Ghislaine Maxwell’s Supreme Court gamble could do far more than let her off the hook. It could render void any damning revelations in the so-called “Epstein files” by granting blanket immunity to any child abusing associates of the dead billionaire.
It’s a twist that turns upside down the growing calls — from President Donald Trump’s MAGA base to Democrats and all in between — for releasing the FBI’s investigative files of Jeffrey Epstein’s sprawling sexual abuse network, even as suspicions mount that Trump appears to some extent in the evidence.
At the center of this maelstrom is the sweetheart plea deal the Justice Department gave Epstein in 2007, which promised distinctly that the “United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.” It’s one that the Justice Department’s own 2020 internal review called “unusual and problematic.” Maxwell now hopes that will overturn her 2022 conviction for conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.
And as her defense attorney argued in a Supreme Court filing on Monday, that means anyone else too.
Trending
“This promise is unqualified. It is not geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida, it is not conditioned on the co-conspirators being known by the government at the time, it does not depend on what any particular government attorney may have had in his or her head about who might be a co-conspirator, and it contains no other caveat or exception. This should be the end of the discussion,” David Oscar Markus wrote.
The only limitation seems to be the time period covered in the immunity deal: nearly six years that runs from “in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007.”
At NOTUS’ behest, several prosecutors-turned-defense lawyers reviewed the Epstein non-prosecution agreement and found the controversial deal’s terms both far reaching and bizarre.
Tess Cohen, who spent eight years in Manhattan’s Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s Office, was aghast that the immunity deal didn’t just protect Epstein — but even his unnamed associates whom victims have asserted joined in on the sexual abuse.
“I have never seen an agreement like this. I’ve seen non-prosecution agreements that cover specifically named people, typically someone’s spouse, but never have I seen unnamed co-conspirators covered in a non-prosecution agreement. And for good reason. It is unconscionable to protect unnamed people not known to the government from prosecution for serious crimes, especially crimes like this where sex abuse of minors is involved. These prosecutors had no idea who they were protecting from prosecution, or even what they had done,” she told NOTUS on Monday.
Epstein’s plea deal was cut by then-Miami U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, whom Trump later tapped as labor secretary during his first administration until he resigned when the Epstein scandal came to light in 2019.
“Apparently Epstein and all his potential co-conspirators were given special protection unlike any I or any attorney I’ve talked to have ever seen,” Cohen stressed.
That point comes into sharp relief when considered alongside the DOJ’s own admission — in its counter argument asking the Supreme Court not to take up the case — that federal investigators supposedly didn’t even have Maxwell on their radar when they cut Epstein the deal.
“The government was not even aware of petitioner’s role in Epstein’s scheme at that time,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
Even though, as her trial showed more than a decade later, she was his right hand for years: scouting vulnerable teenage girls, leading them into Epstein’s clutches and using them to recruit other victims to be raped and molested.
The Supreme Court doesn’t regularly dive into plea deals. But in this case, there is a disagreement among appellate courts over whether a regional U.S. attorney’s office — say, in Miami — has the authority to cut an immunity deal that forbids another federal prosecutor — in, say, New York City — from building a case for the same crime.
The DOJ’s own Justice Manual emphatically warns prosecutors not to cut such deals without first getting the express permission of the assistant attorney general.
“The attorney for the government should exercise extreme caution to ensure that his/her non-prosecution agreement does not confer ‘blanket’ immunity on the witness,” it reads.
R. Timothy Jansen, who spent five years as an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida’s middle and northern districts, stressed that the Justice Manual binds prosecutors but not courts. And that means the Supreme Court could fairly decide that a plea deal with the entire United States should be respected nationwide.
“If the Supreme Court says this is binding then I don’t think anyone can be prosecuted,” Jansen said.
But that would mean Maxwell, who spoke to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last week, could have an ace up her sleeve whether or not Trump dangles a presidential pardon or the DOJ extends some kind of deal that could shorten her 20-year prison sentence.
“If Maxwell wins this argument and her conviction is overturned, she has no reason at all to talk to the government or anyone else, and any lawyer would tell her not to,” Cohen told NOTUS.
Victory at the Supreme Court could also mean that Maxwell could identify anyone — or the full Epstein files could be released — without any law enforcement action to follow.
“If this agreement covers Maxwell, it almost certainly covers the people who participated in Epstein crimes and are in the files, including Trump if there’s proof against him. Federal conspiracy law is extremely broad already and this agreement even broadened it further by saying that ‘potential’ co-conspirators are covered. If the Supreme Court rules for Maxwell, I can’t see a way for the federal government to bring prosecution against anyone in the Epstein files,” Cohen said.
Author
