Trump preps to pardon Ghislane Maxwell

[JoeB131]

...just like he rewarded hundreds of criminal Capitol invaders for acting under his 'tacit' orders.

You mean just like Democrats rewarded thousands of BLM criminals for looting and mayhem?

 

[JoeB131]

A pardon of Maxwell would be all the evidence most people need to believe Trump had sex with children.

Again, I doubt he will.

First he'll wait to see if the courts overturn her probably illegal conviction (as it violated double jeopardy).

Then after that, he'll probably just commute her sentence to time served.

 

[Michael Cole]

Um, whose in the White House right now?

Ummm...my favorite news reporter. Alexandra Rae.

Oh, yeah, Trump is.

Trump has a mushroom dick.

Good work.

That's what she said.

Thank you for the high school reunion.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Again, I doubt he will.


Then after that, he'll probably just commute her sentence to time served.

Wishful thinking.

People aren’t going to think, “oh, he’s just commuting her sentence, he probably didn’t have sex with children.”

 

[W_Heisenberg]

First he'll wait to see if the courts overturn her probably illegal conviction (as it violated double jeopardy).

It sounds like you’re blindly accepting the legal argument her lawyers are making.

Why?

 

[Callen]

The place to nail Trump was in impeachment, when the iron was hot.

Democrats failed to do that.

And the few REpublicans who showed any integrity and voted for impeachment got thrown out of Congress.

No, The Democratic-controlled House did impeach him. The Senate Republicans , specifically McConnell, were/are responsible for the fact he is back in office for not convicting him.

 

[JoeB131]

Wishful thinking.

People aren’t going to think, “oh, he’s just commuting her sentence, he probably didn’t have sex with children.”

Again, this is the Democrat Stupidity coming out.

"We're going to get Trump on something criminal, and then people will finally turn on him!"

You tried that for four years. It didn't work. It won't work this time, either.

Unless you have video of Trump having sex with a teen or something like that, No one is going to care.

Democrats need to figure out how to win back those millions of people who voted for Biden in 2020, but either voted for Trump in 2024 or just plain stayed home because they both suck.

The only people who care about the Epstein stuff at this point are people who didn't like Trump from the get.

 

[JoeB131]

No, The Democratic-controlled House did impeach him. The Senate Republicans , specifically McConnell, were/are responsible for the fact he is back in office for not convicting him.

No Conviction.

Trump can say he was vindicated by the process.

The Republicans were craven cowards, to be sure.

But if you are going to go after Trump criminally, you don't dither for two years before appointing a Special Prosecutor, who then dithers for two more years until the clock runs out.

 

[JoeB131]

It sounds like you’re blindly accepting the legal argument her lawyers are making.

Why?

Um, because it's the law.

Epstein cut a deal in 2005 that covered any accomplices.

I suspect that his own conviction probably wouldn't have survived a double jeopardy challenge.

Same thing when they let Jussie Smollet go. Double Jeopardy. You made an agreement, it sucked, but you stick with it.

 

[snakestretcher]

You mean just like Democrats rewarded thousands of BLM criminals for looting and mayhem?

And of course you have evidence for this "rewarding" claim of yours, right, or are you just another one who hates black people for no logical reason?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Um, because it's the law.

Epstein cut a deal in 2005 that covered any accomplices.

I suspect that his own conviction probably wouldn't have survived a double jeopardy challenge.

Same thing when they let Jussie Smollet go. Double Jeopardy. You made an agreement, it sucked, but you stick with it.

No, that’s the allegation her lawyers are making. Just because they made the allegation doesn’t mean the prosecutors or the judge in her case acted improperly.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Again, this is the Democrat Stupidity coming out.

"We're going to get Trump on something criminal, and then people will finally turn on him!"

You tried that for four years. It didn't work. It won't work this time, either.

Unless you have video of Trump having sex with a teen or something like that, No one is going to care.

Democrats need to figure out how to win back those millions of people who voted for Biden in 2020, but either voted for Trump in 2024 or just plain stayed home because they both suck.

The only people who care about the Epstein stuff at this point are people who didn't like Trump from the get.

I don’t think you’ve seen the polls on this issue. He has severely damaged his reputation among Trump supporters with how he’s been handling the Epstein stuff. And not every Trump supporter is a gullible cultist.

 

[Callen]

Epstein cut a deal in 2005 that covered any accomplices.

I suspect that his own conviction probably wouldn't have survived a double jeopardy challenge.

Perhaps check before posting, it's easy.

The non prosecution agreement in Florida only applied to the specific associates named in the NPA. Maxwell was not part of that agreement and has already lost one appeal based on that.

Additionally as it relates to Epstein, the NPA in FL was for State crimes, not federal crimes. The charges of sex trafficking in NY were federal charges. Although there is some overlap in victims, no double jeopardy exists.

"Ghislaine Maxwell was not covered by Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal because the agreement explicitly excluded unnamed co-conspirators, she was not a party to the agreement, and the deal was geographically limited to Florida while her crimes were prosecuted in New York. Her conviction for sex trafficking was upheld on appeal, and her legal team is currently seeking review of her case by the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement should have protected her from prosecution.
Why the Plea Deal Didn't Cover Maxwell"
Lack of Explicit Coverage:
The non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Epstein and Florida prosecutors was a narrow agreement that focused on Epstein and a limited number of his assistants, not other co-conspirators like Maxwell.
No Party to the Agreement:
Maxwell was not a signatory to the 2007 plea deal, and therefore, was not granted immunity under its terms. "

Jeffrey Epstein struck a secret deal in 2008. Here’s what it means for the current case - National | Globalnews.ca

The financier is accused of paying underage girls hundreds of dollars in cash for massages and then molesting them at various locations, including homes in Palm Beach, Florida, and New York from 2002 through 2005.

globalnews.ca

 

[JoeB131]

No, that’s the allegation her lawyers are making. Just because they made the allegation doesn’t mean the prosecutors or the judge in her case acted improperly.

Maybe not. But you know damned well the Justice System works better for the rich than the rest of us.

She doesn't even have to get acquitted, she just has to claim her sentence was too harsh, given she wasn't the one who had sex with these girls.

I don’t think you’ve seen the polls on this issue. He has severely damaged his reputation among Trump supporters with how he’s been handling the Epstein stuff. And not every Trump supporter is a gullible cultist.

I talk to the Wingnuts on USMB all the time. They disagree with Trump on this issue, but their support for him is still pretty solid.

Perhaps check before posting, it's easy.

The non prosecution agreement in Florida only applied to the specific associates named in the NPA. Maxwell was not part of that agreement and has already lost one appeal based on that.

Additionally as it relates to Epstein, the NPA in FL was for State crimes, not federal crimes. The charges of sex trafficking in NY were federal charges. Although there is some overlap in victims, no double jeopardy exists.

Well, we'll just have to see what SCOTUS has to say.

Given its current makeup and that Maxwell did Trump a solid, I wouldn't count on your fanciful interpretation.

 

[JoeB131]

And of course you have evidence for this "rewarding" claim of yours, right, or are you just another one who hates black people for no logical reason?

No, I'm one of these people who watched the homes and businesses of black people get burned down, and no one was held to account for most of that.

You can't complain that the BLM riots (that killed at least 35 people) were fine but the Capitol riot wasn't.

 

[Callen]

Given its current makeup and that Maxwell did Trump a solid, I wouldn't count on your fanciful interpretation

It's not my interpretation and it's not fanciful...it's factual. Dispute any of it with facts

 

[snakestretcher]

No, I'm one of these people who watched the homes and businesses of black people get burned down, and no one was held to account for most of that.

You can't complain that the BLM riots (that killed at least 35 people) were fine but the Capitol riot wasn't.

I said nothing of the sort.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not my interpretation and it's not fanciful...it's factual. Dispute any of it with facts

Okay, if you say so..

Poor little fella, thinks that the law applies to rich people.

That's adorable.

 

[Callen]

Okay, if you say so..

Poor little fella, thinks that the law applies to rich people.

That's adorable.

I don't say so, the facts say so and I can see from your seventh grade post you have no factual counter argument.