November 28, 2025 • 24 mins
The DOJ’s decision to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell after years of declaring the Epstein investigation closed is being met with deep skepticism. Critics argue that the timing—coinciding with mounting public and congressional pressure over the Epstein cover-up—suggests this is less about justice and more about optics. Maxwell is a convicted perjurer and trafficker with zero credibility, and any cooperation from her at this late stage is likely viewed as self-serving. The DOJ’s sudden willingness to hear her out, despite previously insisting there was no further evidence, raises serious doubts about their motivations and whether this is merely a distraction tactic designed to pacify outrage.
Rather than pursuing unprosecuted co-conspirators or unsealing the trove of sealed Epstein files, the DOJ has opted for a tightly controlled, low-risk meeting with a disgraced inmate already behind bars. This move is seen by many as classic “bread and circus”—a gesture meant to create the illusion of accountability without threatening the powerful or reopening the case in a meaningful way. Unless the government follows this meeting with real indictments, transparency, and bold legal action, the public will continue to view it as hollow theater—a last-ditch attempt to salvage credibility in a case defined by betrayal, secrecy, and elite protection.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Rather than pursuing unprosecuted co-conspirators or unsealing the trove of sealed Epstein files, the DOJ has opted for a tightly controlled, low-risk meeting with a disgraced inmate already behind bars. This move is seen by many as classic “bread and circus”—a gesture meant to create the illusion of accountability without threatening the powerful or reopening the case in a meaningful way. Unless the government follows this meeting with real indictments, transparency, and bold legal action, the public will continue to view it as hollow theater—a last-ditch attempt to salvage credibility in a case defined by betrayal, secrecy, and elite protection.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. Now that the DOJ is announced that they're
going to be meeting with LeAnn Maxwell, I think we
have to talk about what that might look like. And
the main pathway for a federal inmate to get their
sentence reduced after already being sentenced is Rule thirty five
B of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that
(00:23):
allows the government and only the government, to ask the
court to reduce the sentence if the inmate provides substantial
assistance after sentencing. Now, this means that the inmate gives
new valuable information that leads to arrests, indictments, or convictions,
and the motion must come from the US Attorney's office.
(00:44):
The inmate cannot request it on their own, and typically
this happens within one year of sentencing, though courts sometimes
allow later filings if the cooperation took longer to produce results. Now,
when you're talking about somebody like Lane Maxwell to talk
about a few different things, such as the severity and
stigma of the crime. Sex trafficking of minors is among
(01:07):
the most serious crimes in the federal system. Judges, prosecutors
and the public view it with almost zero tolerance. Because
of the heinous nature of the offense, even small sentence
reductions are politically risky and socially radioactive. No US attorney
wants to be seen as going soft on a convicted
(01:27):
child trafficker, especially in a high profile case. Next, we
have to talk about Rule thirty five B, and as
explained earlier, Rule thirty five B allows a reduction if
the government files a motion based on a substantial assistance.
For someone like Maxwell, the window is tight. These motions
are typically filed within one year of sentencing, unless the
(01:49):
cooperation leads to delayed results. She's already past that window.
Unless the government makes an exception. The bar for substantial
assistance is extremely high. She would need to give up
bigger fish with proof that her help led directly to
arrests or indictments. But here's the kicker. She would need
(02:09):
to give up people the government is actually willing to
go after. The next question is does the government even
really want her cooperation? And the real question is even
if she did offer up names, would the DOJ actually
act on them? And if all else fails, there's always
a pardon or a commutation. A presidential commutation is technically possible,
(02:31):
but it would be political suicide for any president to
do so. No president wants headlines saying they shorten the
sentence of a convicted sex trafficker link to Jeffrey Epstein,
at least under normal circumstances. But as we all know,
nothing is normal about what's going on. And then, of
course there's always the reputation and credibility risk, and for
(02:54):
her information to matter, the DOJ must find her credible.
Because she's already gone to trial, binkis evicted and did
not cooperate pre sentencing, she could be viewed as opportunistic,
a desperate move, rather than a reliable one, and trust
is the key in these cases. But she's already been
found guilty of lying under oath in civil suits. So
(03:16):
where does that leave us. In a normal world, she
would have to hand over airtight, actionable intelligence on major
targets the government is actually willing to prosecute. And here's
a bigger problem for the government. Glenn Maxwell was found
guilty not just the sex trafficking and conspiracy, but also
of lying under oath during depositions. That's perjury in federal court.
(03:41):
Credibility is everything when it comes to cooperation. If a
cooperating witness is known to have lied before, especially in
Warren testimony, prosecutors are less likely to trust anything they say.
Defense attorneys in any case she might help build would
immediately attack her credibility, rendering her value as a witness
close to zero. And even if Maxwell tried to cooperate,
(04:04):
now here's the problem. Her lives were documented in civil
court and widely reported. She denied under oath knowing anything
about Epstein's abuse, which we know now was a lie
according to her own criminal conviction. That means any information
she tries to give now is tainted, and fair minded
(04:24):
people would assume that she's trying to save herself not
tell the truth, especially since she's never cooperated when it
might have counted before trial or sentencing. And look, even
if she gave up powerful names, the bar is high.
The info has to be new, specific, verifiable, and lead
directly to a successful prosecution. It can't just be gossip, memory, fragments,
(04:49):
or deflections. And since she's an old liar, the DOJ
would need independent cooperation for every single detail she provides.
And now that we have that all sorted out, let's
dive in a bit deeper. If someone is convicted of
a serious federal crime, such as sex trafficking of a minor,
the road to early release is narrow, steep and littered
(05:11):
with legal and political land minds. In theory, the federal
system allows for a sentenced individual to cooperate with the
government after conviction in exchange for a reduced sentence. This
mechanism exists under a rule thirty five B of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which gives federal prosecutors the
sole authority to request a sentence reduction if the inmate
(05:35):
provides substantial assistance in the investigation or a prosecution of
another person, but in practice, this is reserved for rare,
high impact cases, especially if the conviction involves morally repugnant
conduct like child exploitation. The case of gland Maxwell illustrates
just how difficult it would be for someone in her
(05:57):
position to benefit from such a rule. Maxwell is serving
a twenty year federal sentence for her role in recruiting
and grooming underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation.
Her crimes involving miners and abuse of power are among
the most stigmatized in the federal system. Prosecutors, judges, and
(06:17):
the public treats sex trafficking of miners as an unforgivable offense.
Any appearance of leniency risks severe public backlash, especially in
high profile cases so deeply associated with systemic failure and
elite protection. No federal prosecutor in the right mind wants
their name attached to a sentence reduction for some unlike her,
(06:40):
unless the payoff is extraordinary. Even setting aside public outrage,
there are steep procedural and credibility hurdles. Rule thirty five
B is time sensitive. It typically requires the cooperation to
occur within one year of sentencing. While the rule allows
exceptions when the information takes longer to bear fruit, the
(07:01):
burden is high. Maxwell was sentenced in twenty twenty two,
and that window is closing fast if it has an
already slam shut. Unless she provides something so explosive, timely,
and actionable that prosecutors are forced to act, she's legally
out of luck. And even if she could overcome the
timing issue, she'd still face an even greater obstacle. Her
(07:24):
credibility is shot. Maxwell was not only convicted of sex trafficking.
She was also found to have committed perjury. She lied
under oath in civil depositions when asked about her role
in Epstein's crimes. This wasn't some technical misstatement or memory lapse.
It was a direct, knowing denial of her involvement in
(07:44):
crimes she later was convicted for. In the eyes of
the legal system, that makes her a provable liar. And
once you've been caught lying under oath, especially about the
very crimes you're later convicted of, you are effectively useless
as a government witness. No jury would believe you, no
prosecutor wants to rely on you. Her credibility is radioactive.
(08:06):
Even if she offered up names, big names, powerful names,
it wouldn't be enough on its own. The government would
need corroborating evidence. Substantial assistance doesn't just mean naming names.
It means helping the government make prosecutable cases with verifiable facts, documents,
or direct leads that result in actual charges or convictions.
(08:29):
And if Maxwell came forward now after her conviction, it
would look like a self serving act of desperation rather
than genuine cooperation. Prosecutors know this, They've seen it before,
and in her case, the bar would be higher than
usual because of the damage she's already done to her
own trustworthiness. Additionally, let's not forget the political reality. Any
(08:52):
reduction in Maxwell's sentence, no matter the justification, would be
seen by the public as a betrayal. Saga is already
viewed as a colossal failure of justice. The DOJ and
the courts are under intense scrutiny for how the case
has been handled over the years, including Epstein's mysterious death,
the sweetheart deals, and the failure to pursue his broader network.
(09:17):
Reducing Maxwell's sentence would risk further reputational harm and would
demand an overwhelming public benefit in return, something dramatic, indisputable,
and der tight. Anything less, and the fallout would be swift.
There is also the question of whether the DOJ even
wants her cooperation. If they were serious about going after
(09:38):
the full scope of Epstein's network, they would have already
pursued it when Maxwell was arrested. She had every opportunity
to cooperate pre trial, when her leverage was highest. She
chose not. To. That decision now limits her options. If
she's suddenly ready to talk, the government should ask why
now why not when accounted, the odds are high that
(10:00):
whatever she's offering, they've either already heard it, don't find
it credible, or have chosen, for reasons both legal and political,
not to act on it. And yet the theoretical door
isn't fully closed. If Maxwell were to produce physical evidence,
something undeniable and independently verifiable, then and only then would
(10:21):
prosecutors be forced to reconsider. But that assumes she has
such evidence and that she's willing to part with it.
It also assumes the government is willing to open those
old wounds, revisit powerful targets, and endure the political consequences
of being seen as dealing with a convicted sex trafficker.
(10:42):
The odds are stacked against her, but the opaque world
of federal cooperation and institutional preservation stranger things have happened,
all right. We're going to wrap up episode one right here,
and in the next episode we're going to pick up
where we left off. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box.
(11:03):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off with the government's fishing expedition when
it comes to Glenn Maxwell. If reports are accurate and
the DOJ has already agreed to meet face to face
with Glenn Maxwell, that changes the stakes, but not necessarily.
(11:25):
The odds of face to face meeting signals that the
government is at least willing to hear her out. It
doesn't mean that they believe her, trust her, or intend
to act on anything she offers. Prosecutors will often take
meetings with high profile inmates, just to ensure no stone
is left unturned, especially in a case as historically botched
(11:46):
and politically radioactive as the Epstein investigation. The real question
is not whether they're meeting, is whether anything she says
can survive the gauntlet of scrutiny required to be useful.
For Maxwell, this is life a last ditch attempt to
claw back some leverage. She didn't cooperate when it would
have made a difference before her indictment, before her trial,
(12:08):
before her sentencing. That's when informants hold the most power.
At this stage, She's a convicted felon with a perjury record,
an ironclad sentence, and the public's unblinking hatred. If she
wanted to help the government pursue Epstein's brought her network.
She had years to do it. The fact that she's
coming forward now only adds to the perception that it's transactional,
(12:30):
self serving, and desperate. The public knows that, and the
only people that don't seem to care are the prosecutors.
But the DOJ is taking the meeting at all, especially
after announcing they've closed the Epstein probe, is itself a signal.
It may suggest the public pressure is mounting, or that
internal factions within the Justice Department aren't fully aligned. The
(12:54):
official narrative has long been that Maxwell and Epstein where
the top of the pyramid, but the public doesn't believe that,
and the court records, flight logs, and sealed depositions suggests
there's more, much more. So, when the DOJ says they're
sitting down with Maxwell, it invites speculation. Are they finally
willing to listen or is this meeting just another performative
(13:17):
gesture to keep up the illusion of pursuit. If Maxwell
wants to be taken seriously, she'll need to walk into
that room with more than just memories and names. She'll
need concrete proof, diaries, photographs, money, trails, transactional data, or
a third party corroboration that the people she's implicating did
(13:38):
what she says they did. Otherwise, that meeting will go nowhere.
A convicted perjurer walking into a room saying I have
more to tell you is not enough, not for the
FEDS and not for the court of public opinion. The
burden is higher for her than perhaps any cooperating inmate
in recent memory, because the stain of her crimes and
(13:58):
the scale of the case are both unprecedented, and even
if she miraculously provides actionable intel, the DOJ still has
to make an agonizing decision. Do their rewarder for her
cooperation and risk public outrage, or do they quietly take
the information, use it if it checks out, and leave
her to serve the full twenty years. In many cases,
(14:21):
prosecutors will choose the latter. They'll sit through the meeting,
gather every crumb of potentially useful evidence, and then walk away,
never filing a Rule thirty five be motion, and never
publicly acknowledging the exchange and under normal circumstances that allows
them to protect their case and maintain plausible deniability about
(14:43):
having worked with someone so toxic Maxwell meanwhile, maybe operating
under the illusion that any cooperation buys her a ticket out,
but the law doesn't work that way. The government is
under no obligation to offer a sentence reduction, no matter
how helpful she she is, and any deal would likely
be negotiated behind the scenes, without fanfare or transparency. If
(15:08):
she's hoping for a headline, a press conference or a
hero z arc from trafficker to truth teller, she's deluding herself.
The best case scenario for her is a quiet agreement
that knocks a few years off her sentence, and even
that is a long shot unless she delivers someone so
powerful that the DOJ can't ignore it. And the public
(15:29):
should also temper their expectations. A meeting with the DOJ
doesn't necessarily mean indictments are coming. It doesn't mean the
Epstein investigation is back on track. All signs point to
it being a phishing expedition, a bureaucratic checkbox, or it
could just be theater away for prosecutors to say we
(15:49):
listened without actually doing anything. That's happened before, and it'll
happen again, and if the DOJ is serious, we'll know it.
Not from leaks or vague statement, but from sealed indictments,
grand jury activity, or the kind of aggressive legal maneuvering
that real pursuit entails. Until then, it's just noise. But still,
(16:11):
the timing of the meeting raises real questions, Why now,
why her? And why would the DOJ re engage after
publicly saying the case was closed. Whether the signals of
crack in the wall or just another smoke screen remains
to be seen, but there's no doubt that the timing
of the doj sudden interest in sitting down with Glenn
(16:31):
Maxwell is, to put it mildly suspect. For years, the
department has been inactive and insisted that the Epstein investigation
is closed and that all prosecutable parties have been brought
to justice and that there is no remaining evidence worthy
of pursuit. This came despite mountains of flight logs, sealed depositions,
(16:52):
financial transactions, and credible victim accounts pointing to a broader network. Now,
with public outrage, pequing, and the words cover up and
Epstein being spoken in the same breath across congressional hearings
and media platforms, the DOJ pivots and announces a face
to face with the single most toxic and discredited figure
(17:13):
in the entire case, it doesn't inspire confidence. It wreaks
a damage control. If the case was truly closed, as
the DJ claim just weeks ago, what changed? Did new
evidence emerge? Did a victim come forward with something new?
Or is the Department simply trying to throw a bone
to the public while preserving the illusion of effort. The
(17:35):
fact that their newfound interest in Maxwell coincides with mounting
criticism from lawmakers, journalists, and survivors suggests that this meeting
might not be about justice at all. It might be
about optics, a way to say, see, we're still looking
into it without actually committing to meaningful action. And there's
also the issue of trust. After decades of inaction, sweetheart deals,
(17:59):
by much prosecutions, missing camera footage, and a suspicious jelhouse death,
the public has every reason to doubt the DOJ's sincerity
when it comes to Epstein. The same institution that gave
him a pass in two thousand and eight, allowed him
to violate his plea agreement with impunity, and failed to
protect him in federal custody, is now asking for another
(18:20):
round of faith from the very people they've repeatedly betrayed.
That's a hard sell. A closed investigation one day and
a Maxwell sit down the next doesn't suggest integrity. It
suggests manipulation. And what makes the theater even more transparent
is who they chose to speak with. Glenn Maxwell is
not a reliable narrator. She's a convicted perjurer, a trafficker,
(18:44):
and a proven liar. If the DOJ was serious about
pursuing justice, they would have subpoenaed uncooperative co conspirators years ago,
people like Sarah Kelln Vickers, Leslie Groff, or other Core
Four insiders who have thus far escaped legal consequences. Instead,
they're rechoosing to sit down with the most publicly disgraced
(19:05):
figure in the entire saga, as if her word means
anything without corroberation. What they want to pass off as
a strategic move is nothing more than spectacle. We've seen
this kind of political theater before. When public outrage over
institutional failure becomes too loud to ignore, the powers that
(19:25):
be stage a gesture. They pick the easiest, most prsafe
action possible. Talk to somebody already in prison, already discredited
and already sentenced. That way, they can say they're pursuing
leads without disrupting the balance of power, without threatening elites,
and without actually bringing anyone new to justice. It's classic
(19:46):
Breton circus, give the public a distraction while protecting the
status quo, And this meeting with Maxwell could serve another purpose,
reabsorbing control over the narrative. Right now, Congress is starting
to dig into Epstein connections, whistleblowers are speaking out. Media
outlets slowly but surely are growing more aggressive in their coverage.
(20:08):
By suddenly inserting themselves back into the picture, the DOJ
might be trying to reassert authority and steer the conversation
away from uncomfortable truths. If the public sees them taking action,
they're less likely to demand external investigations or independent oversight.
It's a pressure valve, not a pursuit of justice. And
(20:30):
let's not ignore the convenience of timing. The Maxwell meeting
was announced only after the public began asking more questions
why key Epstein evidence is still sealed and why Epstein's
intelligence ties remain off limits. Instead of addressing those hard questions,
the DOJ sets up a meeting with a woman who's
already behind bars and already damaged beyond repair. It's a shield,
(20:55):
a smoke screen, a tightly controlled engagement that won't expose
this new information, just give the illusion of responsiveness. And
that's the problem. This isn't about finding the truth. It's
about staging just enough action to pacify a relentless public
while preserving the larger machinery that protected Epstein and his
clients to begin with. The only thing more insulting than
(21:19):
the cover up is a half hearted pantomime now being
performed in its defense. Whether the DOJ genuinely wants information
or just buying time under the guise of taking Maxwell seriously,
one thing is certain. The real answers aren't in that
prison meeting room. They're in the files and people they've
refused to touch for years. And in the end, the
(21:41):
DOJ's meeting with Glenn Maxwell doesn't signal a breakthrough. It
signals a retreat into control theater. It's the safest possible move.
Engage with a convicted, incarcerated woman who poses no real
threat to anyone in power, and who can be discredited
at will if her statements get too danger No subpoenas,
(22:01):
no indictments, no depositions, just a closed door conversation. They
can frame however they choose. If she gives them something useful,
they can quietly sit on it. If she doesn't, they
can say she lacked credibility. Either way, they control the narrative.
The illusion of accountability remains intact, while the core rought
(22:22):
stays buried. There's a grim irony in watching the same
Department of Justice that failed to prosecute Epstein in two
thousand and eight now pretend to resurrect the investigation by
entertaining his partner in crime more than a decade later.
Some might call that justice. I call it recycling. The
public is supposed to believe that this is progress, that
(22:43):
this is diligence, that the same people who ignored red
flags for years are now suddenly motivated by moral clarity.
But that ship is sailed long ago, and what's left
now is the maintenance of appearances. Quiet meetings, closed probes,
and empty press releases meant to simulate action while delivering nothing.
(23:04):
Justice doesn't look like talking to Glenn Maxwell behind bars.
Justice looks like unsealing the seal files, hitting every enabler
and facilitator with a subpoena. Prosecuting every co conspirator and
dragging every connected name, no matter how powerful, into the light.
Justice means transparency, not the atrix. And until the DOJ
(23:28):
shows the public something real, something brave, then every move
they make will be seen for what it is, damage
control dressed in the language of accountability, a pr strategy
masquerading as a criminal investigation. But the public isn't fooled anymore,
The survivors aren't fooled. The only people still pretending this
(23:49):
investigation was ever sincere are the ones who helped it
disappear in the first place. Meeting with Maxwell now, after
all the destruction, silence, and denial does in and back trust.
It's too little, far too late, And even now it's
being done in the most insulated, manageable way possible, as
if truth can be diffused through optics, as if the
(24:13):
country hasn't already watched this same playbook unfold again and again,
from Epstein's first arrest to his final breath in a
lock cell with no working cameras. But if this meeting
turns out to be more than theater, if this is
the beginning of something real, then the next move matters
more than any meeting ever could because if Maxwell has
something worth hearing, then what comes next should be nothing
(24:36):
less than war on the entire system that let this
empire of abuse thrive. The question is will they pursue
it or bury it. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. Now that the DOJ is announced that they're
going to be meeting with LeAnn Maxwell, I think we
have to talk about what that might look like. And
the main pathway for a federal inmate to get their
sentence reduced after already being sentenced is Rule thirty five
B of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that
(00:23):
allows the government and only the government, to ask the
court to reduce the sentence if the inmate provides substantial
assistance after sentencing. Now, this means that the inmate gives
new valuable information that leads to arrests, indictments, or convictions,
and the motion must come from the US Attorney's office.
(00:44):
The inmate cannot request it on their own, and typically
this happens within one year of sentencing, though courts sometimes
allow later filings if the cooperation took longer to produce results. Now,
when you're talking about somebody like Lane Maxwell to talk
about a few different things, such as the severity and
stigma of the crime. Sex trafficking of minors is among
(01:07):
the most serious crimes in the federal system. Judges, prosecutors
and the public view it with almost zero tolerance. Because
of the heinous nature of the offense, even small sentence
reductions are politically risky and socially radioactive. No US attorney
wants to be seen as going soft on a convicted
(01:27):
child trafficker, especially in a high profile case. Next, we
have to talk about Rule thirty five B, and as
explained earlier, Rule thirty five B allows a reduction if
the government files a motion based on a substantial assistance.
For someone like Maxwell, the window is tight. These motions
are typically filed within one year of sentencing, unless the
(01:49):
cooperation leads to delayed results. She's already past that window.
Unless the government makes an exception. The bar for substantial
assistance is extremely high. She would need to give up
bigger fish with proof that her help led directly to
arrests or indictments. But here's the kicker. She would need
(02:09):
to give up people the government is actually willing to
go after. The next question is does the government even
really want her cooperation? And the real question is even
if she did offer up names, would the DOJ actually
act on them? And if all else fails, there's always
a pardon or a commutation. A presidential commutation is technically possible,
(02:31):
but it would be political suicide for any president to
do so. No president wants headlines saying they shorten the
sentence of a convicted sex trafficker link to Jeffrey Epstein,
at least under normal circumstances. But as we all know,
nothing is normal about what's going on. And then, of
course there's always the reputation and credibility risk, and for
(02:54):
her information to matter, the DOJ must find her credible.
Because she's already gone to trial, binkis evicted and did
not cooperate pre sentencing, she could be viewed as opportunistic,
a desperate move, rather than a reliable one, and trust
is the key in these cases. But she's already been
found guilty of lying under oath in civil suits. So
(03:16):
where does that leave us. In a normal world, she
would have to hand over airtight, actionable intelligence on major
targets the government is actually willing to prosecute. And here's
a bigger problem for the government. Glenn Maxwell was found
guilty not just the sex trafficking and conspiracy, but also
of lying under oath during depositions. That's perjury in federal court.
(03:41):
Credibility is everything when it comes to cooperation. If a
cooperating witness is known to have lied before, especially in
Warren testimony, prosecutors are less likely to trust anything they say.
Defense attorneys in any case she might help build would
immediately attack her credibility, rendering her value as a witness
close to zero. And even if Maxwell tried to cooperate,
(04:04):
now here's the problem. Her lives were documented in civil
court and widely reported. She denied under oath knowing anything
about Epstein's abuse, which we know now was a lie
according to her own criminal conviction. That means any information
she tries to give now is tainted, and fair minded
(04:24):
people would assume that she's trying to save herself not
tell the truth, especially since she's never cooperated when it
might have counted before trial or sentencing. And look, even
if she gave up powerful names, the bar is high.
The info has to be new, specific, verifiable, and lead
directly to a successful prosecution. It can't just be gossip, memory, fragments,
(04:49):
or deflections. And since she's an old liar, the DOJ
would need independent cooperation for every single detail she provides.
And now that we have that all sorted out, let's
dive in a bit deeper. If someone is convicted of
a serious federal crime, such as sex trafficking of a minor,
the road to early release is narrow, steep and littered
(05:11):
with legal and political land minds. In theory, the federal
system allows for a sentenced individual to cooperate with the
government after conviction in exchange for a reduced sentence. This
mechanism exists under a rule thirty five B of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which gives federal prosecutors the
sole authority to request a sentence reduction if the inmate
(05:35):
provides substantial assistance in the investigation or a prosecution of
another person, but in practice, this is reserved for rare,
high impact cases, especially if the conviction involves morally repugnant
conduct like child exploitation. The case of gland Maxwell illustrates
just how difficult it would be for someone in her
(05:57):
position to benefit from such a rule. Maxwell is serving
a twenty year federal sentence for her role in recruiting
and grooming underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation.
Her crimes involving miners and abuse of power are among
the most stigmatized in the federal system. Prosecutors, judges, and
(06:17):
the public treats sex trafficking of miners as an unforgivable offense.
Any appearance of leniency risks severe public backlash, especially in
high profile cases so deeply associated with systemic failure and
elite protection. No federal prosecutor in the right mind wants
their name attached to a sentence reduction for some unlike her,
(06:40):
unless the payoff is extraordinary. Even setting aside public outrage,
there are steep procedural and credibility hurdles. Rule thirty five
B is time sensitive. It typically requires the cooperation to
occur within one year of sentencing. While the rule allows
exceptions when the information takes longer to bear fruit, the
(07:01):
burden is high. Maxwell was sentenced in twenty twenty two,
and that window is closing fast if it has an
already slam shut. Unless she provides something so explosive, timely,
and actionable that prosecutors are forced to act, she's legally
out of luck. And even if she could overcome the
timing issue, she'd still face an even greater obstacle. Her
(07:24):
credibility is shot. Maxwell was not only convicted of sex trafficking.
She was also found to have committed perjury. She lied
under oath in civil depositions when asked about her role
in Epstein's crimes. This wasn't some technical misstatement or memory lapse.
It was a direct, knowing denial of her involvement in
(07:44):
crimes she later was convicted for. In the eyes of
the legal system, that makes her a provable liar. And
once you've been caught lying under oath, especially about the
very crimes you're later convicted of, you are effectively useless
as a government witness. No jury would believe you, no
prosecutor wants to rely on you. Her credibility is radioactive.
(08:06):
Even if she offered up names, big names, powerful names,
it wouldn't be enough on its own. The government would
need corroborating evidence. Substantial assistance doesn't just mean naming names.
It means helping the government make prosecutable cases with verifiable facts, documents,
or direct leads that result in actual charges or convictions.
(08:29):
And if Maxwell came forward now after her conviction, it
would look like a self serving act of desperation rather
than genuine cooperation. Prosecutors know this, They've seen it before,
and in her case, the bar would be higher than
usual because of the damage she's already done to her
own trustworthiness. Additionally, let's not forget the political reality. Any
(08:52):
reduction in Maxwell's sentence, no matter the justification, would be
seen by the public as a betrayal. Saga is already
viewed as a colossal failure of justice. The DOJ and
the courts are under intense scrutiny for how the case
has been handled over the years, including Epstein's mysterious death,
the sweetheart deals, and the failure to pursue his broader network.
(09:17):
Reducing Maxwell's sentence would risk further reputational harm and would
demand an overwhelming public benefit in return, something dramatic, indisputable,
and der tight. Anything less, and the fallout would be swift.
There is also the question of whether the DOJ even
wants her cooperation. If they were serious about going after
(09:38):
the full scope of Epstein's network, they would have already
pursued it when Maxwell was arrested. She had every opportunity
to cooperate pre trial, when her leverage was highest. She
chose not. To. That decision now limits her options. If
she's suddenly ready to talk, the government should ask why
now why not when accounted, the odds are high that
(10:00):
whatever she's offering, they've either already heard it, don't find
it credible, or have chosen, for reasons both legal and political,
not to act on it. And yet the theoretical door
isn't fully closed. If Maxwell were to produce physical evidence,
something undeniable and independently verifiable, then and only then would
(10:21):
prosecutors be forced to reconsider. But that assumes she has
such evidence and that she's willing to part with it.
It also assumes the government is willing to open those
old wounds, revisit powerful targets, and endure the political consequences
of being seen as dealing with a convicted sex trafficker.
(10:42):
The odds are stacked against her, but the opaque world
of federal cooperation and institutional preservation stranger things have happened,
all right. We're going to wrap up episode one right here,
and in the next episode we're going to pick up
where we left off. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box.
(11:03):
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
where we left off with the government's fishing expedition when
it comes to Glenn Maxwell. If reports are accurate and
the DOJ has already agreed to meet face to face
with Glenn Maxwell, that changes the stakes, but not necessarily.
(11:25):
The odds of face to face meeting signals that the
government is at least willing to hear her out. It
doesn't mean that they believe her, trust her, or intend
to act on anything she offers. Prosecutors will often take
meetings with high profile inmates, just to ensure no stone
is left unturned, especially in a case as historically botched
(11:46):
and politically radioactive as the Epstein investigation. The real question
is not whether they're meeting, is whether anything she says
can survive the gauntlet of scrutiny required to be useful.
For Maxwell, this is life a last ditch attempt to
claw back some leverage. She didn't cooperate when it would
have made a difference before her indictment, before her trial,
(12:08):
before her sentencing. That's when informants hold the most power.
At this stage, She's a convicted felon with a perjury record,
an ironclad sentence, and the public's unblinking hatred. If she
wanted to help the government pursue Epstein's brought her network.
She had years to do it. The fact that she's
coming forward now only adds to the perception that it's transactional,
(12:30):
self serving, and desperate. The public knows that, and the
only people that don't seem to care are the prosecutors.
But the DOJ is taking the meeting at all, especially
after announcing they've closed the Epstein probe, is itself a signal.
It may suggest the public pressure is mounting, or that
internal factions within the Justice Department aren't fully aligned. The
(12:54):
official narrative has long been that Maxwell and Epstein where
the top of the pyramid, but the public doesn't believe that,
and the court records, flight logs, and sealed depositions suggests
there's more, much more. So, when the DOJ says they're
sitting down with Maxwell, it invites speculation. Are they finally
willing to listen or is this meeting just another performative
(13:17):
gesture to keep up the illusion of pursuit. If Maxwell
wants to be taken seriously, she'll need to walk into
that room with more than just memories and names. She'll
need concrete proof, diaries, photographs, money, trails, transactional data, or
a third party corroboration that the people she's implicating did
(13:38):
what she says they did. Otherwise, that meeting will go nowhere.
A convicted perjurer walking into a room saying I have
more to tell you is not enough, not for the
FEDS and not for the court of public opinion. The
burden is higher for her than perhaps any cooperating inmate
in recent memory, because the stain of her crimes and
(13:58):
the scale of the case are both unprecedented, and even
if she miraculously provides actionable intel, the DOJ still has
to make an agonizing decision. Do their rewarder for her
cooperation and risk public outrage, or do they quietly take
the information, use it if it checks out, and leave
her to serve the full twenty years. In many cases,
(14:21):
prosecutors will choose the latter. They'll sit through the meeting,
gather every crumb of potentially useful evidence, and then walk away,
never filing a Rule thirty five be motion, and never
publicly acknowledging the exchange and under normal circumstances that allows
them to protect their case and maintain plausible deniability about
(14:43):
having worked with someone so toxic Maxwell meanwhile, maybe operating
under the illusion that any cooperation buys her a ticket out,
but the law doesn't work that way. The government is
under no obligation to offer a sentence reduction, no matter
how helpful she she is, and any deal would likely
be negotiated behind the scenes, without fanfare or transparency. If
(15:08):
she's hoping for a headline, a press conference or a
hero z arc from trafficker to truth teller, she's deluding herself.
The best case scenario for her is a quiet agreement
that knocks a few years off her sentence, and even
that is a long shot unless she delivers someone so
powerful that the DOJ can't ignore it. And the public
(15:29):
should also temper their expectations. A meeting with the DOJ
doesn't necessarily mean indictments are coming. It doesn't mean the
Epstein investigation is back on track. All signs point to
it being a phishing expedition, a bureaucratic checkbox, or it
could just be theater away for prosecutors to say we
(15:49):
listened without actually doing anything. That's happened before, and it'll
happen again, and if the DOJ is serious, we'll know it.
Not from leaks or vague statement, but from sealed indictments,
grand jury activity, or the kind of aggressive legal maneuvering
that real pursuit entails. Until then, it's just noise. But still,
(16:11):
the timing of the meeting raises real questions, Why now,
why her? And why would the DOJ re engage after
publicly saying the case was closed. Whether the signals of
crack in the wall or just another smoke screen remains
to be seen, but there's no doubt that the timing
of the doj sudden interest in sitting down with Glenn
(16:31):
Maxwell is, to put it mildly suspect. For years, the
department has been inactive and insisted that the Epstein investigation
is closed and that all prosecutable parties have been brought
to justice and that there is no remaining evidence worthy
of pursuit. This came despite mountains of flight logs, sealed depositions,
(16:52):
financial transactions, and credible victim accounts pointing to a broader network. Now,
with public outrage, pequing, and the words cover up and
Epstein being spoken in the same breath across congressional hearings
and media platforms, the DOJ pivots and announces a face
to face with the single most toxic and discredited figure
(17:13):
in the entire case, it doesn't inspire confidence. It wreaks
a damage control. If the case was truly closed, as
the DJ claim just weeks ago, what changed? Did new
evidence emerge? Did a victim come forward with something new?
Or is the Department simply trying to throw a bone
to the public while preserving the illusion of effort. The
(17:35):
fact that their newfound interest in Maxwell coincides with mounting
criticism from lawmakers, journalists, and survivors suggests that this meeting
might not be about justice at all. It might be
about optics, a way to say, see, we're still looking
into it without actually committing to meaningful action. And there's
also the issue of trust. After decades of inaction, sweetheart deals,
(17:59):
by much prosecutions, missing camera footage, and a suspicious jelhouse death,
the public has every reason to doubt the DOJ's sincerity
when it comes to Epstein. The same institution that gave
him a pass in two thousand and eight, allowed him
to violate his plea agreement with impunity, and failed to
protect him in federal custody, is now asking for another
(18:20):
round of faith from the very people they've repeatedly betrayed.
That's a hard sell. A closed investigation one day and
a Maxwell sit down the next doesn't suggest integrity. It
suggests manipulation. And what makes the theater even more transparent
is who they chose to speak with. Glenn Maxwell is
not a reliable narrator. She's a convicted perjurer, a trafficker,
(18:44):
and a proven liar. If the DOJ was serious about
pursuing justice, they would have subpoenaed uncooperative co conspirators years ago,
people like Sarah Kelln Vickers, Leslie Groff, or other Core
Four insiders who have thus far escaped legal consequences. Instead,
they're rechoosing to sit down with the most publicly disgraced
(19:05):
figure in the entire saga, as if her word means
anything without corroberation. What they want to pass off as
a strategic move is nothing more than spectacle. We've seen
this kind of political theater before. When public outrage over
institutional failure becomes too loud to ignore, the powers that
(19:25):
be stage a gesture. They pick the easiest, most prsafe
action possible. Talk to somebody already in prison, already discredited
and already sentenced. That way, they can say they're pursuing
leads without disrupting the balance of power, without threatening elites,
and without actually bringing anyone new to justice. It's classic
(19:46):
Breton circus, give the public a distraction while protecting the
status quo, And this meeting with Maxwell could serve another purpose,
reabsorbing control over the narrative. Right now, Congress is starting
to dig into Epstein connections, whistleblowers are speaking out. Media
outlets slowly but surely are growing more aggressive in their coverage.
(20:08):
By suddenly inserting themselves back into the picture, the DOJ
might be trying to reassert authority and steer the conversation
away from uncomfortable truths. If the public sees them taking action,
they're less likely to demand external investigations or independent oversight.
It's a pressure valve, not a pursuit of justice. And
(20:30):
let's not ignore the convenience of timing. The Maxwell meeting
was announced only after the public began asking more questions
why key Epstein evidence is still sealed and why Epstein's
intelligence ties remain off limits. Instead of addressing those hard questions,
the DOJ sets up a meeting with a woman who's
already behind bars and already damaged beyond repair. It's a shield,
(20:55):
a smoke screen, a tightly controlled engagement that won't expose
this new information, just give the illusion of responsiveness. And
that's the problem. This isn't about finding the truth. It's
about staging just enough action to pacify a relentless public
while preserving the larger machinery that protected Epstein and his
clients to begin with. The only thing more insulting than
(21:19):
the cover up is a half hearted pantomime now being
performed in its defense. Whether the DOJ genuinely wants information
or just buying time under the guise of taking Maxwell seriously,
one thing is certain. The real answers aren't in that
prison meeting room. They're in the files and people they've
refused to touch for years. And in the end, the
(21:41):
DOJ's meeting with Glenn Maxwell doesn't signal a breakthrough. It
signals a retreat into control theater. It's the safest possible move.
Engage with a convicted, incarcerated woman who poses no real
threat to anyone in power, and who can be discredited
at will if her statements get too danger No subpoenas,
(22:01):
no indictments, no depositions, just a closed door conversation. They
can frame however they choose. If she gives them something useful,
they can quietly sit on it. If she doesn't, they
can say she lacked credibility. Either way, they control the narrative.
The illusion of accountability remains intact, while the core rought
(22:22):
stays buried. There's a grim irony in watching the same
Department of Justice that failed to prosecute Epstein in two
thousand and eight now pretend to resurrect the investigation by
entertaining his partner in crime more than a decade later.
Some might call that justice. I call it recycling. The
public is supposed to believe that this is progress, that
(22:43):
this is diligence, that the same people who ignored red
flags for years are now suddenly motivated by moral clarity.
But that ship is sailed long ago, and what's left
now is the maintenance of appearances. Quiet meetings, closed probes,
and empty press releases meant to simulate action while delivering nothing.
(23:04):
Justice doesn't look like talking to Glenn Maxwell behind bars.
Justice looks like unsealing the seal files, hitting every enabler
and facilitator with a subpoena. Prosecuting every co conspirator and
dragging every connected name, no matter how powerful, into the light.
Justice means transparency, not the atrix. And until the DOJ
(23:28):
shows the public something real, something brave, then every move
they make will be seen for what it is, damage
control dressed in the language of accountability, a pr strategy
masquerading as a criminal investigation. But the public isn't fooled anymore,
The survivors aren't fooled. The only people still pretending this
(23:49):
investigation was ever sincere are the ones who helped it
disappear in the first place. Meeting with Maxwell now, after
all the destruction, silence, and denial does in and back trust.
It's too little, far too late, And even now it's
being done in the most insulated, manageable way possible, as
if truth can be diffused through optics, as if the
(24:13):
country hasn't already watched this same playbook unfold again and again,
from Epstein's first arrest to his final breath in a
lock cell with no working cameras. But if this meeting
turns out to be more than theater, if this is
the beginning of something real, then the next move matters
more than any meeting ever could because if Maxwell has
something worth hearing, then what comes next should be nothing
(24:36):
less than war on the entire system that let this
empire of abuse thrive. The question is will they pursue
it or bury it. All of the information that goes
with this episode can be found in the description box
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.