Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
Speaker 1: where we left off talking about the failure of the
Speaker 1: United States government to expand their scope of investigation into
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. Then came twenty nineteen, when the Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York effectively confirmed that the criminal architecture had
Speaker 1: always existed. Its indictment alleged dozens of underage victims, repeated
Speaker 1: cash payments, paid recruitment employees and associates, scheduling multiple locations,
Speaker 1: and a continuing supply of girls. Read that description without
Speaker 1: looking at the caption, and it sounds like the opening
Speaker 1: paragraph of a racketeering indictment. There was a principle directing
Speaker 1: the scheme, there were associates helping accomplish its objectives. There
Speaker 1: was repeatable method of obtaining victims. There were financial transactions
Speaker 1: built into the method. There was interstate activity and substantial
Speaker 1: logistical infrastructure. Yet the federal government charged Epstein with sex
Speaker 1: trafficking and conspiracy, rather than using the machinery at routinely
Speaker 1: deployees when it wants to expose an entire criminal organization.
Speaker 1: The message was again unmistakably narrow prosecute Epstein, not the
Speaker 1: Epstein enterprise. Defenders of the charging decision can argue that
Speaker 1: the twenty nineteen indictment was merely an opening move and
Speaker 1: that superseding charges might have followed. That possibility cannot be
Speaker 1: disproved because Epstein died barely a month after his arrest,
Speaker 1: But that explanation does not erase the much longer institutional
Speaker 1: history that preceded twenty nineteen. The government had known about
Speaker 1: the recruitment system for years, had previously assembled an enormous
Speaker 1: federal case, and had already identified alleged co conspirators during
Speaker 1: the South Florida investigation. Federal agents were not beginning from
Speaker 1: zero in July of twenty nineteen. They were reopening a
Speaker 1: scandal whose contours had been documented for more than a decade.
Speaker 1: If enterprise charges were being seriously developed, the public deserves
Speaker 1: to see the memoranda, referrals, grand jury strategy, financial investigations,
Speaker 1: and racketeering analysis showing it. The burden should not be
Speaker 1: on the public to assume the Department planned to broaden
Speaker 1: a case it had already narrowed once before. That burden
Speaker 1: belongs on the DOJ. To demonstrate that it actually tried.
Speaker 1: Epstein's death should have expanded the institutional urgency rather than
Speaker 1: ending it. The government's principal defendant was gone, But a
Speaker 1: criminal enterprise does not cease to be worthy of a
Speaker 1: prosecution because its leader dies. If anything, the leader's death
Speaker 1: makes the prosecution of surviving participants more important, because personal
Speaker 1: accountability against the central actor has become impossible. The obvious
Speaker 1: investigative response was to identify everyone who knowingly helped recruit, transport, groom,
Speaker 1: pay case, con seal, finance, obstruct were otherwise advanced qualifying crimes.
Speaker 1: That should have meant a grand jury campaign measured in years.
Speaker 1: It should have meant financial subpoenas, immigration records, corporate records,
Speaker 1: electronic communication, employee interviews, cooperation agreements, and forensic examination of
Speaker 1: payment systems. It should have meant approaching the remaining case
Speaker 1: as prosecutors approached organized crime organizations after a boss died. Instead,
Speaker 1: the Great Federal Reckoning eventually produced one major conviction, Glane Maxwell.
Speaker 1: One conviction against the surviving operational network cannot reasonably be
Speaker 1: called a complete dismantling. Maxwell's prosecution makes the absence of
Speaker 1: Rico more glaring. Because the government proved beyond a reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt that Epstein did not operate alone. A unanimous jury
Speaker 1: found Maxwell guilty of participating in and facilitating the sexual
Speaker 1: abuse of minors with Epstein, and she ultimately received a
Speaker 1: twenty year federal sentence. Her conviction destroyed any remaining basis
Speaker 1: for portraying Epstein's conduct as the work of an isolated
Speaker 1: offender surrounded by innocent bystanders. There were at least two
Speaker 1: knowing principles operating together over many years. The government proved
Speaker 1: conspiracies involving recruitment, grooming, transportation, and trafficking. Those facts provide
Speaker 1: an obvious nucleus around which an association, in fact enterprise
Speaker 1: could have been alleged. RICO would not have required prosecutors
Speaker 1: to prove that every employee or associate was guilty of everything.
Speaker 1: It would have required them to identify which participants knowingly
Speaker 1: joined or furthered the criminal enterprise. That was the investigation
Speaker 1: that the public deserved, and I think when you look
Speaker 1: at the R. Kelly prosecution, it makes the disparity impossible
Speaker 1: to ignore. Federal prosecutors alleged that Kelly and members of
Speaker 1: his entourage, including managers, bodyguards, drivers, personal assistants, and runners
Speaker 1: constituted a rocketeering enterprise that operated for approximately two decades.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors did not say that because Kelly's employees were automatically
Speaker 1: guilty merely for collecting paychecks. They investigated whether members of
Speaker 1: the entourage performed functions that furthered Kelly's criminal objectives, including recruitment, transportation, control,
Speaker 1: and access to victims. That is precisely the analytical framework
Speaker 1: that cried out to be applied to Epstein. Epstein likewise
Speaker 1: surrounded himself with employees, assistants, recruiters, transportation, infrastructure, residences, and
Speaker 1: financial machinery that allegedly made repeated exploitation possible. Yet kelly
Speaker 1: support apparatus became central to the government's theory, while Epstein
Speaker 1: support apparatus remained largely background scenery. I think the contrast
Speaker 1: is devastating. What you think, federal law suddenly discovered rico
Speaker 1: between Epstein and Kelly. Kelly's case also demolished the argument
Speaker 1: that recods somehow becomes inappropriate when a criminal enterprise exists
Speaker 1: largely to satisfy one man's sexual desire. His enterprise was
Speaker 1: not accused of conquering territory, selling narcotics, or controlling unions
Speaker 1: in the classic mafia mold, Prosecutors alleged that employees and
Speaker 1: entourage members helped maintain access to women and girls for Kelly.
Speaker 1: The government treated sexual exploitation itself as part of the
Speaker 1: enterprise central criminal purpose. Kelly was ultimately convicted of racketeering,
Speaker 1: proving that a jury could understand precisely such a theory.
Speaker 1: The Second Court later upheld his federal racketeering conviction. The
Speaker 1: legal architecture was therefore not radical, speculative, or fanciful. It
Speaker 1: was mainstream federal prosecution. Epstein's factual circumstances were at least
Speaker 1: as serious enough to demand comparable scrutiny. Indeed, in important respects,
Speaker 1: the publicly alleged Epstein system was tailor made for the
Speaker 1: same theory. Kelly's employees allegedly arranged travel and access to
Speaker 1: women and girls. Epstein's employees and associates allegedly contacted victims,
Speaker 1: scheduled deployments, and participated in maintaining a supply of underage girls.
Speaker 1: Kelly used fame and professional infrastructure to create access. Epstein
Speaker 1: used extraordinary wealth, residences, aircraft, money, social connections, and professional infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Kelly's alleged conduct cross state lines, Epstein's operation cross state
Speaker 1: lines and international boundaries. Kelly had an entourage, Epstein had
Speaker 1: an ecosystem. Prosecutors call one racketeering and treated the other
Speaker 1: primarily as trafficking by two individuals. Keith Rayniery presents an
Speaker 1: even more embarrassing comparison. Federal prosecutors did not artificially isolate
Speaker 1: rayniery sexual crimes from the larger Nexium organization. They charged
Speaker 1: a racketeering conspiracy involving sex trafficking, force labor extortion, identity theft,
Speaker 1: wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction, and related conduct. They prosecuted
Speaker 1: lieutenants and administrators according to the different roles that they
Speaker 1: played within the broader enterprise. Some defendants pleaded guilty to
Speaker 1: racketeering offenses, while others pleaded guilty to immigration or identity
Speaker 1: related crimes. Prosecutors followed the structure wherever it went, instead
Speaker 1: of demanding that every participant commit the identical offense. Raynieri
Speaker 1: was convicted of racketeering and racketeering conspiracy and ultimately sentenced
Speaker 1: to one hundred and twenty years in prison. That is
Speaker 1: what institutional commitment to dismantling an enterprise looks like and
Speaker 1: when talking about Epstein, I think Nexium is particularly relevant
Speaker 1: because immigration violations became part of a broader prosecutorial picture.
Speaker 1: Clara Bronfman was convicted of offenses involving concealing and harboring
Speaker 1: undocumented person for financial gain and fraudulent use of identification information.
Speaker 1: While Nexium bookkeeper Kathy Russell pleaded guilty to visa fraud.
Speaker 1: Prosecutors did not shrug and announced that immigration crimes were
Speaker 1: on related side issues because the headline offense involved sexual exploitation.
Speaker 1: They understood that an enterprise uses many kinds of illegality
Speaker 1: to achieve organizational purposes. That lessons should have been applied
Speaker 1: ruthlessly to Epstein. Public records and civil litigation have for
Speaker 1: years raised serious questions about visas, foreign recruitment, employment arrangements,
Speaker 1: immigration status modeling, pipelines, travel documentation, and marriages surrounding people
Speaker 1: in Epstein's orbit. Not every allegation would necessarily have survived
Speaker 1: criminal scrutiny, but that's precisely why investigators exist. A serious
Speaker 1: racketeering investigation would have tested those allegations instead of leaving
Speaker 1: them scattered through civil suits and investigative journalism. The question
Speaker 1: is not whether every immigration allegation was provable. The question
Speaker 1: is why the federal government never publicly demonstrated the comprehensive
Speaker 1: criminal investigation the allegations demanded. Now, the financial misconduct presents
Speaker 1: the same problem on an even larger scale. Epstein couldn't
Speaker 1: operate an international trafficking network using houses, planes, employees, recruiters, payments, corporations,
Speaker 1: and constant travel without moving enormous amounts of money through
Speaker 1: the legitimate financial system. That doesn't mean that every banker
Speaker 1: who touched his accounts was a racketeer. It does mean
Speaker 1: the money was evidence. Financial records could identify recruiters, employees, beneficiaries, travel,
Speaker 1: property expenses, cash withdrawals, unusual transfers, corporate relationships, and payments
Speaker 1: made during moments when Epstein faced legal jeopardy following that
Speaker 1: money should have been an organizing principle of the federal
Speaker 1: investigation rather than a secondary curiosity. Reco investigations routinely used
Speaker 1: financial evidence to expose relationships that witnesses either cannot or
Speaker 1: will not describe. Epstein's money wasn't peripheral to his criminal enterprise.
Speaker 1: It was the fuel that allowed that enterprise to function.
Speaker 1: The later litigation involving major financial institutions only sharpened how
Speaker 1: much there was to investigate. New York regulators imposed one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollar penalty on Deutsche Bank in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty over compliance failures that included its relationship with Epstein.
Speaker 1: Civil litigation involving JP Morgan and the US Virgin Islands
Speaker 1: produced extensive allegations and records concerning Epstein's banking activity, payments, employees,
Speaker 1: and trafficking infrastructure. None of that automatically proves that a
Speaker 1: bank or banker joined a criminal rocketeering conspiracy, but it
Speaker 1: brutally undermines any suggestion that Epstein's finances were too ordinary
Speaker 1: or opaque to warn a sweeping federal financial investigation. There
Speaker 1: were transactions, compliance alerts, accounts, entities, cash activity, and identifiable
Speaker 1: financial relationships everywhere investigators looked. A reco minded prosecution team
Speaker 1: would have treated every one of those records as potential
Speaker 1: connective tissue. Instead, much of the public's understanding of Epstein's
Speaker 1: finances came from civil litigants, years after the federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: had repeatedly encountered them. Private plaintiffs effectively excavated terrain the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system should have mapped first. All right, folks,
Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up episode two here and in
Speaker 1: the next episode, we're going to pick up where we
Speaker 1: left off. All of the information that goes with this
Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.