Ghislaine Maxwell: Judge Nathan Confirmation Hearing + Mindmap Release

The Presiding Judge in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Judge Alison Nathan, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Hearing Committee today. ​

🔹 RELEASED! Ghislaine Maxwell Mindmap: https://mm.tt/map/2105681969?t=Q999Oc3TcG​
🔹 Senator Ted Cruz questions Judge Alison Nathan during her (?) confirmation hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee.​
🔹 Maxwell Defense Lawyers seek to call three lawyers for questioning: Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, Robert Glassman​
🔹 Government Prosecutors seek to preclude direct examination of these witnesses.​
🔹 Viva’s @viva frei’s channel at 7 p.m. Eastern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eabTAzSKH-s​
🔹 Your comments and questions (if we have time)!​

COMMUNITY + LIVECHAT + MINDMAP ACCESS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

MINDMAP SOFTWARE (affiliate-link):​

👉 https://www.mindmeister.com/?r=1185699​

Channel List:​

👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​
✂ Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 January 2022 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​
🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​
🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #GhislaineMaxwell #MaxwellTrial #Epstein #EpsteinDidntKillHimself #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwel

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert grr. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R and R law group. We're located in Scottsdale, Arizona, and we've been covering the Galin Maxwell trial for quite some time. Although they've been on hiatus the last three days, they haven't even been in trial. We just had weeks of the government, prosecutors presenting their case in chief, and then they just paused three days, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, no trial, no court proceedings happening turns out that's because judge Allison, Nathan, the judge presiding overly Maxwell, she had somewhere else to be the day she was in front of the Senate judiciary committee, testifying for her second circuit court nomination. So we're gonna check in on that proceeding. We have a little bit of Dick Durbin. Of course, he's a Senator on ju the judiciary committee for the Democrats asking judge Allison, Nathan, the Glenn Maxwell trial judge, some questions or less questions, but more of an opportunity for her to ramble on about a former Supreme court judge. Then we're gonna change and listen to Ted Cruz. On the other side of the aisle, of course, he's a Republican judge. Allison Nathan is, uh, presumably a Democrat or nominated by the Democrats, Joe Biden. And so Ted crew had some questions for the judge about, you know, very H issues that are at the forefront of, of the country. You know, things like the death penalty, Ted Cruz is gonna sit here and ask a judge about the death penalty.<laugh> for her nomination process, uh, rather than, you know, whatever's going on out there, uh, in America that most, uh, people actually care about. So we're gonna get to see some of that. You're gonna get to see more of our Charlotte and Congress people, uh, asking federal judges irrelevant questions for a fake nomination process in the middle of a Glen Maxwell trial, when there's a more pressing issue involving global trafficking, uh, international organizations and<laugh> rings of the most powerful people in the world. Okay? So we've got a lot on that. Judge, Allison, Nathan in front of the, on a judiciary committee, we're gonna break that down and then we also have an update from the court because there's a very interesting series of letters flying back and forth. Remember, we're in federal court talking about go Maxwell. And the defense is now trying to get certain witnesses in, to come in and testify. They're gonna start their case in chief tomorrow, Thursday, and they've already disclosed something like 35 different witnesses. As part of those witnesses, we're looking at three different defense attorneys, or maybe let's just not call'em the defense attorneys, but we'll just call them regular attorneys. Some of them are plaintiffs lawyers who are representing some of the victims in this case. And other cases, people like Jack scar, we've got Brad Edwards and Rob Robert Glassman. These are attorneys who Robert Glassman represented Jane as her lawyer in several different suits and Goins Maxwell. Her lawyers are trying to get Robert Glassman, the lawyer to come in as a witness. And so there's a lot of back and forth about this defense is saying, no. I mean, these people are qualified. They're, they're perfectly legal to call them attorney, client privilege, all of that stuff. Well, we can just kind of scoot around all of those issues. We're not even gonna ask them any questions about that. And so we've got a lot of letters all over the place from the prosecution, from the defense, having this out, talking about these lawyers and whether they can be a part of the defense case in chief, which is set to start tomorrow. And so we've got a lot to get to, however, it is gonna be a short show. We mentioned this yesterday that this is a one hour show. We have hard stop right before 7:00 PM Eastern time, cuz we're going over to Viva's house. We're packing up our bags. We're joining Joe Neman. We're joining Viva. We're joining Robert Barnes over on sidebar with Viva Barnes. And so if you're gonna be sticking around, we've got one short hour, we better make it good. Then we're jumping over his channel. That channel of course is down linked, uh, linked down in the description. Also good news. The mind map is now publicly available. So I, I made some final tweaks to that, kind of got the day nice and organized the way that I like ITIN Maxwell is now public. So if you're watching this wherever you're watching this down in the description, there is a link to the mine map. It was previously sort of, uh, kept behind a pay wall over for our supporters@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. All the other mind maps are gonna still be behind that paywall, but because we're right in the middle of Galin and the defense is starting its case in chief tomorrow, while we gotta get our bearing straight. And so it's now publicly available, please enjoy it. Please share it. If you think it's cool, send it to a friend and say, look at all this nefarious going on, look at the complexity of this case. And it only took them eight days of testimony to present their case in chief with all of this stuff going on eight days. And then you can kind of just, uh, ask people to draw their own conclusions about the integrity of this prosecution. And so we've got a lot to talk about if you wanna be a part of the program, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. We have a form. We may not be able to get to questions today. We'll see how much time we have, but if you wanna submit a question and there is the form to do it, and if, uh, there are leftovers, we'll get to them tomorrow or Friday during a live stream for locals supporters on YouTube. Thank you for those super chats yesterday, we had one from not applicable. They show up on the screen just like that. And of course, I very much appreciate that. We also have a clips channel clips channel is at Robert grr Esq clips. It looks this. And if you're looking for just individual segments that you can share with family or friends, that's the channel to do it. And we'd appreciate a subscribe there as well. Okay. So let's get into the news of the day. Golin Maxwell had a little bit of a trial hiatus, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, no trial. And last week when we were covering this, we were all a little bit a curious as to why we were taken three days off randomly in the middle of the trial. Remember that the government case in chief was finished on Friday and then the defense was supposed to start. We've got Christmas coming up. We've got new years. The prosecution was telling us this was gonna take six weeks, turned out. It took'em two less than that took.'em really eight days of actual trial testimony to present their evidence. And then they just kind of, uh, puttered out, oh, we're done. We had enough there. And so it was weird that we just have three days of just no trial. Wasn't Christmas. Wasn't a holiday, nothing like that turns out. Here's why judge at Allison, Nathan, the judge presiding over the Glenn Maxwell case. She had to attend her second circuit court of appeals confirmation. Hearing the nomination all took place today. You can see here, honorable Charles Schumer sitting in front of the Senate judiciary committee, Senator. And over here to his left, we have judge Allison, Nathan masked up. Now this is the judge. We don't see anything of her. Really. We haven't seen her from photographs in a long time cuz she's a federal judge. And of course there's no courtroom video photography, you know, nothing allowed other than just what you see in the sketches really that's it. So we zoom in here's judge Nathan, very excited. She's moving on up. Senate judiciary committee posted this. They said, watch today, live 10:00 AM. Eastern time. The judiciary committee is holding a hearing on the nomination of Allison, Nathan to the second circuit court of appeals. They're also gonna be considering five nominees for the lower level district court. And so we had a full day over at the Senate judiciary committee. You can see here panel one, which is the big one is judge Allison, J Nathan, right in the middle of the Galin Maxwell trial. Good time to just sort of pause, shift gears a little bit. You know, federal judges can walk, chew gum at the same time. And so even though we're in the middle of this trial, now, it's just a good idea for this judge to have her mind focused on the next major move in her career. You know, if you think that now some people might be saying that this is a little bit strange, Rob, why OI would they be nominating her? And this whole thing would be happening, you know, right in the middle of a, of one of the most high pro all cases of this judge's career seems very coincidental. Or maybe, maybe that's all it is. It is just a coincidence, right? She's just a judge been working as a judge for a long time. It's ju there's an opening on the bench. Joe Biden got swept into power with his 81 million votes. And now all this is, is just business as usual, nothing to see here. Or if you're on the other side of that equation, you say, yeah, very convenient, really convenient. Because when you learn a little bit more about judge Nathan, when you learn a little bit more about her wife, when you learn a little bit more about all this stuff, then you stay, you, you start to ask yourself, maybe they're trying to sideline this judge. Maybe they're trying to move this judge out of the, the position some way by nominating her up to the second circuit that she has less hands on this actual case. There's a third theory. Some people saying, well, if she's up on the court of appeals and the case has to be appealed into her circuit, maybe she'll have some more influence in the second circuit that she very likely would have to recuse herself from being able to rule on that. But she would still be up in there. So, uh, you know, a lot of the conspiracy theories, a lot of fun, different permutations of which way this could go and I like exploring them, but it's gonna be up for, to you to decide whether you think there's nefarious going on here, or if this is just business, as usual as I said, so this is the panel from the, on the judiciary, Alison Nathan, second circuit court of appeals. And this is taking place in the Dirkson Senate office building today, December 15th. That's why there's no trial. She has to go and testify during her confirmation hearing. She's been nominated. So what is the second cor circuit court? I know, you know, for a lot of people, we hear these words thrown around a lot, the Supreme court, the court of appeals, the second circuit, fourth circuit, fifth circuit goes on and on. We've got all the district courts, we've got the Southern district of New York. We have the Northern district of Virginia. We've got all these different districts and it's complicated. So what is actually happening with judge Allison, Nathan here currently. And I think I lifted this screenshot off of, uh, some university or high school class, but I like, it's pretty good. We've got district courts down here at the bottom level. Now this is where judge Allison, Nathan is seated. Currently. She is down here in this level. She's out out of the Southern district of New York and she wants to work her way on up there. So the court of appeals, we you've got her moving on up to the second circuit. The second circuit covers this part of the country. And so as of course, this is out of the Southern district of New York. And so judge Allison, Nathan would be, if she's on the second circuit, she's gonna be hearing cases from New York. We've got Vermont and we've got Connecticut. So, uh, sort of those three states, two small states in two, one really, really big one of course, New York is, you know, massive population. And so that's who we're talking about, judge Allison, Nathan, that's what she wants to do. She's currently at a lower level district court. She's hearing this trial, she's kind of tired of trials. You know, it's kind of a pain in the butt to listen to the evidence and rule on objections and all that stuff. So she wants a promotion. You go up to the court of appeals, no more trials. Now you just have to deal with, uh, ruling on lower level district court issues. And it's a whole different ballgame. So she is in front of the Senate judiciary committee today. Dick Durban is asking her some questions. She talks a lot about a former Supreme court judge and just her admiration for what an amazing guy he is. This is what a lot of this stuff is. It's just a bunch of slapping each other on the back here. It is,

Speaker 2: 11:22

You have exercised your right as an American citizen to express yourself throughout your life, sometimes on issues of controversy. And I'm sure, uh, taking positions that are not shared by every member of this committee, you were fortunate in my view. And I think in yours as well to be clerk, to judge justice, John Paul Stevens, a man whom I know and admire very, very much. Uh, you spoke at his Memorial service and made a statement about what he meant to you and what he represented in terms of the image of a judge. Would you recount that to the committee?

Speaker 3: 12:00

Thank you, chairman Durban. Um, he was, uh, uh, a Chicago and through and through, um, and I miss him very much. He died a few years ago.

Speaker 1: 12:08

I miss him. He died a few years

Speaker 3: 12:09

Ago, meant a lot to me on many levels, but I, as a model of, uh, a judicial officer, he brought, um, intelligence, integrity, impartiality, uh, and an open mind to every case before him. And I got to watch that upfront. I saw him, um, learn from his colleagues. I, I saw him express his views, uh, on issues with strength and, uh, courage, uh, in his judicial writings and in his approach to cases. Uh, and he taught me something that I've tried to embody throughout my career, which is you can disagree without being disagreeable. Um, and you have to approach every case with an open mind.

Speaker 2: 12:53

Some of the faces have changed, but you're familiar with the territory here in this committee, as you've noted, uh, uh, last time around, uh, some of your critics said you were an activist, an activist at an activist viewpoint. Would you like to respond to that?

Speaker 3: 13:09

Yeah. Thank you, Senator. Um, I, I think what I would say is I've been a judge for 10 years. Um, I've presided over more than 3000 cases. I've written more than 1500 opinions. I hope that my record establishes the kind of judge that I am. And should I be confirmed to the circuit? The kind of judge that I would be

Speaker 1: 13:31

All right. So well done there, judge Allison, Nathan Ray, really good. It's good answers. Right? And that's what this whole thing is all about. It's just this game of Patty cake that takes place every so often every time we have to go through this whole facade, you bring a judge, you have them talk, you know, in gigantic generalities, huge, vague responses. Well, you know, justice, uh, well, he, uh, ruled on cases with honor and, and integral and he acted with courage and anything that landed on his desk. Well, he gave it his full thought and he took it very seriously and he ruled and he always fought for justice. And then they come up with these like little pithy things. And that's why we can agree with, uh, disagree without being disagreeable. It's like, Ugh, it's like so painful for somebody who actually wants to see some substance and you just don't get, so it, it, you know, we're just used to that at this point. I, I would like to see our system work better. I would like to see more serious inquiries of people. I would like our government to meet, to be more than just a, uh, dog and pony show. I would like our political prosecutions to be effective. I'm sorry, not our political prosecutions to be effective. How, but we don't have political pro. How about the real prosecutions are effective? You know, that we're not sort of, uh, faking like we're investigating or prosecuting some of the worst people on the planet, you know, actually doing it. Like that's kind of what I would like to see out of a society. But, uh, instead we get a lot of this stuff. Judge, Allison, Nathan, she was appointed previously by Barack Obama. She's married to Meg satwa Wadi. We're gonna learn a little bit more about her. And so, you know, you take a look at a judge like this. Somebody who you know, was appointed by Barack Obama, somebody who has been in this position for a very long time, let's read a little bit more about her bio. Uh, she was a law clerk associate for John Paul Stevens on the us Supreme court. Uh, mostly an inconsequential judge during the 2004 presidential campaign. She was John Carey's associate national council. She was on the Kerry Edwards presidential campaign. So she's a Democrat through and through academic focus was on civil procedure and death penalty, ju Rudins. And of course, Ted Cruz is gonna come in here and beat her up over this a little bit from 2009 to 2010, she was the special assistant to the president. She was the associate we house council in the Barack Obama administration. And so she gets appointed in 2010 us district court judge. She was a guest at the Harvard law school of mu court position. She's 49 years old. Uh, two children went to Cornell and so you can see she's just working her way up, gets appointed by Barack Obama, way to cycle. Now it's Joe Biden's turn. Okay. Now we give her a cycle up. Now she works up to the second circuit. Now the question is, you know, she's kind of a liberal judge, right? And sort of the liberal side of the aisle, generally speaking in very broad strokes, you sort of aren't, they kind of like the me too activist movement, right? Like everything that a, a man does is, you know, part of the male, patriarchy and society is so wretched because of, uh, you know, what's the, what's the oh, toxic mass ity. That's the one. Yeah, isn't that, that party. And she's part of that party. And we're dealing with the case. That's kind of like a nuclear bomb of me too. It's kinda like the biggest, maybe me too. It's, you know, one of the, the allegations, at least nothing's been proven, but the allegations are pretty severe in that category. And so you you'd think a judge like this would lean towards action and stopping this type of activity globally. Especially when the judge is married to this woman, this woman is Margaret sadder. Wai. Now she's also a professor. She's also a lawyer. She's at law. She's the faculty director over center for human rights and global justice rights and global justice. Hmm. Here's what she focuses on. She is the professor of clinical law faculty director at the Robert Bernstein Institute for human rights. Also the center for human rights and global justice. She's the director of global justice at the NYU school of law. Her research in interest in legal empowerment, vicarious trauma, and wellbeing, amongst human rights workers. She clerked for judge Betty Fletcher of the ninth circuit. So also a lawyer also been sort of in the federal system. And she is a person interested in global justice in human rights, which a lot of what is happening in the Maxwell case seems to be oppositional to that. So that is judge Allison, Nathan's wife, a human rights advocate. Here, you have a series of human rights abuses that are alleged. So judge Allison, Nathan, once again is back now in front of the Senate judiciary committee, we heard the game of Patty cake that she was playing with Dick Durban. We're gonna get a different version of that. This is the game of Patty cake that you play when you are sort of make believing that you're angry each other. This is how that looks. This is Ted Cruz.

Speaker 4: 18:33

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judge. Welcome. Thank you. Now I have to say in the past year we've seen a, a pattern of judicial nominees from president Biden, where over and over again, nominees are, have records of being partisan and ideological extremists rather than men and women committed to following the rule of law. And, and looking at your record, I'm concerned that this nomination follows that pattern. Uh, you have had, um, predictably kneejerk left wing views on the second amendment on immigration I on the death penalty, uh, on crime. Uh, I wanna start with, with, with the latter, um, on the death penalty, you, you opposed the death penalty

Speaker 3: 19:23

Senator I've never, um, had a, well, let me say this as a, before I became a judge, I never indicated any view regarding the constitutionality of death penalty. Um, as a sitting judge, I have had capital eligible cases. Um, there were not seeks of death. In those cases, I was fully prepared to apply the law, uh, in those cases. Uh, and the death penalty is constitutional. I, I would apply any Supreme court and second circuit precedent.

Speaker 4: 19:56

So, but you've spent what,

Speaker 1: 19:59

All right, so Ted Cruz, right? We're, we're going, we get the same answers on every one of these, but you know, we just have to slog through it. I mean, we've done this several times here on this channel. It's the same, well, you know, Senator, I've been saying, thinking about the constitution and as long as it's constitutional, I'm a judge. And my role as a judge is only to apply the facts and the law to the, and make sure nothing, okay. Got it. But that's not what you've been saying when you've been on the bench, here it is. What,

Speaker 4: 20:23

10 years as a federal judge, have you imposed the death penalty? In any case?

Speaker 3: 20:27

I have never had, uh, I've had cases that were death eligible and, you know, the process involves the local office in main justice, determining whether or not to seek the death penalty. The death penalty has never been sought in any of the cases over which I've presided. That process takes time. So I have presided over cases that were death eligible.

Speaker 4: 20:47

We've got limit.

Speaker 1: 20:49

All right. So again, right. It, it it's a lot of the talk. It, it, it is exactly what you would expect. She does a good job. You can't fault a woman for it. There's a game here she's playing it. They're gonna bring her in here. Ted Cruz gets six minutes to beat her up over some questions. And he's really just trying to get some points out there. Now she continues. Ted Cruz gets a little bit more aggressive, says I actually argued that case. You know, the one that you're talking about, I argued the precedent on that. Now, Ted Cruz is a very smart man. He's no dummy. He, you know, is very, I think, effective as a politician, he knows how to generate red meats issues, but he's not guy, I think did he, he went to one of the Ivy league law schools and he's, you know, master debater of whatever this, that, and the other. He's not a dummy. Sometimes he plays dumb for political purposes, but he's not dumb part of the same caliber of legal mind as this person. And so what's happening here is you're talking about two of, some of the most, uh, you know, intellectually powerful legal minds in this country, kind of dumbing everything down and engaging in this little game of Patty cake with one another. And so Ted Cruz is gonna try to score some, you know, some nice little, uh, you know, Twitter sound bite that people like me will play. And then what Allison Nathan is trying to do is just not to get rattled too much or say anything too stupid. That's gonna make sure she doesn't get confirmed. And so that's all this is. So we have another one of those here's Ted Cruz. Who's gonna, you know, do the same thing. Um, I don't have a view that could

Speaker 4: 22:17

Be expressed and I can, you don't have a view. You spent years litigating, let's say you, you led an Amicus brief in bays versus Reese trying to challenge the death penalty. You participated in a Supreme court panel in 2007, discussing bays, and you also discussed Kennedy versus Louisiana. That happens to be a case. I know. Well, I argued Kennedy versus Louisiana.<laugh>, uh, it dealt with a truly horrific crime of a 300 pound man who brutally raped his eight year old stepdaughter so much so that it left permanent, uh, injuries, uh, to that young girl, uh, your notes for the panel at the time said, but the actual question and issue has nothing to do with innocence. Um,

Speaker 1: 22:59

So he goes on, I actually argued that case, right? And he's, and he's also doing a good job. This is what these hearings are for. We all know it's gonna come down to a party line vote and more or less, and actually that's true. You may get a bunch of Republicans or like, whatever, just let her through because it's not that consequential of a confirmation, right? These are, these are circuit court, second circuit court of appeals. There's a lot of'em. These nominations are sort of part of the new part of the deal. When you get a new administration, come in, people retire. Other people move on up very different than a Supreme court nominee, which is next level up. So if she does get confirmed, she'll be at the second circuit and she'll be one, you know, she'll be in that category of people that might move their way up to the Supreme court at some point down the line. So again, you know, she's out there trying to hold it together. Ted Cruz is trying to score some points. We learn a little bit more. Now we're gonna move past the death penalty stuff, which was like an issue I think 20 years ago. Uh, you know, not so sure many people are killing themselves over it, but right now, but that's a separate issue. They talk now about this compassionate release stuff and this first step act, and this COVID issue, here's Ted Cruz with swell judge Allison, Nathan,

Speaker 4: 24:07

Uh, the Biden administration keeps nominating radicals when it comes to criminal justice. Two of the senior officials of the department of justice are among the leading advocates for abolishing the police, the us attorney. Now in the district of Massachusetts, as a prosecutor, put out a list of 15 crimes, she would not. And as I look at your record, uh, you have a pattern on so-called compassionate release of releasing violent criminals. So for example, in United States versus Steven, the defendant had been indicted in part of what the department of justice called the largest gang take down in New York city history. Uh, the defendant was one of 120 member of rival street gangs that were busted for racketeering narcotics, firearms offenses. He was later arrested for violating the terms of his supervised release. Last year, you set him free and, and that was bad judgment. And what's remarkable is that you released this criminal without even waiting to hear from the government, whether he was a threat to society. In fact, the government planned to present you with substantial evidence from video surveillance footage and testimony from two law enforcement officers that he was unlawfully carrying a firearm. And so was a threat to society. Why did you release a violent criminal without even waiting to hear from the prosecution about whether he was to the community?

Speaker 3: 25:28

Senator Cruz? I, I, I have had many cases, uh, during the pandemic as all judges have regarding compassionate release in each of them. And actually, I think that was not a compassionate release case if I recall correctly, but, um, forgive me. I, I, I, I'm not sure in each of those cases, I have analyzed the factors under first step back and 18 USC section 35, 53, a by and large, uh, the majority of cases, uh, compassionate release was denied. Um, okay, let me try.

Speaker 1: 26:05

Okay, so he's gonna try again, but what she's talking about here, it's a very good question from Ted Cruz. Very good answer from the judge. He's asking her, and it's a little bit, it's a little bit, you know, tricky what T Ted Cruz is doing. He's going back. You heard her say, judge Allison, Nathan says I've handled 3000 cases. It's a lot of cases. He goes back through the entire list and says, well, this one was really bad. You let this guy out. And he went and did a bunch of really bad things. So that's pretty bad judgment. And maybe we shouldn't confirm you to the second circuit. What do you have to say to that? And so judge Allison, Nathan says, well, look, you know, it's, it's how we do things. We look at different factors and we come to a determination based on our application of those factors, to the facts of this case. She started going off and referencing the us code and the first step back and said, okay, well, that guy came through when his file landed on my bench, here's what I did. I looked at the facts of the case and I went through and I applied the law and I came to a conclusion and what I knew then in there, and right then at that moment justified his release or in the middle of COVID all of these things, but yeah, something bad happened. But that doesn't mean that my judgment at that time was wrong, right? Hindsight's 2020. Everybody can make that argument. I, if I, if only I would have known, I would've done things differently at the time she didn I was gonna go do all that stuff. And so Ted Cruz is being maybe a little bit disingenuous, except for the point that he asks why she didn't wait for the government's input on this. And we spend a lot of time talking about this very, very important part of a criminal case, any criminal case it's release conditions that are typically said at the arraignment or the initial appearance, it, somebody is arrested and brought into custody. We fight all the time about this. Kyle rid house sat in custody for something like 80 days because his moron lawyers couldn't figure it out. He had a 2 million bond. That's why he sat there for months. Very important. If he had competent lawyers, he would not have been sitting there for months, but this is the things that lawyers fight about release condition. And you're always asking yourself, various factors prior record, any tendency to violence. Are they a flight risk? Do they have ties to the community? Are their parents gonna vet vouch for them? That all goes into an analysis. And if judge Allison, Nathan concluded that it justified this gentleman's release, well, then she's justified on that. But not without taking the opinion of the prosecution. If the prosecution came in and said, judge, you should wait before releasing that guy because X, Y, and Z, if she didn't give the government the opportunity to come in and make their case, uh, judge, we've got 10 criminal records of this guy he's wanted in four other states. How about you? Don't let him go. We're gonna be asking for a 1 million bond on this guy, cuz he's a danger to society. He's a flight risk and he's a gonna be, you know, a harm to himself and others. Then you ask for the judge to pause for a moment and allow both sides to make their arguments before deciding to release him. Apparently Ted Cruz says she didn't do that, which is concerning because that's typically not how things at work. And she says that well, that's typically not how I do things. So I can't remember specifically what happened there. Oh, well Ted Cruz wraps up. I think this is our last clip asking her to clarify about this one last time.

Speaker 4: 29:16

Try again. Cuz my my time has expired. If you would answer the question I asked you, which is why did you release this violent criminal without even waiting to hear what the prosecution had to say about whether he was a threat to the community?

Speaker 3: 29:32

Senator, I, I don't have a, I don't have a memory of that procedural posture. I, I have to say my practice of course is to hear from both sides, um, before issuing decisions, either in writing or orally. So I, as I sit here, I don't know what you're referencing. Thank you.

Speaker 1: 29:51

Doesn't know what he is talking about. Usually hear both sides of the case. So he found something that maybe she didn't do that maybe she granted a release without listening to the government. So we'll see what happens. That's judge Allison, Nathan I'd expect her to be confirmed. She's already been, you know, somebody who's been appointed to the us district court for the Southern district of New York. She's presiding over Galin Maxwell, but maybe that's a qualification that boosts her up to the second circuit. It we'll see, we'll see what the Senate judiciary committee says and continue to follow along. All right, next up, we are taking a look at the Galin Maxwell. The court docket Galin Maxwell court docket has been updated and we've got some interesting things to take a look at. If we go here, we notice that on 1215 that's today, the date of this recording, we have two new letters that just got submitted onto the record. We're gonna start off with a letter that came in yesterday. Specifically, this is from the defense. The defense sent this letter in Jeff Paka sent it G silent, like lasagna filed under seal, but we don't have many redactions on here. We actually got a copy of this document. Notice that down here on 1215, the us government, they actually filed, uh, this docket entry 5 45. And they're asking no, no, no. It's down here. Uh, entry 5 46 is proposed redaction to the privileged letters. So what we have is the us government is now bonding to the defense letter and they're telling them we gotta redact a bunch of this stuff. Let me show you what that looks like first. And then we'll take a look at the actual letter. So let me frame that out a little bit better. Defense here is saying that we want to interview or call as witnesses. Three lawyers, right? Right here, Jack Scarola Brad Edwards. Robert Glassman prosecution is saying we do not want them to testify and we need to redact the actual letter that was filed by the defense. They're unhappy with Jeff PA's letter. So 5 45 is their response to the letter. Five is they want it redacted. All right, let's dig into it. This is the request for the redaction first, before we actually read it, they're saying judge Nathan government respectfully seeks redactions to the defendant's letter motion, which we're gonna read next. It's talking about Jack Scarola Brad Edwards and Robert Glassman. And it's also talking about the ceiling of exhibit one, which is a, a specific letter. They say the government's proposed redactions are in line with the law. And they say that these redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interest of a minor victim, who is the subject of a court's pseudonym order. You see what they're saying? Prosecution is saying what's in this letter is violating the privacy rights of a minor victim, who is the subject of a court's pseudonym order. We've already known this because we know that Robert Glassman represented Jane Robert Glassman came out in testimony as representing Jane. We already heard that. So we know that this is the situation. So what is the defense asking for? What are Maxwell's lawyers demanding? Here's what they're saying. They're saying. All right, judge. Listen, I write to alert the court to the questions that Ms. Maxwell anticipates asking these attorneys, attorney Scarola, attorney Edwards and attorney Glassman. And we're going to be explaining why none of the answers here are gonna be protected by attorney client privilege. So that's the first thing you think about. They're gonna call in an attorney. They're gonna call in Jane's lawyer to ask about that. Lawyer's representation of Jane. What are you nuts? Are you outta your mind? There's attorney, client privilege there. You can't get access to that conversation. That's all protected. One of the most sacred privileges that exists. How dare you, Glen Maxwell's defense attorneys even called these people is the prosecutor would say, but the defense says not so fast there, buddy. The attorney client privilege. It only protects from disclosure, a communication maybe between a client and counsel that's it. And that was intended and was in fact kept confidential. Okay? So if, if, if you have a privilege conversation and you have a fact and you share that, guess what not privileged anymore. And number three was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, three criteria for a bit of conversation to be protected by that attorney, client privilege. Number one, the actual communication is happening between a client and an an attorney. If it's just two people, not one, one is not a lawyer. Then that's obviously is not attorney client privilege. Number two, it was intended to be confidential. You're not having a conversation at a bar in old town and it was in fact kept confidential. And number three, it, the conversation the communication was made for the purpose of actually getting or providing legal advice. So if it doesn't fit those three criteria, is it really protected? In other words, can Maxwell's defense team drag those lawyers into court and ask them questions as long as their answers are not within those confines of those three rules, as long as it wasn't an actual conversation with a client that was confidential kept in fact, to be confidential, Maxwell's lawyers say we should be able to ask about that. They say none of the questions that Maxwell intends to ask these witnesses, even implicates attorney, client privileges, indeed. None of the calls, none calls for an attorney to reveal any confidential information about his client. None of it asked them to talk about, uh, providing or obtaining legal services, nothing to do with that. Rather all the questions, concern interactions between the attorneys themselves and the agents of the government, the agents of the government uhoh these lawyers were working with at the government. And they will have questions about that. They're saying that these answers that they want from the questions that they're going to be asking are all relevant to show how and why Maxwell's accusers came to cooperate with the prosecution and testify against Ms. Maxwell. Do you see where this is is going? We have another piece of the puzzle that we can add into the pie. Let's go to the mine map, which is now publicly available everywhere. Not only for watching the watchers.locals.com supporters, but everybody. So check the description down below. All right, now we're taking a look at prosecutorial integrity questions. We're saying here that Maxwell's defense team. They, they are demanding that these lawyers come in, not because they're gonna ask them about their conversations with their clients. Not because they wanna know anything about Robert Glassman, the attorney for Jane, but they wanna know about the conversation between Glassman and the prosecutors, the, the FBI people. Let's take a look at the mine map. We can see, Ooh boy, we've got a lot of activity over here. We've got a lot of people who are browsing around. I see. Guess 50 eights over poking around taking a look at Jane. Well, guess what? That's where we're going. Jane, as we can see, has an attorney named Robert Glassman. Robert Glassman represented her in prior incidents. Prior lawsuits, prior representation. If we scroll down here, we can see that we've organized the defense witnesses now into legal witnesses. Robert Glassman is one of these individuals. He represented Jane. Interestingly has the same name as somebody who is also one of Epstein's assistants. We learned that as well. Okay. Her actual first name was the same name as somebody who is one of Epstein's assistant. So when Jane's name appears in the flight log, maybe it's not Jane's name is what the defense is saying. Maybe it's Epstein's other assistant who has the same name. All right. So I know that's a little bit complicated now, where is this piece coming in? The prosecution now is being, they're alleging that the prosecution was working with these lawyers to convert the victims, to be agents of the government, essentially. Okay. So let's go back to the mind map because this is where it gets complicated. You are now saying that the prosecutors were manipulating the victims through the conversations with the attorney to turn the victims against Maxwell. These were victims that may have been, uh, previously connected with Jeffrey Epstein, but now they're being flipped. And so they don't wanna ask about conversations between Glassman and Jane. They wanna ask about conversations between Glassman and these prosecutors Comey Mo Palmer ran Roach. Now in a prior video yesterday, we talked a lot about one of these defense expert witnesses. Remember this guy over here, Bennett Gershman prosecutorial integrity. And we were asking about this. We were saying, how on earth are they gonna bring this guy in? How are they gonna bring in this expert witness to come in in here? And just talk about how garbage the prosecution is. He's been around for a long time. He's the leading authority on prosecutorial misconduct. He's the author of the treatise called prosecutorial misconduct. The guy wrote the book on it. Okay. And so he's gonna come in and testify. And yesterday we were on the show talking about what are they talking? They're just gonna bring this guy in and put'em on the stand and say, Hey, Dr. Bennett, tell us what you think about the us attorney's office. And this guy's just gonna go well, they're full of corrupt morons over there. Like, is that, was that what we're expecting to happen? No, of course not. You can't just bring in somebody who is gonna come out and talk about prosecutorial integrity, just for the sake of it. You gotta have a reason to do that. Guess we do now for a long time, we didn't know how this guy fit into the puzzle. And now here it is. They're saying specifically that the us government came in and that they were manipulating the victims through their lawyers. And this guy's gonna come in and talk all about it saying that Mr Scarola, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Glassman are all witnesses. They're questions that the defense wants to ask them are relevant to their motive, to their bias and their answers are not privileged, has nothing to do with their representation of those victims. It's different. So they say Maxwell's defense lawyers. Okay? Despite this court's invitation, that government refused stipulate to the testimony that Ms. Maxwell seeks from Mr. Glassman has nothing to do about the conversation, the connection between Glassman and Jane. It has everything to do with the conversation between Glassman and the prosecutors and those conversations. The defense is arguing are not privileged. They said this, they told the prosecutors this. They said, Hey, we'd stipulate to that. We're not gonna ask any questions at all about Jane and Glassman. Will you agree to that? Prosecutors said, no, we read that yesterday. And so he goes through here and he just talks about each one of these different lawyers who is this guy. This is Jack Scarola. Ms. Maxwell as a Mr. Scarola is gonna be questioned on the following non-privileged topics. He's a, uh, which primary will relate to his acting as a conduit between Carolyn and the government. Okay. So we know now that this guy, Robert, I'm sorry. No, this is, this is Scarola he's down here. He is, is a Jack Scarola looks like he is Caroline's lawyer. Caroline of course had had some difficult testimony when she came out and, and talked. Okay. So we know that this is who we're talking about. Robert Glassman, Jack Scarola Brad Edwards. We're not gonna keep coming back to this. Here we see here, Scarola he's a licensed attorney to practice law in Florida. He represented Carolyn in a civil lawsuit against Mr. Epstein and Sarah ke Sarah Kell of course, was a part of the non prosecution agreement that was signed in 2007. She was one of Epstein assistance. Really Scarola back then in 2019 sent an email to us, attorney Ross Miller in August. He copied other attorneys who represented alleged victims of Epstein, including Joburg and Mr. Edwards. So SC sending emails now to other people who are not Jane. Okay. So we already learned what the rules are for attorney client privilege. This isn't that in July, 2020, another person working with Mr. Scarola called the government and said that Carolyn was willing to meet with the government. Scarola contacted the government about a meeting. He was present during the meeting, the government and Carolyn met in July of 2020 during the meeting when Carolyn was not in the room. Mr. Scarola told the government that in 2008, he showed a picture of blank to Carolyn who could not identify blank at that time. Huh? So that's an interesting little so back in 2020, Carolyn, one of the name victims in this cases was meeting with the government when Carolyn was not in the room, Mr. Carolyn or Mr. Scarola told the government, she couldn't identify somebody who could not identify somebody at that time. S Scarla was present at the meeting. He spoke with the government for 10 minutes about Carolyn. He was present for interviews. Mr. Schola represented her in a claim to the Epstein victims, compensation program. Lot of money, she got 3.2, 5 million bucks for that. And folks, this is all public record, right? So this is all data now about Carolyn who sort of pseudo anonymous. And so you can see why the government wants to close this puppy up. None of this testimony implicates the attorney-client privilege. Maxwell is not asking about confidential conversations between Caroline and her attorney. All of this has to do with stuff about conversations between the lawyer and the government. We also talk about Brad Edwards. Brad Edwards is another one of these attorneys and they tell us a little bit more about a U visa. Apparently it avoids a special immigration status to victims of certain crimes, including the crimes that we're talking about here, providing help to the government is a condition of an eligibility for this U visa. During cross examination. We heard about that. Remember the defense asked Kate about that. Kate was believe the second victim to testify during cross examination, Kate denied wanting a U visa or beginning the process of obtaining U visa material produced by the government. However, showed that Kate's attorney Brad Edwards, uh, provided a U visa application to the government on her behalf. And so they gotta ask Edwards about that. Kate said I had nothing to do with a visa. Well, turns out you did. And so Kate's, you know, obviously was so to that is, well, I didn't know what my attorney was doing. I had no idea. So Maxwell's defense team is saying there's nothing privileged about that. Mr. Edwards provided a U visa application to the government. That testimony does not reveal anything confidential. It's all public record. Go take a look at it. If you want, we found it. You can find it to so we should be able to talk about it. Now, finally, we have Robert Glassman. Now this is where we get a little bit of that lion king conversation. Remember we were talking about the difference between the lion king, the movie and the lion king, the play, the Broadway show and different people flying back and forth to New York, Jane and Carolyn and different victims saying, I remember going to the Broadway show on lion king air. People are going, huh? That's weird. Cuz they're matching up dates. And they're trying to pinpoint when the movie came out and when the Broadway show came out, trying to connect the dots. Robert Glassman was one of the lawyers here that was representing Jane defense lawyers say, we've already talked about why attorney client privilege doesn't apply to Glassman, but there's also a second category of also of relevant and non-privileged testimony that we want from Glassman. Specifically. They say that Jane claimed to remember certain events happening in 1994. Why 1994, what Jane was asked? Well that's because the year that was the year that Epstein took her to see the Broadway production of the lion king defense lawyers say as the attached email exchange shows between the prosecutor and Mr. Edwards, the government quickly recognized a problem with Jane's story because the lion king did not premiere on Broadway until 1997. Oh, so Jane's, memory's a little bit bad. Ross Miller and Mr. Glassman then exchanged emails in which, in which the us prosecutor tried to massage the problem and not so subtly invited Jane to change her story, to say that she'd actually seen the lion king movie, not the play, but Jane threw Mr. Glassman double down saying in response to a rose Miller's email that she saw the Broadway production of the lion king, not the movie, the Broadway play Epstein bragged about being good friends with Julia TA Tamar. And we had an amazing first row mezzanine seats that she had apparently given him. Whoa, whoa, what does that mean? That Jane's testimony is now fast, forwarded three years from 1994 to 1997 when she's three years older and she's no longer a minor. So what you see happening here is the prosecutor having a conversation with Mr. Glassman about this problem. Jane says, I went and saw the lion king production Broadway play. And she doubles down on that turns out that came out in 1997, ni not 1994, that prosecutor told Glassman let's just change those facts. Shall we? We're just gonna change it from the old, uh, Broadway play to the movie, which came out a little bit earlier. But guess what? They're not the same thing. Are they sitting there on a big screen TV in 1994? That is, you know, uh, a Catho Ray TV, whatever those, you know, big TV maybe did they have PLAs back then? I don't remember is different than going to a Broadway show where you're sitting in a mezzanine and you've got first row seats in Epstein saying, I know that actress or that, that performer up there, whole different ballgame. And if a prosecutor sends that in an email and saying, oh shoot, we might be three years late. And the defense got a copy that guess what? Yeah, that's pretty much prosecutorial misconduct there. It's encouraging a witness, a victim to change their testimony. You don't like those facts. We're gonna change that up. Not the production, the movie. Woo. You can see why this prosecutorial integrity person is, uh, gonna come in hot. Next week. We have another category here about Jane's settlement. Third category during cross examination. Jane denied knowing that after the compensation fund made its 5 million offer to settle, Mr. Glassman went back to even get more money<laugh>. So they wanna ask Mr. Glassman about this. When Jane was being cross examined, they asked her, do you know that your lawyer, Robert Glassman went back and tried to get more money? She said, no. Well, in fact, Glassman did exactly that. He went and he originally demanded 25 million for Jane from Ms. Maxwell. They N Jane filed the claim with the Epstein victim's compensation fund, which was offered 5 million Glassman replied to the compensation fund. That quote Jane is quote, a sophisticated claimant who knows the value of her claim is worth more than$5 million. Glassman then demanded a settlement in the eight figures because Glassman these demands to a third party, the first demand to Ms Maxwell's counsel and the second to the compensation fund. And because those conversations were not between Glassman and the client, they were not protected by attorney client privilege. And even if they were, the privilege was raised waived. So Jane gets 5 million glass men wanted 25 million and he's out there trying to go collect this from the compensation fund. Now his, the Maxwell's lawyers are saying, wait a minute, that's all, you know, outside of the scope of attorney client privilege, I would tend to disagree with that. I mean, I think factually they're right, but you know, that's all part of settlement and it's sort of part of representation. I'll be very curious to see what the judge does with that. Whether they allow that conversation in or not, or whether these attorneys come in and talk about it, but you can see here, right? The theme from the defense has always been memory manipulation and money. We're talking about 25 million bucks here. Robert Glassman, little unhappy that he only got one fifth of that. And so we wrap up this motion from Paka, says Maxwell has a constitutional right to present a defense. The attorney client privilege does not preclude her from asking any of these lawyers about any of these issues. She has a right to call him. Prosecution comes back out and says, no, she doesn't. The government respectfully submits this letter. We oppose this. These are all counsel for victims. They should not be demanded to come in here and testify. They're not gonna be asking appropriate questions. They're trying to do an end run around privilege. It would only generate a relevant evidence is what they say. I'm not so sure about that. I think that's all pretty relevant, pretty relevant. The victims themselves have testified and have been cross-examined about what they do or do not believe there's no relevance to their lawyers, conversations with the government. When the defendant failed to establish that the victim's knowledge of those statements nor would be testimony about those conversations, service, proper impeachment, and the fact has not been and established and cannot be established without infringing on privilege. Finally, even if the proposed testimony were relevant, to some extent, the court should deny the motion under rule 4 0 3, meaning it's overly harmful to the case. It's overly prejudicial and not probative enough. In other words, it does more harm than good. If we let it in for the reasons set forth the above us, prosecutors want all the testimony from those three different lawyers excluded Jack scleral, Brad Edwards and Robert Glassman. And so this starts tomorrow, the defense starts their case tomorrow, providing that everybody's now healthy and the swing of things. And so we're gonna get some rulings on this sooner rather than later, judge Allison, Nathan hopefully had a nice day at her confirmation hearing and she's gonna come back and we're gonna get some rulings on these. Are we going to hear from those other lawyers only time will tell let's take a quick look at the mind map. Before we wrap up here, we are taking this show or up our bags. We're going over to Viva's house. It's happening in five minutes. And last time I had a little problem with my camera trying to get on that stream lab software. And so we're gonna end it here so I can go troubleshoot and get ready for the Viva stream. Now Viva his link is down in the description below. Go check that out, check out the mine map. Of course, please share this around, uh, and provide some feedback. If you have any thoughts about what I should add or what I should change, I'm open to your feedback. Please feel free to send me an email or send me a DM on Twitter, come at some of the best ways to, uh, to get at me. But this is gonna be something that we continue to evolve and, uh, grow as this trial continues. Remember that we have not even started the defense team, the, the defense case yet. Okay. So this entire section is about to be built out very aggressively and we're looking forward to having you a part of that jury. Okay. And so now gonna wrap it up, everybody. Thank you for being a part of the show. Click right on over to Viva stream. We got five minutes freshen up a little, uh, make sure you've got a nice little beverage to slurp on. I need to refill mine. It's not very UR right now, but get yours potty break. If you need one, and we're gonna see you on Viva's show. We're gonna be back here tomorrow. Same time, same place to do it all again, my friends and I look forward to seeing you there. So head on over to Viva's and be right back here tomorrow. Byebye, my friends.