What’s REALLY Going On with Ghislaine Maxwell? — Big Bombshells Revealed

She never stopped uh she never invoked a. privilege. She never declined to answer. She answered all the questions. truthfully, honestly, and to the best of. her ability. Lot of information about. convicted sex trafficker Gain Maxwell. has been rolling in at such a fast pace. Did she name names? Is she going to get. a pardon? Will she have to spill the. secrets to all of America in front of a. congressional committee? Well, I'll tell. you what. We're going to get into all. this with somebody who knows the ins and. outs of a federal investigation and the.

legal process like this. Somebody who. was part of the Department of Justice, retired FBI agent Colin Lel Schmidt. Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Hey everybody, this is another Law and. Crime legal alert. Did you know that. children are being diagnosed with. serious conditions like type2 diabetes. and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. and the research is potentially linking. ultrarocessed foods to all this? Yeah.

Well, Morgan and Morgan, they're. stepping in to fight to hold these food. companies accountable. With decades of. experience fighting large corporations, they're ready to stand up for the. families who deserve justice. So, if. your child under 21 has been diagnosed. with type 2 diabetes or fatty liver. disease, then visit. www.forthepeople.com/food. forthepeople.com/food. or scan the QR code on screen to learn. more. The mania surrounding whether or not the. so-called Epstein files will ever see. the light of day is hitting a fever.

pitch because we are learning more. information about what some are calling. a deal with the devil. Gain Maxwell, the. apparent madam and mistress to convicted. sex offender Jeffrey Epste. She's. sitting in a federal prison right now in. Florida, serving a 20-year sentence for. aiding and abetting a sex trafficking. scheme. She was convicted in December of. 2021 in New York on charges like. conspiracy to entice minors to travel to. engage in illegal sex acts and. conspiracy to transport minors to. participate in illegal sex acts. And.

prosecutors alleged that Maxwell. procured young girls for billionaire. financeier Jeffrey Epstein for years. And the government, as we remember, also. charged Epstein with sex trafficking, but he died in jail before he ever went. to trial. Well, after much fanfare that. the Trump administration was going to be. releasing all sorts of hidden files. related to Jeffrey Epstein, including. lists of possible clients, the DOJ. instead said there would be no further. information revealed publicly. And that. caused some serious backlash. They.

basically said there is no client list. there is no one else that's going to be. prosecuted based on the information that. they have. And that caused some serious. backlash, especially when it was. revealed that Attorney General Pam Bondi. had reportedly informed President Donald. Trump earlier this year that his name. might appear in these documents. However, we don't know why. We don't. know in what capacity the president. might be mentioned. Trump himself has. refuted claims that he appears in the.

files or that he was briefed about it. And remember, just because there is an. apparent association with Epstein. doesn't mean anyone was complicit in. involved with, or had any knowledge of. anything. We talk about that all the. time with the Epstein contact list. And. by the way, on Monday, when reporters. questioned President Trump about his. name reportedly being in the files, he. called it a hoax. He went on to say that. he threw Epstein out of Mara Lago and. didn't speak to him for several years. because Epstein apparently poached some.

of his staff from the resort. He also. said, "I never had the privilege of. going to his island." Seemingly. referring to Little St. James Island. where Epstein reportedly abused hundreds. of girls. >> People keep at the time you threw him. out of Mara Lago. Can you settle that? What was it about? What caused the. breach with him? >> Uh that's such old history. uh very easy. to explain, but I don't want to waste. your time by explaining it. But for. years, I wouldn't talk to Jeffrey. Epstein. I wouldn't talk because he did.

something that was inappropriate. He. hired help and I said, "Don't ever do. that again." He stole people that work. for me. I said, "Don't ever do that. again." He did it again and I threw him. out of the place. Presa, I threw him out and that was it. I'm. glad I did. If you want to know the. truth, >> Mr. And by the way, I never went to the. island and Bill Clinton went there. supposedly. uh 28 times. Uh I never went to the. island, but Larry Summers I hear went.

there. He was the head of Harvard and. many other people that are very big. people. Nobody ever talks about them. I've I never had the privilege of going. to his island. Uh and I did turn it. down, but a lot of people in Palm Beach. were invited to his island. Uh in one of. my very good moments, I turned it down. and I didn't want to go to his island. >> And by the way, what's interesting about. him saying that he threw Epstein out. because of poaching staff as opposed to, let's say, because of his involvement, Epstein's involvement with abusing.

underage girls. That's important because. if he had said something like that, that. would have gone to knowledge. The. argument could be that Trump knew what. Epstein was up to. That is not what he. said. He basically said his relationship. with Epstein was fractured because of. him poaching staff. So, a completely. different issue. That's an important. point I just wanted to make note of. Also, by the way, many have asked the. question, if there's allegedly no client. list, then who did Gain Maxwell traffic. all of these girls to? We actually did a.

sidebar recently with the excellent Rich. Showenstein. Digs deeper into what. exactly Maxwell was charged with, what. she was convicted of, and why her. conviction would likely stand. You can. go check that out on Long Crimes YouTube. channel right now. But right now also, Maxwell is in the process of appealing. her conviction to the Supreme Court on. different grounds. We actually did. another sidebar on that one, too. It. centers around her argument that she is. covered by Epstein's nonprosecution. agreement that he signed years earlier.

Again, you can go check that one out, too, if you're interested on Long Crimes. YouTube channel. But when the fervor. surrounding these latest developments. really picked up, she indicated, Gain. Maxwell apparently indicated her. willingness to help the government out. Okay. Thursday, July 24th, it was. reported that Department of Justice. officials showed up to the federal. courthouse in Tallahassee to speak with. her and her legal team. Deputy Attorney. General Todd Blanch brochered this. meeting, saying afterward that the DOJ.

quote will share additional information. about what we learned at the appropriate. time. Now, Maxwell's attorney, David. Oscar Marcus, a friend of Blanches. He. spoke with reporters outside. >> We had a very productive day today with. the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch. and Glenn Maxwell. Um, first we want to. thank uh the deputy attorney general for. being so professional with all of us and. for meeting with us. Um, he took a full.

day and asked a lot of questions and. Miss Maxwell answered every single. question. She never stopped. Uh, she. never invoked a privilege. She never. declined to answer. She answered all the. questions truthfully, honestly, and to. the best of her ability. and and that's. all the comment we're going to have. today about the meeting. Then on Friday, Marcus told reporters, I think Galain. did a wonderful job. She literally. answered every question. She didn't say,

"I'm not going to talk about this. person." She was asked maybe about a. hundred different people. She answered. questions about everybody and she didn't. hold anything back. And as of Friday, it. appeared she was still weighing whether. she'll speak with the House Oversight. Committee. Earlier in the week, the. congressional committee subpoenaed her. to testify on August 11th due to the. quote immense public interest in. scrutiny. But her lawyer, Marcus, told. reporters, "Congress has asked her to. testify. We have to make a decision. about whether she will do that or not.

We haven't gotten back to them on. whether we'll do that." Okay. So, I want. to get into these big developments. I. want to talk about it. And I want to. bring on somebody who knows the inner. workings of the Department of Justice. Colin L. Schmidt, former FBI agent, current president and CEO of Kronos. Investigations. Colin, thank you so much. for taking the time to come back here on. Sidebar. Appreciate it. >> Thank you for having me on. I appreciate. it. I. >> It has been years since Jeffrey Epstein. died in jail, years since Galain Maxwell.

was convicted and sentenced to 20 years. in prison. First of all, are you. surprised at the amount of interest that. still surrounds this case? Or is this. something where you say there's so many. unanswered questions? I'm not surprised. Well, I'm not surprised because uh. Donald Trump ran on uh transparency and. this was a big big part of his. re-election campaign. And then. >> to be to be fair to be fair, he always. kind of avoided it, right? He always. kind of avoided the Epstein question. It. was the people around him and it was the. supporters who really felt that in the.

interest of transparency, he was going. to be the one to reveal everything. >> Exactly. Yeah. The hardcore MAGA. supporters. This is exactly this is this. is the the the proverbial meat for the. for the lion of the MAGA. They want this. transparency and they want to know what. really went on because reportedly. Epstein involved very a lot of very. powerful people in his web of. prostitution. >> I want to talk about these uh new. details that have come out. So, first.

the entire proceeding is really unusual. It's pretty rare for the deputy attorney. general to interview a witness and the. prosecutors who took her to trial, arguably the people who would know the. most about her case, apparently weren't. involved in the meeting. Now, Colin, again, as somebody who's worked within. the bureaucracy of the DOJ, what's your. reaction to that? Well, generally the. process is that after trial, uh the the. defendant will try to broker a deal to.

to get a lower sentence between the. guilty verdict and the sentencing. So, generally speaking, that this usually. happens right after the trial or right. after the trial is completed. Secondly, usually it's the prosecutor that was. involved in the case and the FBI agents. or whatever federal agency that were. involved. And they'll have a sit down. with the the defendant and their. attorney. But in this case, the lead. prosecutor was Comey's daughter who just. recently got fired. So that's not going.

to happen. And then for the deputy. attorney general to get involved is. exceedingly uh unusual because generally. he doesn't really have the details or. understands the ins and outs of this. case. But on the flip side, it appears. that he wasn't looking to ask detailed. questions about Jeffrey Epstein. He was. wanting to hear or her side of the story. because she never really she's never had. an opportunity to tell her tell her. story on exactly what happened. Um, in a.

minute I'm going to get to what she. possibly said or what they possibly want. from her. There's a good theory out. there about that. But before you have to. imagine, didn't they try to get. information from her or do you think she. potentially offered information before. she even went to trial? The big talk. was, "Oh, she's never going to go to. trial or or she'll get a reduced. sentence because she's going to name. names. she's going to name the higher. people uh and the big fish and that's. why she won't, you know, either go to be.

prosecuted on the charges that she was. facing or she would get some sort of. sweetheart deal to testify against. others. I have to imagine this isn't the. first time she provided information or. potentially provided information to the. government. I could be 100% wrong, but. would I be wrong about that? Well, if. she going to trial shows that she didn't. she didn't offer an opportunity to. cooperate. And if she cooperated, she. wouldn't have gone to trial and she. would have been set up to to prosecute. or to be a witness against other. persons. Secondly, she may have made her.

attorneys made many attempts to. cooperate and they were denied or. ignored by the Department of Justice. because ultimately it's the Department. of Justice that decides whether they. want to talk to her or not. So obviously. now they want to talk to her and they're. very interested and I anticipate they're. going to be going back several times to. have with follow-up questions now that. you know the proverbial dam has been. broken and she opened up the door and. from with the media reports she. apparently her her lawyer said she gave. information on a hundred different.

people. So who are these people? What is. the information? And now it's time to. start getting into the details. And. frankly, if these people were involved. in in prostitution or harming children, they need to be brought to justice. >> Does that mean the FBI right now has a. unit of agents who are investigating. these 100 people? >> Well, yeah. I I I wouldn't say a unit. I'd say they have case agents that are. following up on these 100 people to. cooperate what she said because the. biggest thing is she's going to try to.

get credit for what she's saying to. potentially get a reduced sentence. So. the only way she can get credit is if. she has been proven to be telling the. truth. And the only way you can do that. is the statements she's saying. You have. to cooperate that. You have to find. other pieces of evidence independent of. what she has said to show that she has. credibility. >> Interesting you say that credibility. Why do I say that? Because first of all, we don't know if anything Maxwell had to. say could lead to a pardon. Uh we do.

know that Maxwell was given conditional. immunity while she did her interviews uh. with the DOJ. And for anybody who. doesn't know, when we talk about that. kind of protection, conditional. immunity, what exactly are we talking. about, Colin? >> Well, it's called limited immunity. And. Southern California or the Central. District of California, they call it a. queen for a day letter. Basically, it's. a letter that they sign saying anything. they say will not be used against them. unless they lie. So they can basically. lay out and everybody and anybody as. long as they don't tell lies or.

intentionally tell a lie. If they tell. one lie then the entire immunity. agreement gets thrown out the door. So. this is very common and it's also the. term profer uh profer session or profer. agreement basically is talk to somebody. who has this information and basically. give them an opportunity to tell their. side of the story without consequence. >> Yeah. According to the New York Times, that immunity goes away if they find out. she lied during their conversations. Now, her attorney, uh, Mr. Marcus, told. reporters Friday that no offers of. clemency have been made, and when media.

members questioned President Donald. Trump, he said he hadn't thought about. pardoning her, but that he was allowed. to do it either way. Okay, Colin. Dan. Abrams, have you heard of him before? Dan Abrams. So Dan Abrams, he said on a. SiriusXM show, I was listening to it, that it seems the only thing that the. government, really Todd Blanch wants is. for Maxwell to say that President Trump. did nothing wrong, right? He wasn't a. part of anything. And that's really what.

they're getting after. I thought that. was an interesting take. Do you agree? And and if so, if they can get that, if. they can get a statement from her that's. corroborated that says the president did. absolutely nothing wrong and no. knowledge of what was going on, is that. enough to get a pardon? >> I don't think he's ever going to pardon. her. I mean, the best she can hope for. is maybe a commutation where basically. she's going to get time served and she's. going to hold that felony for the rest. of her life. Number one. Number two, I. don't think she's going to have any.

information that's going to to to show. Trump did or didn't do anything because. frankly in my my opinion is that if he. had done something that was unto toward. or bad, it would have already come out. by now. Jim Comey's daughter was the. lead prosecutor on this case and she has. certainly had no uh reason not to push. out information that would have been. derogatory towards President Trump. I. think bottom line is uh Mr. Blanch went. down there to quell the growing uh.

discontent amongst the MAGA crew to find. out exactly what's going on. And this. isn't going away. This is only going to. get worse because the bottom line is. there's enough information out there. that shows powerful people were on that. island and that on that island bad. things were happening that the American. people want to know what went on and. they want justice for all those victims. I want to talk about uh comments from. House Speaker Mike Johnson. So on. Sunday, he said that 20 years actually.

wasn't long enough for Gla Maxwell, a. convicted sex trafficker. He told NBC's. Meet the Press, "I think 20 years was a. pittance. I think she should have a life. sentence at least. I mean, think of all. these unspeakable crimes. It's hard to. put into words how evil this was. She. orchestrated it and was a big part of. it, at least under the criminal. sanction. I think this is an. unforgivable thing." Now, Colin, we. can't forget that the federal government. proved to a jury that Maxwell was a. perpetrator in all this. There's no.

doubt that she had involvement in really. heinous crimes, but now she may get this. lifeline for people who are allegedly. involved in this or involved in a. conspiracy. And we don't know if that's. true or not. Is that an injustice that. we're talking about? Well, it's. certainly an injustice because you going. back to when this thing whole started. back in 2006 2007 and the the acting US. attorney in Miami Acasta basically gave. her and gave her a pass and gave Epstein.

a sweetheart. >> Well, interesting about that. The. question now is the legal question is. was she given a pass back in the day? Was she part of the people, the alleged. co-conspirators that weren't going to be. prosecuted under that non-prosecution. agreement? Her attorneys say yes. Prosecutors say no. They make the. argument that that nonprosecution. agreement didn't cover every single. person that was involved with Epstein or. allegedly involved with Epstein in any. kind of jurisdiction. They wouldn't have. been able to grant something that broad. He got protection. It does become a.

question if she did. >> Well, and that's where a federal judge. back just before that she was indicted. on this one did come out and say that it. didn't apply. So she she's really got a. long it's almost an impossible mountain. to climb to get over that agreement or. that non-aggreement. I mean but the. bottom line there's a lot of moving. parts here and there's a lot of people. who were aware of what was going on back. in ' 06 as well in '08 when this went. down. But then you go come to now and. what she is willing to kind of lay the. whole thing out and basically tell her.

side of the story which she's never. which has never been heard to to my. knowledge or anybody else's knowledge. And the fact of the m matter is and the. bottom line is we have thousands of. victims out there or a thousand victims. which was what was said in the DOJ's own. letter. It's time for those victims to. get justice because this is a complete. and and unacceptable. travesty of justice not to give those. people a voice. >> We talk about her account. What does she. say? What is she going to say? Her. account. It is important to note talking.

about credibility that she was. previously indicted for perjury. The. government charged her in 2020 because. she allegedly lied during a 2016. deposition in a civil lawsuit against. Epstein. The charges were separated out. from her sex trafficking trial, and the. feds eventually dropped them. But former. federal prosecutor Joyce Vance tweeted. on Thursday, "Any new testimony she. offers is inherently unreliable unless. backed by evidence." And Bradley. Edwards, who represents Epstein victims.

and who was involved in the deposition. where at where Maxwell was deposed, told. MSNBC last week, "We're going to go and. ask somebody to tell the truth who was. indicted on perjury charges related to. this particular topic." Now, does she. have information that will potentially. help? Yes. Will she be truthful about. it? Who knows? So, Colin, is she. reliable? >> Uh, well, based upon the the legal. standard, no. because you put her in. front of a jury, the first thing the. defense attorney is going to say is she. was already indicted for perjury. She.

she is a known liar. Uh the purpose of. this profer session was to get leads and. to cooperate what she's saying. So if. she has information against John Doe, well then the FBI is going to look back. into their records or do follow-up. interviews to find out if what she's. saying is credible. Is she ever going to. be used a witness against these other. people? She may, but they're not going. to rely on her testimony to indict or to. prosecute anybody. >> What do you think about this? This under. the federal rules, there's a a rule.

called rule 35. It's rule 35 motion. And. I wonder if she could be trying for. this. It's a motion that lets. prosecutors request that a court reduce. a person's sentence because of something. they did post sentencing, like helping. the government convict someone else of a. crime. and she would need to provide. quote substantial assistance in. investigating or prosecuting another. person. And usually you have one year. from sentencing for this to happen. But. it can go past one year if there was. information that was not known to the.

defendant until later on or the. information a defendant has wouldn't be. useful to the government until later on. What are your thoughts on that? I think. that's ex that's her best chance to. reduce her sentence is to give credible. information and she can always make the. argument is well I was ready to talk and. they didn't come and talk to me. So I I. think she's going to really try to lean. that way. She's not going to get a. pardon from uh President Trump. She's. not going to get the Supreme Court to. overturn that immunity deal that was.

made, you know, 15 years ago. This is. her best chance. But the bottom line is. she has to tell the truth and she has to. have a team of FBI agents that are going. to go out there and cooperate everything. she's saying and actually follow up on. it and maybe prosecute some people, then. she can make the argument that she did. give substantial assistance because if. hadn't she told them where the the the. evidence was, they wouldn't have done. what they've done. >> And going back to his uh Meet the Press.

interview, House Speaker Johnson also. had this to say. quote, "I'm going to. say this as clearly and plainly and. repeatedly as I can over and over. We. are for maximum disclosure. We want all. transparency. I trust the American. people. I and the House Republicans. believe that they should have all this. information to be able to determine what. they will. But we have to protect the. innocent and that's the only safeguard. here that we've got to be diligent. about. And I'm insistent upon doing so.". Now, Colin, that is really key here. because if there are documents that.

haven't been released or materials that. haven't been released publicly that. could be, there needs to be careful. steps taken to make sure that victim. information isn't put on display. And. the Trump administration has previously. been criticized for publishing documents. related to the JFK assassination with. really sensitive identifying information. left unredacted. So the question. becomes, how would agencies like the. FBI, like the DOJ, how would they go. about making sure that that happens?

>> Well, I think it really comes down to. most likely these victims are now adults. and just go to them and ask their. permission. Um, there's been several. documentaries on Netflix, for example, where the victims came out and they're. giving statements about everything what. went down and how it happened. And. frankly, some of these victims want. their name can be be out there so they. can become part of the civil lawsuits. against the Epstein estate so they can. get paid for what he did to them. So I. think to say we're going to protect the.

victims, yes, that's an absolute. priority. But a a way around that, so to. speak, is just go directly to the. victims and say, "Can we release your. name and would you be willing to go on. the record?". >> And videos, I mean, I don't this goes. back to a a concern that I had during. the Diddy case. It's like the videos. might be critical pieces of evidence to. establish that sexual abuse occurred, but at the same time, putting them out. in the public, even if you have an. alleged victim who consents to it being. released, I I'm very concerned about how. that video will be obtained,

manipulated, used, seen, I I'd be. concerned about video or or video. evidence or pictures of some sort. >> Yeah, that I absolutely agree with. you. can't release the videos because if even. if you redacted or limited the video, then you're going to get into the same. situation you had with uh the video of. him uh being in the uh prison cell where. something wasn't released or it wasn't. modified or there wasn't enough. If you. can't you can't give a little bit or or.

or try to blur out people's faces. because frankly the the American. public's not going to it's either all or. nothing unfortunately with video. So. they cannot release the video of these. of these unspeakable acts. >> And that brings me to a new piece of. legislation. And this was introduced in. the House of of Representatives that. would basically require Attorney General. Pam Bondi to release anything and. everything related to the Epstein. investigation. It's called HR4405. or the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

And there's also this idea of a. discharge petition which would. essentially force a vote on a release. and it's backed by a bipartisan pair of. congressmen, California Democrat Ro Kana. and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie. House Speaker Johnson called out the. bill as being reckless, saying that when. Congress returns in September from its. August recess, the legislation will. likely be stopped in its tracks because. of issues with the language in it. He. claims that the bill doesn't adequately. protect victims. But representatives. Massie and Connor have both insisted.

that the bill is written in such a way. that Epstein victims will have their. privacy protected and no child. pornography will be released. Colin, is. this a good idea? >> Well, I mean, I'm all for transparency, especially with the government. I think. the the intent of Massie and Roana isn't. necessarily to get the information out. They want to get everybody on the record. to vote a yay or nay for this to to show. the American people who's for and who's. not. I haven't read the language that's. in the the bill. Um, but I I believe the.

eventually there'll be some sort of bill. put on the floor to force everybody to. to decide whether they're for this or. against this. >> Okay, final question about this. They. came out with this statement and they. said there's no client list, right? Okay. They said there's really no one. else to prosecute based on the. information that they have. If that. should change in the next month, six. months, year, how do they reconcile. that?

>> They reconcile all the time. You know, basically, they came out with a letter. that was I think we talked about it on. this show that was contradictory. They. said he had a thousand victims, but they. said there's nobody to prosecute. Now, they can say, "Well, she gave us new. information, and now we have some people. to go after." Uh, it it this one, this. story is only going to continue to build. and grow. There's so many powerful. people that are in this story and that's. why the American people are going to. constantly push and push and push until. we get something some sort of resolution.

to this this crazy story. >> I don't know. Hard to make sense of any. of this, but we'll see. We'll keep a. careful eye on it. Colin Schmidt, thank. you so much for taking the time. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> 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 on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your. podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to. you next time.

[Music].