Brad Garrett, ABC News crime and terrorism analyst Interview.

Brad Garrett speaks with Mendte in the Morning about the upcoming Ghislaine Maxwell interview with Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche and what is likely to happen.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, in the middle of this Epstein fanaticism and getting
the files that it's coming from all sides. Right now,
there is an attorney, a deputy US attorney used to
be the personal attorney for President Trump, Todd Blanche, who
is going to interview Julaine Maxwell. Now we have heard

(00:22):
from Alan Dershowitz saying that she is the Rosetta Stone,
that she knows everything. I guess the question is how
much is she willing to talk about? For that, we
go to Brad Garrett, ABC News crime and terrorism analyst
in Washington. Brad, thanks so much for joining us.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Oh, you're welcome.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
Do we know when this is going to happen.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
I think it's either happening now or happening today. I mean,
the public source reporting is that Blance is already in Florida,
that he's supposedly going to interview her at the US
Attorney's office, which is fairly common. The Marshalls will bring
her from prison, put her in a secure room, he'll
go in with whoever he goes in with, interviews her.

(01:06):
In my sense, would be for a lot of hours,
would be my guess, And you will we know anything immediately.
I'd be surprised, but yeah, it looks like it's happening.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yeah, Now this is all fascinating. I can't imagine that
she is not going to talk without getting a deal.
Has Do we know of a deal that's been struck
for either immunity or time off?

Speaker 2 (01:34):
No, But clearly it's just based on what I believe
is her personality. I mean, she's a very transactional person.
In other words, she does stuff that's really only in
her best interest. I mean, clearly, to be able to
do what she's been convicted of, basically facilitating underage girls
to have sex in some form or fashion with Epstein,

(01:56):
I mean to be able to do that year after year,
and I don't think have an issue with it. Tells
you a lot about her as a person, and I
think she's shrewd enough that and through her attorneys, she's
not going to give up the ship on Intel here
until she has some guarantees about for sure getting out
of jail. Now that's a sort of a tricky road, right,

(02:20):
because well, let's hear what you got to say, then
we'll make a decision about, you know, getting you out
of jail. So will that force her to maybe not
be completely forthright. You know, the problem with all this
is that I think it has the potential of opening
up a huge can of worms for the president. Maybe
again not knowing at all what she has to say

(02:41):
about President Trump, obviously based on tons of public source
and photographs he had a social relationship with, you know,
with Epstein for a long time. Sure, but that doesn't
mean anything, right, I mean, hundreds of people did. So
is does she know things or is she willing maybe
more importantly, to all about things in reference to the President.

(03:03):
I don't know, but it's it's all pretty fascinating but
also pretty murky.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
So Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, raised a
great point. He said, given her past, can we trust her?
Is she at all credible? Given what she has done
in the past and the fact that she's been convicted
of it? And so I ask you, is will any
of this be credible? Can we trust her?

Speaker 2 (03:31):
Well? I mean, I can tell you I've interviewed some
of the most horrible people on this planet, as you know,
mass murderers, serial killers, et cetera. And you know, did
I get them to the truth? Mostly the answer is yes,
so just because they're a bad person. By maybe a

(03:51):
general definition doesn't mean that they're not telling you the
truth or mostly the truth. But the bigger question, whatever
she might tell them, is can they prove any of it?
I mean to say that, you know, in nineteen ninety five,
some famous leader for lack of better terms, you know,
had sex with a sixteen year old. Okay, but how

(04:15):
do you even prove that? You know, you'd have to
find maybe the sixteen year old that's now thirty five.
I don't know. We'll have to see. This whole thing really,
I think has the potential the sort of backfire, but
we'll see. It's a bitter just fascinating.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
Yeah, and you raised a great point. If you can't
prove it, can you even release that without getting sued
by some very rich people.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Oh yeah, it's really what I would call a slippery slope. Right.

Speaker 1 (04:47):
Thanks so much, Brad. It was great to talk to you.
Brad Garrett, ABC News crime and Terrorism analyst in Washington.
Thanks for that information. Hope to talk to you again soon, Brad,
Take care all right, see you later,