December 31, 2025 • 15 mins
The 2007 NPA granted Epstein immunity from federal prosecution, explicitly including “any potential co-conspirators.” However, courts have ruled that this immunity only applied within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida, which negotiated the deal. The Second Circuit Court held that the agreement did not bind other U.S. Attorney’s Offices, such as the Southern District of New York (SDNY), where Ghislaine Maxwell was later tried—and upheld her prosecution despite the NPA’s language. This is because prosecutors in different districts are not automatically constrained by deals made in Florida.
Prosecutors themselves have highlighted the absurdity of a scenario where Epstein could potentially still face prosecution in another district, while his co-conspirators remain untouchable nationwide. In a Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department stressed how logically inconsistent—and legally bizarre—it would be if a defendant could be pursued in District A, but their collaborators remain immune everywhere else due to an out-of-state agreement. The broader principle endorsed by courts is that NPAs do not grant blanket immunity beyond their originating district.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sdny-rejects-absurd-notion-that-jeffrey-epsteins-non-prosecution-agreement-still-protects-ghislaine-maxwell/
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Prosecutors themselves have highlighted the absurdity of a scenario where Epstein could potentially still face prosecution in another district, while his co-conspirators remain untouchable nationwide. In a Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department stressed how logically inconsistent—and legally bizarre—it would be if a defendant could be pursued in District A, but their collaborators remain immune everywhere else due to an out-of-state agreement. The broader principle endorsed by courts is that NPAs do not grant blanket immunity beyond their originating district.
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sdny-rejects-absurd-notion-that-jeffrey-epsteins-non-prosecution-agreement-still-protects-ghislaine-maxwell/
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 back to the Epstein Chronicles.
One of the most absurd things you hear when talking
about co conspirators in the Jeffrey Epstein criminal enterprise is
that this non prosecution agreement in Florida protects them everywhere.
That is just absurd, And the SDNY and the prosecutors
(00:23):
in New York, well, they prove that by prosecuting Glaine Maxwell.
Now the question becomes, how come they're not going with
the same vigor or the same gusto after the other
co conspirators. Considering there is precedent here with Maxwell, who
was certainly protected under the non prosecution agreement getting prosecuted here,
(00:46):
you would think that the prosecutors would continue to dismantle
this criminal enterprise and bring these people to yield. But
that has not happened. We've had a lot of lip service,
We've had plenty of platitudes, and we've had a lot
of promises from the Department of Justice and the SDNY,
(01:06):
Yet none of it has materialized. Have any of the
other co conspirators been brought up on charges? What about
the people using the services of Glene Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
Still nothing, No, subpoenas, no huge commissions, no huge hearings,
nothing like that. It's as if all of these people
(01:28):
in power just want this to go away. Well, unfortunately
for them, that's not going to happen. All of the
authorities that were involved in this, they have some answers
to give us. Let's remember here, we don't live in
some country where the secret police run the whole world.
These people have to be accountable to the taxpayers. And
(01:50):
when there's no accountability, well what's left. They're able to
do whatever they want, whenever they want. And we've seen
it time and time again. You know, it's not because
they don't have the evidence, folks, it's they don't have
the willpower or the spine to go after the rest
of these co conspirators because they understand just what sort
(02:11):
of Pandora's box that would be opening. And they can't
have that right. They can't have their faves get in trouble,
they can't have their bagman get in trouble. Who's gonna
fund their campaigns? Today we have an article from Lawn
Crime headlined SDNY rejects absurd notion that Jeffrey Epstein's non
(02:31):
prosecution agreement still protects Glaine Maxwell. This article was authored
by Colin Komba, a combocker, and it was published on
July thirteenth, twenty twenty. So, right out of the gate,
if the SDNY is rejecting the absurd notion that Jeffrey
Epstein's non prosecution agreement protects Maxwell, then why aren't they
(02:54):
going after the rest of the co conspirators using this
as precedent. If it's absurd for me, it's absurd for
the rest of them. The US Attorney for the Southern
District of New York argued against Glen Maxwell's bell request
in an aggressive motion filed with the Manhattan based federal
(03:15):
court on Monday. The prosecution's argument against pre trial release
for Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking accomplice notably focused on one
of the most visible, criticized, and controversial aspects of the case,
the non prosecution agreement that infamously purported to shield any
(03:35):
of Epstein's potential co conspirators from federal charges. And now
nobody gets a deal like that where it shields potential
co conspirators people that aren't even named. How in the
world do you get yourself a deal like that? Unless
you have friends on high. That doesn't just materialize for
(03:55):
anybody but Jeffrey Epstein's gross ass. Well, he gets that
kind of deal in two thousand and seven as part
of Epstein's sweetheart deal inked with the Southern District of Florida,
an office that was then led by President Donald Trump's
one time labor secretary Alex Acosta, but administered by Mukhesi
and the rest of them. Let's not forget that they
(04:18):
conveniently leave that kind of stuff out. And remember, folks,
lies of omission are still lies. The mysteriously wealthy financier,
pedophile and alleged serial sexual abuser no more alleged of
young girls was able to secure a criminal justice bargain
in exchange for pleading guilty to state prostitution charges and
(04:40):
a thirteen month sentence with work from home privileges. Acosta
and the whole US government doj immunized Epstein for any
further associated crimes, along with his named and unnamed alleged
co conspirators. So that should never happen in any situation.
There should never be a deal that is such an
(05:01):
umbrella that it covers even non named co conspirators that
should never be okay, And there should never be a
federal prosecutor or a director of the DOJ attorney general
that signs off on anything like that. And I can't
slam the point home enough that Acosta was just a
(05:22):
middle manager. How many of you work at a job
and have a middle manager who's basically his only job
is to set the schedule and make sure you show
up at work. It's basically what a Costa is, right,
just another middle manager. How many of these field attorney
generals are there around the country, a whole bunch of them.
(05:43):
So Acosta isn't some special guy who had all these
special powers. It was his bosses from on high who
were okay with this deal, all the Kirkland Ellis lawyers
that have all of these relationships. And remember, with these lawyers,
you're not buying what they're going to do in the courtroom.
You're buying their connections outside of the courtroom. You're buying
(06:05):
the fact that they can walk into the judge's chamber,
sit down with a judge and know he's an old
buddy from Harvard. That's what you're paying for under the
ages of what mostly as a self evidently corrupt non
prosecution agreement. Maxwell sought shelter from the federal charges filed
against her in late June, charges that were unsealed after
(06:28):
she was arrested in early July. So she had tried
to use the fact that she has this non prosecution
agreement down in Florida to protect herself in New York,
and we all know that doesn't fly. And the fact
that the federal government has basically let them get off
because of this non prosecution agreement is just unacceptable. Arguing
(06:51):
the government's case is subject to significant challenges. Maxwell defense
attorney Marc S. Cohen and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca said the
c Alliance prosecution is barred by Epstein's September twenty fourth,
two thousand and seven non prosecution agreement with the Department
of Justice, which covers any potential co conspirators of Epstein.
(07:12):
I mean, wow, there's really not even much to say
about it. How can anyone look at that deal he got,
and especially Monday morning quarterbacking it with hindsight as our guide,
and not see how screwed up it all was, and
not see how corrupt it all was. And the fact
that nobody who was involved in administering that deal ever
(07:34):
had any sanctions hit against them, is just beyond beyond absurd.
The SDNY attempted to rubbish that line of argument in full.
So this is important right here, right If they're arguing
that this is rubbish here, how come it's not rubbish
for say, Sarah Kelln Vickers. The defendant's motion alludes to
(07:57):
defenses in this case, all of which are legal or
procedural in nature, and none of which pass Muster let alone.
Council in favor of Bell. Monday's detention support memo notes
to begin with the notion that the defendant is protected
from prosecution by the non prosecution agreement and PA between
Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office in the Southern
(08:18):
District of Florida is absurd. That agreement affords her no
protection in this district for at least three reasons. So again,
the reason we're going back and talking about this is
SDNY themselves are saying that there's precedent here to go
after the co conspirators non named or named as Epstein associates,
(08:42):
Yet they have not done so. And the question is
why if they have precedent, If they have the evidence.
What are they waiting for? First, the defendant was not
party to that agreement nor named in it as a
third party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to
think would be she would have standing to claim any
(09:02):
rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority
for the proposition that an agreement she was not party
to and that does not even identify her by name,
could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. I think
that applies for all of the co conspirators. Right. Once again,
(09:22):
all of the co conspirators are using this non prosecution
agreement as their basis for not being charged. Second, and
equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District
of New York, which was not party to the agreement.
See the United States versus Annaby, seven to seven to one,
F Dot two D six seven zero six seven to two,
(09:44):
Second District Circuit, nineteen eighty five. A plea agreement binds
only the office of the United States Attorney for the
district in which the plea is entered, unless it affirmatively
appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction. And this
is something I've talked about from the beginning. Look, I'm
certainly not a legal mind, right, I don't know the
(10:06):
law inside and out. But I do know for a
fact that if you have a plea agreement with one
district that doesn't get rid of all your crimes in
a different district, you haven't sat down with the attorneys
in insert district here and done your three to zero two,
signed your profit agreement, and became king for a day
that only happened in Florida. This rule applies even when
(10:30):
the text of agreement refers to the signing party as
the government. Third, and perhaps most important, even assuming the
NPA could be read to protect this defendant and buying
this office, which were both legally unsound propositions. The indictment
charges conduct not covered by the NPA, which was limited
by its terms to conduct spanning from two thousand and
(10:52):
one to two thousand and seven, a time period that
post dates the conduct charged in the indictment, and to
violations of statutes not charged in this indictment. So what
they're saying is the original charges, the original non prosecution
agreement doesn't even cover the charges that SDNY was talking
about here, and again, just to slam it home, the
(11:14):
same could be said of the other co conspirators. The
prosecution me memo continues in this respect. The government further
notes that the indictment brought in this district is entirely
independent of the prior SDFL investigation, and two of the
survivors referenced in the indictment were never approached or interviewed
(11:37):
by the SDFL and never spoke to law enforcement until
they met with our office in twenty nineteen. Bingo, done
and done, but still the rest of the co conspirators
are somehow hiding using this as a defense. The SDNY
is spot on here, and Maxwell's argument stands essentially no
(11:58):
real chance. Former SDNY Assistant US Attorney and current CNN
legal analyst Eli Hannig told Long Crime in an email.
At least Epstein had the shred of an argument that
he was he was party to the NPA and could
enforce it against the government. Maxwell is neither a party
to the agreement nor even one of the names of beneficiaries, and,
(12:21):
as the SDNY notes the charge document, a charge conduct
falls entirely outside the timeframe stated in the NPA. So
the NPA isn't carte blanche right when you sign an NPA,
a non prosecution agreement, and a three to zero two.
You tell the government of all of the crimes that
you have committed up to that point, and up to
that point, you get relief for all of those crimes
(12:43):
that you have committed if you have been honest with
the government. Anything that happens after that, however, well that's
still on you. Julie Randleman a former homicide prosecutor and
currently a defense attorney working in New York City. She
serves as a legal analyst on the Law and Crime Network.
Rendelman agreed with the SDNWYSE reasoning to why Epstein's NPA
(13:06):
is inapplicable to Maxwell's Bell request, but noted that Maxwell's
defense attorneys are more or less bound to exhaust any
plausible excuses to get their client out of jail. Well,
that's for sure, they're going to utilize whatever they can
to try and get their client out of jail, and
if there's a non prosecution prosecution agreement on the table,
they're certainly going to try and use that. The attorneys
(13:29):
for Maxwell are for the moment, focused on getting her
out on Bell pending trial, Rendelman told Law on Crime
to that end, they are including every potential argument that
either supports the position that she is not a flight
risk or undermines the federal government's case. In general, the
raising of Jeffrey Epstein's NPA is just one example of
(13:50):
their effort to present potential cracks in the government's case.
She added, the problem for Maxwell is that the NPA,
even if valid, seems to only the southern District of Florida,
not New York. Further, as Maxwell is not a party
to the NPA nor named in it, it would seem
a stretch to think this would save her from facing
(14:11):
charges in New York, or in New Mexico, or in
the Virgin Islands or an insert place here. That's why,
when they only had one federal investigation going on and
not parallel investigations in these states, I had something to
say about it. So what we're gonna rely just on
the federal government. As an attorney general of a state
like Baldaras in New Mexico, your duty is to protect
(14:35):
the citizens of your state. You can't pump that to
the federal government. So you need to step up and
have a parallel investigation and maybe bring state charges. Because
those state charges she's not protected from those state charges
under the NPA right, and neither of the other co conspirators.
So again I ask you, why is it that the
(14:56):
government has not brought a Rico case here? Why is
it that the government has not used this precedent to
go after Jeffrey Epstein's other co conspirators. All Right, folks,
that's gonna do it for this episode. If you'd like
to contact me, you can do that at Bobby Kapuchi
at ProtonMail dot com. That's b O B b Y
(15:17):
c A p U c c I at ProtonMail dot com.
You can also find me on Twitter at b O
B B y underscore c A p U c c I.
The link that I discussed can be found in the
description box.
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
One of the most absurd things you hear when talking
about co conspirators in the Jeffrey Epstein criminal enterprise is
that this non prosecution agreement in Florida protects them everywhere.
That is just absurd, And the SDNY and the prosecutors
(00:23):
in New York, well, they prove that by prosecuting Glaine Maxwell.
Now the question becomes, how come they're not going with
the same vigor or the same gusto after the other
co conspirators. Considering there is precedent here with Maxwell, who
was certainly protected under the non prosecution agreement getting prosecuted here,
(00:46):
you would think that the prosecutors would continue to dismantle
this criminal enterprise and bring these people to yield. But
that has not happened. We've had a lot of lip service,
We've had plenty of platitudes, and we've had a lot
of promises from the Department of Justice and the SDNY,
(01:06):
Yet none of it has materialized. Have any of the
other co conspirators been brought up on charges? What about
the people using the services of Glene Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein.
Still nothing, No, subpoenas, no huge commissions, no huge hearings,
nothing like that. It's as if all of these people
(01:28):
in power just want this to go away. Well, unfortunately
for them, that's not going to happen. All of the
authorities that were involved in this, they have some answers
to give us. Let's remember here, we don't live in
some country where the secret police run the whole world.
These people have to be accountable to the taxpayers. And
(01:50):
when there's no accountability, well what's left. They're able to
do whatever they want, whenever they want. And we've seen
it time and time again. You know, it's not because
they don't have the evidence, folks, it's they don't have
the willpower or the spine to go after the rest
of these co conspirators because they understand just what sort
(02:11):
of Pandora's box that would be opening. And they can't
have that right. They can't have their faves get in trouble,
they can't have their bagman get in trouble. Who's gonna
fund their campaigns? Today we have an article from Lawn
Crime headlined SDNY rejects absurd notion that Jeffrey Epstein's non
(02:31):
prosecution agreement still protects Glaine Maxwell. This article was authored
by Colin Komba, a combocker, and it was published on
July thirteenth, twenty twenty. So, right out of the gate,
if the SDNY is rejecting the absurd notion that Jeffrey
Epstein's non prosecution agreement protects Maxwell, then why aren't they
(02:54):
going after the rest of the co conspirators using this
as precedent. If it's absurd for me, it's absurd for
the rest of them. The US Attorney for the Southern
District of New York argued against Glen Maxwell's bell request
in an aggressive motion filed with the Manhattan based federal
(03:15):
court on Monday. The prosecution's argument against pre trial release
for Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking accomplice notably focused on one
of the most visible, criticized, and controversial aspects of the case,
the non prosecution agreement that infamously purported to shield any
(03:35):
of Epstein's potential co conspirators from federal charges. And now
nobody gets a deal like that where it shields potential
co conspirators people that aren't even named. How in the
world do you get yourself a deal like that? Unless
you have friends on high. That doesn't just materialize for
(03:55):
anybody but Jeffrey Epstein's gross ass. Well, he gets that
kind of deal in two thousand and seven as part
of Epstein's sweetheart deal inked with the Southern District of Florida,
an office that was then led by President Donald Trump's
one time labor secretary Alex Acosta, but administered by Mukhesi
and the rest of them. Let's not forget that they
(04:18):
conveniently leave that kind of stuff out. And remember, folks,
lies of omission are still lies. The mysteriously wealthy financier,
pedophile and alleged serial sexual abuser no more alleged of
young girls was able to secure a criminal justice bargain
in exchange for pleading guilty to state prostitution charges and
(04:40):
a thirteen month sentence with work from home privileges. Acosta
and the whole US government doj immunized Epstein for any
further associated crimes, along with his named and unnamed alleged
co conspirators. So that should never happen in any situation.
There should never be a deal that is such an
(05:01):
umbrella that it covers even non named co conspirators that
should never be okay, And there should never be a
federal prosecutor or a director of the DOJ attorney general
that signs off on anything like that. And I can't
slam the point home enough that Acosta was just a
(05:22):
middle manager. How many of you work at a job
and have a middle manager who's basically his only job
is to set the schedule and make sure you show
up at work. It's basically what a Costa is, right,
just another middle manager. How many of these field attorney
generals are there around the country, a whole bunch of them.
(05:43):
So Acosta isn't some special guy who had all these
special powers. It was his bosses from on high who
were okay with this deal, all the Kirkland Ellis lawyers
that have all of these relationships. And remember, with these lawyers,
you're not buying what they're going to do in the courtroom.
You're buying their connections outside of the courtroom. You're buying
(06:05):
the fact that they can walk into the judge's chamber,
sit down with a judge and know he's an old
buddy from Harvard. That's what you're paying for under the
ages of what mostly as a self evidently corrupt non
prosecution agreement. Maxwell sought shelter from the federal charges filed
against her in late June, charges that were unsealed after
(06:28):
she was arrested in early July. So she had tried
to use the fact that she has this non prosecution
agreement down in Florida to protect herself in New York,
and we all know that doesn't fly. And the fact
that the federal government has basically let them get off
because of this non prosecution agreement is just unacceptable. Arguing
(06:51):
the government's case is subject to significant challenges. Maxwell defense
attorney Marc S. Cohen and Jeffrey S. Pagliuca said the
c Alliance prosecution is barred by Epstein's September twenty fourth,
two thousand and seven non prosecution agreement with the Department
of Justice, which covers any potential co conspirators of Epstein.
(07:12):
I mean, wow, there's really not even much to say
about it. How can anyone look at that deal he got,
and especially Monday morning quarterbacking it with hindsight as our guide,
and not see how screwed up it all was, and
not see how corrupt it all was. And the fact
that nobody who was involved in administering that deal ever
(07:34):
had any sanctions hit against them, is just beyond beyond absurd.
The SDNY attempted to rubbish that line of argument in full.
So this is important right here, right If they're arguing
that this is rubbish here, how come it's not rubbish
for say, Sarah Kelln Vickers. The defendant's motion alludes to
(07:57):
defenses in this case, all of which are legal or
procedural in nature, and none of which pass Muster let alone.
Council in favor of Bell. Monday's detention support memo notes
to begin with the notion that the defendant is protected
from prosecution by the non prosecution agreement and PA between
Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office in the Southern
(08:18):
District of Florida is absurd. That agreement affords her no
protection in this district for at least three reasons. So again,
the reason we're going back and talking about this is
SDNY themselves are saying that there's precedent here to go
after the co conspirators non named or named as Epstein associates,
(08:42):
Yet they have not done so. And the question is
why if they have precedent, If they have the evidence.
What are they waiting for? First, the defendant was not
party to that agreement nor named in it as a
third party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to
think would be she would have standing to claim any
(09:02):
rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority
for the proposition that an agreement she was not party
to and that does not even identify her by name,
could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. I think
that applies for all of the co conspirators. Right. Once again,
(09:22):
all of the co conspirators are using this non prosecution
agreement as their basis for not being charged. Second, and
equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District
of New York, which was not party to the agreement.
See the United States versus Annaby, seven to seven to one,
F Dot two D six seven zero six seven to two,
(09:44):
Second District Circuit, nineteen eighty five. A plea agreement binds
only the office of the United States Attorney for the
district in which the plea is entered, unless it affirmatively
appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction. And this
is something I've talked about from the beginning. Look, I'm
certainly not a legal mind, right, I don't know the
(10:06):
law inside and out. But I do know for a
fact that if you have a plea agreement with one
district that doesn't get rid of all your crimes in
a different district, you haven't sat down with the attorneys
in insert district here and done your three to zero two,
signed your profit agreement, and became king for a day
that only happened in Florida. This rule applies even when
(10:30):
the text of agreement refers to the signing party as
the government. Third, and perhaps most important, even assuming the
NPA could be read to protect this defendant and buying
this office, which were both legally unsound propositions. The indictment
charges conduct not covered by the NPA, which was limited
by its terms to conduct spanning from two thousand and
(10:52):
one to two thousand and seven, a time period that
post dates the conduct charged in the indictment, and to
violations of statutes not charged in this indictment. So what
they're saying is the original charges, the original non prosecution
agreement doesn't even cover the charges that SDNY was talking
about here, and again, just to slam it home, the
(11:14):
same could be said of the other co conspirators. The
prosecution me memo continues in this respect. The government further
notes that the indictment brought in this district is entirely
independent of the prior SDFL investigation, and two of the
survivors referenced in the indictment were never approached or interviewed
(11:37):
by the SDFL and never spoke to law enforcement until
they met with our office in twenty nineteen. Bingo, done
and done, but still the rest of the co conspirators
are somehow hiding using this as a defense. The SDNY
is spot on here, and Maxwell's argument stands essentially no
(11:58):
real chance. Former SDNY Assistant US Attorney and current CNN
legal analyst Eli Hannig told Long Crime in an email.
At least Epstein had the shred of an argument that
he was he was party to the NPA and could
enforce it against the government. Maxwell is neither a party
to the agreement nor even one of the names of beneficiaries, and,
(12:21):
as the SDNY notes the charge document, a charge conduct
falls entirely outside the timeframe stated in the NPA. So
the NPA isn't carte blanche right when you sign an NPA,
a non prosecution agreement, and a three to zero two.
You tell the government of all of the crimes that
you have committed up to that point, and up to
that point, you get relief for all of those crimes
(12:43):
that you have committed if you have been honest with
the government. Anything that happens after that, however, well that's
still on you. Julie Randleman a former homicide prosecutor and
currently a defense attorney working in New York City. She
serves as a legal analyst on the Law and Crime Network.
Rendelman agreed with the SDNWYSE reasoning to why Epstein's NPA
(13:06):
is inapplicable to Maxwell's Bell request, but noted that Maxwell's
defense attorneys are more or less bound to exhaust any
plausible excuses to get their client out of jail. Well,
that's for sure, they're going to utilize whatever they can
to try and get their client out of jail, and
if there's a non prosecution prosecution agreement on the table,
they're certainly going to try and use that. The attorneys
(13:29):
for Maxwell are for the moment, focused on getting her
out on Bell pending trial, Rendelman told Law on Crime
to that end, they are including every potential argument that
either supports the position that she is not a flight
risk or undermines the federal government's case. In general, the
raising of Jeffrey Epstein's NPA is just one example of
(13:50):
their effort to present potential cracks in the government's case.
She added, the problem for Maxwell is that the NPA,
even if valid, seems to only the southern District of Florida,
not New York. Further, as Maxwell is not a party
to the NPA nor named in it, it would seem
a stretch to think this would save her from facing
(14:11):
charges in New York, or in New Mexico, or in
the Virgin Islands or an insert place here. That's why,
when they only had one federal investigation going on and
not parallel investigations in these states, I had something to
say about it. So what we're gonna rely just on
the federal government. As an attorney general of a state
like Baldaras in New Mexico, your duty is to protect
(14:35):
the citizens of your state. You can't pump that to
the federal government. So you need to step up and
have a parallel investigation and maybe bring state charges. Because
those state charges she's not protected from those state charges
under the NPA right, and neither of the other co conspirators.
So again I ask you, why is it that the
(14:56):
government has not brought a Rico case here? Why is
it that the government has not used this precedent to
go after Jeffrey Epstein's other co conspirators. All Right, folks,
that's gonna do it for this episode. If you'd like
to contact me, you can do that at Bobby Kapuchi
at ProtonMail dot com. That's b O B b Y
(15:17):
c A p U c c I at ProtonMail dot com.
You can also find me on Twitter at b O
B B y underscore c A p U c c I.
The link that I discussed can be found in the
description box.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.