Why is the government negotiating with a groomer?

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.
Her case is still on appeal. https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...ell-seeks-relief-us-supreme-court-2025-07-25/

So I guess trump can’t release the file
 
He claimed her case was "before" the court.
Not that it was in their mailbox.
It’s not in their mailbox it’s in the court house

That’s where cases are filed
 
It’s not in their mailbox it’s in the court house

That’s where cases are filed


When a case is "before the court," it means the case has been formally filed with the court and is undergoing the legal process to be resolved. This could involve various stages, from initial filing and arraignment to discovery, pretrial motions, trial, and potentially sentencing or appeals. The court is actively involved in managing the case and guiding it through these steps.
 

Ghislaine Maxwell Sentenced To 20 Years In Prison For Conspiring With Jeffrey Epstein To Sexually Abuse Minors​


I seem to recall Repubs having a moral panic over grooming when the term was hysterically being used as a cudgel during the 2024 election cycle. Groomers here, groomers there, groomers under the kid's beds.

Ghislaine Maxwell groomed young women for trump's close friend Jeff. It's why she sits in prison. In a highly unusual act, the Asst. US AG and former trump defense attorney, thus a trusted minion, has been dispatched to...........to do what exactly? What is being discussed with this poor excuse for a human being? Or Maxwell for that matter.

Would trump be willing to do the unthinkable? Cut some sort of deal with her to quell the drumbeat calling for more info? Wouldn't that make the drums louder? And why is the #2 at the DoJ spending time on this when he is so busy making the country safer for Americans. ;)
To protect the Orange Jesus pedo.
 
In your face !!!!
nX1akLe.jpeg

Just something my brother created many years ago.
 
He's not allowing the blacks to come into power and rule the nation.
Well that’s because the people elected him and not a black guy…not sure your point? Should people just not run for office and allow black guy to just because they are black??
 
There's only a 1% chance the court will accept it.
The court hasn't acted on her application for a writ.
Not sure your point. It’s still filed and pending

You claimed that’s why xiden couldn’t release it, it was on appeal. Shouldn’t trump not release it since it’s still pending?
 
Not sure your point. It’s still filed and pending

You claimed that’s why xiden couldn’t release it, it was on appeal. Shouldn’t trump not release it since it’s still pending?
It's effectively over.
The USSC will not take the case (99% probability)
 
It's effectively over.
The USSC will not take the case (99% probability)
No it’s not, it’s still pending, the court hasn’t ruled yet

Seems like you are backtracking on your position once it was highlighted how you were wrong on her appeal status
 
15th post
Not sure your point. It’s still filed and pending

You claimed that’s why xiden couldn’t release it, it was on appeal. Shouldn’t trump not release it since it’s still pending?
Her case was "before" the court of appeals.
It is NOT "before" the USSC.
 
Her case was "before" the court of appeals.
It is NOT "before" the USSC.
Not yet, it’s pending, it could be, right now she filed and it’s pending. It will be reviewed and they will decide if they want to hear more or dismiss it

Releasing anything while the case is still on appeal, is wrong, according to you, before
 
Harris was a tree? Well, we might agree on that…worst VP in history
You claimed you could prove something didn't happen, because you were not aware of it.

Take a course in logic, one of the first edicts is you can't prove a negative.

The saying "you can't prove a negative" is a simplification that highlights the challenges of proving universal negative statements and the burden of proof in debates.
 
You claimed you could prove something didn't happen, because you were not aware of it.

Take a course in logic, one of the first edicts is you can't prove a negative.

The saying "you can't prove a negative" is a simplification that highlights the challenges of proving universal negative statements and the burden of proof in debates.
I know it didn’t happen. I searched Google, there is no headlines where harris is using her voice to get the Epstein files released
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom