Posted on 07/26/2025 7:20:19 AM PDT by Starman417
Nobody saw this coming. I mean nobody. Yesterday, the Times ran another electrifying story headlined, “After Ghislaine Maxwell Interview, Concerns Mount Over Possibility of a Trump Pardon.” Pardon concerns mount! In the passive voice! By themselves!
Yesterday, in the warm, cozy, Sunshine State climate, “Todd Blanche, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s top deputy, concluded a second extraordinary day of interviews with Ms. Maxwell,” the article explained.
In other words, after years of Biden Administration stonewalling (and file padding), Ghislaine Maxwell got a two-day DOJ interview faster than Little Caesars could deliver a jailhouse pizza. And not just any random DOJ interviewer, either. They didn’t send some junior prosecutor with a legal pad who used to work for Maurene Comey.
They sent Trump’s former personal defense attorney turned Deputy Attorney General— the DOJ’s second in command.
Comparing it to a deposition, two days of DOJ interviews requires at least four days of prep time. In other words, DOJ’s number two cleared his calender for this. It wasn’t an interview; it was a mission.
Democrats, who ten minutes ago were pounding podiums demanding full transparency of the carefully curated Biden FBI files, were shocked to discover that Trump has another untainted source of information— Ghislaine Maxwell, chilling in a Florida prison like a long-forgotten, sealed box in the bottom of the evidence locker.
Now Democrats are suddenly sweating like an OnlyFans producer in church.
“The Blanche-Maxwell discussion,” the Times soberly reported, “has stoked concerns from critics of Mr. Trump that he may grant Ms. Maxwell a reprieve.” (Unnamed critics, of course.)
Ghislaine is unspoiled evidence. Astonishingly, no one had ever bothered interviewing her before. Not during the original Epstein investigation, not during her trial, not during five years of media blackout, strategic amnesia, and hot-potato footwork with the Epstein client list. And now, after she spilled the tea for ten hours over two days to Trump’s former lawyer turned top DOJ official, suddenly it’s a constitutional crisis.
Maxwell’s lawyer, David Markus, said DOJ officials had “asked about every possible thing imaginable.” Todd Blanche asked Maxwell about over 100 named individuals, and she dished the dirt. Markus said his client “answered every single question asked of her over the last day and a half.” Uh oh.
It was the most hilariously ironic twist yet. Late yesterday, reporters (obviously primed by someone) demanded to know whether Trump would pardon Maxwell in exchange for her testimony. President Trump, classically noncommital, replied, “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I haven’t thought about.”
Democrats are losing their minds. Senate minority leader Chuck “Chuckie” Schumer wildly speculated it was “some kind of a corrupt deal so that she can exonerate Donald Trump.” A lone protester (haha!) at the courthouse, Lisa Lloyd, 64, told rapt Times reporters, “This is wrong. Anyone who is concerned with justice should be appalled by this.”
The reporters didn’t get the pardon idea from Trump, Todd Blanche, or Maxwell’s lawyer. “We haven’t spoken to the president or anybody about a pardon just yet,” Markus said. “The president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power.”
So let’s add this up. First, Democrats demand full transparency. Then, as soon as Trump sends DOJ’s second-in-command to find the facts, they started rioting like caged rhesus monkeys who just found out the banana shipment got rerouted to El Paso and incinerated. A pardon would be a travesty of justice!
Reporters sure have short memories. What about Biden’s pardons? That was what, less than 12 months ago? Remember that aging but remarkably spry human cockroach, Fauci? Or Biden’s entire family? Or the grotesque January 6th Committee— none of whom refused their pardons in principle?
Apart from Epstein himself —who is currently unavailable due to an unfortunate mishap of being suicided in a poorly run, high-security federal facility in New York— there is no better witness on Earth than Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell might even be better than Epstein.
As Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown has said many times, man-baby Epstein never did anything for himself. No. Maxwell did it for him.
Epstein was the front of the house. Maxwell was the kitchen, the accounting department, and the security system. She holds the map, the manifest, and —most importantly— the motive. This is exactly why the political class is panicking. Because it wasn’t just an airy, high-level interview. This was an authorized data download from the last living hard drive, carefully preserved in a Florida (not New York) prison.
The reason they are floating the pardon issue is simple: they’re desperately trying to discredit Ghislaine Maxwell before her testimony surfaces. It’s narrative preemption—classic information warfare. If she names someone inconvenient, say, Chuck Schumer, the response is already baked into the narrative custard: She only said that to get herself out of prison!
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Or, maybe Epstein was a financial wizard, all or mostly legal, a curiously magnetic personality and also lucky.
But he like the little girls.
Two separate issues. A Jekyll and Hyde situation. And we thirst and hunger to make them merge.
A pardon won’t fly. A commuted sentence, on the other hand, could be a possibility. She could be commended for “clarifying” the alleged client list and what crimes may have been committed, so the case could be closed. Given the climate of revenge killings around certain politicians and their wives, she might be safer where she is.
Every victim who took a payoff…signed an NDA
Almost certain
Given the family situations that contributed to young girls moving into Epstein’s clutches…also gonna bet cash talked
NDAs
NDAs
NDAs
And cash payoffs for them
“ repeatedly held open”
The press planted the rumor and everytime they throw it out again a nc Trump denies it they report he “repeatedly held open”
When you cant hold the MEdia in enough contempt….
She was deposed several times, thats where they tried and failed to convict on perjury
But given that she HAS been deposed multiple times…how can this writer claim she’s never been questioned?
Anyone?
Blumenthal?
Are you referring to that 30 something attorney who struck up a dating relationship with the teen aged daughter of one of his firm’s wealthy clients?
THAT Blumenthal?
(I recollect the Senator was doing a "I am one with the common man" by cooking raw "Ground Chuck" on the grill with a slice of un-melted American cheese, providing evidence of the exact oppisite. I hope that he reached out to someone to teach him how to actually cook hamburgers on a charcoal grill, and of course, to his Rabbi to kosher his house and grill and every other residential unit within a block of this failed PR attempt at cooking. I know, he is not Jewish, he is communist.
Cummings and Lockwood was the firm.
I’m certain old Homer Cummings would have been all on board with those shennanigans
.
But given that she HAS been deposed multiple times…how can this writer claim she’s never been questioned?
Her perjury trial has not been held yet. It depends, in part, on how her guilty plea and sentencing goes with her case now on appeal to the SC.
Supposedly, her dispositions and all questioning so far have been in relation to her own cases only, but none relating to Epstein's cases.
The Democrat’s new “plan” was the same ole same ole.
Make this about Trump and selectively leak what they want while a left wing Federal Judgw prevents the exonerating evidence from coming out.
The media would make this as if Trump was the ONLY person who ever consorted with or knew Epstein.
Classic left wing plot.
Maxwell represents facts the Dems can’t sensor or control. That blows up their little plan.
BTW with good behavior her earliest possible release date is early 2034.
Ghislaine Maxwell's scheduled release date of 7/17/2037 is based on time off for good behavior. You appear to be calculating a 2034 release date by subtracting time off for good behavior from her scheduled release date which already includes the maxium possible time off for good behavior.
She began serving creditable time when she was arrested July 2, 2020 and confined at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center in New York whilst awaiting trial. Her full 20 year sentence would run to 2040. Maximum time off for good behavior is 54 days a year for the time sentenced (not time served). 20 years at 54 days is just under 3 years off.
https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp#inmate_results
Release Date: 07/17/2037
Bondi didn’t act without Trump approval
Trump got pressured
But the pressure to release info was greater
They are still teasing but at least not calling us names
I still don’t fathom while she is still alive. However, someone stated dead man switch. That makes sense. Another thing that makes sense is she is being protected, like Epstein wasnt, by the good guys.
She gave up 100 hundred names. How many cowards are now scrambling to the Administration begging for mercy?
Remember the Bush funeral with all the mysterious envelopes? Remember Hillary screaming that they better fix this shit, cause if Trump gets back in, they all hang? Remember the frosty behavior towards Trump at Carter’s funeral by all but Obama? And Michelle missing? At the Inaguration too. Now the rumors are so strong about a rift in the Obama marriage that they have had to public ally address it. And I guess one Of the daughters has broken relationship ties with Obama.
I mention all that because I believe it all has ties somehow to Maxwell. So why and how is she still alive? What has she spilled? On whom? Has Obama spilled? Is the talk of threatening to indite him just that, talk? Lots of curiosity here. And yet Maxwell talked.
This has the potential to get rich.
Wrong again. Look up Second Chance Act
Look up Second Chance Act
The Act does not support your claim, nor have you cited any substantive provision. Look it up yourself and read it for the first time.
Federal inmates convicted of crimes after November 1, 1987 are not eligible for parole.
Rule 35(b) â DOJ Sentence Reduction for Cooperation
If Maxwell provides substantial, credible cooperation that leads to prosecutorial benefit (e.g. new indictments), the Department of Justice could file a Rule 35 motion to the court recommending reduction.
As of mid-2025, she reportedly met with DOJ officialsâÂÂincluding Deputy AG Todd BlancheâÂÂand answered questions about about 100 individuals, raising speculation about possible cooperation toward Rule 35 relief
Rule 35(b) � DOJ Sentence Reduction for CooperationIf Maxwell provides substantial, credible cooperation that leads to prosecutorial benefit (e.g. new indictments), the Department of Justice could file a Rule 35 motion to the court recommending reduction.
Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced June 28, 2022.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_35
Rule 35. Correcting or Reducing a Sentence(a) Correcting Clear Error. Within 14 days after sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error.
(b) Reducing a Sentence for Substantial Assistance.
(1) In General. Upon the government's motion made within one year of sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant, after sentencing, provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person.
(2) Later Motion. Upon the government's motion made more than one year after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if the defendant's substantial assistance involved:
(A) information not known to the defendant until one year or more after sentencing;
(B) information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing; or
(C) information the usefulness of which could not reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant until more than one year after sentencing and which was promptly provided to the government after its usefulness was reasonably apparent to the defendant.
(3) Evaluating Substantial Assistance. In evaluating whether the defendant has provided substantial assistance, the court may consider the defendant's presentence assistance.
(4) Below Statutory Minimum. When acting under Rule 35(b) , the court may reduce the sentence to a level below the minimum sentence established by statute.
(c) “Sentencing” Defined. As used in this rule, “sentencing” means the oral announcement of the sentence.
(As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979; Apr. 28, 1983, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §215(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2015; Apr. 29, 1985, eff. Aug. 1, 1985; Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §1009(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–8; Apr. 30, 1991, eff. Dec. 1, 1991; Apr. 24, 1998, eff. Dec. 1, 1998; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002; Apr. 26, 2004, eff. Dec. 1, 2004; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)
She’ll get out earlier than you said she would, my entire point. You lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.