On "Forbes Newsroom," Criminal Defense Attorney Daniel Rubin discussed Ghislaine Maxwell's ability to expose more information about the Epstein client list.
00:00And you made a really good point with by saying the Trump administration said there's no client list, but they could be looking at Ghislaine Maxwell as the client list, so to speak.
00:11Do you think then from that perspective that she could be the beginning domino and then from there, there's almost a Pandora's box and this whole thing's uncovered?
00:22There's a lot of people implicated in this sex trafficking operation and then there's criminal investigation out of criminal investigation.
00:29I mean, I'm sure people are really hoping that happens, but as an attorney, what's the likelihood of that happening?
00:36As I said before, what Ms. Maxwell says can be considered hearsay and certainly wouldn't have a lot of weight attached to it by itself.
00:46I think that if you're looking for any sort of criminal case to come out of this, there's got to be something more to establish probable cause before a grand jury.
00:55Um, so again, I don't know if what she says is going to lead to some, uh, to criminal cases and certainly whether that's going to lead to convictions.
01:06But I think what we've learned over the course of the last five or 10 years is that we can have a really sensational news story that shows egregious criminal behavior.
01:16Um, but at the same time, um, that leads to virtually no prosecution at all of any of those people.
01:24So it's, it'd be interesting whether this changes that because, um, I think that the Epstein files here, the Epstein case really has become the embodiment of corruption in America.
01:38And whether or not the public stands for the prosecutor's office doing nothing about it, um, or virtually nothing about it remains to be seen.
01:49And I think that's why exactly that the interest in this case has not died.
01:54And in fact, calls for justice have just gotten louder and louder calls for transparency and justice.
02:01I mean, as an attorney here, what questions do you still have and what faith do you have that they're going to get answered?
02:09I mean, the first question I have is what can be substantiated?
02:13I mean, Ms. Maxwell can say whatever she wants.
02:17She can say, you know, whoever was there, whoever wasn't there.
02:20But if there's nothing else to back up her statements, how well, how, how much can we trust her?
02:26Um, it's going to be sensational, obviously, but I would want to know what other facts and documents she has to substantiate what she's saying.
02:35That's number one.
02:36Um, number two is, uh, who else can substantiate it?
02:40If it's not documents and other evidence, who else can corroborate it?
02:44Um, and number three, what are going to be the, um, uh, the discrepancies between what she says and what someone else uncovers about what may or may not actually have happened?
02:56Um, so those are the few things that I would want to see just off the top of my head.
03:00Um, and again, as, as an attorney, uh, more evidence, um, in a case like this would be better because we want to establish, um, either Ms. Maxwell's credibility or, or lack of credibility.
Be the first to comment