Jeffrey Epstein allegedly claimed that prosecutors in New York dangled a deal in front of him—one that would set him free if he agreed to falsely implicate President Donald Trump in his crimes.
The explosive claim comes from Epstein’s former cellmate, ex-cop Nicholas Tartaglione, who detailed the alleged conversation in a pardon petition obtained by the New York Post.
According to Tartaglione, Epstein said lead prosecutor Maurene Comey—daughter of former FBI Director James Comey—personally told him he could walk free if he tied Trump to his sex-trafficking case.
Tartaglione, now 57, shared a cell with Epstein in Manhattan’s Metropolitan Correctional Center after the disgraced financier’s 2019 arrest.
In his filing, Tartaglione wrote that prosecutors “told Epstein that if he said President Trump was involved with Epstein’s crimes, he would walk free.”
He further claimed that Epstein described a conversation with Maurene Comey, who allegedly told him, “He didn’t have to prove anything, as long as President Trump’s people could not disprove it.”
Epstein reportedly said Comey bragged that “the FBI were her people, not his [President Trump’s],” suggesting a political bias inside the prosecution team.
The documents reviewed by the Post do not specify what exact crimes Trump was supposed to be implicated in.
At the time of his death, Epstein faced charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy but was rumored to be under investigation for other potential crimes, including financial misdealing and blackmail.
Maurene Comey served as lead prosecutor in several high-profile cases, including those involving Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Tartaglione himself.
Attempts to reach Comey for comment were unsuccessful, and the Department of Justice declined to respond.
The revelation adds another layer to the questions surrounding Epstein’s 2019 death, which was officially ruled a suicide but continues to spark widespread skepticism.
Epstein was found dead in his cell on August 10, 2019—just weeks after sharing the explosive story with Tartaglione.
Tartaglione claimed that Epstein had insisted, “President Trump was not involved in Epstein’s crimes.”
The two men were housed together until Epstein’s first suicide attempt in July 2019, after which he was placed on suicide watch and later returned to a new cell.
Tartaglione, a former K9 officer from Westchester, was later convicted in 2024 for killing four men during a botched 2016 cocaine deal.
In his own legal filings, he now alleges that evidence in his murder case was manipulated, phone data was tampered with, and video evidence was “altered, spliced, mutilated and destroyed.”
He also claims that one of his workers, Marcos Cruz, confessed to arranging the murders for a cartel but was pressured by investigators to change his story.
The former cop further accused the prosecution’s star witness, bodybuilder Joseph Biggs, of fabricating testimony after meeting with prosecutors around 30 times.
Biggs later admitted to shooting one of the victims and was sentenced to 17 years in prison for his role in the murders.
Despite his own conviction, Tartaglione’s new claim about Epstein and Comey raises serious concerns about potential political motives behind Epstein’s prosecution.
Maurene Comey was fired from her position at the Justice Department in July, just days after the Department of Justice and FBI concluded that Epstein had died by suicide and did not maintain a client list.
BREAKING: Anna Paulina Luna Claims The Biden DOJ DESTROYED…
Representative Anna Paulina Luna has leveled explosive information against the Biden Department of Justice, claiming that critical materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have been deliberately destroyed.
This assertion, if proven true, would represent one of the most damning instances of governmental obstruction and cover-up in recent history.
Luna, who chairs a congressional task force focused on federal transparency, has stated unequivocally that she possesses evidence implicating high-ranking officials in the DOJ.
According to her, these officials not only failed to disclose materials related to Epstein but actively destroyed them to conceal the extent of powerful individuals’ involvement in Epstein’s criminal network.
She introduced legislation titled the SHRED Act, aimed at imposing severe penalties on government agents who destroy or conceal federal records. The proposed bill calls for 20 years to life in prison for anyone caught eliminating evidence in cases of national significance.
“Even if they are conducting a criminal investigation, you should probably pick up the phone and call us,” Luna told Fox News. “We have been more than patient.”
These developments come amid growing conservative suspicion that the Biden administration has no interest in unmasking Epstein’s full network. The notion that key records could be gone forever only intensifies fears that justice is being buried under a bureaucratic rug.
Luna’s office has reportedly sent multiple requests to the Department of Justice demanding clarity on the handling of Epstein-related materials. So far, those inquiries have been met with either vague responses or complete silence.
The congresswoman did not mince words in her public statements, suggesting that the DOJ’s behavior constitutes a deliberate act of obstruction. If true, such actions could violate federal law and trigger an entirely new legal battle.
“The Biden DOJ has obstructed Congress, ignored subpoenas, and now appears to have destroyed critical evidence,” Luna said. “This is corruption at the highest level.”
Critics argue that this is yet another example of double standards in Washington. “Had this been a Republican-led DOJ accused of destroying documents in a child sex trafficking case, the media would be apoplectic,” one conservative commentator noted.
For years, the Epstein case has symbolized the deep rot within America’s elite circles. The financier’s suspicious death in prison and the subsequent lack of high-profile indictments have fueled accusations of a widespread cover-up.
Now, Luna’s allegations breathe new life into those concerns. If records were indeed destroyed, the implications are profound. It would mean that the DOJ, under Biden, actively shielded criminals from justice.
What’s more troubling is that these destroyed materials could have named prominent individuals—politicians, celebrities, and global financiers—who participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
In this context, Luna’s SHRED Act isn’t just legislative symbolism. It is a clarion call for accountability in an era marked by elite impunity. Her bill seeks to ensure that future officials think twice before erasing truth from the historical record.
Despite Luna’s repeated calls for transparency, there has been no formal response from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The silence speaks volumes to many who believe the DOJ is stonewalling on purpose.
Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers have rallied behind Luna. A growing number of Republicans in the House and Senate are voicing support for investigations into the DOJ’s handling of Epstein evidence.
Some have even floated the idea of appointing a special counsel to probe the matter independently. Given the stakes, such a move may be the only path forward to restore public confidence.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A routine House Judiciary Committee hearing exploded into a high-stakes investigation this week, as Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) systematically exposed former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previously undisclosed personal involvement in decisions related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Armed with internal emails, visitor logs, and campaign finance records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Crockett cornered Bondi with evidence suggesting potential improper influence on prosecutorial decisions that directly disadvantaged Epstein’s victims.
Bondi, a high-profile Republican legal commentator, saw her carefully constructed image as a champion of equal justice collapse, leaving her visibly distraught and unable to answer direct contradictions between her sworn testimony and the newly revealed documents.
Pam Bondi had appeared before the committee to testify on prosecutorial discretion, emphasizing her career-long commitment to making decisions “without regard to wealth, status, or connections.”
Representative Jasmine Crockett, a former civil rights attorney, immediately challenged this claim by focusing on the non-prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. While the initial 2008 plea deal was negotiated before Bondi took office, Crockett’s inquiry focused on subsequent decisions made during Bondi’s tenure (2011–2019).
Crockett’s methodical, prosecutorial style quickly established the gravity of the inquiry, signaling that this was not mere partisan theater but a targeted pursuit of accountability.
Crockett presented a sequence of four documented events, methodically building a case that linked Bondi’s private interactions with Epstein’s legal team to her official denial of support for his victims:
Crockett presented an email dated April 3, 2014, from Bondi’s chief of staff to the head of the human trafficking unit. The email explicitly stated:
“Per AG Bondi’s directive, all inquiries from new Epstein victims are to be routed directly to the front office. No new investigations are to be opened without explicit approval from the AG herself.”
Crockett pointed out that this unprecedented personal intervention came shortly after 11 additional Epstein victims had filed sworn statements seeking the AG’s support to invalidate the controversial 2008 plea deal.
Crockett then delivered the first major blow by presenting a document from Bondi’s visitor log:The log shows Alan Dershowitz, who was one of Epstein’s primary attorneys, meeting with you in your office for 53 minutes on May 2, 2014.
The private meeting, which took place just 15 days before Bondi personally signed the rejection letter, directly contradicted Bondi’s attempts to distance herself from the ongoing case. Bondi visibly struggled to maintain her composure, claiming she couldn’t recall the specific content of the meeting.
The most damaging revelation followed: a documented financial connection between Bondi’s campaign and Epstein’s inner circle.
“Two weeks after you signed the letter denying assistance to Epstein’s victims, your campaign received a $25,000 donation from a company called East Coast Investments LLC.”
Crockett revealed that this LLC was managed by another of Epstein’s personal attorneys, Darren Indyke. This revelation created a palpable shockwave, suggesting money had influenced prosecutorial decisions that directly affected victims of sexual trafficking.
Finally, Crockett demonstrated that Bondi had overruled her own internal experts. She presented a memo from the human trafficking unit that had analyzed the new victim claims:
The memo states, ‘These additional victims present credible evidence that would support state action to join the CVA motion. Their rights were clearly violated…’
Bondi’s eventual decision to deny assistance flew directly in the face of her staff’s recommendation, cementing the perception that her private meetings and donations held more weight than the professional judgment of her own department.
As Crockett methodically summarized the evidence, Bondi’s professional composure completely fractured. She attempted to claim the documents lacked “full context,” but her excuses crumbled when Crockett presented the final, devastating piece of evidence:
“I have here a transcript of your sworn deposition… where you testified, ‘No, it would have been legally permissible for our office to join the CVA motion. It was a discretionary decision.’”
This directly contradicted Bondi’s attempts to tell Congress there were “jurisdictional and procedural complexities.”
Crockett’s final challenge was the most devastating: “The evidence suggests precisely the opposite: that after private meetings and campaign contributions, you personally intervened to deny support to victims… despite your own staff’s recommendation. How do you reconcile these contradictions?”
Bondi was left in silence, unable to offer a coherent defense.
The impact of Crockett’s five minutes was immediate:
DOJ Review: The Department of Justice announced it would review the newly revealed documents to determine whether they warrant a criminal investigation into how the Epstein case was handled by various authorities.
Career Damage: Bondi’s scheduled television appearances were immediately canceled, and her political aspirations suffered a severe blow as her credibility was effectively dismantled.
Legal Accountability: The exchange served as a powerful validation for Epstein’s victims, reinforcing their claim that the justice system was rigged against them by wealthy defendants and their allies.
Representative Crockett’s approach reinforced her reputation as one of the most effective questioners in Congress, demonstrating that methodical preparation and documentary evidence can hold even the most media-trained and powerful figures accountable. The hearing sent a chilling message that prosecutorial independence and ethical conduct are under intense scrutiny, and that powerful connections cannot permanently shield the truth.