Podcast Summary: The Tara Palmeri Show

Episode: Epstein’s Accomplice: Will the Supreme Court Free her?

Date: September 28, 2025
Host: Tara Palmeri
Guest: Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor, legal analyst, and author

Episode Overview

This episode delves into explosive new developments in the Jeffrey Epstein case, focusing on Ghislaine Maxwell’s Supreme Court appeal and the implications of the notorious 2008 “sweetheart deal” negotiated by former U.S. attorney Alex Acosta. Host Tara Palmeri, renowned for her incisive reporting on the Epstein saga, is joined by legal expert Elie Honig to unpack the legal intricacies and broader political reverberations surrounding the potential Supreme Court review of Maxwell’s conviction. The conversation also draws connections to other high-profile cases (like Bill Cosby) and discusses prosecutorial power, privilege, and the lasting damage of institutional failures.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Latest Epstein Revelations and the "Drip, Drip, Drip" of Scandal

• New files released by the House Oversight Committee offer fresh details about powerful figures connected to Epstein, including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon, Prince Andrew, and Bill Gates.
  • “[Epstein’s] files really put together a picture of all the people in Jeffrey Epstein’s world, especially after 2008, when he was a sex offender... all men who still chose to associate with Jeffrey Epstein after that period of time.” (Tara, 01:26)
• The episode highlights the unnerving persistence of Epstein’s influence, even after his conviction.

2. The Supreme Court and Ghislaine Maxwell’s Appeal

• Supreme Court’s Likelihood of Taking the Case

  • Honig estimates a 20-30% chance the Court will grant certiorari—higher than average, due to unusual legal questions and a circuit split. (04:52-06:21)
  • “The Supreme Court in recent years takes 2 to 3% of all cases presented… Even if you say Ghislaine Maxwell has 10 times that average chance, she’s at 20 to 30.” (Honig, 05:27)

• The Legal Crux: The 2008 Acosta “Sweetheart Deal”

  • Acosta’s agreement with Epstein included a non-prosecution clause for “any other co-conspirators,” not specifically naming Maxwell but using broad language that could include her.
  • The key debate: was this deal only binding on the Southern District of Florida, or the entire DOJ?
  • “The coconspirators part says ‘the United States,’ which can be construed to mean all of you, Justice Department.” (Honig, 09:36)

• Circuit Split Examples

  • Other circuits have ruled differently on whether such deals bind only local districts or the entire federal system—a reason the Supreme Court might intervene.
  • Honig cited a similar mafia case he prosecuted as precedent. (07:45-09:24)

• Impact of Maxwell’s Notoriety

  • Ironically, Maxwell’s fame may decrease the Court’s appetite to take the case: “If her name was not Ghislaine Maxwell, she’d have a better chance... The notoriety makes it less likely.” (Honig, 09:36)

3. The Shocking Details and “Indefensible” Nature of the Epstein Deal

• Acosta’s Failings and Systemic Misogyny
  • Honig slams the plea agreement as “one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen. It’s indefensible…” (Honig, 11:20)
  • Acosta agreed to mislead victims, failed to notify them, and notably admitted before Congress he did not read the victim statements.
  • Tara: “To me, this reeks of misogyny. Did you see a lot of that?” (15:14)
  • Honig notes law enforcement has improved, but deference to defense teams and disregard for vulnerable victims was common 15-20 years ago. (16:20)

4. Parallels to the Bill Cosby Case and “Crappy Deals Haunting Prosecutors”

• Cosby and Maxwell: Prosecutorial Promises

  • Both cases show prosecutors making “crappy deals” and then getting legally trapped by them.
  • Cosby’s conviction was overturned because prosecutors reneged on assurances, setting a precedent that could help Maxwell.
    • “As much as it pains all of us to see Bill Cosby go free… it’s the right decision, because you can’t make a deal and then go back on it.” (Honig, 18:58)

• If the Supreme Court Overturns Maxwell’s Conviction

  • She would walk free; no retrial. “If they throw it out, then... she’ll walk out.” (Honig, 20:28)

5. The Politics and Realities of High-Profile Prosecution

• Influence of Powerful Defense Teams
  • Well-connected lawyers (like Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) can secure access, shape negotiations, or even sway outcomes.
  • “It absolutely is the case if it’s someone who’s known and respected and powerful ... is entitled to at least a meeting that you might not give somebody else.” (Honig, 28:38)
• Class and Victim Credibility
  • Victims from ‘the wrong side of the tracks’ were disregarded. “They just saw a bunch of girls from the wrong side of the tracks.” (Tara, 30:58)
• The Underestimated Power of Victims and Journalists
  • “They didn’t count on Julie Brown emerging, you know, the journalist who broke a lot of this.” (Honig, 30:53)

6. Reflections on Special Counsel, Ken Starr, and Political Prosecution

• Ken Starr as a Case Study in Overreach

  • Starr’s investigation into Bill Clinton drifted far beyond its original mandate, illustrating how “runaway prosecution” can create backlash and tarnish reputations.
    • “I think Starr’s a cautionary tale that runaway prosecution is good for nobody, including the prosecutor.” (Honig, 25:52)
  • Revealed that Starr’s team nearly indicted Clinton post-presidency (26:01).

• Lessons for the Trump Era

  • Efforts to indict Trump, according to Honig, sometimes backfired and were mishandled, serving “nobody’s benefit other than Trump in the end.” (Honig, 27:40)

7. Perjury Charges Against James Comey: “The Age of Retribution”

• Honig is skeptical the broad, vague indictment against former FBI Director Comey will be successful, viewing it as “vindictive prosecution”—part of a trend of political score-settling.
  • “Now we are in the age of retribution. Hence the title [of my book]: When you come at the king, you better not miss.” (Honig, 31:31)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Epstein's Web of Influence:
  “It just shows you how all of these powerful people, many of them very close to President Trump, are intertwined with Jeffrey Epstein and why they wouldn't want these files released.”
  — Tara (02:38)

• On the Sweetheart Deal:
  “It's one of the worst deals I've ever seen. It's indefensible... The extent to which Acosta caved and gave this case away—it really can't be overstated. It's astonishing.”
  — Elie Honig (11:20)

• On Misogyny in the Justice System:
  “To me, this reeks of misogyny… They weren’t good enough victims. They couldn’t argue their own case.”
  — Tara (15:14)

• On Parallels With Bill Cosby:
  “The common thread between the two cases [Cosby and Maxwell]: Prosecutors make a crappy deal, and then they get stuck with it.”
  — Elie Honig (17:39)

• On Political Influence in Prosecutions:
  “Quality and reputation matter. Access matters… If it’s someone powerful—especially if it’s a former colleague—[they’re] entitled to a meeting you might not give [others].”
  — Elie Honig (28:38)

• On Runaway Prosecution:
  “I think Starr’s a cautionary tale that runaway prosecution is good for nobody, including the prosecutor.”
  — Elie Honig (25:52)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Epstein Revelations, High-Profile Connections — 00:02–03:30
• Supreme Court’s Role & Certiorari Odds — 04:52–06:21
• The Legal Tangle: Acosta Deal Explained — 06:21–11:12
• Acosta’s Misconduct and Attitude Toward Victims — 11:12–16:20
• Bill Cosby Case Parallel — 17:39–19:56
• Potential Outcomes If Maxwell Wins — 20:20–21:00
• The Influence of Celebrity Lawyering — 28:22–29:49
• Special Counsels, Ken Starr, and Runaway Investigations — 22:27–26:58
• Perjury Charges Against Comey; Political Prosecutions — 31:24–33:11

Conclusion

This episode provides an incisive look at the legal, political, and social fallout of the Epstein/Maxwell saga. Through legal and historical context, Tara Palmeri and Elie Honig illuminate how prosecutorial deals can haunt the justice system, how power protects the well-connected, and why Supreme Court intervention—if it comes—could set major precedents. Listeners gain not only a deeper understanding of the current Supreme Court drama but also a candid, behind-the-scenes sense of how justice is negotiated at the highest—and most uneven—levels of power.