a second. Back in Florida we were that we would not be prosecuted as part of the Epstein deal.” And the question then is if one district, in this case the Southern District of Florida makes a deal, is that binding on another district in this case the SDNY?

Now there’s a separate question. I don’t even think this type of deal is enforceable by a non-defendant, by an outside party. Put that aside. Maxwell’s arguing, they’re all DOJ and if one district makes me a deal, you can’t have 93 other districts come in and say, “But we’re charging you,” because that would lead to mayhem. That has been rejected. And Preet, I’m proud to say the leading case so far in the Second Circuit, saying that’s okay-

Preet Bharara:

I was waiting for you to get to this.

Elie Honig:

is United States versus Angelo Prisco a case prosecuted. Your name is on the indictment. I was the prosecutor on the case. And what happened in this case was Angelo Prisco was a Genovese family capo, powerful guy. He’s dead now. DNJ, the district of New Jersey, God bless him, gave him a very softball deal. They let him plead out to an extortion only and they said, “You Angelo Prisco will not be prosecuted for anything else by this district, New Jersey.”

We come along two years later, we develop a murder case, we charge him with murder and racketeering. He gets convicted, but he says, “Hold on, I was made this promise by DNJ, you can’t have SDNY come along and charge me later,” and that was rejected by the Second Circuit. And so now DOJ in trying to uphold Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction is citing our case as their leading precedent. But I will say there’s a circuit split here. There actually are other circuits who have said, “Now you can’t do that. You can’t have some other district come along later in charge.” So that to me gives it a more than the usual 3% chance of any given case being taken by the Supreme Court. I’m not saying it’s 50%, but it’s more than 3%.

Mimi Rocah:

But even if it were… Let’s say we were still in Florida, there’s a strong argument that the original agreement isn’t even enforceable as to Maxwell.

Preet Bharara:

Look, I want to bring Asha in just one second. Asha, I want you to talk about the corrupt nature of the prior deal and anything else. But on this point for one second, people might be asking the question, isn’t it the case that if someone gets prosecuted in district A and pleads guilty that District B cannot later charge that person for the same conduct because there’s something called double jeopardy and it doesn’t require some kind of understanding within the Justice Department, right? Isn’t that a basic fact?

Asha Rangappa:

Yes, but that’s because it would be for the same crime.

Preet Bharara:

I just want to be clear for people, someone commits crimes A, B, and C in a district and pleads guilty to them. Those crimes cannot be charged later in another district. There’s an open question that we’re talking about. If someone pleads guilty to crimes A, B, and C, but then gets coverage for crimes de and F, then there’s a question about whether jeopardy attaches or not. And it’s certainly the case that with respect to A, B, C, D, E, and F, if another district comes up with crimes, I’m going to run out of letters of the alphabet, H, I, J, K with different victims and a different scheme that is totally fair play. Fair, Asha?

Asha Rangappa:

That’s fair. And I also want to just highlight, we call it a sweetheart plea deal, but this was not a plea deal. This was a non-prosecution agreement, meaning that they agreed not to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein. So I’ll talk a little bit about it, but just at the outset, to kind of dovetail on what Elie said, I do think it’s important to understand that if the Supreme Court or if anyone is on board with the idea that Ghislaine Maxwell should not have been prosecuted by the Southern District of New York because of this non-prosecution agreement from the Southern district of Florida, they are also conceding that Jeffrey Epstein should never have been prosecuted also because he was the main person. So you’re basically saying that he should have never been prosecuted that frankly he should be alive today.

Preet Bharara:

Maybe that’s why they fired Maurene Comey because she wrongly prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. Is that a theory?

Asha Rangappa:

I mean, I think it’s important to understand that that is the implication of suggesting that Ghislaine Maxwell was somehow railroaded. Here you are then implicitly defending Epstein himself.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, that’s a great point.

Elie Honig:

To Asha’s point, that argument was going to be made. Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyers before he died had already raised this argument. They said he was set free in Florida and you can’t charge him. And I’ll tell you guys inside baseball at the time, one of the people supervising the case had done the Prisco case with me and I texted her, I said, “Oh, man, is our case going to hold up in the Epstein case because the Epstein case is riding on our case?” And she was like, “We’re betting on it.” But yeah, Epstein would’ve tried to get his case dismissed on this same basis. He would’ve had a better argument than Maxwell because at least he’s the party, not some co-conspirator.

Preet Bharara:

Right. Unnamed.

Asha Rangappa:

100%. Just a quick recap of how this all came to be. Jeffrey Epstein was originally charged by the state of Florida in Palm Beach County for solicitation of a minor, something that the lead detective and the chief of police who were investigating that felt was insufficient. They did not feel that whatever he was charged with was appropriate for the kind of conduct that they had uncovered. They weren’t happy with how the state’s attorney was handling it. And so these local law enforcement officers went and gave this evidence to the FBI.

The Southern District of Florida then opened an investigation, as far as I can tell, started doing what FBI agents and prosecutors do, and there was an AUSA assigned to the case who ultimately, because they found so many more victims than the original state case had that spanned a longer period of time. She drafted, I believe a 54-page indictment with 60 counts. Okay, so this is what one of the prosecutors in that office was ready to charge. At this point Epstein’s lawyers wanted to meet with Alex Acosta, who was the US attorney at that time. I always like to highlight that Jeffrey Epstein’s attorneys included Kenneth Starr because I think that’s an important piece.

Elie Honig:

And Alan Dershowitz.

Asha Rangappa:

And Alan Dershowitz. So Alex Acosta meets with these lawyers and then essentially comes back and puts the kibosh on this case, more or less. Stops the investigation. I think the US attorney wasn’t allowed to go seize his computer, which he later said would’ve probably just put the nail in the coffin for that case because they would’ve found more evidence. And then eventually ends up with agreeing to do this non-prosecution agreement, which again, is not a plea deal. But the non-prosecution agreement was an agreement to not prosecute Epstein for the federal charges if he pleaded guilty to the state charges, served jail time, and then registered as a sex offender.

And what was really weird. Elie, I actually remember when this all was coming out in 2019, I reached out to you because I was like… I remember texting and I was like, “This is really weird. The AUSA is going back and forth with Epstein’s attorneys about the kind of language that should go in here and is that normal?” And you were like, “Yeah, that’s not normal.”

Mimi Rocah:

They also gave a list of the names of the victims to the defense attorneys as part of this deal, which I also thought was-

Preet Bharara:

Which is crazy. That’s crazy.

Mimi Rocah:

Crazy weird.

Preet Bharara:

I’ll be right back with my guests after this. I want to fast-forward to the current moment in a second, but just can I make a practice point for all those listening who are either prosecutors or aspire to be prosecutors or aspire to be the heads of their offices. As a practice point if you’re the U.S attorney or the district attorney, I believe, I can’t think of a situation in which you should meet with defense counsel on a case that you’re trusted, often handpicked line prosecutors are dealing with and have the ground truth on and separately meet with those defense lawyers and then worse, get into a deal with them without consultation with your line prosecutors, in seven and a half years as US attorney, I don’t think I ever.

You guys, I had a lot of cases with Mimi and with Elie if someone wanted to… I had an open door policy. Defense lawyers wanted to meet and talk about leniency or talk about some alternative resolution. I would always have the meeting. I can’t remember turning down a meeting, but I would have you guys there and you were supervisors. Not only have you there, we had the line prosecutors there so that it was all open and above board. And every once in a while somebody would call me who I had known from my prior life, and I wouldn’t even talk substance on the phone with them.

And on those occasions where I was caught off guard, which I think was once or twice where someone called and I thought they were calling about getting lunch or something because I’m friends with them said, “I’m calling about Case Y. And I just wanted to tell you, blah.” I would say, okay, “But you need to follow up with the line prosecutors.” And I would call the line prosecutors up to my office one minute later and say, “You should know that the attorney called and I said, he has to deal with you.” Do we agree with that practice point?

Elie Honig:

This is why you’re no Alexandra Acosta for you.

Mimi Rocah:

I did that as DA too. And I think it’s-

Preet Bharara:

You got to have your team, first of all, you can be-

Mimi Rocah:

It protects you too because-

Preet Bharara:

It protects you. It also, by the way-

Mimi Rocah:

They’re trying to pull one over on you.

Preet Bharara:

And the best way to lose the respect and trust of your line assistants is to do something like that, not to mention the public and your cabinet position years later. Okay, am I correct that any defendant at the time they are aware of the fact that they’re at target can come forward, whether it’s in the SDNY or anywhere else like Ghislaine Maxwell could have and say, “I have information for you. I have a client list. I have other people I can cooperate against. I have information,” and so long as they are credible and we’re going to talk about that. And so long as they accept responsibility for their own crimes and so long as they can provide what we refer to as substantial assistance, that is totally in play.

Can someone address the accusation or the implication that that was not done with Ghislaine Maxwell and why the current interview of her, which is bizarre in a lot of different ways, is somehow a righteous and novel thing that Maurene Comey and others stupidly never considered?

Mimi Rocah:

Yeah, look, the SDNY charged a conspiracy, first of all. And so anytime you charge a conspiracy, and especially here where they had two high significant players in this conspiracy, Epstein and Maxwell, you’re going to want to find out if there are other co-conspirators, and frankly, you’re going to want to cooperate Maxwell against Epstein if you can.

When he was alive, he was the main guy. Epstein. If Maxwell could have provided information against him, truthful information, but also as this group knows well, it always has to be truthful. And the SDNY is pretty sort of religious strict about the fact that it has to be full conduct. You can’t come in and just admit part of your conduct. You got to completely fall on your sword.

And there’s almost no question that Maxwell, who keeps now claiming to be the victim, et cetera, et cetera, just wasn’t prepared to do that. She wasn’t going to do that. And so that is why it would’ve never gone anywhere with SDNY. But of course, they would’ve wanted to cooperate her, particularly against Epstein. And Todd here, the DAG, I don’t think cares about whether she’s truthful or not, and that’s the main difference. That’s my take.

Elie Honig:

To Mimi’s point, it seems like they are building up towards some sort of finger pointing at Maurene Comey or at somebody to say they were not interested. They told Ghislaine Maxwell, “Shut up, you, we don’t want to hear what you have to say.” I don’t know the facts, but let me tell you what I do know. One, if Ghislaine Maxwell had come to them, certainly at moment one when Epstein gets indicted and they may have even approached her, that would’ve been the prime moment for her to cooperate.

Then when she gets indicted after Epstein’s dead, if her lawyer would’ve come to the SDNY and said she’s interested in cooperating and SDNY would’ve got a sense that she’s actually going to for real and fully and name names and not just peck around the margins and play games, they would’ve brought her in.

And third, nobody has a right to cooperate. We generally will hear out anyone who’s willing to come forward and give us real cases, but it’s not some constitutional, statutory or moral right to come in and cooperate at all. And I think there’s going to be some spinning as to what happened back then to justify this bizarre thing we saw play out recently where Todd, we all… Todd Blanch, we all know him, but goes into not the prison but the courthouse and meets with her for a day and a half.

Asha Rangappa:

And just one other detail, Ghislaine Maxwell was originally charged with two counts of perjury.

Preet Bharara:

Yes.

Asha Rangappa:

For lying during a deposition.

Preet Bharara:

Wait, wait a minute. What are you saying? Does that affect her credibility? I don’t follow.

Asha Rangappa:

Yeah, she had lied in a deposition about the nature of the crimes by Epstein about-

Preet Bharara:

Wait, she lied about this stuff?

Asha Rangappa:

She lied about this stuff. She was actually initially charged. I believe those perjury charges were severed from her other charges when she was tried for it, because I think there was a determination that it could be prejudicial if that evidence of her perjury came out during the trial itself or her other charges, and then later they weren’t pursued because they already had this conviction. But yeah, so it’s not just that she wasn’t forthcoming. She was also a liar.

Preet Bharara:

No, I’m glad you pointed that out. So just to summarize, the Deputy Attorney General, either on his own or was instructed to go meet with an unrepentant sex trafficker, sex trafficking enabler who is charged credibly with multiple counts of perjury, has not accepted responsibility for anything she’s done, has an incentive to lie and point fingers in a way that favors the president because pardon has been dangled. Is that a good summary?

Mimi Rocah:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

All right.

Mimi Rocah:

While his Department of Justice is opposing her appeal, I also think that-

Preet Bharara:

Well, that may be in jeopardy.

Mimi Rocah:

Yeah, I think they might change positions on that.

Asha Rangappa:

Really? But they just did it last week.

Preet Bharara:

Can I ask a more focused question? What is going on? Okay, I’m going to ask a different question and then we’ll get to the summary question. So what do you think happened in that meeting with the Deputy Attorney General? So one of my criticisms is they keep talking about transparency, transparency, transparency. We were not told who was in the meeting with the DAG. We were not told if there was someone there taking notes. We were not told the purpose of it. We were not told when we’re going to hear about the results of it. What do you think happened in the meeting for multiple hours?

Mimi Rocah:

And we were not told what the conditions of her talking were. There has been some reporting that she received, what we would call, I think proffer immunity or limited immunity, but that didn’t come from Mr. Transparency, Todd Blanche, who is out there tweeting about the fact that he’s going to meet with her and he’s so transparent and wants to get to the truth.

Preet Bharara:

But that immunity is standard fare when a person who is at risk of incriminating themselves agrees to talk, right?

Mimi Rocah:

Under a normal DOJ, yes, but nothing is… I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with them giving the immunity. I’m saying, this is third party reporting. It’s not like they’re saying, “And here are the conditions of her talking.” If you’re going to claim, to your point, to be transparent, you got to be transparent about everything. People have to understand her incentives, which are major here, and that would include what is the immunity? What is the agreement? Who is in the room, as you said, does anybody know about the case to really test her truthfulness? Et cetera.

Preet Bharara:

Can I ask a question then Elie and Asha, you can join in further? Why is he meeting with her at all when on July 7th, the DOJ and the FBI put out a pretty sober document that said, among other things, there’s no proper reason to disclose more information. To do so would be basically peddling child pornography because that’s what some of the evidence was. That no one else remains to be charged and that we’re done here. That was like weeks ago.

Elie Honig:

Here’s the answer. Because the political winds shifted, and underlying all of this conversation for all four of us ordinarily, we would spend this entire hour talking about how insane all of DOJ’s conduct is because DOJ is supposed to be independent. This is what we’ve all been talking and writing about in our books and podcasts for years. And now that principle is so far gone and so far degraded.

Preet Bharara:

We don’t even talk about it.

Elie Honig:

We don’t even talk about it. The notion of it’s just a given. What Todd is doing there, what Amo Bove now apparently confirmed last night.

Preet Bharara:

Judge Bove to you.

Elie Honig:

Right. The things these folks have doing is contrary to… Forget about just the time. We all were there and. All of us served under Democrat Republican administrations alike. It’s so far gone that we don’t even bother with the preliminaries of, by the way, this is contrary to everything DOJ is supposed to be doing as an independent institution. But the short answer to your question, Preet, is because the political winds changed, because Pam Bondi makes this announcement. She releases this memo from the FBI to July 7th that says the following, “We’ve gone through the entire file, 300 gigabytes, no further charges are necessary, no further public disclosure should be made. Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.” And people flipped out. And that’s what caused something to blow up.

Preet Bharara:

Lost their minds.

Elie Honig:

Yes. And that’s why DOJ suddenly, and not even trying to… With no even half-assed explanation why. It just went from one extreme. It’s over. To a whole other extreme of like, “We’re going to send the Deputy AG in and we’ll talk later about, we’re going to release grand jury transcripts,” and they’ve just completely just turned on a dime. And that’s it. It’s politics.

Asha Rangappa:

To bring this full circle, Preet, to your earlier point, Todd Blanche is the Deputy Attorney General. Do we believe that he’s actually gone through this extensive case file that has spanned multiple jurisdictions?

Preet Bharara:

Of course, because he has nothing else to do. It’s a small job Deputy Attorney General.

Asha Rangappa:

So he goes to interview her, I would imagine without a deep command of the facts of this case, without the lead prosecutor who was fired, without any FBI agents. As far as I’m aware, I am not sure he had anyone else from the Department of Justice. Was this interview memorialized afterwards? Do we know?

Preet Bharara:

I don’t know. We’re not even told.

Asha Rangappa:

Is it added to her case file? I mean-

Preet Bharara:

We’re not even told.

Asha Rangappa:

… there’s no record. I guess are supposed to take Todd Blanche’s word for what went down. And I would be interested to know from you all, would you ever go and do an interview like this without just someone else? As an FBI agent, we weren’t allowed to interview anyone without another agent present.

Mimi Rocah:

Yeah, I think whether FBI was there or not is an unknown. Let’s leave it. I am not sure there wasn’t, but I definitely am not sure there was because I’ve heard conflicting things. But it doesn’t matter because you know what? It’s probably not the case agent, to your point. It could be someone sitting there. It could be someone taking notes. But none of this is on the up and up. Can we go back for one second though and talk about… I know you’ve talked about it before, Preet, but firing Maurene Comey?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. So I was going to ask the question, does anybody have anything other than speculation about what went on there?

Mimi Rocah:

Meaning why she was fired?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah.

Mimi Rocah:

No, she was given no reason. I know that for a fact. She was definitely not given-

Preet Bharara:

Article II’s not a reason, but I guess it was the authority article.

Mimi Rocah:

Article II, the constitutional power. And also I think it’s worth saying, because I can say this with certainty that the current US attorney did not in any way try to stop this from happening and gave very little, if any, support to her even saying, “Gee, I’m sorry this happened to you,” but certainly didn’t try to, as I know you would’ve… I heard you and Joyce talk about this on one of the other podcasts. Both of you would’ve been on the phone in two seconds to the AG saying, what is going on? Why are you firing one of my prosecutors without any explanation? One of my great prosecutors.

Preet Bharara:

An exemplary prosecutor. Yeah, yeah.

Mimi Rocah:

Yeah, exemplary. We’ve all written about that. There is nothing that you can impugn in terms of misconduct that is actual and real based, in fact, to Maurene. I supervised her personally. You hired her. She’s an amazing prosecutor. And frankly, the one who runs towards cases like this one, that are really freaking hard to bring.

Preet Bharara:

Well, she has that one quality, the last name.

Elie Honig:

I was say, I don’t know her. I must’ve just missed her by a few months at the office. But obviously, there’s two things going. One is the Comey factor. Let’s be real. Trump is just eager to strike bad. I’ve already seen a spokesperson out there for Trump say, “Oh, Jim Comey’s daughter referred to that.” But the other thing is, it’s obvious they’re setting her up to be a scapegoat. They’re going to find some typo in a file. They’re going to find some staple that’s loose and say, “Oh, she blew the whole thing. That’s why Todd had to come in and fix it.” If that doesn’t happen, I’ll be shocked.

Mimi Rocah:

It might be more general than that. And I think they’ve already started doing it. And it’s not just her. It’s the whole SDNY that they’re trying to say vaguely. And we’ve seen this, saying this talking point about they didn’t dig hard enough. They didn’t find the list. It’s their fault. And then Trump, at the same time is saying, Comey, the Jim Comey and all these other corrupt democratic, even though he’s not a Democrat, corrupt people, were controlling the Epstein files for years. We can’t possibly be-

Elie Honig:

That is okay.

Mimi Rocah:

So anyway.

Asha Rangappa:

All of these rationales, to go back to the initial background that Mimi provided, it’s really weird, right? Because Maurene Comey and the other district of New York obtained a conviction against-

Preet Bharara:

They’re the only ones who did anything.

Asha Rangappa:

… a crazy, evil sex offender. So there has to be implicit in all of this, also a changing of the narrative in terms of how Maxwell is framed. That again, this Rosetta, so I saw that too, Elie and my head almost exploded when Sununu said that there’s going to have to be a changing of narrative. But I will also say, I’m not sure that there is so much 5D chess going on with this administration. If it was just the name, why wasn’t she fired immediately after Bondi was put in? This is evolving in real time. I still think her firing was kind of weird. Maybe just a impulsive, let’s throw some red meat and maybe this will calm everybody down. Now there might be a retrofitting of, okay, we can make this all work.

Preet Bharara:

Stay tuned. There’s more coming up with my guests after the break. Here’s what’s going on politically, which is driving all of the DOJ conduct, it seems to me, that conspiracy theory was spun up, led by, and advocated by and perpetuated by people who are now at the top of the Justice Department in terms of the FBI, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino is the deputy director of the FBI.

They said there was this material, they said there was a client list. Bondi herself adopted the position that there was a client list and spun up all the MAGA base to believe that there was some stuff that was going to be incriminating towards people they don’t like. And when they said, “There’s nothing to see here, we’re not going to disclose it,” as Elie has already pointed out, all hell broke loose. So they have to make right with that.

So it seems to me everything can be viewed through the lens of the firing of Maurene, the meeting with Ghislaine. Other things that are being said in the press, the motion to the courts, three different courts to unseal grand jury material is all an effort, tell me if you agree, to get right with most or all of that base who is really, really, really upset.

And some portion of that base probably is looking for a way to get right with Trump. People don’t like to be estranged from their loved ones for too long. And so anything they can find that can excuse the ultimate offense of the July 7th memo that we’re not going to release anything will help them. And they have some basis for thinking. Yeah, if we can blame someone else, then we’re fine.

Here’s my question. I posed this question to Ben Wittes yesterday, and maybe it’s too intelligent a question for the people who are being played in all of this. This is an administration that has moved three different courts to unseal grand jury material, which is very, very, very high burden denied by at least one judge as of the time we’re recording this. There is a whole ocean of other material notwithstanding with sitting United States Senators like Markwayne Mullin Mullin said on television on Sunday saying, “Everything was grand jury. That’s not true. It’s a lie.” There’s a whole sea of information that maybe inappropriate or unwise or against norms to release, but the DOJ could release. How is DOJ explaining, moving to unseal the most sensitive judge guarded grand jury information, and yet not revealing and disclosing all that other stuff? Go.

Elie Honig:

Can I take this one? Because this is a perfect preview of my piece for CAFE, my newsletter piece of New York Magazine-

Preet Bharara:

Oh, look, a little promotion here.

Elie Honig:

… that’s coming out on Friday, which will be the day after this podcast comes out. That is the perfect exposure of why this is such BS, why this is such an artifice. It’s DOJ’s attempt to look transparent to satisfy those angry voices in the MAGA base. And it’s also an attempt… It’s an intentional… Well, the part they’re focusing on is the part they have no control over. So let me just explain this for late view. I’m going to use visuals off this desk here, okay?

Preet Bharara:

Remember, this is a podcast. This is audio. We are on video. This is available on YouTube listeners.

Elie Honig:

This is on video now. We’ve gone on video live. Okay? Any given criminal file has basically two components. There is grand jury testimony. That’s going to be my phone here. And then there’s everything else. This is not actually to scale, which is the stapler. Okay? What percent? Mimi, Preet, Asha, of any given entire criminal file, what percent of that criminal file is going to be grand jury testimony? Just rough percent. Mimi, Preet.

Preet Bharara:

I think it depends on the case. 15,85.

Mimi Rocah:

Very small.

Elie Honig:

Yeah, let’s use the highest possible number. 15 is the high. I would say five, but 10. But let’s say 15. So this is grand jury testimony. This is 15%. This is everything else.

Preet Bharara:

If all of your documents are obtained by grand jury subpoena, then that enlarges the number.

Elie Honig:

But that’s a good point, Preet. But that would be grand jury materials. The request is only for grand jury testimony, which is much narrower.

Preet Bharara:

Right. Yeah, I see. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right.

Elie Honig:

Okay. Grand jury testimony. Let’s just say 15% my phone here, everything else, 85%. This 85%, the everything else, the stapler. DOJ could turn that over today. They say, oh, we’d have to redact names.

Preet Bharara:

So they’re continuing to insult their base, correct?

Elie Honig:

Yes. Well, people will read my article, and I don’t think the base will but explains why it’s HBS. The 15% they’re trying to release is the part that A, they need a judge to approve B, They’re probably not going to get one of the three judges in Florida already rejected it.

Preet Bharara:

And then they can call the judges rogue and should be impeached in judicial coup.

Elie Honig:

It’s all about we tried.

Asha Rangappa:

Guys, here’s the thing. The grand jury transcripts are secret.

Elie Honig:

Right, exactly. It sounds good.

Asha Rangappa:

So this is the key. The whole conspiracy is based on this idea that there is a deep state, right? That’s burying stuff that’s secret. And so the secrecy of something and then pulling back the curtain on the secrecy is what to them is going to expose everything. So I think it’s playing into that belief. And this is also why I think Trump has skated for so long on so many things that he does because he does it out in the open. He doesn’t do it secretly, usually. And I think this is why this particular issue has tripped him up because he is trying to keep things secret, and it’s sort of like, why is he doing that? Which to me is I think the million-dollar question. What exactly is he afraid of?

I think he has been able to explain away so many things. I don’t think it would be shocking to anybody if he was like, “Yeah, I was friends with Epstein. I realized he was a creep. Yeah, I’m going to be in those files. He’s going to talk about me sometimes, but so what? I think he’s a creep,” and then release them. So what is it that he believes that he can’t explain away that he is flailing around about? Because it to me is not some kind of shocker that somehow his name would be floating in and I would think his base would be very quick to accept whatever rationalization that he puts out. So this is what confuses me the most.

Preet Bharara:

What it reminds me of, and I made this point, I want to make it again on my show. I made it on Jen Psaki’s show last week. This idea that, oh, we’re going to put everything out in the public. We’re going to disclose everything. Then Pam Bondi whispers in allegedly into Trump’s ear, “Your names are in the files.” Okay, we’re not going to release everything. And there’s this great.

My favorite scene even before this thing that brought it to mind from the comedy series Veep, the Julia Louis Dreyfus character is being pursued by some scandal. And she talks about transparency and she’s being pursued by the press. And she says on camera to the press, “I want full disclosure. Full disclosure is what I want. I want full disclosure.” She goes into the office, closes the door, and says to her staff in a softer voice. “And of course, by full disclosure, what I mean is partial disclosure. Light.” Isn’t that this? Of course, except it’s not funny.

Mimi Rocah:

Exactly. It’s the charade of disclosure and transparency.

Preet Bharara:

Partial disclosure. Light.

Mimi Rocah:

Is not actual.

Elie Honig:

And when they make their closing argument on this, whenever that may be, they’re going to say two things. They’re going to go, “Look, folks, first of all, we tried to give you the secret grand jury transcripts. Maybe one judge has said no, maybe who knows what the other two will do. But we tried to give you secret grand jury transcripts and no one else would give you. And we sent in Todd Blanche, the number two person to speak with the Rosetta Stone. So we tried.” That’s what the front they’re trying to put on here.

Mimi Rocah:

Well, that’s best case scenario. Worst case scenario is they come up with stuff that she can just say now.

Preet Bharara:

Can I Elie a question? I consider Elie to be the resident scholar of bad conduct by attorneys general of the United States of America?

Mimi Rocah:

Fair.

Preet Bharara:

That’s what you do, Elie Honig.

Elie Honig:

I’ve earned that title.

Preet Bharara:

Can you explain… I just wonder about the psychology. We talked about law, but law is often in mesh with psychology. You have to understand why your adversary is doing what they’re doing, why witnesses will or will not testify. What are the motivations to plead guilty or not? All those things. It’s a lot of psychology. The Attorney General of the United States, who I believe you recited in the piece for us was highly qualified given what she had done in the past. She had served as an attorney general. She certainly had of a large state and served respectably, I think you said.

So she’s not an idiot. Can you explain what was going on in her head when she answered a question directly about a client list said it was on our desk with the clear implication it was going to be released, and then not doing that? Do you have any insight into how you make such an error or worse than an error?

Elie Honig:

Well, that was idiotic. I’m not saying she’s an idiot, but that was an idiotic-

Preet Bharara:

What’s going on in the head?

Elie Honig:

It’s hard to explain. So she comes into office ablaze with, “Oh man, we’re going to blow the roof off the Epstein thing.” She makes that comment. She says, “It’s all on my desk being ready to be reviewed.” She has this whole thing where she releases these binders that labeled the Epstein Files: Phase 1, hands them out to these influencers. Remember, you’ve all seen the photo. They’re proudly holding them up out from the White House by the way. That actual release didn’t happen at DOJ. It happened at the White House. The influencers then say, what is this crap? This is all stuff that’s already out there. I think she just went in and she got out way too far over her skis. She must not have known what was in there. She must not have understood the peril. And so she thought she was going to come out and release this stuff and satisfy all the influencers. Then I guess she realized that she didn’t have the goods. She could see her dragging her feet into a certain point.

Preet Bharara:

You think she went back to her office? Did she come back? She’s like, “Okay, client file. Client file.”

Asha Rangappa:

Again, I think that this is the problem with trying to use the lingo of the conspiracy theory in the context of a reality of a case. I guess it’s theoretically possible that there is some document in the file that says, “Client list,” but that’s probably not the case. We’re talking about tens of thousands of documents across three investigations. Folks, this was an investigation from the Southern District of Florida. This is an investigation that spanned leading up to the charges of Epstein. Then there’s the investigation leading up to the charges of Maxwell. I assume all of this is a part of the umbrella of the Epstein case, right?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. Going back to what you were asking before, what could be in there? The thing that occurs to me that could be in there are documents or statements that make it quite clear that Donald Trump, whether he participated or not, but quite clear that before he broke off with Jeffrey Epstein, he knew that Jeffrey Epstein was exploiting underage women and girls and hurting them and having sex with them, and he knew it, and he didn’t break off then and he didn’t do anything about it because that would be very bad for him. And that’s the thing that I speculate is in there.

Mimi Rocah:

And it’s a little more than speculation. There has been statements from victims who have said either in court or publicly, if you walked into Epstein’s house, you saw what amounted child pornographic pictures on his wall. Everyone knew kind of thing. And it’s not just Donald Trump. It may be plenty of high profile Democrats as well. But this idea that they all turned a blind eye to what’s going on, and that’s not far-fetched. That happens, is still happening, and certainly has happened in American culture forever, that a blind eye is turned towards a powerful man abusing young girls.

Elie Honig:

Can I add to that also a little bit of incidental support for this theory? Look at Donald Trump’s nonsensical, internally contradictory statements throughout this week about when and why he broke off ties with Jeffrey Epstein.

Preet Bharara:

Please interpret that for us, Elie.

Elie Honig:

So Trump’s been asked this question, and he’s always sort of punted it and said, “Oh, he did something really bad.” Now he is saying- He says, “He did something really bad. He stole my help. He hired the help.” And then a reporter sort of presses him and says, “Was one of those helpers, Virginia Giuffre?” And Trump says, “Yeah, I think it was. Yes, that was one of them.” So it begs a couple questions. First of all, the timing is bizarre here because Virginia Giuffre, she worked at Mar-a-Lago. She worked in the spa at Mar-a-Lago when she was 16. Okay, if you’re the owner of a spa at Mar-a at 16, and Jeffrey Epstein’s poaching her, to do what? What do you think? Jeffrey Epstein is not a spa owner, folks. He’s some finance guy at this point. So what do you think-

Preet Bharara:

And how much do you know about the youngest lowest level employees at your club?

Elie Honig:

That too, and then it also makes no sense because Trump says, “Well, that’s when I cut him off.” It would’ve been 2000. Yet in, ’02, two years later, Trump gives this quote to New York Magazine and this insane profile of Jeffrey Epstein, where both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump gush about how great Jeffrey Epstein is in different ways. And Trump says, he is a wonderful guy. He likes his girls even younger than I do or something. I’m paraphrasing. But it’s something like that. And then the alleged birthday book comes out even after that.

So the timing makes no sense. The explanation makes no sense. And the problem, I think, to Mimi’s point, if the real reason Donald Trump cut him off is because I knew this guy was involved in horrible things with young girls, he can’t say that now, because that would’ve been years before Epstein was prosecuted, and he would’ve then turned a blind eye for many years while Epstein was continuing to abuse people. So he ends up with this bizarre story that just doesn’t hang together.

Asha Rangappa:

Also, why did he have an underage person working in his spa? I don’t know. Mimi, you go to a lot of spas? I go to a lot of spas. I never see young girls in there when I’m getting my facial or my massage. So yes, exactly. Not only why does he know this, but why is this resort hiring underage girls?

Mimi Rocah:

And even the language of he stole my… It sounds-

Preet Bharara:

Very proprietary.

Mimi Rocah:

Proprietary. Exactly. That’s-

Asha Rangappa:

Yes, and the timeline doesn’t match, to Elie’s point, also because I believe Virginia Giuffre said that she left in 1999 or 2000 and his relationship with Epstein and continued until I think at least 2004. The key to all of this, also Preet, of what you’re saying that might be in there, we have to remember that this is also very well before pre-MeToo, right? I mean, we have these norms now where things like that… I mean, there has been a change in social culture. Harvey Weinstein, people turn a blind eye to that too. They knew what was going on there.

Mimi Rocah:

Larry Nassar.

Asha Rangappa:

Larry Nassar.

Mimi Rocah:

Larry Nassar I think is a prime example.

Asha Rangappa:

There was a way in which a lot of men felt emboldened to act very openly. So there would have been instances where there was not shame or people trying to hide this because they felt that they would never be accountable for it.

Mimi Rocah:

It’s been very tolerated. More than tolerated. Accepted.

Preet Bharara:

Mimi Rocah, Asha Rangappa, Elie Honig, that was a real treat. Thanks so much.

Elie Honig:

Thanks, guys. Great to talk. That was fun.

Mimi Rocah:

Yep. Thanks guys.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Elie, Mimi, and Asha continues for members of the CAFE Insider Community. To try out the membership head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guests, Mimi Rocah, Elie Honig, and Asha Rangappa. You like what we do? Rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at @PreetBharara with the hashtag #Askpreet. You can also now reach me on Blue Sky, or you can call and leave me a message at 833-997-7338. That’s 833-99-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com.

Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noa Azulai and Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernández, and the CAFE team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner and Liana Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host, Preet Bharara. As always, Stay Tuned.