• fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Not right now, she didn’t. In reality who can say what was promised or implied.

  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 hours ago

    sounds like we’ll get a release of the epstein files with one name missing. That seems strictly better than no epstein file release.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 hours ago

      No, it sounds worse. What good is the testimony of a “witness/convict” that you threaten and bribe? It’s not, it’s nothing. Well, if you put it together with the Epstein Files, that might be something. Which is what we already knew.

      I think you knew it too, but maybe a few other readers didn’t.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        well if you put it together with the epstein files, that might be something

        You do realize I was talking about the epstein files right? Seeing as I said “epstein file” in both sentences that I wrote.

        • fodor@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Oh I see what you’re saying. You’re saying that you posted your comment in the wrong place and that you didn’t actually care about the article mentioned above. Okay, in that case we agree.

          Except even then we don’t agree. If the idea is that they are going to release the files without one name, that means they’re actually going to doctor the files, which makes them totally worthless.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Even if the list had no apparent omissions, how could you verify it wasn’t doctored? Generally, we don’t tend to consider redactions as the same thing as doctoring.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                okay well, when one doctors something generally you’re trying to pass it off as though it’s unmodified. When you redact something, you’re being explicit that something is removed. Make sense?

  • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Markus also said that she was asked about “every possible thing you could imagine–everything."

    So logically that would mean she’s revealed everything she knows about Trump.

  • kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Not that I care much, I wonder how many days she will last on the street. So many people want her gone.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Well we know how long Epstein lasted in prison, so you can bet she’d rather take her chances on the street.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    This culture of pardoning criminals for handing over other criminals is sick.
    In this case specifically Trump has a huge conflict of interest, and she is probably pardoned for NOT mentioning Trump.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Wait, what the hell is an “auto-mod” doing banning people? That’s not a reason but a method as well, flying in the face of the very point of lemmy’s mod log system.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    I mean yeah, duh. Anything is better than jail, especially when you belong there for trafficking minors. In the likely event she gets freed, I hope she’s harassed until the end of her worthless days.

    • Lucky_777@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      146
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      100% this. This will be the hit list they want to go down. Pardon Maxwell, then say listen…here are the names (with no evidence but her word). Then they start making arrests. Probably 5 or less GOP members, the rest nobodies and Dems.

      • fodor@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        They won’t arrest anyone. If they do, everything about this whole process will be subpoenaed and plastered in public for all to see.

          • fodor@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Precisely. They don’t need to arrest anyone for that crime because they can just lock people up whenever they want anyway. It’s interesting that you realized the law doesn’t matter but couldn’t apply it one step earlier in the process.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Plot twist: Trump issues a blanket pardon for Maxwell, and all the Democrats she names. Whether or not they actually did it, for precisely that reason. If they prosecuted them, then the government have to prove it’s case. But Trump can pardon anything for any reason, even shit he makes up.

          • someguy3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’ll piss off his base because he’s supposed to be the savior, not the swamp or something. They’ll release the “names” and then nothing will happen because, exactly like you said, then they don’t have to prove it.

            • dhork@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              He doesn’t need the base anymore. If he holds on to power past Jan 2029, he won’t need their votes to do it. He won’t need any votes at all.

              • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                11 hours ago

                Public opinion always matters. Even kings needed their people on their side; why do you think they made up all that divine right bullshit and had the churches preach it so much?

                Every country has the government that a sufficient number of people are willing to tolerate. Tyranny can only tip the scales, it cannot change the game. If a populace doesn’t want to be ruled, it cannot be ruled. That’s why fascism relies so heavily on the imposition of a hierarchy; because the people who aren’t at the bottom will support the system that gives them someone else to tread on, while the rich and the powerful live it up at the top. But you always need to keep a significant sector of the population on your side. There always has to be an in group who benefit enough from the government to want to keep it.

                Governments end when enough people want them to end. Democracy is just a way of doing it politely.

      • dickalan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yes, but this might be mutually assured destruction when Clinton says hey fuck you and starts naming his own names

  • Microw@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Her lawyer said that the sit-downs this week were Maxwell’s first opportunity to answer questions about what happened.”

    I’m pretty sure that she was questioned by investigators during multiple investigations into Epstein over the years, including her own trial that sent her to jail.

  • Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    100 names is a suspiciously round number. Surely these aren’t just the 100 most politically convenient ones, right?

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus, said after the meetings that his client was asked about maybe “100 different people” in connection with Epstein. He said she did not hold anything back.

      She didnt list the names of offenders or anything like that. She just responded to their questions about 100 people.

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Sounds an awful lot like the old HUAC trials. “We’ll grant you clemency, all you gotta do is give us the names of your best friends that are communists. We just wanna talk to them.”

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 day ago

        So anyone who even said hi to him at one time pretty much.

        100 person list: 98 Democrats, a delivery guy, and a repair tech.