![\"SHOCKING:](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Article-1-AD-1-1-2.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Jeffrey Epstein allegedly claimed that prosecutors in New York dangled a deal in front of him\u2014one that would set him free if he agreed to falsely implicate President Donald Trump in his crimes.<\/p>\n
The explosive claim comes from Epstein\u2019s former cellmate, ex-cop Nicholas Tartaglione, who detailed the alleged conversation in a pardon petition obtained by the\u00a0New York Post<\/em>.<\/p>\n According to Tartaglione, Epstein said lead prosecutor Maurene Comey\u2014daughter of former FBI Director James Comey\u2014personally told him he could walk free if he tied Trump to his sex-trafficking case.<\/p>\n Tartaglione, now 57, shared a cell with Epstein in Manhattan\u2019s Metropolitan Correctional Center after the disgraced financier\u2019s 2019 arrest.<\/p>\n In his filing, Tartaglione wrote that prosecutors \u201ctold Epstein that if he said President Trump was involved with Epstein\u2019s crimes, he would walk free.\u201d<\/p>\n He further claimed that Epstein described a conversation with Maurene Comey, who allegedly told him, \u201cHe didn\u2019t have to prove anything, as long as President Trump\u2019s people could not disprove it.\u201d<\/p>\n Epstein reportedly said Comey bragged that \u201cthe FBI were her people, not his [President Trump\u2019s],\u201d suggesting a political bias inside the prosecution team.<\/p>\n The documents reviewed by the\u00a0Post<\/em>\u00a0do not specify what exact crimes Trump was supposed to be implicated in.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Maurene Comey served as lead prosecutor in several high-profile cases, including those involving Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Tartaglione himself.<\/p>\n Attempts to reach Comey for comment were unsuccessful, and the Department of Justice declined to respond.<\/p>\n The revelation adds another layer to the questions surrounding Epstein\u2019s 2019 death, which was officially ruled a suicide but continues to spark widespread skepticism.<\/p>\n Epstein was found dead in his cell on August 10, 2019\u2014just weeks after sharing the explosive story with Tartaglione.<\/p>\n Tartaglione claimed that Epstein had insisted, \u201cPresident Trump was not involved in Epstein\u2019s crimes.\u201d<\/p>\n The two men were housed together until Epstein\u2019s first suicide attempt in July 2019, after which he was placed on suicide watch and later returned to a new cell.<\/p>\n Tartaglione, a former K9 officer from Westchester, was later convicted in 2024 for killing four men during a botched 2016 cocaine deal.<\/p>\n 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 \u201caltered, spliced, mutilated and destroyed.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The former cop further accused the prosecution\u2019s star witness, bodybuilder Joseph Biggs, of fabricating testimony after meeting with prosecutors around 30 times.<\/p>\n Biggs later admitted to shooting one of the victims and was sentenced to 17 years in prison for his role in the murders.<\/p>\n Despite his own conviction, Tartaglione\u2019s new claim about Epstein and Comey raises serious concerns about potential political motives behind Epstein\u2019s prosecution.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n BREAKING: Anna Paulina Luna Claims The Biden DOJ DESTROYED\u2026<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This assertion, if proven true, would represent one of the most damning instances of governmental obstruction and cover-up in recent history.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 involvement in Epstein\u2019s criminal network.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if they are conducting a criminal investigation, you should probably pick up the phone and call us,\u201d Luna told Fox News. \u201cWe have been more than patient.\u201d<\/p>\n These developments come amid growing conservative suspicion that the Biden administration has no interest in unmasking Epstein\u2019s full network. The notion that key records could be gone forever only intensifies fears that justice is being buried under a bureaucratic rug.<\/p>\n Luna\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The congresswoman did not mince words in her public statements, suggesting that the DOJ\u2019s behavior constitutes a deliberate act of obstruction. If true, such actions could violate federal law and trigger an entirely new legal battle.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Biden DOJ has obstructed Congress, ignored subpoenas, and now appears to have destroyed critical evidence,\u201d Luna said. \u201cThis is corruption at the highest level.\u201d<\/p>\n Critics argue that this is yet another example of double standards in Washington. \u201cHad this been a Republican-led DOJ accused of destroying documents in a child sex trafficking case, the media would be apoplectic,\u201d one conservative commentator noted.<\/p>\n For years, the Epstein case has symbolized the deep rot within America\u2019s elite circles. The financier\u2019s suspicious death in prison and the subsequent lack of high-profile indictments have fueled accusations of a widespread cover-up.<\/p>\n Now, Luna\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n What\u2019s more troubling is that these destroyed materials could have named prominent individuals\u2014politicians, celebrities, and global financiers\u2014who participated in or enabled Epstein\u2019s crimes.<\/p>\n In this context, Luna\u2019s SHRED Act isn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n Despite Luna\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s handling of Epstein evidence.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n WASHINGTON, D.C.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 A routine House Judiciary Committee hearing exploded into a high-stakes investigation this week, as Representative\u00a0Jasmine Crockett<\/strong>\u00a0(D-TX) systematically exposed former Florida Attorney General\u00a0Pam Bondi\u2019s<\/strong>\u00a0previously undisclosed personal involvement in decisions related to the\u00a0Jeffrey Epstein<\/strong>\u00a0case.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s victims.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Pam Bondi had appeared before the committee to testify on prosecutorial discretion, emphasizing her career-long commitment to making decisions \u201cwithout regard to wealth, status, or connections.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019s inquiry focused on\u00a0subsequent decisions<\/strong>\u00a0made during Bondi\u2019s tenure (2011\u20132019).<\/p>\n Crockett\u2019s methodical, prosecutorial style quickly established the gravity of the inquiry, signaling that this was not mere partisan theater but a targeted pursuit of accountability.<\/p>\n Crockett presented a sequence of four documented events, methodically building a case that linked Bondi\u2019s private interactions with Epstein\u2019s legal team to her official denial of support for his victims:<\/p>\n Crockett presented an email dated April 3, 2014, from Bondi\u2019s chief of staff to the head of the human trafficking unit. The email explicitly stated:<\/p>\n \u201cPer AG Bondi\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Crockett pointed out that this unprecedented personal intervention came shortly after 11 additional Epstein victims had filed sworn statements seeking the AG\u2019s support to invalidate the controversial 2008 plea deal.<\/p>\n Crockett then delivered the first major blow by presenting a document from Bondi\u2019s visitor log:The log shows Alan Dershowitz, who was one of Epstein\u2019s primary attorneys, meeting with you in your office for 53 minutes on May 2, 2014.<\/strong><\/p>\n The private meeting, which took place just 15 days before Bondi personally signed the rejection letter, directly contradicted Bondi\u2019s attempts to distance herself from the ongoing case. Bondi visibly struggled to maintain her composure, claiming she couldn\u2019t recall the specific content of the meeting.<\/p>\n The most damaging revelation followed: a documented financial connection between Bondi\u2019s campaign and Epstein\u2019s inner circle.<\/p>\n \u201cTwo weeks after you signed the letter denying assistance to Epstein\u2019s victims, your campaign received a $25,000 donation from a company called East Coast Investments LLC.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Crockett revealed that this LLC was managed by another of Epstein\u2019s personal attorneys,\u00a0Darren Indyke<\/strong>. This revelation created a palpable shockwave, suggesting money had influenced prosecutorial decisions that directly affected victims of sexual trafficking.<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n The memo states, \u2018These additional victims present credible evidence that would support state action to join the CVA motion. Their rights were clearly violated\u2026\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Bondi\u2019s eventual decision to deny assistance flew directly in the face of her staff\u2019s recommendation, cementing the perception that her private meetings and donations held more weight than the professional judgment of her own department.<\/p>\n As Crockett methodically summarized the evidence, Bondi\u2019s professional composure completely fractured. She attempted to claim the documents lacked \u201cfull context,\u201d but her excuses crumbled when Crockett presented the final, devastating piece of evidence:<\/p>\n \u201cI have here a transcript of your sworn deposition\u2026 where you testified, \u2018No, it would have been legally permissible for our office to join the CVA motion. It was a discretionary decision.\u2019\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n This directly contradicted Bondi\u2019s attempts to tell Congress there were \u201cjurisdictional and procedural complexities.\u201d<\/p>\n Crockett\u2019s final challenge was the most devastating:<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cThe evidence suggests precisely the opposite: that after private meetings and campaign contributions,\u00a0you personally intervened to deny support to victims\u2026 despite your own staff\u2019s recommendation. How do you reconcile these contradictions?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Bondi was left in silence, unable to offer a coherent defense.<\/p>\n The impact of Crockett\u2019s five minutes was immediate:<\/p>\n DOJ Review:<\/strong>\u00a0The 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. Representative Crockett\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Jeffrey Epstein allegedly claimed that prosecutors in New York dangled a deal in front of him\u2014one that would set him free if he agreed to falsely implicate President Donald Trump in his…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8683,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
Career Damage:<\/strong>\u00a0Bondi\u2019s scheduled television appearances were immediately canceled, and her political aspirations suffered a severe blow as her credibility was effectively dismantled.
Legal Accountability:<\/strong>\u00a0The exchange served as a powerful validation for Epstein\u2019s victims, reinforcing their claim that the justice system was rigged against them by wealthy defendants and their allies.<\/p>\n