New Case Against Jeffrey Epstein | All In | MSNBC

New Case Against Jeffrey Epstein | All In | MSNBC


>>WHAT A STORY. AARON BASKERVILLE FROM NBC 10 ON AARON BASKERVILLE FROM NBC 10 ON THE PHONE WITH US FROM THE SCENE THE PHONE WITH US FROM THE SCENE IN PHILADELPHIA. IN PHILADELPHIA.>>>ALL RIGHT.>>>ALL RIGHT. TURNING NOW TO A NEW LAW THAT TURNING NOW TO A NEW LAW THAT JUST WENT INTO A EFFECT IN NEW JUST WENT INTO A EFFECT IN NEW YORK STATE. YORK STATE. STARTING TODAY, CHILDHOOD STARTING TODAY, CHILDHOOD VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE CAN SUE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE CAN SUE THERAPY PERPETRATORS. THERAPY PERPETRATORS. THE LAW, THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT THE LAW, THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT APPLIES TO VICTIMS WHO WERE APPLIES TO VICTIMS WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY BARRED FROM SUING DUE PREVIOUSLY BARRED FROM SUING DUE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THE LAW GIVES VICTIMS ONE YEAR THE LAW GIVES VICTIMS ONE YEAR TO FILE THOSE CASES STARTING TO FILE THOSE CASES STARTING TODAY. TODAY. AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY, 427 CASES WERE FILED TODAY, 427 CASES WERE FILED PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT. ACT. ACCORDING TO A TALLY BY NBC ACCORDING TO A TALLY BY NBC NEWS. NEWS. THE DEFENDANTS IN THOSE LAWSUITS THE DEFENDANTS IN THOSE LAWSUITS INCLUDE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INCLUDE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE BOY SCOUTS, AND THE CHURCH, THE BOY SCOUTS, AND THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN. LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN.>>I JUST DID WHAT HE TOLD ME TO>>I JUST DID WHAT HE TOLD ME TO DO. DO. I WAS REALLY SCARED. I WAS REALLY SCARED. I DIDN’T NECESSARILY THINK HE I DIDN’T NECESSARILY THINK HE WAS GOING TO RAPE ME. WAS GOING TO RAPE ME.>>DID HE HOLD YOU THERE?>>DID HE HOLD YOU THERE?>>YEAH.>>YEAH. UH-HUH. UH-HUH.>>DID JEFFREY EPSTEIN RAPE YOU?>>DID JEFFREY EPSTEIN RAPE YOU?>>YEAH, NO.>>YEAH, NO. HE RAPED ME. HE RAPED ME. FORCEFULLY RAPED ME. FORCEFULLY RAPED ME. KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING. KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING.>>TODAY THAT INDIVIDUAL,>>TODAY THAT INDIVIDUAL, GENERAL ARAOZ FILED ONE OF THE GENERAL ARAOZ FILED ONE OF THE FIRST CIVIL LAWSUITS AGAINST THE FIRST CIVIL LAWSUITS AGAINST THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN SAYING ESTATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN SAYING HE RAPED HER WHEN SHE WAS 15 HE RAPED HER WHEN SHE WAS 15 YEARS OLD AND ALLEGING HIS YEARS OLD AND ALLEGING HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS GROOMED HER FOR CO-CONSPIRATORS GROOMED HER FOR SEX WHEN SHE WAS 14 YEARS OLD AS SEX WHEN SHE WAS 14 YEARS OLD AS PART OF HIS SEX TRAFFICKING PART OF HIS SEX TRAFFICKING RING. RING. THE CO-CONSPIRATORS ALLEGED IN THE CO-CONSPIRATORS ALLEGED IN THE LAWSUIT INCLUDE GHISLAINE THE LAWSUIT INCLUDE GHISLAINE MAXWELL, MR. EPSTEIN’S LONG-TIME MAXWELL, MR. EPSTEIN’S LONG-TIME CONFIDENT AND JANE DOES ONE CONFIDENT AND JANE DOES ONE THROUGH THREE WHO ARE THREE THROUGH THREE WHO ARE THREE UNNAMED HOUSEHOLD STAFFERS UNNAMED HOUSEHOLD STAFFERS REFERRED TO IN THE LAWSUIT AS REFERRED TO IN THE LAWSUIT AS THE RECRUITER, THE SECRETARY, THE RECRUITER, THE SECRETARY, AND THE MAID. AND THE MAID. ADDITIONAL CIVIL SUITS AGAINST ADDITIONAL CIVIL SUITS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S ESTATE ARE JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S ESTATE ARE LIKELY. LIKELY. DESPITE HIS DEATH, THE CRIMINAL DESPITE HIS DEATH, THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO HIS ALLEGED INVESTIGATION INTO HIS ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS IS ONGOING. CO-CONSPIRATORS IS ONGOING. THAT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THAT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS OVERSEEN BY THE JUSTICE YORK IS OVERSEEN BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR. WILLIAM BARR. OUR NEXT GUEST, FORMER U.S. OUR NEXT GUEST, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY JOYCE VANCE HAS CALLED ATTORNEY JOYCE VANCE HAS CALLED ON BARR TO RECUSE HIMSELF WITH ON BARR TO RECUSE HIMSELF WITH REGARD TO THE EPSTEIN REGARD TO THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. JOYCE VANCE IS ALSO AN MSNBC JOYCE VANCE IS ALSO AN MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST. LEGAL ANALYST. SHE JOINS US NOW. SHE JOINS US NOW. JOYCE, WHAT’S THE BASIS ON WHICH JOYCE, WHAT’S THE BASIS ON WHICH YOU ARE CALLING FOR WILLIAM BARR YOU ARE CALLING FOR WILLIAM BARR TO RECUSE HIMSELF? TO RECUSE HIMSELF?>>SO I SHOULD BE CLEAR, ALI>>SO I SHOULD BE CLEAR, ALI THAT I DON’T MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT I DON’T MAKE THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT BARR IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT BARR IS ACTUALLY GOING TO RECUSE. ACTUALLY GOING TO RECUSE. I THINK THE SAD REALITY HERE IS I THINK THE SAD REALITY HERE IS THAT HE WON’T, BUT THE REASON HE THAT HE WON’T, BUT THE REASON HE SHOULD RECUSE IS BECAUSE HE HAS SHOULD RECUSE IS BECAUSE HE HAS BOTH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BOTH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CONFLICTS THAT HE HAS APPARENTLY CONFLICTS THAT HE HAS APPARENTLY DECIDED DON’T WARRANT RECUSAL, DECIDED DON’T WARRANT RECUSAL, BUT ALSO THOSE CONFLICTS GIVE BUT ALSO THOSE CONFLICTS GIVE RISE TO AN APPEARANCE OF RISE TO AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. IMPROPRIETY. THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN THE THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC CAN’T HAVE CONFIDENCE PUBLIC CAN’T HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT HE’S A NEUTRAL THAT HE’S A NEUTRAL DECISION-MAKER. DECISION-MAKER. AND WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE AND WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THAT IN A POSITION OF CONTROL THAT IN A POSITION OF CONTROL OVER AN IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION OVER AN IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION LIKE THE ONE INTO EPSTEIN’S LIKE THE ONE INTO EPSTEIN’S DEATH AND THE ONGOING CRIMINAL DEATH AND THE ONGOING CRIMINAL CASES, IT CAUSES THE PUBLIC TO CASES, IT CAUSES THE PUBLIC TO LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT. DOJ’S ALREADY STRETCHED TOO DOJ’S ALREADY STRETCHED TOO THIN. THIN. WE CAN’T AFFORD TO HAVE ANY MORE WE CAN’T AFFORD TO HAVE ANY MORE LOSS IN ITS REMGS AND INTEGRITY. LOSS IN ITS REMGS AND INTEGRITY.>>WHAT’S THE CONFLICT THAT YOU>>WHAT’S THE CONFLICT THAT YOU SEE THAT HE’S GOT? SEE THAT HE’S GOT?>>YOU KNOW, HE HAS A NUMBER OF>>YOU KNOW, HE HAS A NUMBER OF CONFLICTS STARTING WITH THE FACT CONFLICTS STARTING WITH THE FACT THAT AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING THAT AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING HE INDICATED THAT HIS FORMER LAW HE INDICATED THAT HIS FORMER LAW FIRM HAD DONE SOME WORK ON FIRM HAD DONE SOME WORK ON BEHALF OF EPSTEIN, AND HE WOULD BEHALF OF EPSTEIN, AND HE WOULD LOOK INTO WHETHER THAT WARRANTED LOOK INTO WHETHER THAT WARRANTED RECUSAL. RECUSAL. BUT ALSO, ALEX ACOSTA, HIS BUT ALSO, ALEX ACOSTA, HIS FORMER COLLEAGUE, THE FORMER FORMER COLLEAGUE, THE FORMER LABOR SECRETARY WAS INVOLVED IN LABOR SECRETARY WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT DOWN IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT DOWN IN FLORIDA FOR ACOSTA, WHICH HAS FLORIDA FOR ACOSTA, WHICH HAS CAUSED SO MUCH CONCERN. CAUSED SO MUCH CONCERN. THEIR RELATIONSHIP CERTAINLY IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP CERTAINLY IS SOME FORM OF A CONFLICT. SOME FORM OF A CONFLICT. AND THEN WE HAVE THIS REALLY AND THEN WE HAVE THIS REALLY CURIOUS FAMILY DETAIL THAT THE CURIOUS FAMILY DETAIL THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FATHER HIRED ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FATHER HIRED A VERY YOUNG JEFFREY EPSTEIN A VERY YOUNG JEFFREY EPSTEIN WHEN HE WAS A COLLEGE DROP-OUT WHEN HE WAS A COLLEGE DROP-OUT TO TEACH CALCULUS AND PHYSICS AT TO TEACH CALCULUS AND PHYSICS AT THE PREP SCHOOL THAT HE WAS THE THE PREP SCHOOL THAT HE WAS THE HEAD MASTER OF IN NEW YORK CITY. HEAD MASTER OF IN NEW YORK CITY. EVEN IF THESE AREN’T A FORMAL EVEN IF THESE AREN’T A FORMAL RECUSAL CONFLICT ISSUE, IN RECUSAL CONFLICT ISSUE, IN COMBINATION, THEY CREATE SUCH AN COMBINATION, THEY CREATE SUCH AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD HAVE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD HAVE STEPPED AWAY AND LET THE DEPUTY STEPPED AWAY AND LET THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SOMEONE ELSE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SOMEONE ELSE OVERSEE THIS MATTER. OVERSEE THIS MATTER.>>REPUBLICAN SENATOR BEN SASSE>>REPUBLICAN SENATOR BEN SASSE HAS CALLED UPON THE DEPARTMENT HAS CALLED UPON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO TAKE THAT DEAL OF JUSTICE TO TAKE THAT DEAL THAT WAS CUT IN FLORIDA, THE ONE THAT WAS CUT IN FLORIDA, THE ONE THAT LED UP THE INVESTIGATION THAT LED UP THE INVESTIGATION INTO THAT REPORTING FROM THE INTO THAT REPORTING FROM THE “MIAMI HERALD” AND RIP IT UP. “MIAMI HERALD” AND RIP IT UP. TELL ME ABOUT THAT. TELL ME ABOUT THAT. IS THAT EVEN DOABLE? IS THAT EVEN DOABLE?>>WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN>>WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN HERE IS A FULL-ON INVESTIGATION HERE IS A FULL-ON INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT HAPPENED, AND PERHAPS INTO WHAT HAPPENED, AND PERHAPS AN INVESTIGATION BY THE OFFICE AN INVESTIGATION BY THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. YOU CAN’T REALLY BE THE YOU CAN’T REALLY BE THE GOVERNMENT AND RIP UP A PLEA GOVERNMENT AND RIP UP A PLEA AGREEMENT DOWN THE ROAD IN THE AGREEMENT DOWN THE ROAD IN THE ABSENCE OF VERY UNUSUAL ABSENCE OF VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. CIRCUMSTANCES.>>BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS YOUR>>BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE OTHER DEALS? ABILITY TO MAKE OTHER DEALS?>>WELL, IT DOES.>>WELL, IT DOES. AND ALSO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL AND ALSO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE VERY STRONGLY FAVOR PROCEDURE VERY STRONGLY FAVOR THE FINALITY OF PLEA AGREEMENTS. THE FINALITY OF PLEA AGREEMENTS. SO YOU CAN’T WALK IN DOWN THE SO YOU CAN’T WALK IN DOWN THE ROAD A DECADE LATER AND SAY I ROAD A DECADE LATER AND SAY I TAKE IT BACK. TAKE IT BACK. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IF BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IF YOU’RE SOMEONE WHO IS ENGAGED IN YOU’RE SOMEONE WHO IS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT YOU CAN’T CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT YOU CAN’T BE PROSECUTED. BE PROSECUTED. IN THIS CASE, OTHER FEDERAL IN THIS CASE, OTHER FEDERAL DISTRICTS OR EVEN BY STATE DISTRICTS OR EVEN BY STATE JURISDICTION. JURISDICTION. SO IT’S NOT LIKE THE GOVERNMENT SO IT’S NOT LIKE THE GOVERNMENT IS WITHOUT A WAY OF DEALING WITH IS WITHOUT A WAY OF DEALING WITH THE ERROR THAT WAS MADE IN THE THE ERROR THAT WAS MADE IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT OR WOULD HAVE PLEA AGREEMENT OR WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD EPSTEIN NOT DIED IN BEEN HAD EPSTEIN NOT DIED IN PRISON. PRISON.>>YOU KNOW, USUALLY PROSECUTORS>>YOU KNOW, USUALLY PROSECUTORS WHEN YOU’RE TRYING TO GET WHEN YOU’RE TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY THE HEAD OF SOMETHING SOMEBODY THE HEAD OF SOMETHING WORK YOUR WAY UP, YOU FIND WORK YOUR WAY UP, YOU FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE JUNIOR TO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE JUNIOR TO THAT PERSON AND GET THEM TO TURN OR PERSON AND GET THEM TO TURN OR GET THEM TO SOMEHOW TESTIFY. GET THEM TO SOMEHOW TESTIFY. NOW IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE NOW IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS GONE, WE HAVE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS GONE, WE HAVE BEEN HEARING SINCE DAY ONE THAT BEEN HEARING SINCE DAY ONE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS THING. IN THIS THING. DOES THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS DOES THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS UNDER WAY WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN, UNDER WAY WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN, DOES THAT DIE AND DOES THAT HAVE DOES THAT DIE AND DOES THAT HAVE TO START AGAIN? TO START AGAIN? AND WHY HASN’T SOMETHING AND WHY HASN’T SOMETHING HAPPENED ALREADY GIVEN THAT WE HAPPENED ALREADY GIVEN THAT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSISTENTLY PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSISTENTLY REFERRED TO BY THESE ALLEGED REFERRED TO BY THESE ALLEGED VICTIMS? VICTIMS?>>SO IN A FEDERAL CASE, WHEN A>>SO IN A FEDERAL CASE, WHEN A DEFENDANT DIES A CRIMINAL CASE, DEFENDANT DIES A CRIMINAL CASE, THE PROSECUTION COMES TO AN END. THE PROSECUTION COMES TO AN END. THAT’S TRUE EVEN IF EPSTEIN HAD THAT’S TRUE EVEN IF EPSTEIN HAD BEEN CONVICTED AT TRIAL AND THE BEEN CONVICTED AT TRIAL AND THE CASE HAD BEEN ON APPEAL AND HE CASE HAD BEEN ON APPEAL AND HE DIED ON APPEAL. DIED ON APPEAL. THE DEATH OF A DEFENDANT SIGNALS THE DEATH OF A DEFENDANT SIGNALS THE END OF THAT CASE. THE END OF THAT CASE. AS YOU POINT OUT, THOUGH, AS YOU POINT OUT, THOUGH, EPSTEIN WAS CHARGED AS A EPSTEIN WAS CHARGED AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN A SEX CO-CONSPIRATOR IN A SEX TRAFFICKING CONSPIRACY. TRAFFICKING CONSPIRACY. PRESUMABLY THAT MEANS THERE ARE PRESUMABLY THAT MEANS THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE CRIMINALLY CULPABLE CRIMINALLY CULPABLE CONSPIRATORS. CONSPIRATORS. AND I EXPECT BASED ON THE AND I EXPECT BASED ON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE U.S. STATEMENT MADE BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY AND SOUTHERN DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, THAT AT THE POINT OF NEW YORK, THAT AT THE POINT WHERE HE BELIEVES HE HAS WHERE HE BELIEVES HE HAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT THOSE CO-CONSPIRATORS, HE THOSE CO-CONSPIRATORS, HE INTENDS TO MOVE FORWARD EVEN

2 Replies to “New Case Against Jeffrey Epstein | All In | MSNBC

  1. No female should win a lawsuit against Epstein’s estate unless she can prove: 1. She was actually on that Island at some time while she was underage AND 2. At least ONCE during that time while on that island her parent(s)/guardian filed a Missing Persons Police Report. Without #2 directly above, no court should waste its time. Taxpayers pay/absorb a lot of our “day in court” costs. If there was no police report filed by the parent/guardian back several years ago, then the female should be suing HER PARENTS, and not be suing the Epstein estate. Otherwise, all this is just a Deep Pockets lawsuit and the court should dismiss those cases.

  2. Is there are any victims out there, it's NOT shame on you! Please forward it to the police or let someone know about it, so there will be less victims in the world!
    세상에 짐승만도 못한 정신병자들 너무많네요! 즉시로 보고해야만 피해자가 줄어듬니다!👹👹

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *