List could be released as soon as Tuesday after deadline for objections to unsealing of names passes midnight Monday
Nearly 200 names connected to the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking conspiracy could be released by a New York judge as soon as Tuesday, exposing or confirming the identities of dozens of associates of the disgraced financier that until now have only been known as John and Jane Does in court papers.
A deadline for objections to the unsealing of the names passes at midnight on Monday, nearly nine years after victim Virginia Giuffre filed a single defamation claim against Maxwell, daughter of the late British press baron Robert Maxwell, in 2015, that in turn produced the names in legal depositions.
A year later, in 2016, US district court judge Robert Sweet rejected Maxwell’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that “the veracity of a contextual world of facts more broad than the allegedly defamatory statements” and that Guiffre “was a victim of sustained underage sexual abuse between 1999 and 2002”. The parties settled out of court in 2017.
Out of curiosity, what exactly does being on this list mean?
It will look bad on people who try to look ethical, but it will have no effect on those who don’t. So the Clinton’s would take a hit if Bill was on there, but Trump wouldn’t be affected.
The right wing easily draws in one-issue voters since their primary issues are usually about taking away something from someone else, and so they don’t require many resources and generally are accomplished more easily using unethical means than ethical ones. “It’s just business,” and all that.
Leftists tend to be more about building something rather than tearing it down. That’s both more work and requires a lot of shared resources. So ethical practices are required to keep those resources from getting misused.
You mean Mr. Blowjob-in-the-Oval-Office?
Is getting a blowjob in the oval office unethical?
Like I know he cheated on his wife, which is unethical. But you chose to bring up the act of receiving the sloppiest top in that specific room as the damning factor and not the actual adultery which is a weird take.
You mean Mr. Cheat-on-my-Pregnant-Wife-With-an-Immigrant?
We don’t actually know.
I can’t rule out “nothing” completely, with the knowledge I have. It’s absolutely something we should see, though. It will sketch out the whole picture in a way that allows people to exonerate themselves or be further implicated. If it’s specific enough for people to have alibis, then that’s interesting, and if it’s full of plausible allegations, then they could become more damning. Consider that the details of what people are “accused” is likely to vary - are they accused of being on a plane with other witnesses? Who is accused of having extensive opportunities to have committed abuses during their stay on the island? What was the pretense for their involvement with Epstein and Maxwell? It puts people in a position to explain what they did or did not know about Jeffrey Epstein at the time, and for those claims to be cross-checked, where possible. Close contacts of the accused may be prompted to add additional information from their recollections or records, if they learn that they had been lied to. Another possibility is that the allegations are frustratingly vague and don’t actually create a clear picture of any criminal behavior.
What knowledge do you have?
That they were requested to testify or give testimony about their experiences related to Gislanes activity on Epsteins island.
They’re asked to testify because of other people’s testimony, flight logs, pictures, etc. that place them on the island at some point.
What they were doing there is debatable, but there are implications; at best they were hanging with a shady dude.