Her lawyers said that her silence was due to the fact that at this moment she was still trying to get the case thrown out due to some unspecified malpractice during her original trial. This despite the fact that her appeal has already gone to the Supreme Court and been rejected. ( i.e. there is no further legal recourse left for her to pursue.) , and also despite the fact that when she was interviewed a few months ago , DOJ was crowing about how forthcoming she had been and that there wasn’t any questions she refused to answer. Of course this ‘co-operation’ also precipitated her (illegal) transfer to an open prison.
Furthermore , they suggest that if she is granted clemency then she will be unhindered in what she can divulge and that her testimony would exonerate both Trump and Bill Clinton. See …something for everyone.
Of course this now provides Trump with an excuse to grant clemency because only by doing so will she be able to tell the whole truth about what happened.
I put the video to diffuse the situation with you as you take offence to everything I write, as if your opinions are the only ones that matter and that everything I write is incorrect.
The video is about a professor of logic, and I can only assume that my logic confused and offended you.
On top of that, you know very well that the posting of that video had no intent of making fun or joking about what Epstein did, however you claimed it anyway because it’s me that posted it.
Let me explain my train of thought.
As per my quoted post, the only paragraph where I mentioned logic.
My logic is that she won’t have anything useful (for the hearing) because if is she did, she would be dead. So granting clemency would not help with regards to getting useful information.
As you even mentioned, she might have information that is keeping her alive if she keeps her mouth shut. If that is the case, then she won’t reveal that information, therefore the clemency would be wasted.
If she uses cherry picked and safe information in this manner, she would get clemency and she would keep her life as she would not be revealing anything useful. So imo what she has to offer is not worth clemency.
This is my logic explained. You don’t have to agree with it.
I only disagree with what you post if it is unsound, like the idea that Maxwell could possibly have no information about a situation in which she was a key player.
However, thank you for actually arguing your case and explaining your point of view.
Here’s another twist. It slightly exonerates Trump while, simultaneously catching him in a massive lie. It’s also even more evidence of Maxwell’s centrality to the case:
I think this only comes across as positive for Trump if you make no attempt to reconcile it with everything else that is known about his relationship with Epstein.
Best case scenario - He is genuinely utterly innocent, but knowing how close people thought they were, wanted to put distance between himself and Epstein in the eyes of the cops by calling them to proactively say he had nothing to do with the crimes everyone knew he was doing. That is a hair brained plan so it’s possible.
It is a mark of how bad this is all for Trump is that this scenario is also towards the most positive for Trump - his role at Mar a Largo meant he knew what was going on, but kept his mouth shut for years. He then continued to speak glowingly about him publicly, including about his penchant for young girls, and waited until the police arrested him to speak out, and did so only privately. And then for years afterwards lied about knowing anything about what was going on.
And like I said, these are on the good end of the spectrum for Trump
I think one of the things that has helped Trump with this is that the main victim, Virginia Giuffre, had a positive view of him, and I actually thought the story of her interaction with him was sweet. Her father was after all a maintenance worker (no disrespect), and not one of Trumps top white-collar worker. To meet her dads famous boss would have been a big deal for a young girl, and Trump can be very charming when he wants to be.
Trump was actually extremely lucky in that he had a documented falling out with Epstein, over property purchases and/or poaching staff. Even if that didn’t happen, I think he would have still kept at arms length after the 2008 conviction.
It’s like the Weinstein abuse (What’s with the stein’s?), there were lot of rumors, as well as an assistant that used to get erectile dysfunction injections for him. Do these people (and there are lots) know he was sexually assaulting women and turn a blind eye? Or do they just think he’s a scumbucket? It’s probably a bit from bucket A and a bit from bucket B.
I’m not sure if you meant it that way, but the ending -stein is very common among Jewish people because in the 18th and 19th centuries a number of European states, principally German speaking ones, eg Austria, Prussia etc, passed laws requiring Jewish people to adopt German names. Given the choice, they tended to pick nice sounding names like Rosenthal (rose valley) or Silberstein (silverstone). As many were jewellers by trade. They often chose names ending in stein (stone).
Eppstein is a town in Hessen and his ancestors probably came from there.
By the way, Epstein should be pronounced Epst-eye-n rather than Epsteeen.
I’m really not picking on you, but how you can characterise the meeting of a powerful wealthy known abuser of women and the daughter of one of his underlings as ‘sweet’ is beyond me. Especially as he later passed her on to a guy he knew was a pedophile.
Creepy would probably be more apt.
Although some will always find a reason in their minds to hate others, of course. They’d just use examples like this to ‘confirm’ their mistaken beliefs.
It’s like when people criticise the Israeli government. Some don’t because they know that to do so may lead to accusations of antisemitism regardless of the objectivity of their commentary.
The tension specifically (for me) is saying that the coverage and attention around the Abuse Ring part is disproportionate in terms of the coverage and consumption and relevance within the broader saga. Saying that makes me feel uncomfortable.
I do not want to diminish the harm and horridness of the abuse part but the knowledge that high-level decisions, affecting literally the whole world, are done like this and of course that this was but one such conduit, is ultimately also a huge concern and likely the bigger one.
That he is of Jewish heritage has never been an issue for me - primarily because people are the same everywhere.