Speaker 1: Hey there, folks. It is Monday, October sixth, and for
Speaker 1: all intents and purposes, that is it for Gallaine Maxwell.
Speaker 1: But she has maybe one shot left at freedom. Will
Speaker 1: Trump give it to her? Welcome to this episode of
Speaker 1: Amy and TJ. Look, no legal expert, A lot of
Speaker 1: stuff can happen. But now after a Supreme Court says nope,
Speaker 1: we're not going to know this to UK's either, Gallaine Maxwell,
Speaker 1: she essentially has one shot left.
Speaker 2: Her only shot is from President Trump, who has been
Speaker 2: desperately trying to distance himself from Gallainne Maxwell from Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein for months now. So the idea that he would
Speaker 2: then give her some sort of a pardon or clemency
Speaker 2: or some sort of get out of jail free card.
Speaker 2: What that would do to not just him, but any
Speaker 2: MAGA politician who aligned himself or herself with Trump following
Speaker 2: up the decision? I mean it would be political suicide,
Speaker 2: is what I'm trying to get. And I know he
Speaker 2: technically doesn't have an opportunity to run for reelection. He
Speaker 2: certainly doesn't want his base turning on him the way
Speaker 2: they have, or they did at least initially with the
Speaker 2: Epstein file. Should they won't, they will they be released saga.
Speaker 1: But don't you think nothing. It seems okay, this is
Speaker 1: us from the outside, just speaking on what we see,
Speaker 1: and what we see upsets him. It seems like nothing
Speaker 1: irks him more than constantly being affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: That's right, And I think, yes, that might come from
Speaker 2: a personal place. But also he's very well aware that
Speaker 2: this is a serious issue with the people who are
Speaker 2: closest to the people who follow him, who vote for him,
Speaker 2: who are at his rallies. These are the very group
Speaker 2: of people who want total transparency, they want justice, and
Speaker 2: they certainly don't want President Trump doing anything to help
Speaker 2: Gallaine Maxwell at this point.
Speaker 1: All right, So, and the Supreme Court doesn't want to
Speaker 1: help either, because that's the news today, folks. Gallainne Maxwell, who,
Speaker 1: of course, the convicted sex offender. She has been convicted
Speaker 1: of several crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein, also the convicted
Speaker 1: sex offender now dead by Elaine Maxwell, was trying has
Speaker 1: been trying for years to get her convictions thrown out,
Speaker 1: her argument being that she was a part of an
Speaker 1: immunity agreement that Jeffrey Epstein had well, she appealed that
Speaker 1: appellate court listened and said, nope, let the conviction stand.
Speaker 1: She then appealed that appellate decision up to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: And today Robes, they said the same thing they did.
Speaker 2: And she was hoping that because Jeffrey Epstein got this
Speaker 2: sweetheart dealer, or at least that's how it's been referred
Speaker 2: to in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1: Exactly, of course that's what it is.
Speaker 2: But it is, you know, basically saying anyone of his
Speaker 2: cohorts or anyone who helped him also would be immune
Speaker 2: from any sort of future convictions. However, that was in
Speaker 2: the state of Florida. There was nothing that precluded the
Speaker 2: State of New York from pursuing the charges that it did.
Speaker 2: And of course, yes, to remind everyone, she is serving
Speaker 2: twenty years for conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse minors.
Speaker 2: It is a serious crime, it is a violent crime,
Speaker 2: and it is one that she was found guilty of
Speaker 2: by a jury of her peers.
Speaker 1: Again, this one is and you correct me if this
Speaker 1: sounds wrong, Rose, but she the argument she's been making
Speaker 1: in court is not one about her innocence.
Speaker 2: No, it's not.
Speaker 1: She's making an argument, a technical argument about this immunity deal.
Speaker 1: The language is down there. I put it in there somewhere,
Speaker 1: the language of the immunity deal. Yes, the United States
Speaker 1: will also agree that it will not institute any criminal
Speaker 1: charges against any potential co conspirators of Epstein. That was
Speaker 1: in his non prosecution agreement. Like you said, Robes in Florida. Now,
Speaker 1: that's great, but it's we ain't got to listen to that.
Speaker 1: We're not bound by that in New York and nowhere
Speaker 1: else in the world is bound by that. And that's
Speaker 1: the argument she's been trying to make. Capella judges said, no,
Speaker 1: this cotis Supreme Court. They we only want to hear it.
Speaker 1: They did not have to rule on anything. They just said, nah,
Speaker 1: this is not one we're going to take up.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean the fact that they even considered her appeal,
Speaker 2: because this wasn't typically when they would do something like
Speaker 2: this was newsworthy in and of itself, but certainly this
Speaker 2: was done before they typically start their new court term
Speaker 2: where they discussed which court cases to take on. So
Speaker 2: them doing this out of session, so to speak, or
Speaker 2: when they traditionally do it was unusual, But now it's
Speaker 2: been put to bed. She has no other option, She
Speaker 2: has no other road to go down to try and
Speaker 2: up end the conviction she was handed in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: You're right, that made headlines at the time because they woo,
Speaker 1: something must be cooking here if they're taking this up,
Speaker 1: and it was out of the ordinary, it was. It
Speaker 1: was a big headline, so we thought something might be
Speaker 1: coming they did.
Speaker 2: Nah, Certainly, we saw several things happen when we saw
Speaker 2: a Deputy Attorney General Blanche meet with her, have those
Speaker 2: hours long conversations with her, to which we listened to
Speaker 2: hours of that conversation, or at least certainly the transcripts
Speaker 2: we read them. And you know, you said she wasn't
Speaker 2: denying it, or at least that wasn't the basis for
Speaker 2: this appeal to the Supreme Court. But she does vehemently
Speaker 2: deny all of her conviction. She says she it was
Speaker 2: mischaracterized and she didn't know what was going on, YadA YadA, YadA,
Speaker 2: YadA YadA. But the concern was that because she was
Speaker 2: talking with the Trump administration, because she then seemingly got
Speaker 2: some favors handed down to her, which we can get into,
Speaker 2: there was concern that perhaps there was some sort of
Speaker 2: backhanded thing going on where the Supreme Court might suddenly
Speaker 2: take up her argument that she shouldn't have been convicted
Speaker 2: in the first place.
Speaker 1: That's what the conspiracy theorist right there. However, there were
Speaker 1: some facts that were lining up to make a lot
Speaker 1: of people go, wait a second, what is going on?
Speaker 1: What did you call the prison she's at now it's
Speaker 1: called something, Oh gosh, club fed, club fed, club fed,
Speaker 1: club fed. So already folks think about the interview she
Speaker 1: did with ag Blanche. We got those transcripts, we heard
Speaker 1: the audio tapes and whatnot, so it's out there. But
Speaker 1: one of the biggest headlines of the thing that came
Speaker 1: across is she was adamant never saw Trump do anything wrong,
Speaker 1: never saw him do anything inappropriate, like she repeated it,
Speaker 1: and she was gushing in her praise of him. I
Speaker 1: understand she's trying to get a pardon, but that coupled
Speaker 1: with the president. Now, if she had a chance of
Speaker 1: getting a pardon, I don't think, given where he is
Speaker 1: and where I don't, I don't think. I think her
Speaker 1: chances went way way way down.
Speaker 2: Oh, given the court of public opinion. I mean, certainly
Speaker 2: most politicians will read the tea leaves, they will check
Speaker 2: where the wind's coming from, and they will adjust their
Speaker 2: sales accordingly. He has permanently affixed his sales as far
Speaker 2: away from anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein Gallainne Maxwell.
Speaker 2: And even despite all of his ever to try and
Speaker 2: change the conversation or change the news headlines, it k
Speaker 2: kept coming back to this. So I just can't imagine
Speaker 2: there would be a scenario in which he would want
Speaker 2: to in any way be a part of Glene Maxwell
Speaker 2: getting any sort of deal. However, I was shocked. We
Speaker 2: were all shocked. In the middle of all of the criticism,
Speaker 2: we did see her move to a much different facility.
Speaker 1: And nobody could explain why.
Speaker 2: Nobody has explained why still, and this has been months.
Speaker 1: Nobody knows why this was outside of normal procedure. Why
Speaker 1: is she there? Nobody to understand. And again, this is
Speaker 1: a place for non violent folks. She is a violent
Speaker 1: sex offender. That is how she's classified, and that type
Speaker 1: of prisoner or whatever, that classification is not one that
Speaker 1: would be just walking around roaming freely for the most
Speaker 1: part at this club fed I can't remember what town
Speaker 1: it's in. Down there, but it's a.
Speaker 2: It's in Texas.
Speaker 1: It's kind of not a certainly not maximum security, but
Speaker 1: it kind of roam free. Was there a degree, Well,
Speaker 1: it is the I apologize that's not what I'm meant,
Speaker 1: but it's one of these kind of open it's kind
Speaker 1: of not just fenced in.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent.
Speaker 1: That is the case.
Speaker 2: And so this is it's called a federal prison camp
Speaker 2: and it's in Brian, Texas, and so yes, there is
Speaker 2: much lacks er security. I believe they said this is
Speaker 2: the lowest security of all of the federal prison systems,
Speaker 2: and this is for non violent offenders. So the fact
Speaker 2: that she's in there with her violent convictions is something
Speaker 2: that a lot of this is all reportedly coming from
Speaker 2: other fellow prisoners. They were not happy about being housed
Speaker 2: now with somebody who is in a very different category
Speaker 2: than they are, So that didn't seem fair to any
Speaker 2: of the other folks who were there. Elizabeth, Elizabeth Holmes
Speaker 2: is there. How did I forget her last name? That's funny,
Speaker 2: but that's the type of criminal. It's a high profile crime, certainly,
Speaker 2: but this was one. This was a white collar crime,
Speaker 2: as they say it. So that's typically what you see
Speaker 2: in this prison, so it is highly unusual and it
Speaker 2: has raised a lot of brows that she is at
Speaker 2: this prison camp.
Speaker 1: Okay, do I have it right? Wasn't it the exact
Speaker 1: same weekend, the very weekend after the interviews with ag Blanche?
Speaker 2: It would be hard to give a reason, and that's
Speaker 2: probably why they didn't give a reason as to why
Speaker 2: or even speaking to the timing of this move was made.
Speaker 2: And they just I think they did say there were
Speaker 2: sources who came out and said, hey, this was a
Speaker 2: matter of security. She has threats against her life. This
Speaker 2: was what was best for everyone, and the Bureau of
Speaker 2: Prisons made the decision to move this prisoner where they
Speaker 2: deemed it to be safest and best. And that was
Speaker 2: kind of the end of it. But of course we
Speaker 2: have lots of journalists asking questions about the next steps
Speaker 2: for Galaine and what may happen.
Speaker 1: I forgot, We've never got the answer to that. I'll
Speaker 1: speculate for a second, Say he pardons her, what's that
Speaker 1: backlash going to be. What's how explosive of a revolt
Speaker 1: would it be?
Speaker 2: Look, I think right now he's still dealing with statues
Speaker 2: being put up on the National Mall with him holding
Speaker 2: hands and frolicking with Jeffrey Epstein people constantly. I love
Speaker 2: that verd when it comes to the statue because that
Speaker 2: is exactly what it depicts, frolicking. When he went to
Speaker 2: the UK, he has, you know, pictures of him and
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein and even Malania up there with Epstein greeting him.
Speaker 2: Actually cast onto a huge castle for all to see.
Speaker 2: Windsor castle. I mean, everywhere he goes in the world,
Speaker 2: he is being hounded and shadowed by these images of him.
Speaker 2: Whether people have to put up a screen show on
Speaker 2: a castle or a big ten foot statue on the
Speaker 2: National Mall, this is something he cannot shake. So I
Speaker 2: can't imagine he would want to invite more criticism and
Speaker 2: almost confirm the suspicions that are out there.
Speaker 1: And I think, look, I was thrown off a little bit,
Speaker 1: but I couldn't really believe the backlash. We talk about
Speaker 1: his base and I think he said was the line
Speaker 1: he said, I could choose somebody in the middle of
Speaker 1: the highway of the Fifth Avenue.
Speaker 2: I believe he said.
Speaker 1: And my folks was still vote for me, whatever it was.
Speaker 1: But this is one of those things. We always think
Speaker 1: he's just no matter what he does, they're gonna stick
Speaker 1: with their guy. I was surprised at how many people
Speaker 1: just by them saying we're not gonna release any more files,
Speaker 1: there is no list, and oh, by the way, confirmed
Speaker 1: he killed himself. Just stating those three things was enough
Speaker 1: that folks lost it. To then pardon this lady.
Speaker 2: That would just be I can't imagine anyone could. I
Speaker 2: know he thinks, and he has certainly been able to
Speaker 2: keep a loyal following despite a lot of stuff that's
Speaker 2: come out. This might be the nail in his coffin
Speaker 2: if he went this way. Now here's the interesting thing.
Speaker 2: You have these reporters asking questions of the White House.
Speaker 2: They have never flat out said no, President Trump is
Speaker 2: not going to pardon Gallainne Maxwell. They have never even
Speaker 2: indicated that. And in fact, when ask again today there
Speaker 2: was a vague response.
Speaker 1: Well how vague.
Speaker 2: It was pretty vague. This is what and this is
Speaker 2: similar to what we've heard before. When White House Press
Speaker 2: Secretary Carolyn Levitt told reporters today October six that she
Speaker 2: was unaware if Trump had been asked to pardon Maxwell,
Speaker 2: saying it's not something I've heard discussed.
Speaker 1: So this saying it hasn't even come up, so it's not.
Speaker 2: No, she's saying she hasn't heard of it being discussed.
Speaker 2: Doesn't mean it didn't happen, or it hasn't been discussed
Speaker 2: or isn't being discussed.
Speaker 1: She's doing that plausible deniability thing. They left her out
Speaker 1: of it on purpose, maybe suggesting vague. I mean, what
Speaker 1: is I cannot remember the answers they've given.
Speaker 2: Something similar to that. Trump has said, no one's asked me.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard anything. So that's kind of and so
Speaker 2: I think that is interesting because of course it doesn't
Speaker 2: shut the door completely on it. And then Carolyn Levitt
Speaker 2: did follow up with this, we don't comment on clemency
Speaker 2: requests that may or may not have been made.
Speaker 1: But when they were asked about Diddy, he started talking
Speaker 1: and said, you know what, they haven't asked me yet.
Speaker 1: It might be I like some of use it Dada.
Speaker 1: So we shall see now as we're discussing this here
Speaker 1: what it seems to everybody. Yes, the Supreme Court told
Speaker 1: her No, she is out at least of legal options
Speaker 1: when it comes to this appeal. However, we will tell
Speaker 1: you after this what her attorney says they want to
Speaker 1: do now moving forward, They at least think they've got
Speaker 1: some maybe vague options too.
Speaker 2: Welcome okay, I.
Speaker 1: I had done so well.
Speaker 2: I didn't say welcome aback for at least three weeks.
Speaker 2: But there I go again.
Speaker 1: Shu kept up with me.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to I hope you're not taken aback, but
Speaker 2: welcome back to Amy and DJ. We are talking about
Speaker 2: the Supreme Courts. Fairly interesting and big decision today to
Speaker 2: not consider Glainne Maxwell's appealed to her twenty twenty one conviction.
Speaker 2: She felt like the immunity deal that Jeffrey Epstein struck
Speaker 2: back in two thousand and seven should basically nullify the
Speaker 2: conviction she had by the State of New York. But hey,
Speaker 2: that was the state of Florida where that deal was struck,
Speaker 2: not the State of New York. Supreme Court didn't rule
Speaker 2: on its validity or not. They just said, we're not
Speaker 2: even going to consider it at this point.
Speaker 1: Rejection. I mean, that's got to say something about the case.
Speaker 2: We don't even want to hear what you have to say.
Speaker 2: That's the ultimate. Yeah, no, thanks, We're just not interested.
Speaker 1: You may have seem so personal with that, because we've
Speaker 1: all been victim of that in some way form of fashion.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was a mother, maybe it was somebody you
Speaker 1: were dating, don't even.
Speaker 2: Want to hear Yes, oh yeah, I did hear that
Speaker 2: from my mom quite a bit. So yes, that makes
Speaker 2: a lot of sense. Now everyone is pointing to her
Speaker 2: only option being a Trump pardon, and we've just gone
Speaker 2: over why that seems extremely highly like beyond any realm
Speaker 2: of possibility that Trump would ever consider that. If he
Speaker 2: understands what the political temperature is about this and this subject,
Speaker 2: he wants to get it far away from this as possible.
Speaker 1: But they think they have some options. Now we don't
Speaker 1: know what they could be. These would have to be
Speaker 1: hail Mary's of some kind. But whatever option she has now,
Speaker 1: it would be almost flucish, if you will. It would
Speaker 1: have to be some deal somewhere that she struck.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Her attorney made an interesting comment after this, talking about
Speaker 1: the disappointment, but said, quote, the fight isn't over. Serious
Speaker 1: legal and factual issues remain, and we will continue to
Speaker 1: pursue every happnue available to ensure that justice is done.
Speaker 1: Not exactly sure what that means, Not exactly sure what
Speaker 1: those options could be, but they say they're not just
Speaker 1: gonna sit around and wait for this sentence to be over.
Speaker 1: She's still trying to get out of prison.
Speaker 2: So the problem is she's perjured herself before, and so
Speaker 2: anything that she says, it's just incredibly difficult to believe
Speaker 2: at this point. And do most of us believe she knows?
Speaker 2: And do the victims say she knows? They absolutely concur
Speaker 2: that she does. But all of them have I mean,
Speaker 2: those who are speaking out have all said everything that
Speaker 2: comes out of her mouth is a lie.
Speaker 1: And I mean, now she has an incentive to say
Speaker 1: exactly what she needs to say that benefits her. That's
Speaker 1: one thing people are pointing to that look members of Congress,
Speaker 1: they they have to answer to their constituents. They have
Speaker 1: to get themselves on news, they have to look like
Speaker 1: they're tough on crime. If they want to bring her
Speaker 1: to Capitol Hill have her testify, what kind of deal
Speaker 1: can be struck? I actually don't know, but that's an
Speaker 1: option at least that was on the table. The possibility
Speaker 1: were so desperate to get information from this lady that
Speaker 1: they were willing to cut a deal.
Speaker 2: The only I was just going over in my head.
Speaker 2: What would be any sort of motivation for President Trump
Speaker 2: to pardon her or give her a get out of
Speaker 2: jail free card, even at the end of his presidency,
Speaker 2: as so many presidents do. They'll just drop huge, huge
Speaker 2: pardon bombs on their way out. But what would be
Speaker 2: his incentive other than the fact that she had something
Speaker 2: on him that she could have given up, that she
Speaker 2: could have said, that she could have thrown at him
Speaker 2: and so so. Yes, But then if he did do that,
Speaker 2: then everyone would put those two things together, and his legacy,
Speaker 2: which you know he cares significantly about, would be blown up.
Speaker 2: So it just unless there is actually something real that
Speaker 2: she could be holding over his head there, I cannot
Speaker 2: think of any reason why he would pardon her or
Speaker 2: give her any sort of clemency.
Speaker 1: She would have played that card by now, wouldn't She
Speaker 1: would had something on him that if he was afraid
Speaker 1: of her, exactly, I should have played that card a
Speaker 1: while ago.
Speaker 2: And for all the folks, you know, a lot of
Speaker 2: people it's interesting, have all talked about what she knows,
Speaker 2: and certainly she knows more than anyone alive could possibly know.
Speaker 2: But you know, she and her lawyers say she's had
Speaker 2: threats in her life. Her lawyers say she's scared for
Speaker 2: her safety, so it is interesting that she was moved
Speaker 2: to a lower security prison. There are so many questions
Speaker 2: I have about someone who they claim is at risk
Speaker 2: based on the information she may or may not have,
Speaker 2: or based on the fact that people in prison don't
Speaker 2: like people who mess around with young children. But there
Speaker 2: are still I guess a few avenues. I don't the
Speaker 2: lawyers didn't get specific, but we will be looking for
Speaker 2: any sort of new headline as to whether or not
Speaker 2: this she has a case going forward, if she is
Speaker 2: planning on still giving any sort of information to Congress,
Speaker 2: And certainly I think a lot of folks from the
Speaker 2: top on down would like this to be a chapter
Speaker 2: that goes away.
Speaker 1: At this point, I would too, I mean, point, do
Speaker 1: you ever close? This has ever done? Is there ever
Speaker 1: enough information out there that satisfies the American public? Is
Speaker 1: there ever enough punishment that's done? Is there ever anything
Speaker 1: that's gonna make those victims feel better? I do not know,
Speaker 1: but this just keeps dragging, and what they say every time,
Speaker 1: it's like you're not even opening up a new of
Speaker 1: the same wound. Like new wounds they keep revictimized. That's
Speaker 1: what they are saying, victimized all over again by this stuff.
Speaker 1: My goodness.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe this is one of the final, if not
Speaker 2: the final chapters in the Gallaine maxwells Sock. We shall see,
Speaker 2: but thank you for listening to us, every one. I
Speaker 2: made me roboch alongside TJ. Holmes. We will talk to
Speaker 2: you soon.