25 Epstein Insiders Cut Secret Deals: Ghislaine Maxwell Bombshell Court Filing

Glenn Maxwell has just dropped the. bombshell. In a new court filing, she. claims that 25 men reached secret deals, secret settlements in the Jeffrey. Epstein saga, on top of four who were. never indicted, too. People who were not. charged. The government allegedly hid. this information from her. Got [music]. to break it down if this is true, what. it could mean, who these people are. Could she be set free? I [music] got the. perfect person to talk to, a former. federal prosecutor. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. [music] I'm. Jesse Weber.

Look, before we get into this, as we're. about to talk about the Gla Maxwell. story, [music] staying on top of the. news today is so important. The problem. is with all the media bias these days, who knows what to believe? That is why I. want to introduce you to our sponsor, Straight Arrow News. Okay, so Straight. Arrow News is a personalized news. platform that gives readers fact-based. journalism to inform and build trust. their media mist tool. It shows readers. headlines that are not seen on. mainstream outlets and provides useful. commentary that cuts through all of that.

sensational spin, their site, their app. It also points out all the bias with a. media landscape tool to group sources by. political leaning so you have full. transparency. If you are ready for a. better way to get the news, then go to. s.com/sidebar. or just click the link in my. description. This is straightour news. Skip the drama, get the facts. Welcome. back to trustworthy journalism. Okay, bombshell news in the continuing Jeffrey. Epstein Galain Maxwell saga. So, according to a newly filed court. document, Galain Maxwell, you know, the.

former associate of Jeffrey Epstein, she. was convicted of sex trafficking minors, sentenced to 20 years in prison. She. claims that 25 men, maybe friends, associates of the deceased financeier. have been protected under secret. settlements, secret deals, and that this. information was not revealed to her. during her trial. This is on top of what. she claims are four other individuals. alleged co-conspirators who were never. charged. Obviously, I have thoughts. Is. she telling the truth, particularly. given her past in light of what she's. trying to do now, if this is true?

Number one, wow. And who are these. people? What is a secret settlement? Can. we ever find out? Can the public ever. find out? So, I'm made of questions. I'm. bringing on an expert right now to. tackle all of this. I'm bringing on. right now former federal prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, Jean Rossi. Jean, thank you so much for taking the. time. really really appreciate it. Okay, before I get into any of these alleged. people who made secret deals, first just. to provide context, just so our audience. understands, this is a part of Galain.

Maxwell's habius corpus petition. Okay. Now, we know that the Supreme Court. previously denied even hearing her. appeal of her conviction. So, for. anybody who doesn't know, just generally. speaking, Gan, what is a habius corpus. petition and what can a court do with. it? That's a great question. Um, the most. famous uh habius corpus petition that. was granted is a famous case I think. from the 1970s, Brewer versus Williams.

It was a murder of a uh 10-year-old girl. on Christmas Eve in De Moine, Iowa. And. it was a state case and uh the uh. defendant, Mr. Williams had mental. health challenges, was recently released. from a mental institution, and he uh. strangled and mutilated and killed a. 12-year-old girl on Christmas Eve. And. it went up through the state system, exhausted all appeals, and then Mr. Williams filed a petition in federal.

court called Brewer versus Williams. Who's Brewer? Brewer is the warden where. he was being held, but that's a state. case. and it went up to the US Supreme. Court and they reversed. There was a. violation of the right to counsel, new. trial, he was convicted again. That's a. state case. This is a federal case and. the same standards apply. Miss Glain. Maxwell is filing a civil lawsuit, not a. criminal, a civil lawsuit as a. petitioner alleging that constitutional.

provisions have been violated and she. was convicted and it was a miscarriage. of justice. She raises about nine points. in her prosay petition that she. allegedly wrote. She probably had some. jailhouse lawyers, but 50 pages or give. or take a few pages. It's a civil. lawsuit. and the burden of proof is preponderance. that she has to bear to show that a. constitutional violation occurred. And.

what would be the violations in this. case, >> right? So, just to be clear, in other. words, this is somebody saying their. detention is unlawful, right? And she's. saying there's substantial new evidence. that has come out. throughout her. conviction, throughout her sentence that. when you look at lawsuits that were. filed, government disclosures, investigative reports, documents, it's. very clear, right, that if she had this. information, her con her whole trial. would have been different. Her rights. were violated. If I'm understanding it.

right, yeah, there's about nine points. Just before we get into it, how often. are these successful? I mean, how often. can this result in a conviction being. thrown out or a sentence uh you know, her being resentenced? can give you two good examples. One. involves Jean Rossi. Uh I convicted. somebody of drug trafficking in 2006. Her name was I'll call her I'll call her. Barbara. Fake name. Fake name. Barbara. Smith. That's a fake name. I convicted.

her. She got sentenced to seven years. About a year later, she filed a habius. corpus petition. She had counsel, great. counsel, and she argued that the prior. attorneys did not give her good adequate. information regarding plea negotiations. Judge TS Ellis III, who treated me like. a son and he passed away a few months. ago. He was a legend. He had the 2255. habius hearing. He granted the petition. After he granted the petition, five.

minutes later, she plead pleaded guilty. to time served. So I lost that hearing. >> So it's possible. Second example is. there's a famous case. It's a state. case. It's a Virginia Commonwealth of. Virginia versus Justin Wolf. He was. sentenced to death for drug trafficking. and allegedly hiring somebody to kill a. customer. It went up through the system. and the Virginia Court of Appeals and. the Supreme Court reversed the. conviction. It's now being appealed to.

the US Supreme Court. habius petition. And that's all I'm gonna say about it. because uh I'm assisting in that case. But but it's possible to win both a. federal habius petition and also a state. habius petition. Yes. >> Okay. Got it. Okay. So, we're going to. go through uh some of her points, right? She she says there's juror misconduct. The government misrepresented evidence. She brings up Epstein's nonprosecution. agreement, you know, back in the day, the one that he signed to get him away.

from being charged federally because she. has always argued that she was covered. under that, that she was granted. immunity. Maybe we'll get to that, but. we got to start with this bombshell. Okay, so this is the language directly. from the filing. I'm going to read. specifically from certain parts about. these co-conspirators, these secret. agreements. Okay, like this quote, the. secret settlements with the 25 men were. hidden from the petitioner, meaning Gain. Maxwell. That information would have. changed the outcome of the trial and. petitioner would have certainly called.

the men as witnesses. The degree of. contamination and collusion between. witnesses combined with withholding of. Brady material by the government, Brady. material is evidence that helps the. defendant needs to be turned over. Quote, that would call into question the. credibility of every complainant that. interfaced with plaintiff's lawyers. All. of them would have changed the outcome. of the trial. And remember, there was. always a lot of litigation with respect. to Epstein and Maxwell that was in the. background of the criminal case. So that. argument that information was withheld. from her and her team is very.

significant. And then you have this. argument of selective prosecution, right, that she is being singled out, that other people could have been. charged, but why is she the only one. being charged like this? Is it an unfair. prosecution? Quote, "A defendant moving. to dismiss for selective prosecution. bears the heavy burden of establishing. at least primaasy that while others. similarly situated have not generally. been proceeded or prosecuted against. because of conduct of the type forming. the basis of the charge against him. This person has been singled out for. prosecution. That's one thing you have.

to show. And that the government has a. discriminatory selection of the. defendant for prosecution." And so here. she says, quote, "None of the four named. co-conspirators or the 25 men with. secret settlements were indicted." And. then there's this, how former Attorney. General Bill Bar, okay, quote, admitted. that post Epstein's death, they were. looking for someone to indict for. trafficking. The petitioner was not. named in Epstein's first or second. indictment. Four other women were named.

as co-conspirators, but none of the four. were ever charged. the government could. have indicted the four named. co-conspirators or any of the 25 men. that settled secretly with the. plaintiff's lawyers, but did not. And. then in the context of saying how. litigation was used against her in the. criminal case, quote, "The intervening. years were used to exploit the civil. litigation process to gain a tactical. advantage, using plaintiff's lawyers in. the front and behind the scenes to. defame petitioner in pleadings, working. the media, promoting fake news, falsely.

portraying her and Epstein as one person. while working to invalidate, overturn. the NPA, the nonprosecution agreement, using the CV as litigated in points. three and four above." again. So the NPA. is Epstein's nonprosecution agreement. back in 2007 that he signed. She claims. she was covered by she claims the. section about granting immunity to. co-conspirators means her. But the. prosecution has always argued and this. was upheld by the court on appeal that. the only people bound by this are. Florida prosecutors, not New York.

prosecutors. So they say her prosecution. was legitimate and the Supreme Court, as. I mentioned, declined to hear her. appeal. The CVR, which I mentioned, is. the Crime Victim's Rights Act. So it. just establishes a bill of federal. rights for a victim. But anyway, it goes. on to say, quote, Edwards, who is. Bradley Edwards, represented a lot of. Jeffrey Epstein accusers. Edwards used. as the proxy for A USA Vilifana both. conspiring to overturn the MPA through. the CVR litigation obtaining police. records and victim's names from law. enforcement and USAO Florida A USA.

Vilifana sharing information with. potential claimants using the. information for secret settlements with. men with deep pockets in exchange for. keeping the identity of those men out of. the public arena to benefit the personal. pocketbooks of plaintiff's lawyers. and. she says it's listed out, quote, "In. 2016, the plaintiff's lawyers met to. instigate an investigation into the. petitioner. The plaintiff's lawyers. representing the complainants had. approached SDNY in 2016 in an effort to. promote and instigate a criminal. prosecution because the SDFL was not.

happy with the NPA and the plaintiff's. lawyers wanted to assist the CVR case. for financial motives. There were four. employee co-conspirators that were not. indicted but named in NPA and referenced. in the Jeffrey Epstein indictment. New. evidence reveals that there were 25 men. with which the plaintiff's lawyers. reached secret settlements that could. equally be considered as. co-conspirators. None of these men have. been prosecuted and none has been. revealed to petitioner. She would have. called them as witnesses had she known.

Okay, Gene, a lot there. A lot there. But basically the argument is there were. these secret settlements. There's other. people that could have been indicted. She's the only one that was indicted and. she didn't even know about these alleged. secret settlements in the the civil. context, right? because there was a lot. of litigation regard regarding Jeffrey. Epstein and Glain Maxwell. Your. thoughts? >> There's a famous case uh called Kyle v. Whitley. It was decided April 19th, 1995, the same day, ironically, is the. Oklahoma City bombing. I remember that.

case very well. And what the Supreme. Court said, it talked about the. difference between Brady information and. what they call gigalo information, GI. Lio. Brady information is information. that raises a reasonable probability, not beyond a reasonable doubt, not even. beyond propoundonderance, a reasonable. probability that had that information. been provided to the defendant, the. outcome of the proceeding, the. sentencing, the verdict would have been. different. What I hear from you and what.

I hear from the reporting is of those 25. or so settlements, there's a reasonable. probability. that had it been disclosed to Mick. Maxwell's trial team, they could have. investigated and gotten information as. to why they were not charged, what. benefits they got, and more important, whether it would help her argument of. selective prosecution. And I would add. this, it also could possibly possibly.

help an argument for vindictive. prosecution where the prosecutors want. to focus just on her. Vindicted and. selective are kind of like cousins and. they both are bad. They are hard to. prove, but this is evidence that could. cause a reasonable probability that it. could help her and cause a change in the. verdict or the decision of the court to. sentence her to 20 years. So, all I can. say is this. This is a hot mess. And if. there's a hearing on her petition, and.

there likely will be, you can guarantee. that prosecutors may be called either in. the Southern District or in the Florida. US Attorney's Office Miami, the lead. prosecutor in Miami, who I understand. wrote a 50page draft indictment before. Epstein got his sweetheart deal at the. state level. She may be called. The. agents may be called. This is a hot hot. mess. >> I I have to ask you though, and we'll.

talk. I mean, you kind of mentioned this. might be something that could go to her. favor, but I I'm confused. We have heard. from the government say before that. there was no Jeffrey Epstein list, right? That there was no um uh. co-conspirators, collaborators, other. people to charge. I Is it possible she's. telling the truth? Is it possible she's. accurate? If you have people who entered. into settlements, arguably they could. have been brought up on criminal. charges. I mean, unless I'm looking at. this completely wrong. So, is this.

something that the federal government, and I'll talk about with their latest. filing, too. Is this something the. federal government um didn't know about? Is it true maybe these people did enter. into settlements, but they couldn't be. brought up on a crime? Because I'm. wonder There's always a question of. whether Maxwell's credible or not. So, you tell me what's going on here. Jesse, I would be shocked if the prosecutors. either in Florida or SDNY New York did. not have some inkling, if not actual.

knowledge, that these settlements were. happening. And it's not prohibited for. criminal prosecutors to gather. information from civil attorneys who are. parallel working to get the same goal. All right? They were trying to get a. settlement of their clients, these 25. guys, if you will. And I can't believe. that the federal prosecutors were. clueless that those negotiations were. happening. And when they did happen, the. key issue for me is the prosecutors have.

to argue. that there was nothing in those. settlements, nothing regarding the. settlements of these 25 alleged. defendants or alleged uh uh men. There. was nothing in there that could possibly. have helped her in her criminal case. goes back to that test. There's nothing. that would raise a reasonable. probability that if she had this. information, the outcome, the guilty. verdicts would have been different. That's their argument. The government. has to make that argument or they're.

going to lose. >> So people listening to this video, their. main question is, okay, who are these. people? Are we ever going to be are we. ever going to have that publicized? Now, the reason I'm going to ask you that, this is what I have to say. So, put into. context. We could also talk about. whether Maxwell is credible. I mean, she. met with Deputy AG Todd Blanch over the. summer. She's set to be deposed by the. House Oversight Committee February 9th, even though her attorneys indicate she. plans to plead the fifth. You don't. invoke her right against. self-inccrimination. By the way, her. attorney, David Marcus, recently. indicated that her testifying could. jeopardize this habius petition, which.

we're talking about. But this is what I. want to ask you, whether or not this. will ever become public, whether or not. we would ever see who these 25 people. are. Because let's not forget what's. happening right now. Congress passed the. Epstein Files Transparency Act. It's. forcing the DOJ to hand over everything. in their possession related to Epstein. They had 30 days to do it. They. reportedly have only turned over maybe a. small percentage of the files, or at. least a small percentage of it made. public. And this is interesting because. the DOJ filed this, I think just the.

other day, with two judges from the. Southern District of New York, federal. court. And I'm going to read you a. portion of the letter. Again, keep in. mind whether or not these 25 men, whether or not these settlements, these. unidentified individuals, will we ever. know who they are? So, it says this. The. department respectfully submits this. letter as an update to its previous. submissions to the court regarding the. review and redaction of certain of the. materials required to be published. pursuant to the Epstein Files. Transparency Act. The department. continues to make substantial progress. in its efforts to identify potentially. responsive documents, review those.

documents, redact victim identifying. information and privileged information, and engage in quality control processes. and to prepare responsive documents for. publication in accordance with the act. Indeed, the department has reviewed. millions of pages of materials, applying. redactions as appropriate. The. department continues to engage with. victims and victims counsel and apply. quality control checks. These efforts. include not only manual review by. hundreds of department attorneys, agents, and others conducting page-by-. page review of millions of pages of. documents, but also electronic searches. for victim's names or other identifiers.

to isolate documents that are. particularly sensitive and require. supplemental review as well as relief. from various protective orders issued in. other courts. The department currently. expects that it will complete this with. respect to substantially all the. potentially responsive documents. including publication to the Epstein. library website which is public in the. near term. The department is not able to. provide a specific date at this time and. cautions that this ongoing work included. its quality control and all this may. require additional efforts to ensure the.

protection of victim identifying. information. says, "In addition, pursuant to the court's directive, including attorneys from the SDNY, they've taken an additional review to. ensure that any production is consistent. with both the letter and spirit of the. court's protective order." So, basically, Gene, they're saying, "We. need more time. It's going to take a. little bit, but near-term, again, from. this, do you think these settlements are. going to be made public? Are these. individuals going to be identified if. these settlements are true?" If I had to. bet money, I think the attorney general. and the deputy attorney general and all. those people below them, plus the White.

House, because they're working together, they're not going to disclose the. identities of those 25 or so persons who. had settlements, civil settlements. They. may provide a general summary, but not. any details. I will defend the. Department of Justice here. There's a. ton of documents. And when they say. hundreds of prosecutors are sifting. through that prosecutors and parillegals. probably, I take them at their word. because it is a lot of documents. I will. say this, they're not going to be as.

transparent as the attorney general. suggested in February, March when she. said she had the list on my desk and. she's going to disclose it. It's not. going to be that transparent. They're. going to redact a ton of information. You're going to have a kuruffle with the. committees, oversight committees on the. hill. That's going to be a hot mess. I. will say this. In Brown versus Board of. Education, the Supreme Court said that. the states have to move with all. deliberate haste and speed. Okay, that. that ended up being 12 to 15 years. The.

near term, what is the near term? Is. that this year? Is it next year? Is it. 2030? I smile when I hear the phrase. near-term with no date. Um, so I don't. think we're going to get this anytime. soon. the disclosure of these. individuals and if we do we get at best. a very rough summary of what's there but. it goes back to what I said before if. those settlements have information that. could help Glenn Maxwell in her 2255.

petition her habius petition which was. filed I think December 17th if it does. then a judge is going to order the. department of justice even if the names. are redacted to just disclose the. contents of those settlements. and any benefit, and this is the key, any benefit that the government gave. those settled civil defendants in. exchange for the civil settlements. Uh, that's important because it goes back to. selective prosecution, possibly.

vindictive, and it could have provided. evidence that could have helped her in. her trial. And I just want to be clear. about something. Even though there's. been a lot of questions about her. credibility and questions about, you. know, the substance, the content of what. she told uh Deputy Attorney General Todd. Blanch, whether she was trying to say. anything to get some sort of deal or get. a pardon of some kind. Her potentially. testifying in front of Congress, that. committee, she at the very least is not. going to say anything about these.

settlements or reveal who these people. are. I mean, I don't even know if she. knows the identities per se about who. these people are, but we shouldn't. expect that if she does testify that. she's going to spill the beans on this. >> Not going to spill the beans. I would. add this, the famous case of Brady. versus Maryland. It involved facts, not. that the defendant was innocent. What. the prosecutor willfully withheld in. Brady versus Maryland. I think it was a. 1950s case. The a conduct was what they. withheld was information that mitigated.

the role that Mr. Brady had in a. robbery. It mitigated the role. He. didn't say I'm innocent. It's just that. I was a small fish in a big pond. These. witnesses could be like Brady witnesses. in Brady versus Maryland. They could. say, you know what, Epstein was the key. guy and her role was dimminimous or was. a lot less than Epstein. That's still. Brady information that could help a jury. render a verdict. Going back to Kyle's.

v. Whitley, April of 1995, what the. court said is if you have nine, she has. nine issues. >> Yeah. If you have nine issues that. constitutional rights were violated and. she has nine, if each one individually. doesn't result in a reasonable. probability that the outcome could be. different. If you combine the nine or. say you combine five or six of the nine. and you put it I love food. If you put.

it in a big salad bowl, that combined. cumulative effect of those five to six. violations, each one not by itself can. do it. But if you combine them all, that. can result in a new trial and a vacating. of the conviction. That was a very. important part of Kyle V. Whitley. They. call it the cumulative test. >> Okay. So, you tell me out of the nine. points, are there any ones in particular. individual? >> I'll tell you one that I kind of like. >> Okay. >> Juror juror number 50 has a lot to.

answer for. >> Well, explain it. Explain it. So. apparently. >> during voadar jury selection either. verbally andor in writing jurors are. asked questions. either by the judge andor the the. attorneys depends on the court. Those. answers to those questions are under. oath subject to the pains and penalties. of perjury. According to her. allegations, and I just read them, juror. number 50 has a lot of inconsistencies. in her answers. And it appears to me.

that the trial judge was a little. lenient on those inconsistencies. Glenn Maxwell's arguing that those. aren't just innocent mistakes. Those are. willful and intentional jurorious. conduct and answers. And the issue was. this juror 50 was a guy. He had been. subjected to sexual abuse. back in the day. And there was a. specific question. Have you ever been. subjected to sexual abuse? One, and have.

you discussed this with anybody. recently? Well, yes, he did get subject. to sexual abuse. And two, according to. Maxwell's filing, he was discussing it. with reporters. So, juror number 50 by. itself could raise an issue. And why? It's like you have a bank robbery case. and a juror gives a false answer about. whether they were a teller in a bank at. which the defendant pointed a gun and it. wasn't that case, but it was one before.

If you allow that teller, former teller. in a bank who was subject to robbery in. another matter on a jury, there is no. way that defendant's going to get an. acquitt. Yeah, >> that's the argument Maxwell's making. This juror poisoned the jury pool. >> So, I will agree with you with a habius. the habius petition different from an. appeal, right? If you have new. information that's come out that you've. only recently learned, this is very. important. There are some arguments that. she's repeating from her appeal. And I I. know just to end this up with the.

biggest one, the nonprosecution. agreement. This is something that she's. argued before, right? The nonprosecution. agreement that Epstein entered into in. 2007. And there's a section that extends. immunity to quote any potential. co-conspirator. She's made the argument. that covers me. But courts time and. again have said, "No, that only bound. Florida prosecutors, not New York. prosecutors. The Supreme Court didn't. even take that up." Is this even. relevant for her habius petition? Would. this even have grounds? Is this strong. enough? I would say that what she's.

brought up in her habius petition does. not affect dramatically, if at all, the. argument that this nonprosecution. agreement applies to Southern District. of New York. It's rehashing old. arguments. Yes, it's black letter law. It's in writing in the letters. Whenever. a government has a nonprosecution. agreement, let's say in the Miami US. Attorney, it only applies to that US. attorney's office. It doesn't apply to. the other 93 US attorney offices. That's. black letter. You could be charged with.

drug trafficking and EDVA and and uh. Michigan US attorney's office in Detroit. could could charge money laundering. based on the same facts because they're. separate sovereigns, if you will. Each. US attorney's office when it comes to. nonprosecution agreements or letter. immunity. >> Okay. Well, I'll tell you what. Let's. see how this shakes up. Right now, she. is potentially going to testify in front. of Congress, but she's sitting at FPC. Brian. It's a minimum security federal. prison in Texas. She was moved there, by.

the way, after her meeting with Todd. Blanch. But let's see what happens. Gene. Rossi, thank you so much for taking the. time. I appreciate it. >> That's a pleasure. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe [music] on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you. should get your podcast. We're also. [music] up on NBC's Peacock as well. You. can get some Sidebar episodes there if. you want to follow me. X Instagram. Also, you can check out [music] my. NewsNation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 1100 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.