Epstein co-conspirators PANIC amid HUGE UPDATE

You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, we've all heard the news that. Prince Andrew was arrested for charges. related to Jeffrey Epstein over in the. UK, and a lot of people lamented the. fact that nothing was happening right. here in the US. But, that's not exactly. how you see it. So, can you give a. little update as to how the arrest of. Prince Andrew in the UK can actually. have major implications on American. politicians right over here? Brian, the. minute I saw the news, frankly, the the. pretty surprising news that they. arrested former Prince Andrew, you know,

my mind went to a place that it always. went as a career prosecutor. When I. heard that somebody got locked up or I. indicted somebody who I knew could. implicate others, and that is to. cooperating witness land. Let me lay. this out, Brian. Now, full disclosure, I. never prosecuted royalty. I don't think. kingpins count. But, but here's what I. can say. I did prosecute and my friends. and career colleagues prosecuted lots of.

folks who had committed very serious. crimes, and those folks were weak. You. know, there are few criminals that I've. come across in my years as a prosecutor. that are weaker than people who abuse. children, whether sexually or otherwise. And when the law comes crashing down on. them, like the Prince former Prince. Andrews of the world, I can tell you the. first thing they're inclined to do is. start pointing fingers at other rich,

influential, powerful, connected people. Why? First of all, misery loves company. I'm. a former prince and you're going to. arrest me for what I did? Well, then I'm. going to tell you about powerful person. one, influential person two, connected. individual three, and I'm going to tell. you what they did, the information that. I know because I was part of that elite. club of, you know, those with lots of. money and those who thought they were.

above the law and those who like to. sexually abuse young girls. So, I would. be shocked if Prince Andrew, former. Prince Andrew, didn't start talking with. the authorities. He's facing criminal. charges. He's been arrested, for gosh. sakes. They arrested former royalty over. in the UK and we can't seem to hold. anybody accountable for the crimes that. were committed right here on US soil. I. would be shocked if he didn't start to.

talk about all of the other rich, powerful, influential people that he. knows were involved in similar conduct. because he's got to be thinking to. himself, "Oh, why am I being held. accountable and all of them are not. being held accountable?" Now, ordinarily, Brian, somebody in his. circumstance wants to start providing. information to the authorities about the. crimes of others, typically other bigger. criminal fish, because they want to.

benefit for themselves. They want to try. to weasel out from under their charges. They want to get a reduced plea or maybe. the promise of a reduced sentence. But, when it comes to the rich and the. powerful, those who feel they are. bulletproof, those who have been de. facto above the law their whole lives, they get really upset. They can get. really upset and angry that they're. being held accountable, but all these. other, you know, connected people are. not being held accountable. So, let's. see if former Prince Andrew starts.

talking about what he might know about. Donald Trump. And so, in that case, how would we have. any indication as to whether he's. cooperating or not? We would only have some indication of. that if one, it became a matter of. public record over in the UK. Two, if it. leaked out. I, you know, they have a lot. of very accomplished investigative. journalists in the UK just as we have. here in the US. You know, or three, and.

stick with me here, people are going to. feel like this is hopium or magical. thinking, if all of a sudden our. Department of Justice started to launch. criminal probes. What we know, Brian, is. Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and Cash. Patel are not inclined to launch. criminal probes about anybody who is. implicated in the the Epstein files. What we have seen, and this really. exposes just how far we have fallen,

what we have seen from other civilized. countries with legitimate law. enforcement agencies, we've seen. criminal investigations in France, in. the UK, in uh Turkey, in Latvia, in. Lithuania, in Poland. They're doing what. civilized countries do. They investigate. crime when there is some evidence of. crime. Um but, think about this. Pam. Bondi has been inclined to investigate.

nobody thus far, but if all of a sudden. we see some investigations beginning to. percolate, that's not because Pam Bondi. had a change of heart and all of a. sudden is concerned about, you know, enforcing the rule of law, but it may be. that if we are learning information from. uh sources in other countries where they. actually are criminally pursuing folks. who are implicated in the Epstein. trials, that might be a sure sign that. some of them are now providing.

information that Pam Bondi cannot. ignore. So, I would keep an eye out for. that. But, what about the fact that. Prince Andrew or or what he's known as. now, I think his his title was. officially stripped from him, but. uh but we'll call him Andrew for now. What about the fact that he was arrested. by British authorities and how could. that have any impact on what the. American justice system is going to do? Like, is the American system also. interested in him because he was a. co-conspirator of an American criminal.

or is that prosecution happening. completely unto itself over in the UK. and therefore won't really have any. impact on, you know, what bigger fish he. might be able to help catch over here in. the US? Yeah, Brian, it's a great. question and I think I have two. different answers. I will give the first. answer as if we were living in the. before times, when the Department of. Justice actually investigated crime. regardless of who committed it. You. know, Brian, we used to have a robust. working relationship, a really good.

working relationship with, you know, British authorities, UK authorities, when it came to investigating crime in. which both countries had an interest. You know, for example, we had a murder. in Washington DC that fled to London and. what I had to do was work through the. extradition process with the authorities. over in London to try to convince them. to give us back our suspected killer so. we could take him to trial. And that was. no easy task. But, you know, we used to.

have a really good working relationship. We could pick up a phone, we could reach. out and talk to them if we had a mutual. interest in a defendant or in an. investigation. But, now in the current. times when the rule of law is no longer. a thing at the Department of Justice, I. have to wonder if the UK authorities. even reached out to our Department of. Justice, whether they would accept the. call or whether they would continue to. turn a blind eye in Pam Bondi's. determination.

not to investigate anybody who's. implicated in the Epstein files. And. certainly, what we have heard from Pam. Bondi and the Department of Justice thus. far is crickets and cover-ups. Why? I. think we can all reasonably infer that. Pam Bondi is determined to protect, you. know, dear leader in the Oval Office at. all costs. So, presently, I think all. bets are off, but, you know, I think all. we can do is keep an eye out to see if. there's any investigative movement over.

here, and if we begin to see it, it may. be a sign that, you know, other. countries conducting criminal. investigations are in fact having an. impact on what's going to go on at the. Department of Justice. So, Glenn, I want to ask you about a. potential workaround that I think might. be interesting. But, before I do, um. just a note for those who are watching. right now, if you'd like to stay on top. of all Epstein news and any other legal. news, the best way to do that is to. subscribe to both of our channels. I'm. going to put the links in the post. description of this video. It's.

completely free to subscribe, but it's a. great way to support our work. So, again, if you want to check out some. more legal coverage, the best way to do. that is to go ahead and subscribe to our. channels. Glenn, on that point of a. workaround, recognizing that the DOJ is. not going to be a good faith partner, and that US attorneys in these offices. around the country are of course under. the thumb of Pam Bondi and by extension. Donald Trump, could UK officials, for example, work. with attorneys general in respective. states that are actually taking this. seriously? What's to stop, um you know,

the intelligence community over in the. UK from opening up an investigation. alongside uh Letitia James in New York, for example? You know, nothing is to. stop state authorities from opening. criminal probes provided they have. jurisdiction over the crimes. What we. have heard is there were very likely. crimes committed in uh Epstein's New. York mansion. Obviously, the authorities. really most directly on the state level, it would be like Alvin Bragg's District.

Attorney's office would have. jurisdiction to open a criminal probe if. he had sufficient evidence to do so. Out. in New Mexico, where the Zorro Ranch has. been in the news recently, there could. be a state investigations out there. Obviously, down in Florida, if they. could find any Florida state law. enforcement officials who would be. willing to open a criminal probe down. there, and perhaps elsewhere where these. then young girls were trafficked and. abused. You know, it's it's a little bit. unusual, at least in my experience, to.

see the authorities in any foreign. countries reach out to states because. ordinarily the feds will be the point of. contact for all overseas criminal. justice matters that may intersect with. what we're doing over here on the. investigative front. But, you know, these are very different times, and I. could certainly see if DOJ snubbed. foreign law enforcement authorities who. wanted to work cooperatively with. authorities here in the states, if they.

snubbed them, I could easily see the the. states step in or other countries. reaching out to the involved state, whether New Mexico, you know, New York, Florida, or somewhere else. And again, these are very different times because. of the Department of Justice abdicating. its responsibility to, you know, fight. crime, basically. Is there a way, if we see an. investigation pop up in New York or New. Mexico where there are Democratic. Attorney Generals, for.

those states, if and when we get to a. point where there's a Democratic. administration and a Democratic Attorney. General, to then merge those cases or to. share information? Like, what do you. What do you do if if maybe the the the. federal government has more. jurisdiction, but right now Pam Bondi is. obviously not going to do anything. because they're more involved in. participating in a cover-up than. exposing one. But but they're still the. they're still it would still make more. sense that this happens on a federal. level. Is there a way for the states to.

start building out this case now and. then hand the reins over to an attorney. general who's actually willing to do his. or her job once they take office? Without a doubt. You know, in my lived. experience as a federal prosecutor, you. know, we cooperated all the time with. state law enforcement authorities, both. police and prosecutors, when we had a. defendant, for example, of mutual. interest to us. I can't tell you how. often I was in Washington, D.C., but. across jurisdictional lines in Maryland,

we did business with the Montgomery. County prosecutor's office and the PG. County prosecutor's offices across the. river in. Alexandria or Arlington, we worked with. the Commonwealth's Attorney's. Prosecutor's Offices there. Happened all. the time. And your point is a great one. With DOJ washing its hands of. investigating the crimes that are. documented in the Epstein files, you. could absolutely have, for example, an. Alvin Bragg state court prosecutor in.

Manhattan begin to investigate, begin to. build a case, and then, you know, once. the rule of law is again a thing in the. Department of Justice, if we have a a. president elected who is actually loyal. to the Constitution, there is no doubt that Alvin Bragg could. then include the feds in whatever he may. have developed through the course of his. investigation. And, you know, these kind. of investigations.

um will often have what we call. concurrent jurisdiction. In other words, >> there will be crimes that have been. committed in the state of New York. But. those crimes may violate not only New. York state law when it involves in. sexual offenses against minors, but. federal law if it's sex trafficking, particularly across state lines. So, that is where, ordinarily, state. prosecutors and federal prosecutors will. work cooperatively, but Bragg could go. gangbusters building a case only to.

bring the feds in, you know, when the. feds were again interested in pursuing. legitimate investigations. Is there any reason why prosecutors at. both the federal level and the state. level wouldn't take this up? I mean and. and I say that the federal level. eventually. Like Pam Bondi again is not. going to do it, but but when we get to a. point where the DOJ is once again in the. hands of somebody who's going to pursue. justice without fear or favor and. certainly not do Trump's bidding, is. there any reason whatsoever why this. shouldn't turn into. a prosecution at both the federal and.

state level? You know, if there is. enough evidence of one, federal. jurisdiction for the crimes, and two, enough evidence to believe that the. prosecutors would not only have probable. cause to obtain an indictment, but they. had a good faith belief that they had. enough admissible evidence to prove. guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, obviously that is the burden of proof in. a criminal trial, there would be no. reason for the feds to decline to pick.

it up. Let me just add a quick caveat. When there is concurrent jurisdiction, when there's a crime that the feds could. take or the state could take, it's not. that unusual in my experience for the. feds to say, you know what? The states. can have it. The states can handle it. We will turn our attention to bigger. crimes with multi-state implications. That can be a legitimate exercise of. prosecutorial discretion, but let me add.

this. I was never a good bureaucrat at. the Department of Justice. It can also. be the product of prosecutors, federal. prosecutors, not wanting to voluntarily. burden themselves with more cases in. their caseload if they know the case can. be be pursued by state authorities. But. there's a balance to be struck because. frankly, the feds typically have more. resources available to them to pursue. criminal prosecutions. The states are. often strapped. State district attorneys.

offices are often understaffed, underfunded, overworked. I've seen it. with my own eyes. So, I always kind of. urged federal prosecutors, you know, if. you have jurisdiction, seriously. consider exercising that jurisdiction. and taking the case federally because, you know what? The states typically are. overburdened in the the prosecution. arena. Was there also nothing to be said. for the deterrent effect of this not. just being a state crime, but a federal.

crime and having, you know, the. Department of Justice investigate. anybody who is going to engage in this. type of activity? Like, look, obviously. everybody who's doing the stuff that. Epstein did and participating in these. crimes um is going to have some. proclivity to break the law, otherwise. they wouldn't do it. But, I have to. imagine that, you know, if we're in a. world where they the the the the feds or. or any prosecutors put their foot down. and say, "This is not going to slide. We're going to put the full force of. both federal and state government in.

front of this thing." I would imagine. that that would have some deterrent. effect for the next person who decides. to commit this heinous crime. Pursuing. crimes is all about not only holding. each perpetrator accountable, vindicating the right of that particular. victim in that case, and protecting. society. It is about deterrence. You. want to make sure that folks who are. maybe on the fence about whether they're. going to commit a crime or not see that. others who have opted in favor of. criminal conduct have been hammered, not.

just held accountable, but figuratively. speaking hammered. And here's the thing, Brian. I think the prevailing wisdom is. that the feds have the biggest hammer. That's true because the feds have the. most resources. However, people may not. know the most accomplished criminal. prosecutors in our nation are in state. district attorneys' offices, state. attorneys' offices, and state. commonwealth attorneys' offices. Those.

are the prosecution offices around the. country because they do the lion's share. of the prosecuting. 95% or 97%. of the criminal cases that get tried are. tried by state court prosecutors, not. federal prosecutors. So, on the resource. front, the feds have the biggest hammer, but when it comes to expert prosecution, it is really the states that frankly. defendants might want to fear the most. All right. Well, obviously a lot more to.

come on this, and I do think that you're. onto something as far as Andrew is. concerned because, you know, to your. exact point, I think when people see the. opportunity to save their own asses by. throwing somebody else under the bus, especially when you're at that level, they'll they'll more time more likely. than not jump at that opportunity. So, more to come as far as the Epstein files. are concerned. For those who are. watching, if you'd like to stay on top. of any news as it relates to Epstein or. any other legal news, the best way to do. that is to subscribe to both of our. channels. I'm going to put those links.

right here on the screen in the post. description. Again, if you're not yet. subscribed, it is completely free, a. great way to support us, and a great way. to support independent media. So, go. ahead and click the subscribe button. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen. And I'm Glenn. Kirschner. You're watching the Legal Breakdown. >> [music].