Epstein co-conspirators PANIC amid HUGE UPDATE

You're watching The Legal Breakdown, Glenn. We've all heard the news that Prince Andrew was arrested for charges related to Jeffrey Epstein over in the UK, and a lot of people lamented the fact that nothing was happening right here in the US. But that's not exactly how you see it. So can you give a little update as to how the arrest of Prince Andrew in the UK can

actually have major implications on American politicians right over here?

Brian, the minute I saw the news frankly the pretty surprising news that they arrested former Prince Andrew. You know my mind went to a place that it always went as a career prosecutor when I heard that somebody got locked up or I indicted somebody who I knew could implicate others and that is to cooperating witness land. Let me lay this out Brian. Now full disclosure I never prosecuted royalty. I don't think king

pins count but but here's what I can say. I did prosecute and my friends and career colleagues prosecuted lots of folks who had committed very serious crimes and those folks were weak. You know, there are few criminals that I've come across in my years as a prosecutor that are weaker than people who abuse children, whether sexually or otherwise. And when the law comes crashing down on them, like the prince, former Prince Andrews of

the world, I can tell you the first thing they're inclined to do is start pointing fingers at other rich, influential, powerful, connected people. Why? First of all, misery loves company. I'm a former prince and you're gonna arrest me for what I did? Well then I'm going to tell you about powerful person one, influential person two, connected individual three, and I'm gonna tell you

what they did, the information that I know because I was part of that elite club of you know those with lots of money and those who thought they were above the law and those who like to sexually abuse young girls. So I would be shocked if Prince Andrew, former Prince Andrew, didn't start talking with the authorities. He's facing criminal charges. He's been arrested, for gosh sakes, they arrested former royalty over in the UK and we can't seem to hold anybody accountable for the crimes that were committed

right here on US soil. I would be shocked if he didn't start to talk about all of the other rich powerful influential people that he knows were involved in similar conduct because he's got to be thinking to himself Oh, why am I being held accountable and all of them are not being held accountable. Now ordinarily, Brian, somebody in his circumstance wants to start providing information to the

authorities about the crimes of others, typically other bigger criminal fish, because they want to benefit for themselves. They want to try to weasel out from under their charges. They want to get a reduced plea or maybe the promise of a reduced sentence. But when it comes to the rich and the powerful, those who feel they are bulletproof, those who have been de facto above the law their whole lives, they get

really upset. They can get really upset and angry that they're being held accountable but all these other, you know, connected people are not being held accountable. So let's see if former Prince Andrew starts talking about what he might know about Donald Trump.

And so in that case, how would we have any indication as to whether he's cooperating or not?

We would only have some indication of that if, one, it became a matter of public record over in the UK. Two, if it leaked out. They have a lot of very accomplished investigative journalists in the UK, just as we have here in the US. Or three, and stick with me here,

people are going to feel like this is hopium or magical thinking, if all of a sudden our Department of Justice started to launch criminal probes. What we know, Brian, is Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch and Kash Patel are not inclined to launch criminal probes about anybody who is implicated in the Epstein files. What we have seen, and this really exposes just how far we have fallen, what we have

seen from other civilized countries with legitimate law enforcement agencies, we've seen criminal investigations in France, in the UK, in Turkey, in Latvia, in Lithuania, in Poland, they're doing what civilized countries do. They investigate crime when there is some evidence of crime. But think about this. Pam Bondi has been inclined to investigate nobody thus far, but if all of a sudden we see some investigations beginning to

percolate, that's not because Pam Bondi had a change of heart and all of a sudden is concerned about, you know, enforcing the rule of law, but it may be that if we are learning information from sources in other countries where they actually are criminally pursuing folks who are implicated in the Epstein trials that might be a sure sign that some of them are now providing information that Pam Bondi cannot ignore so I would keep

an eye out for that. But what about the fact that Prince Andrew or what he's known as now I think his his title was officially stripped from him but but we'll call him Andrew for now what about the fact that he was arrested by British authorities and how could that have any impact on what the American justice system is going to do? Like, is the American system also interested in him because he was a co-conspirator of an American criminal? Or is that prosecution happening completely unto itself over in the UK and therefore won't really have any impact on you know

what bigger fish you might be able to help catch over here in the US?

Yeah Brian it's a great question and I think I have two different answers. I will give the first answer as if we were living in the before times when the Department of Justice actually investigated crime regardless of who committed it. You know, Brian, we used to have a robust working relationship, a really good working relationship with British authorities, UK authorities.

When it came to investigating crime in which both countries had an interest, you know, for example, we had a murderer in Washington DC that fled to London and what I had to do was work through the extradition process with the authorities over in London to try to convince them to give us back our suspected killer so we could take him to trial. And that was no easy task. But, you know, we used to have a really good working relationship. We could pick up a phone, we could reach out and talk to them if we had a mutual interest in a defendant

or in an investigation. But now in the current times when the rule of law is no longer a thing at the Department of Justice, I have to wonder if the UK authorities even reached out to our Department of Justice, whether they would accept the call or whether they would continue to turn a blind eye in Pam Bondi's determination not to investigate anybody who's implicated in the Epstein files. And certainly, what we have heard from Pam Bondi

and the Department of Justice thus far is crickets and cover-ups. Why? I think we can all reasonably infer that Pam Bondi is determined to protect, you know, dear leader in the Oval Office at all costs. So presently I think all bets are off but you know I think all we can do is

keep an eye out to see if there's any investigative movement over here and if we begin to see it, it may be a sign that other countries conducting criminal investigations are in fact having an impact on what's gonna go on at the Department of Justice.

So Glenn, I wanna ask you about a potential workaround that I think might be interesting. But before I do, just a note for those who are watching right now, if you'd like to stay on top of all Epstein news and any other legal news,

the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm gonna put the links in the post description of this video. It's completely free to subscribe, but it's a great way to support our work.

So again, if you wanna check out some more legal coverage, the best way to do that is to go ahead a workaround recognizing that the DOJ is not going to be a good faith partner and that U.S. attorneys in these offices around the country are, of course, under the thumb of Pam Bondi and by extension Donald Trump. Could UK officials, for example, work with attorneys general in respective states that are actually taking this seriously? What's to stop, you know, the intelligence community over in the UK from opening up an

investigation alongside Letitia James in New York, for example.

You know, nothing is to stop state authorities from opening criminal probes provided they have jurisdiction over the crimes. What we have heard is there were very likely crimes committed in Epstein's New York mansion. Obviously Obviously the authorities really most directly on the state level it would be like Alvin Bragg's district attorney's office would have jurisdiction to open a criminal probe if he had sufficient evidence to do so. Out in New Mexico where the Zorro Ranch has been in the news recently there could be a

state investigations out there. Obviously down in Florida if they could find could be state investigations out there, obviously, down in Florida, if they could find any Florida state law enforcement officials who would be willing to open a criminal probe down there, and perhaps elsewhere where these then-young girls were trafficked and abused. You know, it's a little bit unusual, at least in my experience, to see the authorities in any foreign countries reach out to states

because ordinarily the Feds will be the point of contact for all overseas criminal justice matters that may intersect with what we're doing over here on the investigative front. But you know these are very different times and I could certainly see if DOJ snubbed foreign law enforcement authorities who wanted to work cooperatively with authorities here in the states, if they snubbed them, I could easily see the states step in or other countries reaching out to the involved state, whether

New Mexico, you know, New York, Florida, or somewhere else. And again, these are very different times because of the Department of Justice abdicating its responsibility to, you know, fight crime, basically.

Is there a way, if we see an investigation pop up in New York or New Mexico, where there are Democratic attorneys general, for those states, if and when we get to a point where there's a Democratic administration and a Democratic attorney general, to then merge those cases or to share information?

Like what do you do if maybe the federal government has more jurisdiction, but right now, Pam Bondi is obviously not going to do anything because they're more involved in participating in a cover-up than exposing one But but there's still the there's still it would still make more sense that this happens on a federal level. Is there a way for the states to start building out this case now and then hand the reins over to an attorney general

who's actually willing to do his or her job once they take office? Without a doubt. You know, in my lived experience as a federal prosecutor, you know, we cooperated all the time with state law enforcement authorities, both police and prosecutors, when we had a defendant, for example, of mutual interest to us. I can't tell you how often I was in Washington, D.C., but across jurisdictional lines in Maryland, we did business with the Montgomery County Prosecutor Office and the PG County Prosecutors Offices across the river in

Alexandria or Arlington we worked with the Commonwealth's attorneys Prosecutors offices there happened all the time and your point is a great one with DOJ washing its hands of Investigating the crimes that are documented in the Epstein files, you could absolutely have, for example, an Alvin Bragg, state court prosecutor in Manhattan, begin to investigate, begin to build a case. And then, you know, once the rule of law is again a thing in the Department of Justice,

if we have a president elected who is actually loyal to the Constitution, there is no doubt that Alvin Bragg could then include the feds in whatever he may have developed through the course of his investigation. And these kind of investigations will often have what we call concurrent jurisdiction.

In other words, there will be crimes that have been committed in the state of New York, but those crimes may violate not only New York state law when it involves in sexual offenses against minors, but federal law if it's sex trafficking, particularly across state lines.

So that is where ordinarily state prosecutors and federal prosecutors will work cooperatively. But Bragg could go gangbusters building a case only to bring the feds in, you know, when the feds were again interested in pursuing legitimate investigations.

Is there any reason why prosecutors at both the federal level and the state level wouldn't take this up? I mean, and I say the federal level eventually, like Pambani again is not gonna do it, but when we get to a point where the DOJ is once again in the hands of somebody who's gonna pursue justice without fear or favor

and certainly not do Trump's bidding, is there any reason whatsoever why this shouldn't turn into a prosecution at both the federal and state level?

You know, if there is enough evidence of one federal jurisdiction for the crimes and two enough evidence to believe that the prosecutors would not only have probable cause to obtain an indictment, but they had a good faith belief that they had enough admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, that is the burden of proof in a criminal trial. There would be no reason for the feds to decline to pick it up.

Let me just add a quick caveat. When there is concurrent jurisdiction, when there's a crime that the feds could take or the state could take, it's not that unusual in my experience for the feds to say, you know what, the states can have it, the states can handle it, we will turn our attention to bigger crimes with multi-state implications.

That can be a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but let me add this, I was never a good bureaucrat at the Department of Justice. It can also be the product of prosecutors, federal prosecutors, not wanting to voluntarily burden themselves with more cases in their caseload if they know the case can be pursued by state authorities. But there's a balance to be struck because frankly the feds typically have more resources available to them to pursue criminal prosecutions. The states are often strapped.

State district attorneys' offices are often understaffed, underfunded, overworked. I've seen it with my own eyes. So I always kind of urged federal prosecutors, you know, if you have jurisdiction, seriously consider exercising that jurisdiction and taking the case federally because you know what? The states typically are overburdened in the prosecution arena.

Was there also nothing to be said for the deterrent effect of this not just being a state crime, but a federal crime and having, you know, the Department of Justice investigate anybody who is going to engage in this type of activity. Like, look, obviously everybody who's doing the stuff that Epstein did and participating in these crimes is gonna have some proclivity to break the law,

otherwise they wouldn't do it. But I have to imagine that, you know, if we're in a world where the feds or any prosecutors put their foot down and say, this is not gonna slide, we're gonna put the full force of both federal and state government in front of this thing,

I would imagine that that would have some deterrent effect for the next person who decides to commit this heinous crime.

Pursuing crimes is all about not only holding each perpetrator accountable, vindicating the right of that particular victim in that case and protecting society. It is about deterrence. You want to make sure that folks who are maybe on the fence about whether they're going to

commit a crime or not see that others who have opted in favor of criminal conduct have been hammered, not just held accountable, but figuratively speaking hammered. And here's the thing, Brian, I think the prevailing wisdom is that the feds have the biggest hammer. That's true because the feds have the most resources. However, people may not know, the most accomplished criminal prosecutors in our nation are in state district attorneys offices, state

attorneys offices, and state Commonwealth attorneys offices. Those are the prosecution offices around the country because they do the lion's share of the prosecuting. 95 or 97 percent of the criminal cases that get tried are tried by state court prosecutors, not federal prosecutors. So on the resource front, the feds have the biggest hammer. But when it comes to expert prosecution, it is really the states that frankly, defendants

might want to fear the most.

All right. Well, obviously a lot more to come on this. And I do think that you're onto something as far as Andrew is concerned because you know to your exact point I think when people see the opportunity to save their own asses by throwing somebody else under the bus especially when you're at that level they'll more likely than not jump at that opportunity so more to come as far as the Epstein files are concerned

for those who are watching if you'd like to stay on top of any news as it relates to I'm Brian Teller-Cohen.

And I'm Glenn Kirshner. And I'm Glenn Kirshner.

You're watching The Legal Breakdown.