Epstein Files | Ghislaine Maxwell

[nycfan]

I doubt that people can come and go from even the least restrictive federal prison.

That is what I would think — but it is usually the case that visitors can come and go without much if any security interaction at some of these minimum security locations, maybe that caused a misunderstanding here …

 

[mynameisbond]

What has Trump done since Bondi acknowledged that he is in the Epstein files that is consistent with innocence?
I'll wait....

 

[C-Money]

Zen has to be the most aggravating and naive motherfucker here.

 

[dukeman92]

The naïveté is a game.

Totally a game. Which is why nobody should take him serious.

 

[superrific]

My first thought was that it's what she negotiated as part of agreeing to testify.

So you agree with everyone after all, after all that?

Whatever she says is so obviously unreliable that it would never be admitted in court nor accepted by any jury. Let's count the ways:

1. Hearsay
2. No cross examination
3. History of perjury
4. Incentive to lie
5. Strong incentive for the DOJ to elicit false testimony.

It is a reasonable inference -- one that would be accepted by every single court in the country, would the issue present itself -- that whatever she said would be likely false.

This illustrates WHY Garland didn't release anything, and WHY the DOJ has a policy against this. We now have a document (well, a leak) with no indices of reliability with the DOJ imprimatur. It diminishes the justice department. It diminishes credibility in its representations. It decrease public trust in our system.

 

[Zoo_View]

The naïveté is a game.

He’s a full-fledged troll. He’s not naive.

 

[Zoo_View]

Totally a game. Which is why nobody should take him serious.

Or, reply directly to his posts.

 

[finesse]

He's one of my favorite wastes of time. I can't help but respond to him occasionally in the spirit of his posts if not to the post itself.

 

[ZenMode]

So you agree with everyone after all, after all that?

Whatever she says is so obviously unreliable that it would never be admitted in court nor accepted by any jury. Let's count the ways:

1. Hearsay
2. No cross examination
3. History of perjury
4. Incentive to lie
5. Strong incentive for the DOJ to elicit false testimony.

It is a reasonable inference -- one that would be accepted by every single court in the country, would the issue present itself -- that whatever she said would be likely false.

This illustrates WHY Garland didn't release anything, and WHY the DOJ has a policy against this. We now have a document (well, a leak) with no indices of reliability with the DOJ imprimatur. It diminishes the justice department. It diminishes credibility in its representations. It decrease public trust in our system.

The implication was that she was being given things "in exchange for false testimony." In other words a) it's guaranteed she's going to lie and b) this agreement was arranged with the DoJ or whoever.

I absolutely agree that the move was very likely negotiated with, or proactively offered by, the DoJ. That is where our agreement ends.

Now for the part that I'm sure to regret but, hey, you only live once, right?

1. Hearsay
2. No cross examination
3. History of perjury
4. Incentive to lie
5. Strong incentive for the DOJ to elicit false testimony.

With a few minor changes, it sounds a lot like the J6 hearings, doesn't it?

 

[lawtig02]

He's one of my favorite wastes of time. I can't help but respond to him occasionally in the spirit of his posts if not to the post itself.

 

[breepf]

Now

The implication was that she was being given things "in exchange for false testimony." In other words a) it's guaranteed she's going to lie and b) this agreement was arranged with the DoJ or whoever.

I absolutely agree that the move was very likely negotiated with, or proactively offered by, the DoJ. That is where our agreement ends.

Now for the part that I'm sure to regret but, hey, you only live once, right?

1. Hearsay
2. No cross examination
3. History of perjury
4. Incentive to lie
5. Strong incentive for the DOJ to elicit false testimony.

With a few minor changes, it sounds a lot like the J6 hearings, doesn't it?

Is your signature a warning to the rest of us?

 

[superrific]

1. Hearsay
2. No cross examination
3. History of perjury
4. Incentive to lie
5. Strong incentive for the DOJ to elicit false testimony.

it sounds a lot like the J6 hearings, doesn't it?

Except for the fact that none of those factors applies. It wasn't hearsay; nobody who testified had, to my knowledge, any history of perjury; there was opportunity for cross-examination; none of the witnesses had any incentive to lie and indeed some of them were putting themselves in danger by testifying (or at least harming career prospects), and Liz Cheney certainly had no incentive to elicit false testimony.

Other than that, great analogy. I'm tuning you out again. Toodles!

 

[finesse]

Except for the fact that none of those factors applies. It wasn't hearsay; nobody who testified had, to my knowledge, any history of perjury; there was opportunity for cross-examination; none of the witnesses had any incentive to lie and indeed some of them were putting themselves in danger by testifying (or at least harming career prospects), and Liz Cheney certainly had no incentive to elicit false testimony.

Other than that, great analogy. I'm tuning you out again. Toodles!

And don't forget the videos and the self incrimination on social media and bragging to their friends.

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

No, but everyone knows it was Bondi. Maxwell likely made the facility change a condition for even sitting down to talk.

Yes, but shouldn’t that be disclosed?

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

Trump's name being in the files isn't surprising because he and Epstein were good friends.

His name being in the files doesn't mean he's implicated in any wrongdoing. That doesn't change because Dems really, really , really want him to be implicated.

"but he doesn’t want to release them because a lot of people in those files can be “hurt” by them."

Correct. The victims and people who assumed, by people like you, that being mentioned is the same thing as being an active participant in the sex crimes.

"How dumb do you have to be to not be able to connect the dots here?"

You connect those dots, buddy.

So why did Trump lie about the timeline of his friendship?

Do you really believe the birthday note is fake?

given what we know about both men’s activities, statements, and their friendship…you don’t think there’s anything Trump is covering up?

What’s with the cover-up if there’s nothing there?

 

[superrific]

Yes, but shouldn’t that be disclosed?

It should, but when does "should" make any difference for this administration?

 

[ZenMode]

Except for the fact that none of those factors applies. It wasn't hearsay;

There was the entire story told about Trump grabbing the steering wheel was hearsay.

nobody who testified had, to my knowledge, any history of perjury;

there was opportunity for cross-examination;

Who there was representing Trump's side?

none of the witnesses had any incentive to lie

They all did because there would be no consequences for lying, they likely all seriously disliked Trump and could say whatever they wanted without consequences.

and indeed some of them were putting themselves in danger by testifying (or at least harming career prospects), and Liz Cheney certainly had no incentive to elicit false testimony.

Right. Not like she despised the guy right?

Other than that, great analogy. I'm tuning you out again. Toodles!

Ooooook

 

[thebruinbleedstarheelblue]

It should, but when does "should" make any difference for this administration?

True and , I misspoke. Shouldn’t we be getting some bullshit explanation why they can’t disclose it or at least a lie about who did it?

Are we no longer asking the questions?

 

[ZenMode]

So why did Trump lie about the timeline of his friendship?

Because he lies... constantly... often for no apparent reason than maybe trolling.

Do you really believe the birthday note is fake?

Mostly no, but only because I trust the WSJ to do their due diligence.

given what we know about both men’s activities, statements, and their friendship…you don’t think there’s anything Trump is covering up?

I don't think there is as it relates to him being directly involved in the abuse.

What’s with the cover-up if there’s nothing there?

I'm not sure what you're saying is being covered up.

 

[ZenMode]

So why did Trump lie about the timeline of his friendship?

Do you really believe the birthday note is fake?

given what we know about both men’s activities, statements, and their friendship…you don’t think there’s anything Trump is covering up?

What’s with the cover-up if there’s nothing there?

Correction on the birthday note. I meant to say mostly NO, (I don't believe it's fake).