Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. There's something profoundly dishonest about pretending that Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein's crimes we're simply the private depravity of one wealthy
Speaker 1: sexual predator who occasionally received assistance from Glenn Maxwell. The
Speaker 1: federal government's own allegations describe something much larger, because prosecutors
Speaker 1: at Epstein work with employees and associates to maintain a
Speaker 1: steady supply of underage victims, paid victims to recruit additional girls,
Speaker 1: and used an organized appointment and payment system to keep
Speaker 1: that machine operating. Does that sound like a random criminality
Speaker 1: to you that's just happening around one man? Or does
Speaker 1: it sound like organization, continuity, coordination, money, personnel, recruitment, transportation,
Speaker 1: and criminal purpose. In July of twenty nineteen, the Southern
Speaker 1: District of New York itself ud that employees and associates
Speaker 1: scheduled appointments and participated in the system through which victims
Speaker 1: were recruited and paid. The government can't plausibly claim it
Speaker 1: lackt evidence of an organization surrounding Epstein, while simultaneously relying
Speaker 1: on that organization to describe how is trafficking scheme functioned?
Speaker 1: Federal RICO law exists precisely because criminal enterprises often the
Speaker 1: vibe tasks among different people instead of requiring every participant
Speaker 1: to personally commit every underlying offense. So for me, the
Speaker 1: astonishing question is not why anyone would have considered RICO
Speaker 1: against Epstein, but why federal prosecutors apparently never forced the
Speaker 1: Epstein investigation through the full racketeering framework. RICO would have
Speaker 1: required investigators to identify the enterprise, map its membership catalog,
Speaker 1: its predicate crimes, trace its money, identify its logistical infrastructure,
Speaker 1: and determine who knowingly helped keep it functioning. And that
Speaker 1: process would have to move the investigation away from the
Speaker 1: politically convenient question of what Jeffrey Epstein personally did and
Speaker 1: toward the far more dangerous question of how Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: was able to keep doing it. RICO is frequently discussed
Speaker 1: as though it's some exotic mafia statute reserved for cigar
Speaker 1: smoking mob bosses meeting in dark restaurants, but that has
Speaker 1: not been federal law for decades. The statute criminalizes conducting
Speaker 1: an enterprise affairs through a pattern of qualifying racketeering activity.
Speaker 1: An enterprise can consist of people associated together for a
Speaker 1: common purpose, even when they also engage in legitimate activity,
Speaker 1: and even when the organization has no formal membership card
Speaker 1: or a corporate charter. Epstein had residences, corporations, aircraft employees, assistants, recruiters, schedulers, pilots,
Speaker 1: financial professionals, lawyers, property managers, and a social apparatus spread
Speaker 1: across jurisdictions and international boarders. Was never whether every one
Speaker 1: of those people was guilty, because RICO does not criminalize
Speaker 1: mere association. The relevant question was which people knowingly participated
Speaker 1: in an enterprise whose affairs were furthered through qualifying criminal acts.
Speaker 1: Once that question is asked seriously, the investigation necessarily becomes
Speaker 1: broader than Epstein and Maxwell. It becomes an investigation of recruiting, trafficking,
Speaker 1: transportation payments, financial concealment, immigration activity, obstruction, witness manipulation, documentary fraud,
Speaker 1: and every person who knowingly participated in those functions. That
Speaker 1: was exactly the sort of investigative pressure the government aggressively
Speaker 1: applied to organizations headed by R. Kelly and Keith Rayniery.
Speaker 1: But as usual, Epstein received something dramatically different. I think
Speaker 1: that the case for a rico enterprise becomes stronger when
Speaker 1: the longevity of Epstein's operations considered. Maxwell's prosecution is stablished
Speaker 1: that the relationship between Epstein and Maxwell involved the grooming, recruitment, transportation,
Speaker 1: and exploitation of girls over approximately a decade from the
Speaker 1: nineties into the two thousands. Epstein's criminal conduct consequently did
Speaker 1: not resemble temporary conspiracy formed to accomplish one offense before dissolving.
Speaker 1: It was a functioning system that survived changes in victims, residences, employees, jurisdictions,
Speaker 1: and years. Victims describe recruitment methods that reproduce themselves because
Speaker 1: girls were paid to bring additional girls into Epstein's orbit.
Speaker 1: Money therefore did not merely purchase access to victims. Money
Speaker 1: helped regenerate the victim pool itself. Employees allegedly scheduled deployments,
Speaker 1: associates helped maintain the operation, Residences supplied controlled environments, and
Speaker 1: travel infrastructure allowed activity to cross state and national boundaries.
Speaker 1: That structure is precisely why calling Epstein simply a serial
Speaker 1: offender understates what prosecutors themselves said happened. A serial offender
Speaker 1: acts repeatedly, but a criminal enterprise develops mechanisms that allow
Speaker 1: criminal conduct to be repeated efficiently through other people. Epstein
Speaker 1: hath host mechanisms in abundance. The paid recruitment system alone
Speaker 1: should have caused federal racketeering specialists to descend on the
Speaker 1: Epstein investigation. Epstein allegedly paid girls after sexualized encounters, and
Speaker 1: then paid them again when they recruited additional underage girls.
Speaker 1: That arrangement created a criminal supply chain in which exploited
Speaker 1: teenagers could themselves become conduits through which new victims entered
Speaker 1: the system. The fact that some recruiters were also victims
Speaker 1: makes prosecution decisions morally and legally complicated, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: make the organizational structure disappear. To the contrary, trafficking enterprises
Speaker 1: routinely exploit vulnerable people as instruments for recruiting or controlling
Speaker 1: other vulnerable people. A serious enterprise investigation would have separated
Speaker 1: exploited recruiters from adult organizers, knowing employees, financial facilitators, and
Speaker 1: decision makers. It would have asked who designed the payment arrangements,
Speaker 1: who supplied the cash, who maintained records, whose scheduled appointments,
Speaker 1: who knew the age is involved, and who responded when
Speaker 1: complaints or investigations threatened the operation. Those questions are the
Speaker 1: bread and butter of racketeering investigations. Instead, the public ultimately
Speaker 1: received an indictment depicting a trafficking machine and charging essentially
Speaker 1: the man sitting at its center. The government's handling of
Speaker 1: Epstein becomes even more difficult to defend when viewed against
Speaker 1: its own reco charging policy. DJ says that RICO may
Speaker 1: be appropriate when it more accurately reflects the nature and
Speaker 1: extent of criminal conduct, combines related offenses that might be
Speaker 1: otherwise prosecuted in separate jurisdictions, improves prosecution of defendants or
Speaker 1: code defendants, or creates appropriate forfeiture consequences. Epstein's operation checked
Speaker 1: those boxes with almost embarrassing neatness. The conduct crossed Florida
Speaker 1: and New York and extended into New Mexico, the Virgin Islands,
Speaker 1: and foreign travel. Maxwell's later conviction established criminal conduct connected
Speaker 1: to several of those locations. While Epstein maintained an extensive
Speaker 1: web of entities and assets, a recal indictment could have
Speaker 1: told jurors that this was not an assortment of disconnected
Speaker 1: sexual offenses, but a continuing enterprise using money, personnel, travel, properties,
Speaker 1: and recruitment to facilitate repeated exploitation. It could have unified
Speaker 1: activities that otherwise a period geographically fragmented. It could have
Speaker 1: enabled prosecutors to present participants according to their respective functions
Speaker 1: within the same criminal ecosystem. Most importantly, it would have
Speaker 1: campeld the government to explain how that ecosystem actually worked.
Speaker 1: And that is precisely whatever happened. The first grade federal
Speaker 1: betrayal occurred during the two thousand and six through two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight investigation in South Florida. Federal investigators did
Speaker 1: not have some thin file containing one frightened teenager and
Speaker 1: a rich defendant denying everything. By two thousand and seven,
Speaker 1: prosecutors had developed an extensive prosecution memorandum and a massive
Speaker 1: draft federal indictment containing scores of contemplated charges against Epstein.
Speaker 1: Djay's later professional responsibility review conceded that Alexander Acosta exercised
Speaker 1: poor judgment in resolving the federal investigation through the notorious
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement. The federal case was therefore not abandoned
Speaker 1: because agents had nothing to work with. It was abandoned
Speaker 1: after a substantial investigative work had already produced the architecture
Speaker 1: for a serious prosecution. When prosecutors possess evidence broad enough
Speaker 1: to contemplate dozens of federal accounts, the natural law enforcement
Speaker 1: question should be whether the conduct reveals an enterprise larger
Speaker 1: than one defendant. Instead, the government negotiated its way downward.
Speaker 1: The two thousand and seven non prosecution Agreement is perhaps
Speaker 1: the single most damning piece of evidence supporting the argument
Speaker 1: that the government deliberately contained the Epstein case. Prosecutors did
Speaker 1: not merely agree to spare Epstein from federal prosecution. Instead,
Speaker 1: they extended protection to named alleged co conspirators and extraordinarily
Speaker 1: to potential co conspirators. That language did something much more
Speaker 1: consequential than reducing Epstein's personal exposure. They removed prosecutorial leverage
Speaker 1: against other people before the public had any meaningful account
Speaker 1: of who those people were or what they have done.
Speaker 1: A normal enterprise investigation uses pressure on low level or
Speaker 1: peripheral participants to climb the organ danizational ladder. Immunizing an
Speaker 1: undefined category of potential co conspirators moves exactly in the
Speaker 1: opposite direction. It shuts doors before investigators have publicly demonstrated
Speaker 1: what lies behind them. Whatever motive one assigns to the decision,
Speaker 1: its institutional effect was obvious. The government turned an expanding
Speaker 1: criminal investigation into a containment agreement, and I think that
Speaker 1: containment mattered because regal investigations feed on cooperation. Prosecutors identify participants,
Speaker 1: charge provable crimes, offer agreements where appropriate, obtain testimony, subpoena records,
Speaker 1: follow money, and use one participant's knowledge to expose another
Speaker 1: participant's role. Epstein's non prosecution agreement undermine that process. At
Speaker 1: the moment it could have been most productive, People who
Speaker 1: might otherwise have faced federal exposure suddenly had far less
Speaker 1: incentive to describe the operation. Potential witnesses who had helped
Speaker 1: Epstein could reasonably received that the government's principal objective was
Speaker 1: ending the case rather than dismantling the network. The government
Speaker 1: did not publicly roll up the recruiters, administrators, financiers, immigration facilitators,
Speaker 1: or other knowing participants through successive waves of charges. It
Speaker 1: secured Epstein's limited state plea and then allowed the federal
Speaker 1: matter to disappear. That's the antithesis of the way prosecutors
Speaker 1: attack organizations they genuinely intend to dismantle. They didn't dismantle
Speaker 1: Epstein's enterprise. They negotiated peace with its center. The treatment
Speaker 1: of victims makes that narrowing even uglier. The DOJ's own
Speaker 1: Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that victims were not treated
Speaker 1: with forthrightness and sensitivity expected of the department. The government
Speaker 1: negotiated the agreement without giving those victims the transparent participation
Speaker 1: they reasonably expected from federal authorities who spent months investigating
Speaker 1: their accounts. This wasn't some minor bureaue at a communication
Speaker 1: failure occurring at the edge of the case. Keeping victims
Speaker 1: outside the process made it easier to close the investigation
Speaker 1: without sustained resistance from the people who understood the scope
Speaker 1: of Epstein's conduct. Most intimately, victims were potential sources of names, locations, patterns,
Speaker 1: recruitment practices, staff behavior, payments, conversations, and corroborating evidence. An
Speaker 1: enterprise minded prosecutor should have regarded those witnesses as windows
Speaker 1: into the structure surrounding Epstein. Instead, the process treated them
Speaker 1: as problems to be managed. While the government negotiated finality,
Speaker 1: that approach did not merely disrespect survivors, It sacrificed investigative opportunity. Folks,
Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up the first episode right here,
Speaker 1: and in the next episode, we're going to pick up
Speaker 1: where we left off. All the information that goes with
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.