Epstein Files | Ghislaine Maxwell

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 74K
  • Politics 
Ghislaine Maxwell's legal argument here is so bad. I was puzzled about what she would be alleging to seek the relief she was requesting, as I was having trouble coming up with a theory.

Well, the theory was that Acosta and Epstein made a plea deal that prevented her prosecution back in 2008. There was no way that argument could prevail. I suppose I could be wrong about this, but I can't even see how she would have standing to enforce a plea agreement between the government and Jeffrey Epstein. If she did, my guess is that the agreement was ultra vires. And of course, there was bad stuff done between then and her conviction.
 
JCTarheel82 said:
Lil' Mike is rapidly moving up my list of most detestable MAGA villains. He has repeatedly shown himself to be the antithesis of everything he purports to be.
Click to expand...
I think you need to ease up on Lil' Mike until you see what kind of statement the that teenage boy gave. The one who Lil' Mile moved into his house before he got married and after he got married Lil' Mike's wife set some rules about who slept where.
 
05C40 said:
I think you need to ease up on Lil' Mike until you see what kind of statement the that teenage boy gave. The one who Lil' Mile moved into his house before he got married and after he got married Lil' Mike's wife set some rules about who slept where.
Click to expand...
I think that was someone else. One of the Florida MAGAs maybe?
 
Earlier today Trump stated he would "have to look at it" regarding a pardon of Maxwell....

As truly awful as that would be, gotta say would LOVE to see him make that mistake.

Out of all the things trump could do to ruin his "legacy", this would be the silver bullet that would hit his asshat followers and be undeniable
 
Last edited:


Trump: Haven't heard the name in so long. I’ll take a look at it. I’ll speak to the DOJ. A lot of people have asked me for pardons.

Reporter: But she’s convicted of sex trafficking

Trump: I’ll have to take a look at it.
 
ChileG said:
Trump voters - why wouldn’t Bondi just say “no,” to the question posed?

I can only think of one reason, but maybe y’all can think of another.
Click to expand...

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally​

(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

To be fair to Lutnick, based on the story he told in his interview, I don't think he voluntarily disassociated from Epstein as much as he was told in no uncertain terms that he was not allowed to associate with Epstein by his wife who was with him when he went over to meet the new neighbor and she picked up on the vibe immediately.

Not holding my breath, but "shots fired" with that "Maybe we ought to get him in here" at the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top