Why is the government negotiating with a groomer?

[meaner gene]

Umm....he did release it, Attorney General Pamela Bondi Releases First Phase of Declassified Epstein Files

Harris was VP for four years, she had a chance to get it released.

First off the VP has no such authority.
Second, because Maxwell had an appeal before the courts, it would be illegal to release the files until all appeals had been exhausted.

Maxwell's appeal was heard and rejected in late 2024

Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal against her sex trafficking conviction was rejected by a US court in September 2024. The court affirmed her convictions and sentence, upholding the lower court's ruling.

 

[IM2]

LOL. So, you admit you didn't even read the OP. I was right! Maybe you should read things before commenting on them.

I don't need to read this particular OP. Trump and his supporters ran their mouths for years about this. Trump said he would open the ,files but now is trying to stop it. You want to find any excuse to defend trump, but there are none.

 

[berg80]

Trump’s is a lawless, criminal administration, negotiating with fellow criminals makes perfect sense.

I don't see the upside for Maxwell unless she can be coerced into giving something to trump that benefits him. Some kind of ineffectual comment like "I never saw trump diddle any teenagers."

 

[meaner gene]

Well, your OP is about not wanting to hear Maxwell name names.

My thread is about being suspicious that anything she says can be believed considering the motivations involved....

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of perjury. This perjury conviction stemmed from accusations that she lied under oath during a 2016 deposition related to a civil case involving Jeffrey Epstein.

Why should anybody believe a word she says about Epstein, when she is a convicted perjurer, for what she said about Epstein.

 

[berg80]

Second, because Maxwell had an appeal before the courts, it would be illegal to release the files until all appeals had been exhausted.

Says who? Got a source for that assertion?

 

[berg80]

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of perjury. This perjury conviction stemmed from accusations that she lied under oath during a 2016 deposition related to a civil case involving Jeffrey Epstein.

Why should anybody believe a word she says about Epstein, when she is a convicted perjurer, for what she said about Epstein.

A point I made previously.

 

[meaner gene]

I don't see the upside for Maxwell unless she can be coerced into giving something to trump that benefits him. Some kind of ineffectual comment like "I never saw trump diddle any teenagers."

As if anything Maxwell (a convicted perjurer) can be trusted.

 

[Auld Phart]

As if anything Maxwell (a convicted perjurer) can be trusted.

so, if she named Trump as a pedo, you wouldn't believe her?

or are you selective in believing what she says

 

[meaner gene]

Says who? Got a source for that assertion?

The Department of Justice (DOJ) generally seeks to avoid releasing files when a criminal appeal is pending if such release could reasonably interfere with the enforcement proceedings. This principle is rooted in Exemption 7(A) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which authorizes withholding records compiled for law enforcement purposes if their production could reasonably interfere with enforcement proceedings.

 

[meaner gene]

A point I made previously.

You were questioning her motivations not her veracity.

 

[Billiejeens]

Ought oh - spaghetti O's

She done brought a bin with her.

 

[meaner gene]

so, if she named Trump as a pedo, you wouldn't believe her?

or are you selective in believing what she says

I would apply the Michael Cohen rule.
To only accept what he says that can be independently corroborated by other witnesses, or by documentation, such as audio recordings, file records, etc.

 

[Kondor3]

Wake us up, when Trump and his regime have something OTHER than............. DEFLECTION.

Insufficient counterpointing... does nothing to negate the ungrounded speculative nature of the OP.

 

[Auld Phart]

I would apply the Michael Cohen rule.
To only accept what he says that can be independently corroborated by other witnesses, or by documentation, such as audio recordings, file records, etc.

you wouldn't believe anything that would give trump the benefit of the doubt.

 

[meaner gene]

Ought oh - spaghetti O's

She done brought a bin with her.

Looks like a file carrier. It's got to have over 20 pounds of who knows what inside it.
They had to unlock all her cuffs (ankle and hand) so she could carry it into the prison.

Since the only one's present at her meeting were the #2 at DOJ and her lawyers. I don't see her lawyers using that as an opportunity to give her paperwork. So what was in the bin, most likely was from the DOJ.
20 pounds of paper from the DOJ for her is very suspicious.

 

[berg80]

The Department of Justice (DOJ) generally seeks to avoid releasing files when a criminal appeal is pending if such release could reasonably interfere with the enforcement proceedings. This principle is rooted in Exemption 7(A) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which authorizes withholding records compiled for law enforcement purposes if their production could reasonably interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Even when the appeal will be decided by appeals court judges, not a jury? I ask because I'm wondering why the regime hasn't used it as an excuse for not releasing the files if it's a legit reason?

 

[meaner gene]

you wouldn't believe anything that would give trump the benefit of the doubt.

As I said, not without corroborating evidence.

 

[Billiejeens]

Looks like a file carrier. It's got to have over 20 pounds of who knows what inside it.
They had to unlock all her cuffs (ankle and hand) so she could carry it into the prison.

Since the only one's present at her meeting were the #2 at DOJ and her lawyers. I don't see her lawyers using that as an opportunity to give her paperwork. So what was in the bin, most likely was from the DOJ.
20 pounds of paper from the DOJ for her is very suspicious.

Forms to fill out.?

 

[meaner gene]

Even when the appeal will be decided by appeals court judges, not a jury? I ask because I'm wondering why the regime hasn't used it as an excuse for not releasing the files if it's a legit reason?

The appeal was over at the end of 2024. The deadline for appeal to the USSC may have expired,

In the US, a party seeking review of a US Court of Appeals decision by the Supreme Court must file a petition for a writ of certiorari within 90 days from the entry of the judgment or denial of a petition for rehearing. This deadline can be extended for a maximum of 60 days with a showing of good cause,

 

[Rawley]

Why is the government negotiating with a groomer?​

Who is telling you that the govt. is "negotiating" with her?