Prosecutor drops BAD NEWS on Kash Patel over Epstein bombshell

You're watching The Legal Breakdown. Glenn, it looks like we have a bombshell update from the latest release of the Epstein files that might suggest the presence of co-conspirators, something that we've been discussing for years at this point. So I'm going to put a letter right here on the screen that was released as part of the latest batch of these files.

It reads, quote, of the 10 co-conspirators, three have been located in Florida and served GJ subpoenas. One in Boston, one in New York City, and one in Connecticut. We're located and served. Four of the ten are outstanding with attempts having been made. One is a wealthy businessman in Ohio. A lead is being sent to CV. The remaining three are currently out of pocket.

The team is flying out tonight, tomorrow, to various locations in Florida to interview approximately 25 victims. The 1-800-CALL-FBI line is up and running. We've received approximately 45 calls, which we are in the process of vetting out. Let me know if you need anything else. And so, first and foremost, I have to ask, if you have an email that was released from a prosecutor where the prosecutor says outright that there are 10 co-conspirators,

wouldn't that suggest that these co-conspirators actually exist, if they're willing to put that in writing?

You know, Brian, when you say that this letter suggests that there may be co-conspirators, I have a different take as a career federal prosecutor. This is rock solid, definitive proof that there are 10 co-conspirators. Why do I say that? You know, we are very careful about the words we use, the language we use to describe folks who may sort of, you know, come within the ambit of a criminal investigation, a criminal

probe. And the reason we're careful with the way we choose to describe people is because once a prosecutor labels somebody a co-conspirator, whether the prosecutor labels that person a co-conspirator orally, in a casual conversations to, for example, a defense attorney or a witness, or puts it in writing, that means that we have concluded,

prosecutors have concluded, there is enough evidence to believe they are part of the criminal conspiracy and hence in the natural order of things for prosecutors they need to be held accountable for their crimes. Now you can hold somebody accountable in any number of ways. You can indict them and try to convince them to plead guilty, perhaps as a cooperator. What we call flipping them and getting them to testify against bigger criminal fish like

Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. Or you can indict them and take them to trial if they don't want to cooperate. That's another way of holding them accountable. You know, there is another way that we can deal with them that doesn't really represent accountability, but sometimes we do it of necessity.

If we decide to strike a non-prosecution agreement with somebody like that, perhaps grant them immunity and compel them to testify against the bigger criminal fish. That is also a way of dealing with resolving their culpability. But once I read that, that there are 10 co-conspirators, at least in the estimation of the prosecutors who are on this email string,

and they are going about trying to investigate and deal with these 10 co-conspirators, as that letter you just put up there indicates. You know, it begs the question, why in the hell weren't those 10 co-conspirators indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced for their crimes? You know, when you say these people are part of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's conspiracy, we all know that Ghislaine

Maxwell went to trial, got convicted of multiple felony charges, and is serving 20 years in prison, which all things being equal, is what should have happened to those 10 co-conspirators. but we know full well none of them were held accountable. The question becomes why? And then there are some questions based on what Kash Patel and Pam Bondi have been trying to peddle to the American people in recent months.

Well, Glenn, that raises the obvious question here. What about Kash Patel's previous statements when he was asked about the presence of other co-conspirators? I'm going to play a clip from when he testified in front of the Senate. Here he is answering a question from Senator Kennedy.

Who if anyone did Epstein traffic these young women to besides himself?

Himself. There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited.

So the answer is no one?

For the information that we have.

You know, maybe he was looking in the wrong file. I'm not sure, but I would say that this email traffic between and among federal prosecutors who were handling the Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein investigations and prosecutions makes me wonder if one of the people on this email string might be Maureen Comey, the lead prosecutor in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, who of course was fired by the Trump administration but you know what Kash Patel just said in that clip was also another version of what he and Pam Bondi tried to sell to the American people in a joint press release back in

July and here is what Kash Patel says and he goes on and on about what an incredibly thorough and exhaustive search and review of all of the Epstein files he and his FBI agents conducted. And then he says as a result of that exhaustive search, we did not uncover any evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. So I would ask him, then why is it that the federal prosecutors who were actually involved

in the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and the trial against Ghislaine Maxwell, put in writing there are 10 co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein in his sex trafficking conspiracy and we are now scouring the country. We're heading down to Florida. We're going to interview victims. We are subpoenaing as many of these co-conspirators as we can find. Why? Because ultimately we're going to hold these people accountable. And then Kash Patel and Pam Bondi want us to believe that, what, they were wrong about

that and Kash really knows best and gosh darn it, there's just nobody else who committed any crimes together with Jeffrey Epstein, who reportedly sex-trafficked a thousand women. To whom? To just himself and Ghislaine Maxwell. Brian, none of this passes the laugh test.

You know, is there some plausible deniability here for Cash Patel in him saying, okay, well I didn't see this one specific document? Or is this something that as FBI director he should be well aware of, given the fact that you know it exists It's in these files. It's out now obviously, but if there was at one point 10 co-conspirators that US attorneys were comfortable enough

acknowledging the existence of in written communications clearly that's something the highest echelons of Of the law enforcement agency should be aware of, no?

Kash Patel has no plausible deniability. He has no implausible deniability. One of the first things you're gonna do is sit down with the FBI agents and the federal prosecutors who conducted the investigations and the prosecution of these crimes.

So, you know, it again again doesn't pass the laugh test. Now let me throw a couple of things into the mix that require a bit of a deep dive into criminal law and criminal procedure, particularly as it applies to co-conspirators that I think we need to include in this discussion. First of all, when they say, listen, there are these 10 co-conspirators, once you've said that, once you've put it in writing,

the culpability of these 10 people must be addressed in one way or another. Let's assume that one of these co-conspirators, let's just say the businessman from Ohio, because that is the description that this email gives to one of the co-conspirators. Let's assume they wanted him to testify against Ghislaine Maxwell at her trial.

He may have. We don't know if he did or he didn't. But because the prosecutors have concluded, based on their evidence, that he is a criminal co-conspirator of Epstein and, inferentially, Maxwell, you can't just put that guy on the stand at Maxwell's trial to testify against Maxwell. Why?

Because he has this unresolved criminal liability hanging over his head. So what the prosecutors would have to do is say to Maxwell's attorney, disclose this as what we call Brady and Giglio evidence. I'm not going to do a criminal justice class on that at the moment. Would have to disclose to the defense attorneys for Maxwell, listen, listen, we concluded this witness, this businessman from Ohio who's about to hit the stand was a co-conspirator because here's the

evidence we have that he was criminally involved in Epstein and Maxwell's conspiracy to sex traffic young girls so but we never charged him we never held him accountable for his crimes do you know the kind of cross-examination Maxwell's attorneys would do to that businessman from Ohio who is a co-conspirator, who has never been held accountable for his crimes? The cross-examination is going to look a little like the following. Mr. Businessman from Ohio, the prosecutors have determined that you were criminally involved.

You were involved in sex trafficking young girls, but these prosecutors sitting right there at council table didn't make you plead guilty, didn't indict you, didn't try to hold you accountable even a little bit. But you know what? They're still holding your liberty over your head, so you know you better say anything

that they want you to say to convict my client so you can remain out of prison. Isn't that right? You know, that can be, one, some really powerful cross-examination, because you can't put co-conspirators on the stand

at a trial against somebody else unless you have addressed their their culpability you know what they did that could have landed them in prison because if you give them a free pass you never hold them accountable then their credibility is like lower than whale shit because the the defense attorneys are going to be able to paint the picture for the jury that you're beholden to the prosecutors.

Because the prosecutors are holding the keys to your prison cell in their hands so you better say what they want you to say. Now listen, that may not win a case, but it doesn't have to win a case, Brian. All it has to do is plant the seed of doubt in one of the 12 jurors who now says, what do you mean the prosecutors never tried to hold the businessman from Ohio accountable for his crimes, but they want us to believe him when he tells us about Ghislaine Maxwell's crimes?

That's not fair. That kind of stinks. We deserve better from our prosecutors. I'm not going to vote guilty. And now you have a mistrial at best. So you know, there are so many reasons that we don't just casually throw around conclusions

in writing or orally that, hey, these 10 people are co-conspirators without going on to indict them, to charge them, or to grant them immunity to otherwise address and resolve their culpability.

Last question here as it relates to Cash Patel. What it seems like is him lying under oath. What is the recourse if we do find out that Cash Patel was made aware of the fact that co-conspirators existed and yet decided to tell US senators during during this congressional hearing that he was completely unaware of the existence of any co-conspirators.

Yeah this email string certainly seems to put the lie to Kash Patel's testimony before a congressional committee and if you lie before a congressional committee interestingly people may not know, whether it's under oath or not, you have committed what's called a 1001 violation, false statements to Congress. It is, you know, we call it a 1001 violation because it's 18 United States Code section 1001 in the federal criminal code. And even beyond that, Brian, this could represent evidence that Cash Patel is obstructing

justice. He could even be in a conspiracy himself to cover up the crimes of others. These 10 co-conspirators, the wealthy businessman from Ohio, and let's just say anybody else whose name may be popping up in a way that would incriminate them in these releases of the Epstein files that we're seeing.

And of course that would be the ultimate irony given the fact that Cash Patel himself built his brand for years and years and years demanding accountability and transparency as it relates to the Epstein files and now, you know, as FBI director, again, it would be the ultimate irony if the first thing he chose to do was lie to perpetuate this exact cover-up that he condemned for so long. With that said, we will of course stay on top of this stuff.

For those who are watching, if you'd like to continue learning more about the Epstein files from a legal perspective or any other legal news, please make sure to subscribe. I'm going to put the links to both of our channels right here on the screen. Completely free to subscribe. It's a great way to support us, a great way to support independent media, and we really appreciate it. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen.

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

You're watching The Legal Breakdown.