B (4:52)

So I did a dive on this and I wrote a piece a few weeks ago for New York Magazine. I would say it's, it's unlikely they'll take it, but substantially more likely than the average case. So I'm not sure people understand this. You don't have an automatic right to go to the Supreme Court. Nobody does. Even Trump says, I'm going to the Supreme Court. The president doesn't. It's up to the US Supreme Court which cases they take. You'll hear the word certiorari, and that basically means will the court take the case? Will the court grant review? If you look at the data, the Supreme Court in recent years takes 2 to 3% of all cases presented.

A (5:27)

Wow.

B (5:28)

So, yes, a tiny.

A (5:29)

I had no idea.

B (5:30)

Yeah, it's really, really low. And so even if you say Glenn Maxwell has 10 times that average chance, she's at 20 to 30. And I think that's about where I would pick, peg it 20 to 30% chance if, if I had to put a number on it. Because the issues she raises are both unusual and there's a bit of what we call a circuit split, meaning different of there's 13 circuit courts of appeals 1 through 11, and then there's D.C. and then there's the federal trade circuit. But when you have what we call a circuit split, meaning certain circuits are deciding it one way, certain circuits are deciding in another, that really makes it more likely, not certain, but much more likely. The Supreme Court takes the case. So I can, you know, we can walk through what the exact issue is in a minute. But yeah, I give her a heightened chance. But still, you know, I wouldn't say 50% or anything like that.

A (6:21)

How did she even get to this place where they're considering her in a private meeting? I mean, that's, that's incredible to me.

B (6:26)

Yeah, I think a lot of political, you know, so here's the thing to understand. No, I don't think it's political. The thing to understand is like this is a purely legal issue that actually would apply the exact same if she was charged with robbery or drugs, if she was unknown. You know, it happens that she's Ghislaine Maxwell. It happens that she's part of the Epstein case and therefore the center of a huge amount of attention. But here's the legal issue, and it's sort of a strange one, but it actually touches on a case I did, believe it or not, when I was a mob prosecutor. So it goes back to the original plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein signed back in. Was it 07 or 08? Right. He gets his sweetheart. Right. So the infamous sweetheart deal from Alexander Acosta, who's then the U.S. attorney for Florida. The deal basically says he's going to go plead guilty in state court, which he ended up doing. And he got like 13 months. You know, the ridiculous thing where he's out of prison on work release and all this, but federally, the deal he gets is technically a non prosecution agreement. It says we will not prosecute you federally. One of the terms of that deal says it also your co conspirators will not be prosecuted federally. And then oddly, it lists four names, not Ghislaine Maxwell, but it also says and any other co conspirators. So now.

A (7:42)

And unnamed is the actual wording.

B (7:45)

Exactly. So now Ghislaine Maxwell is our. And she argued in the district court, meaning the trial court and the court of appeals, and lost. She said, well, I'm one of those co conspirators. According to the government, they promised Jeffrey Epstein that his co conspirators would not be prosecuted, therefore I'm covered. Now the response from the government has been, yes, but that sweetheart deal, we'll call it, was only binding on the Southern district of Florida U.S. attorney's office, meaning there's 94 different federal districts, there's 93 U.S. attorneys in 94 districts. And this kind of deal happens sometimes where you'll say, if this person accepts this deal, you will not be further prosecuted by this office in this district. Right. So the argument that usually wins that one here is, well, that deal is binding on Florida, Southern District of Florida. They can't recharge you, but other districts can. And of course, the second time around, Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted by my old office, the sdny. I had a case similar to this where the District of New Jersey had given a softball deal to a gangster, a guy named Angelo Prisco. They put him out to like extortion or something. And it said, we, the District of New Jersey will not further prosecute you. Fast forward a couple of years, I come along, my office comes along, we prosecute him for murder and we convict him. And he says, whoa, that deal with Jersey said I would not be prosecuted further. And we said, no, that's just binding on that district, not us. And we won. But different circuits see that different ways. Some circuits say, sorry, DOJ, you can't have one of your 94 offices giving someone a deal and then the other 93 piling on it. So that's why there's a little bit of a circuit split here. And that's why I think Ghislaine Maxwell has a chance.

A (9:24)

I just understand how sex trafficking, which is supposed to be across state lines, would allow you to be known to have a non prosecution agreement at all. Because like, why couldn't the other state then prosecute you?

B (9:36)

Yeah, I mean, look, we're back to the original sin here of Alex Acosta giving her that deal. He did. And I think the whole world agrees that it's a ridiculous deal. But, but he signed it on behalf of the US government. So it's binding. It's certainly binding on his office. The question is just, is it going to be binding on the sdny, we don't know. And another wrinkle, if I can say the, the most of the language in, in Jeffrey Epstein's deal says this office, the Southern District of Florida, but the coconspirators part says the United States, which is, can be construed to mean all of you, Justice Department. So you know, there's a separate question about whether the court, I suspect if her name was not Ghislaine Maxwell, she a better chance of getting the Supreme Court to take it. Because I don't think the Supreme Court's, I think they're going to be more hesitant than they otherwise would have been to wade into the mess of Epstein and Maxwell and the media attention and the accusations that they're doing a favor that, you know, what will happen if they take this case and they're in for Trump and they're in for Todd Blanch and they're trying to, you know, like if anything, I think the notoriety of this case makes it less likely.

A (10:40)

The Supreme Court takes it Also, you know, does the fact that she wasn't named in the 2007 agreement actually weaken her claim?

B (10:51)

No, because it says others known. And I mean I guess, I guess it would be slightly, slightly stronger if her name was listed. But the government is not saying. Yeah, but you're not one of those co conspirators. They're saying of course she's one. They charged her as one of the co conspirators. They're just saying this deal doesn't apply outside the Southern District of Florida. You're not entitled to, to use it against us in New York.

A (11:12)

What do you think about this non prosecution agreement? I mean you've had a long career as a prosecutor. Have you ever heard of a deal like this before?

B (11:20)

It's one of the worst deals I've ever seen. It's indefensible. The, you know, to. First of all, what they did for Epstein is ridiculous enough to basically give him 11 months of partial confinement. I mean if they had charged that case properly, he would, you know, use Maria Villafana, the, the prosecutor's memoir. He would have been looking at 10 year minimum life maximum type offenses. That's number one. But then the icing on top is this, this clearing of all the coconspirators. I have never heard of that. I've never heard. Why would you do that? Why would you agree? I mean, I know why Epstein's lawyers would want it. Right, because they don't want Ghislaine Maxwell or whoever to be charged and then come in and then give them all this damaging information. Right. But I've never heard of a lawyer. The extent to which Acosta caved and gave this case away. It really can't be overstated. It's astonishing. He completely collapsed. His only, you know, you've heard, Tara, his mealy mouth BS explanation. He said, well, I felt it was more important to lock in a conviction. It's like, well, why are you a federal prosecutor then? I mean, anyone can charge any case and then just plead it out for some BS giveaway. Like, do the damn job, I think. And I wrote about this for my last book a bit. There's a couple of chapters on this. I don't see a conspiracy theory. I just think he's a huge wuss. And that's what Maria Villafana said. He didn't have the fortitude to go up against Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, and Jerry left court and all Jeffrey Epstein's connections and money, and I think Acosta just wimped out. I think he just didn't want that fight, didn't have the stones for that fight and gave it away. I don't have any more sinister theory than that. I mean, I don't know. I'm interested. What do you think?

A (12:54)

I think it goes higher than that. He goes off campus, off site to meet with Ken Starr and Jay left.

B (13:01)

Yeah. He has a breakfast with him 90.

A (13:03)

Miles to Palm beach. And that's crazy.

B (13:07)

Oh, you think they, like, trapped him or something?

A (13:10)

No, I just think that they. That there was something more to it. Why else would he feel like he needed to get. Leave his office to meet with the defense's prosecutors? I mean, I mean, the defense team. That's insane.

B (13:22)

Yeah. I mean, look, it's not crazy to, to go grab breakfast with someone, you know you're involved in or have a coffee.

A (13:28)

U.S. attorney. To meet with the defense team over breakfast.

B (13:32)

Yeah, I mean, that's, that's pretty privileged.

A (13:34)

90 miles away at breakfast.

B (13:36)

Yeah, that's pretty privileged.

A (13:40)

By the road. Marriott, like Garden Hotel.

B (13:44)

Yeah, you're right. I mean, I guess that's a good point. Like you would, you would have a courtesy meeting with somebody. But that's a. That's an awful lot. But I mean, it's also.

A (13:51)

These are the type of guys who eat at Marriott Hotel, roadside hotels. These are very. Well, you had a former.

B (13:57)

Yeah.

A (13:58)

Special counsel. Like, these people roll in big, big circles.

B (14:01)

It's also. But it's also consistent with the idea he was just in awe of and terrified of things, these guys. But you know, the other thing that Acosta did that's inexcusable is he basically agreed with. With the defense lawyers to mislead the victims. I mean, there's email traffic between them which has now come out where they're like, please, you've agreed to not notify other individuals. It's like he had a. Aasa, had a legal obligation, and at one point, the government FBI sent out a notice to the victims after the deal was in place, saying the matter is still open and pending. And the end finding of the report was this bs like, well, it was an administrative letter, but some lower level person sent it out. It's like, so. So there's a triple sin. There's the.

A (14:46)

You have. You have an obligation to tell the crime victims of your decision.

B (14:50)

You don't have to. You don't have. If they don't like it, you don't have to. You don't have to obey. Obey them. But you have to notify them and you have to listen to them. But, I mean, there's three layers of outrage here. There's giving Epstein a ridiculously soft deal, giving the coconspirators, including Maxwell, potentially a free pass, and then screwing over the victims. And, you know, Maxwell to this day, that deal. That deal, that's Maxwell's hook to get this thing up to the Supreme Court.

A (15:14)

Okay, so the Acosta made a stunning admission last week before the House Oversight Committee when he said that he didn't read the victim statements that were part of the prosecution memoir. And he had decided, though, that he did not think these women could sufficiently represent themselves as crime victims in this case. To me, this reeks of misogyny. Did you see a lot of that? Yeah.

B (15:39)

What's. What? In other words, he was saying, I don't think these women were like, of clear mind. What's he saying? I'm not sure I follow.

A (15:45)

That there weren't. They weren't good enough victims. They couldn't argue their own case. They couldn't. I mean, do you see a lot of that in Department of Justice where you feel like no crime. Victims of sex crimes, they're seen as, oh, the jury's not going to listen to them, or they're not good at arguing their own cases. They're not perfect. I mean, you know, sometimes the predators choose prey, women and men, that they think will be unbelievable. Or they try to somehow, like, include. They try to entangle them in their crimes.

B (16:19)

Yeah.

A (16:20)

So that they are. They lack credibility.

B (16:21)

I would say that was a more common mindset for 15, 20 years ago, maybe around the time of this deal. Not. I'm not excusing it at all, but I think law enforcement's gotten much better at that. I mean, I did a lot. I did mass multi victim cases with, you know, a lot of Young Vic. I did a case with 70 victims. 70 victims. And, you know, you have to meet with all of them. So I think law enforcement's gotten better at that. But definitely 15, 20 years ago, there was this sort of, you know, back of the hand treatment for victims. I think that's true.

A (16:51)

You think that the burden of proof is disproportionately placed on these vulnerable people rather than the powerful.

B (16:58)

Yeah, I think that's a fair criticism. That. That it. Yeah, I think, you know, I do think pro. I mean, certainly Acosta gave a lot more benefit of the doubt to the defense lawyers than the victim. He totally ignored the victims. That's part of why he did such a bad job.

A (17:15)

Yeah, right. So in that New York magazine piece, which I recommend that everyone checks out, in addition to Ellie's book, you draw parallels to the Bill Cosby case when you talk about this Glenn Maxwell appeal. Can you explain to our listeners why and what this might mean if she ends up walking just like Bill Cosby did?

B (17:39)

The common thread between the two cases, they're not identical, but the common thread is prosecutors make a crappy deal and then they get stuck with it. Right. So here again, Acosta makes this crappy deal, and DOJ, here we are, 15 years later, May get stuck with it in the Cosby case. So what happened was the DA's office was investigating these allegations against Cosby, which started to emerge the D. A. Then at the same time, some of Cosby's victims are suing him civilly. And the DA ultimately says, okay, here's the deal. Cosby cannot be forced to testify. He cannot be subpoenaed in the civil suits as long as he has a pending criminal case. Because as long as there's a pending criminal investigation, he'll have the Fifth Amendment. Right. But if I notify Cosby formally that we've closed down the criminal investigation, then he won't have a fifth amendment right. Then he'll have to go in and testify in these civil cases. And so they basically make a deal that the DA tells Cosby, we're going to dismiss. We're going to. He didn't ever charge him. We're going to end our criminal investigation. That means you won't have a fifth Amendment right anymore. That means you'll have to testify. Cosby does that. He. After the DA certifies that the case is over, Cosby goes, testifies in the deposition and makes outrageous admissions. He says, basically, yes, I would drug. I mean, he admits the whole thing. And then the DA's office, and here's where the going back on the deal comes in. The DA's office says, Whoops, now we're changing our mind. Now we are going to charge you and we're going to use your testimony against you. And ultimately the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a painful decision, they even said, like, we have no joy in this. I think it was a 4 to 3 decision. Says, like, look, he's definitely guilty. He did horrible, horrible things. But, sorry, da's office, you tricked him. You basically told him no criminal investigation. He waives his Fifth Amendment right. He testifies. Then you change your mind, you grab that testimony and use it. And honestly, as much as it pains all of us to see Bill Cosby go free, it's the right decision, because you can't. You can't make a deal and then go back on it. I mean, you know, it's a. It's a contract, it's a deal. And especially when you're a prosecutor, you can't be tricking people and making promises to get a deal and then. And then taking it back. It doesn't work that way.

A (19:56)

Do you think Maxwell will use that argument, too?

B (19:59)

Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure she'll cite the Cosby case, but I think the general principle of they made a deal, like it or not, fair or not, they signed their name. Alexander Acosta, when he had the pen to sign for the US Government, signed that deal. And it doesn't go away just because Ghislaine Maxwell's bad or Alex Acosta is an idiot. It's still a deal.

A (20:20)

Yeah. Okay, so if, say, the Supreme Court throws out Glenn Maxwell's conviction, what happens next? Is she retried?

B (20:28)

No, no. In this case, if they throw it out, then. Then their ruling would be that agreement is binding on doj and hence they can't charge her again. And that'll be. She'll walk out. If the Supreme Court. Yeah, this won't be a retrial. This. The nature of this is she's arguing that deal is binding. It doesn't mean she gets a new trial. It means she has the right to not be tried at all. Wow. Yeah.

A (20:48)

And you don't think politics will have anything to do with it since the court has changed so much.

B (20:51)

I mean, I'm involved. You know, that would require a little. A little bit of tea leaf reading. But I just think this court is going to, like I said, if her name was just Ghislaine Johnson or something, I think she'd have better chance. But I just don't think. Why do they want to wade into the messiest, most controversial, ugliest case? And if they rule in her favor, even if they believe she's right legally, like, look, you know, the three liberal justices are not going to be. Are not going to want this. That's a, That's a fact. And I think Robert's. The last thing he's going to want is any kind of, you know, he's going to be allergic to any involvement in this case. And I, I could see easily Barrett and Kavanaugh going along with that and just being like, no, thanks. Although it only takes four to take a case. Five to win, but four to take it. So, you know, again, I would peg it 20 to 30. And, and by the way, it's also possible they take it, but then don't rule for Maxwell. Like, it could be they have four votes for her, but not a fifth. Or it could be someone wants to take the case and wants to rule against her. So there's two hurdles here. There's taking the case and then who wins. And one does not necessarily dictate the other. Although, again, if you look at the data, something like 70% of the time the Supreme Court takes a case, they reverse what happened below. So, meaning in this, in this case, Maxwell's position would win.

A (22:07)

Oh, okay. Interesting.

B (22:09)

Right. Because.

A (22:09)

Okay, it's logical.

B (22:10)

Right? Like, if they agreed with what happened below, there would be less need to take the case. Right. Usually you take a case because you want to change the outcome, not because you just want to reaffirm it.

A (22:20)

Okay. Okay. All right. I know we're short on time, so I want to get to the book.

B (22:26)

Yes.

A (22:27)

And you. And in fact, you do write about some of the characters in the Epstein story in your book, like Ken Starr, who was Epstein's famous lawyer, also a special counsel. And Ellie's book, when you come with the king, is about special counsels and how they often become, you know, their reputations are. Their reputations are sullied from, from this experience of having to prosecute a president. So tell me about Ken Starr and what you thought was, you know, what could be learned from that.

B (22:57)

Ken Starr, I think, has become the poster child for prosecutorial overreach for what he did in the Clinton case. And I talked to, you know, he passed away a couple of years ago. But I talked to Clinton's lawyers, David Kendall and Lanny Brewer, who was a White House lawyer. I also talked to this guy, Saul Weisenberg, who was the number two guy to Ken Starr. Remember that? Ken Starr for the first year. Too young Tara. But for the first three or four years, all he was commissioned to investigate was Whitewater. This, you know, these land deals and real estate deals in Arkansas. And they got a bunch of the Clintons, legal associates and bankers. But he didn't get the Clintons, and it was clear he wasn't going to. And both of Clinton's lawyers said to me, this guy was just hanging on for dear life. He knew it was over. He knew he had nothing. He was just praying. And the way Lanny Brewer, who was a White House lawyer, put it to me, he said, and all sudden, Monica Lewinsky hits. And it was like manna from heaven for this guy. And Saul Weisenberg didn't have a case. What's that?

A (23:50)

Sorry, they didn't have a case.

B (23:52)

Basically, he had nothing on. Nothing on the Clintons, on Whitewater. But all of a sudden, this affair with an intern. And Saul Weisenberg, who was the number two guy on Star's team, told me. He said, I had a detail that was set to expire in February of 98. So I was packing my bags when Monica hit in January of 1998. I thought, oh, now this is interesting. And he extended because he wanted to stay. Of course, it resulted in all the memorable moments. You know, one of the memorable moments I have is the infamous moment where Bill Clinton is being deposed on videotape for the grand jury in the White House. And he says, it depends on what the meaning of is is. Right? A famous moment. So Weisenberg is the guy who actually asked Bill Clinton that question about a lawyer's statement that there is no sexual relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky. Basically, Clinton's like, well, is is a present tense verb. And we're, you know, this is what he said. But he was like, we're not having an affair right now. That was his rationale. But I asked Weisenberg, I said, how did you feel when he gave you that answer? And Saul said to me, you know, I got to be honest with you. Up to that point, he was kicking our ass. We didn't get anything out of him. He was in control. Saul said, I was so frustrated, I didn't realize, but I was like, pounding the Table and Ken Starr leaned over, this is the White House. And Ken Starr leans over to me and said, knock it off. And then, you know, I asked David Kendall, who was Clinton's lawyer, and he said, you know, we were trying to run out the clock basically, and that that answer was really bad. But you know, I think in, in retrospect, Starr ran a six or seven year investigation. It resulted in a very unpopular, unsuccessful impeachment. And after, and largely as a result of Ken Starr's investigation, that law, it was set to expire in 99 and Congress by bipartisan agreement was like nobody wanted any part of it. Everybody was pissed. Democrats were pissed that had been used against Clinton. Republicans were pissed that it had backfired on them. And so they let that law die. And that's how we ended up now with the current regulations. So I think Stars a cautionary tale that runaway prosecution is good for nobody, including the prosecutor.

A (25:52)

I mean, you reveal that Stars team wanted to indict Clinton post presidency. Well, we're close to know about. Yeah, they were close to.

B (26:01)

Yeah, I talked about this guy Bob Ray who took over the investigation after the impeachment. Star just left. And Bob Ray, you know, he's got to deal with this unenviable scenario. It's coming up in the end of 2000. And Ray said, look, we had to have a resolution because we technically could have still charged him. And Bob Ray has this face to face meeting with other lawyers present, but him and Clinton five feet apart in the White House. And basically Ray says, look, I don't need a lot from you, but I need a fine, I need an acknowledgment that you lied and I need you to give up your law license. And Clinton ended up agreeing to that on his final day of his presidency. But I asked Bob Ray, I said, if Clinton had not agreed to that, would you have indicted him? And Bob goes 95% of the way to saying yes. He doesn't quite, but he says, look, we had all the pieces in place if we needed to seek an indictment. But I said, Bob, are you nuts? You would have, he would have been acquitted in two seconds. In 2001 in D.C. his popularity was 66%, probably 90% D.C. yeah, he has, he left.

A (26:55)

Imagine a president with that kind of popularity now, right?

B (26:58)

Bill Clinton left office In January of one with a 66% approval rating, the highest ever and certainly the highest still to this day. And Bob said, yeah, I knew I probably, probably wouldn't have convicted him, but I felt like it would have been the right. He deserved to be indicted if he didn't take the deal. So he did take the deal. But, you know, Ray made an interesting point. He said, I'm glad it worked out. He said, I think we did the right thing because imagine if we had indicted Bill Clinton. It could have been that nine months later we might have had a pres. A very popular former president on a criminal trial when 9, 11 happened. Like, imagine the disarray in the country if that all had went down.

A (27:33)

So I think some people might be thinking the same thing about the decision to go after President Trump and how it made him more popular after.

B (27:40)

Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lesson there and I have a chapter there. I talked to Trump's team, I talked to, you know, John Lauro, and look, I think the way that those prosecutions were handled, you know, Tara, I was. I'm not. I mean, I thought Trump deserved to be indicted on some of those cases, but I thought others were overkill and mishandled. And I make that case in the book, and I think it was to nobody's benefit other than Trump in the end.

A (28:02)

Yep. You know, we talked about the big names on Epstein's legal team, like Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Jay Lewitz. Left court. They lobbied furiously for that deal. From your experience as a prosecutor, and they even went all the way up to the Attorney General's office.

B (28:22)

They kept going up the chain.

A (28:23)

Yeah, yeah, they kept going up the chain. So, like, how common is this for this, like, high powered influence in plea negotiations? Have you been ever, like, you know, pushed in the past? People saying, I'm going to pull political strings if you don't do this?

B (28:38)

Well, they don't say it that explicit, but they're definitely right. Yeah. Like, look, you're much more likely. I mean, every lawyer wants, every good lawyer wants to go as high up the chain as he can. You know, every. Every drug case I ever had, the guy thought he was entitled to meet with Michael Mukase or Eric Holder, you know, whoever was the AG at the time. And, you know, so you only get so far. But, like, it absolutely is the case if it's someone who's known and respected and powerful, especially honestly, if it's a former colleague. Like, if it's someone who left the US like, you know, Bufkowitz. Right. That person is generally, it's understood, is entitled to at least a meeting that you might not give somebody else. So, I mean, this is a big topic of my second book, Tara, how paying For Trump. There's some of this in the Trump's past. You know, his kids avoided a fraud indictment by the Manhattan D a year before in like the early 2000s, before Trump was a political figure. Largely because Trump had well connected lawyers who had donated to Cy Vance. They got a high level meeting with Cy Vance and he reversed what his. His line prosecutors wanted to charge. I forget which kids, so I don't want to say, but a couple of the Trump kids were in real potential trouble over the sale of an apartment building. But yeah, no, that, that matters. Access matters and defense attorney quality and reputation matters.

A (29:49)

Yeah. I remember in my own investigation into the Epstein story, like I knocked on the doors and did a lot of reporting from a lot of Al. Sorry, Barry Krish or the state attorney's office to find out why he and his deputy were so lenient on these girls. Lenient against Epstein, saying there are no victims here after, you know, after putting together a case before a grand jury.

B (30:11)

Yeah.

A (30:11)

And you know why. And the kind of impact that Ken Starr had and you know, on, on. On Alex Acosta and how they were sort of fanboys for Alan, you know, Barry was a fanboy to Alan and how Alex Acosta was a fanboy to Ken Starr. I don't think it was all of that, but I do think there was that element of, you know, we are famous, you know, people, people read our books. We, we teach at Harvard, you know. But I also think that they never.

B (30:47)

Thought the victim stories will be told in the way that they eventually were. I think they didn't count on Julie Brown emerging, you know, the journalist.

A (30:53)

Right.

B (30:53)

Who broke a lot of this. And I think they thought the women could be safely sort of shuffled aside.

A (30:58)

No, it was a class thing, too. They didn't see any girls that came from prominent families. They just saw a bunch of girls from the wrong side of the tracks. They thought, I mean, they gave. They, they charged him with procuring a prostitute, you know, a minor, for prostitution. Suggesting. Could be a prostitute. Yeah.

B (31:15)

Right.

A (31:16)

Which is no longer a state charge, by the way, in Florida.

B (31:18)

That's odd. Yeah.

A (31:20)

Yeah. But I got to ask you one last question. I know. We only have one minute.

B (31:24)

Yes.

A (31:25)

Top lines. Comey Trump about to. Or has already indicted him.

B (31:31)

Yeah, I haven't, by the way. It's hard. Exactly. The theme of the book, that, that now we are in the age of retribution. Hence the title. Right. When you come at the King, you better not miss. What is happening now is fundamentally different. Even if you go back all the Way through Clinton, through Watergate, through Mueller, all of it clearly retribution. That's not even a theory. I mean, Trump is tweeting about it and true socialing about it. I have a lot of questions about the indictment. It's so broad, it's so vague, it's very unclear what's being charged. I put a lot of stock in the fact that all the career prosecutors on this case, this guy, Eric Siebert, who was a Trump appointee and a Trump, you know, supporter, Todd Blanche, who is, I know, but you know, he's been very loyal to Trump. All the reporting is those guys were not on board with this indictment. I think they stretched. I don't think it ever gets to a jury. I think it'll get thrown out for a vindictive prosecution. And if it gets to a jury, unless there's some shocker that nobody's ever uncovered before in all the extensive investigations, I'm not sure I see a makeable perjury case against Jim Comey. So, look, I'm not a Comey fan. He comes in for quite a bit of criticism in my new book. I think he's an example of what happens when you have a runaway, self aggrandizing guy at the head of the, what was the Hillary Clinton investigation? But it doesn't matter whether I'm a fan of his or not. I don't think he's. I think he's been wronged here.

A (32:50)

Yeah. I think they purposely, I'm sure Trump hates Comey, but they also knew that it was hard for Democrats to really love him and protect.

B (32:59)

Right. Well, yeah, now people are rallying, so.

A (33:02)

Yeah, that's true.

B (33:03)

Yeah.

A (33:03)

I wonder if it'll break through for the midterms, though.

B (33:05)

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. It's always hard to tell what's going to resonate. There's still a year and change away, so it's. Who knows?

A (33:11)

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And people don't tend to vote on that. They tend to vote on the economy.

B (33:17)

Yeah. I had David Axelrod on with me this morning on SiriusXM and he said the same thing. He said, look, this is important, but ultimately what drives viewers is those pocketbook issues. So. And AX knows, so.

A (33:28)

Exactly. Well, Ellie, thanks so much for joining the show. We got that small slice of time with you and everybody go out, buy the book. When you shoot for the king. Or was it when you come at the King?

B (33:40)

When you come at the King. Yes.

A (33:42)

Come with the King. Yeah. The famous, the famous line by Ellie Honig. See him on CNN everywhere and on Sirius. So thanks for joining the show. Thanks, Sarah, and making this all clear.

B (33:52)

Great to be with you.

A (33:54)

That was another episode of the Tara Palmieri Show. Thank you all for tuning in and for supporting this channel. If you like my work, please go to tarapaumiery.com and sign up for my newsletter, the Red Letter, or where you can get all my exclusive news and investigative reporting straight to your inbox. It's also a way to support my independent journalism by becoming a paid subscriber. Please like review rate and share this show with your friends. That's how we keep this going, right? I also want to thank my team, my producer, Eric Abenate, Adam Stewart, who does my thumbnails, and Abby Baker, who does research and reporting. I'll be back again soon.