It Is Finally Happening

Yesterday a federal judge in New York ordered that deposition testimony of Jeffrey Epstein mistress and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, be unsealed and available to the public. There are a couple of interesting observations from the story to which I have linked. First, the headline says “Maxwell documents” leading one to think that there is no legal significance to them, i.e., that they cannot be used for evidentiary purposes. However, if you read into the story, you will find that these “documents” are really over 400 pages of deposition testimony, which can be used as evidence either to impeach a witness or for substantive purposes, such as statements of an opposing party. Furthermore, the deposition was given in a civil case that pertains to the exact same facts and circumstances from which Maxwell’s criminal trial arose, so, again, these “documents” can be offered as evidence. And one last thing before moving to point number two: depositions are given under oath before a court reporter and judge. This is what gets them over the hump of being merely hearsay.

Second, the stories–at least as the New York Post presents them–are in a slow, drip, drip style. This means that if you do not follow all of the stories released by the Post, you are likely not going to see the ones that detail who was participating in what. Here is an example: the story that I linked to above only mentions Prince Andrew and nothing more. However, the Post also has stories about Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz, but you are not going to see this unless you follow the story line, as laid out by the Post, down the rabbit hole.

Here are some other little tidbits of interest. The stories are written in such a way as to make this seem like the information is coming from statements given by Virginia Giuffre in 2011. But this is only slightly true. The information is coming from a 2015 deposition, in which Guiffre participated  because it was her suit against Maxwell for defamation. The defamation suit settled. Legally speaking, you cannot infer from a settlement that the losing party is actually guilty of any subsequent claim filed after the settlement if that subsequent claim is related to the settled claim. (That is kind of lawyerly circular speaking, but that is really the best way to put it.) Simply put, Maxwell’s guilt in the present criminal case against her cannot be arrived at simply from the fact that she settled the defamation suit. Now here is the fun part: that settlement though, means that what was in those depositions are accepted as fact in that Maxwell did agree by virtue of the settlement to some level of culpability that arose out of the facts presented in the deposition. Maxwell settled for one of two reasons (or maybe both). One, that she new she did not have a solid case and was going to lose anyway. Or two, that a settlement could be garnered with the added bonus of sealing those depositions. The second option is only as good as the subsequent judges who agree to keep them sealed.

Well on Thursday, July 30, a judge decided it was time to let the public know what we already knew. It has been confirmed, to one extent or another, that the political elite in the Western world is comprised of sex crazed pedophiles willing to put themselves into compromising positions for use at a later date by intelligence organizations. This was one piece to that puzzle. You can read the intelligence angle here.

7+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

18 thoughts on “It Is Finally Happening”

  1. ctlaw:
    Any links to actual docs? These from today are limited:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1092.1.pdf

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1092.2.pdf

    These are dated yesterday. Scroll down to entry 1090:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/giuffre-v-maxwell/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

    Thanks for this CT. I was kind of in a hurry earlier and didn’t want to go searching for the actual documents. I was hoping the Post would link to them for me, but that didn’t happen and that is kind of when I got the inspiration to do this post.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  2. Be careful about the usual Leftie misuse of language.  The prurient media keep on referring to “pedophilia” in this case.  Real pedophilia is a particularly nasty crime — the abuse of very young children.

    Pedophilia should not be misused to describe a 17 year old party girl who has been sexually active since she was about 14 years old and who has decided of her own free will to sell her sexual favors to rich guys.  From what we have seen in the media (I know!  I know!  Never trust the media), all the young women were On the Game and glad to be earning a lot more than they would have on a street corner.  When they got on the private jet and flew to the private island, they did not think they were there to build sand castles — and they knew they would return with a stash of cash in their handbags.  Those young women were not innocent children plucked against their will from their parents’ back yards;  rather, in many jurisdictions around the world, they would have been of marriageable age.

    Now those same women, older but not wiser, are being abused by Greedy Lawyers, who tell them they can sue the rich guys and get even more money– and give 50 or 60% of any settlement to the Greedy Lawyers.

    This is not to excuse the rich Democrats, like President Clinton or Governor Richardson, whose behavior deserves to be exposed to the light of day (although, being Democrats, probably not to the light of the New York Times).  But it is a travesty to the real victims of pedophilia for these young prostitutes to retroactively claim they were abused innocent children.  Let’s try to keep the language clear.

    2+
    avataravatar
  3. Robert A. McReynolds:
    You can read the intelligence angle here.

    That one sums up as Epstein as Mossad agent handled by Ehud Barak.

    There are several problems with that. First, one ends up getting into competing conspiracy theories such as the Mossad offing Robert Maxwell in 1991. Does Gislaine continue to work with Epstein/Mossad?

    Netanyahu has thoroughly trashed Barak for his relationship with Epstein. Netanyahu was PM for about half of Clinton’s presidency and would have known of Israel’s relationship with Epstein. Israel’s deep state is full of leftists who would gladly trash Netanyahu for that if Barak had acted in an official capacity with Netanyahu’s knowledge.

    The “belongs to intelligence” suggests Epstein was working as a US agent. A double agent?

    I doubt he was much of an agent for the US or Israel (e.g., routinely taking orders…). But he likely played a bit of the role, maintaining connections with both, stringing them along, etc. More of an informal informant blowing lots of hot air than an agent.

    2+
    avataravatar
  4. Gavin Longmuir:
    Be careful about the usual Leftie misuse of language.  The prurient media keep on referring to “pedophilia” in this case.  Real pedophilia is a particularly nasty crime — the abuse of very young children.

    Pedophilia should not be misused to describe a 17 year old party girl who has been sexually active since she was about 14 years old and who has decided of her own free will to sell her sexual favors to rich guys.  From what we have seen in the media (I know!  I know!  Never trust the media), all the young women were On the Game and glad to be earning a lot more than they would have on a street corner.  When they got on the private jet and flew to the private island, they did not think they were there to build sand castles — and they knew they would return with a stash of cash in their handbags.  Those young women were not innocent children plucked against their will from their parents’ back yards;  rather, in many jurisdictions around the world, they would have been of marriageable age.

    Now those same women, older but not wiser, are being abused by Greedy Lawyers, who tell them they can sue the rich guys and get even more money– and give 50 or 60% of any settlement to the Greedy Lawyers.

    This is not to excuse the rich Democrats, like President Clinton or Governor Richardson, whose behavior deserves to be exposed to the light of day (although, being Democrats, probably not to the light of the New York Times).  But it is a travesty to the real victims of pedophilia for these young prostitutes to retroactively claim they were abused innocent children.  Let’s try to keep the language clear.

    I would tend to agree with you about teen girls between ages 15 to 17 if the lads were say 18-20. But we are dealing with men in the 40s at least. That to me just smacks of gross.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  5. ctlaw:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    You can read the intelligence angle here.

    That one sums up as Epstein as Mossad agent handled by Ehud Barak.

    There are several problems with that. First, one ends up getting into competing conspiracy theories such as the Mossad offing Robert Maxwell in 1991. Does Gislaine continue to work with Epstein/Mossad?

    Netanyahu has thoroughly trashed Barak for his relationship with Epstein. Netanyahu was PM for about half of Clinton’s presidency and would have known of Israel’s relationship with Epstein. Israel’s deep state is full of leftists who would gladly trash Netanyahu for that if Barak had acted in an official capacity with Netanyahu’s knowledge.

    The “belongs to intelligence” suggests Epstein was working as a US agent. A double agent?

    I doubt he was much of an agent for the US or Israel (e.g., routinely taking orders…). But he likely played a bit of the role, maintaining connections with both, stringing them along, etc. More of an informal informant blowing lots of hot air than an agent.

    You might be confusing case officer with agent. Agent is a broad term that can mean anyone useful to the art of intelligence. In Epstein’s case his usefulness was putting powerful people in compromising situations for the purposes of gaining leverage over them. I would also point to the intelligence world using this kind of sick stuff against targets for at least a century.
    As for maxwell, his funeral was attended by every major know Israeli intelligence figure of his day and I believe he was given honors by the Israeli government. Not bad for a newspaper mogul in the UK, no?

    0

  6. Gavin Longmuir:
    Those young women were not innocent children….

    No, but they were vulnerable and were taken advantage of.  The relationship is not pedophilia, but neither is it simple prostitution.  There is also the matter of who manipulated those youngsters into that situation?

    In some cases they were sold out by their own family.  Ms. Gislaine will know quite a bit about that.

    2+
    avataravatar
  7. “I am shocked that gambling is going on!”

    This went on for years and people knew about it or should have known about it. People get overwhelmed by desires and make decisions which don’t look very good in the light of day. They feel used but they often freely put themselves in harm’s way.

    Society recently speaks out of both sides of its mouth. People should be able to sleep with whomever at ever younger ages but if there are any consequences or remorse they shouldn’t be held accountable. Young kids are sexualized  but heaven forbid that they should be actual sex objects. Sex is okay but not parenting because they are not old enough to be responsible.
    We need to update “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” to “What happens in Vegas is TiVoed in Vegas”. The electronic records don’t go away. To be specific to this case, a private island or private jet is not very private anymore. I hope all these famous people get the Royal Treatment.

    2+
    avataravatar
  8. MJBubba:  “… they were vulnerable and were taken advantage of …

    Maybe, maybe not.  This brings back a memory of a delightful dinner over a decade ago with some California friends and their teenage daughter.  The conversation somehow got round to the topic of the expensive cars some of the girls at her high school drove.  According to the daughter, it was quite common for a teenage girl to go to her step-father (California — marriages don’t last) and threaten to accuse him of sexually abusing her unless he bought her a car.   Step-father knew the table was tilted against him, and would almost always buy the girl a car.

    Some teenage girls are innocent & vulnerable.  Some teenage girls are devious fiends.  It is fairly plain which category the girl who gets $10,000 for 10 minutes with Prince Andrew is likely to fall into.

    The only part we can address is the language.  While the behavior of Clinton and others was certainly “gross” as Robert A. says, it was not “pedophilia” in any true meaning of the term.

    1+
    avatar
  9. Gavin Longmuir:
    MJBubba:  “… they were vulnerable and were taken advantage of …

    Maybe, maybe not.  This brings back a memory of a delightful dinner over a decade ago with some California friends and their teenage daughter.  The conversation somehow got round to the topic of the expensive cars some of the girls at her high school drove.  According to the daughter, it was quite common for a teenage girl to go to her step-father (California — marriages don’t last) and threaten to accuse him of sexually abusing her unless he bought her a car.   Step-father knew the table was tilted against him, and would almost always buy the girl a car.

    Some teenage girls are innocent & vulnerable.  Some teenage girls are devious fiends.  It is fairly plain which category the girl who gets $10,000 for 10 minutes with Prince Andrew is likely to fall into.

    The only part we can address is the language.  While the behavior of Clinton and others was certainly “gross” as Robert A. says, it was not “pedophilia” in any true meaning of the term.

    Or maybe these 40 years old and above men of power can control their sick, perverted desires and resist the urge to sexually violate young ladies irrespective of any vile motives you might apprehend by the ladies? This isn’t about young ladies being temptresses leading Jason and the Argonauts to their doom. This is about middle aged men of power satisfying the most sinister of desires with young women—and frankly possible boys—as young as 12. I frankly couldn’t care less about the motivations of the young ladies. What I care about are people of power attempting to shape and manipulate world events to control my life on a personal level when they can’t even control their members. These men are scum and have likely been compromised so that even more sinister people can perpetuate their wicked schemes, like nourishing the notion of forever war. Your comments are, in my view, woefully misguided.

    2+
    avataravatar
  10. Robert Mc — we are not in any disagreement that the Best & Brightest hiring willing teenage prostitutes is depraved behavior which reflects very badly on those individuals — and also reflects badly on the wider society (ie you, me, and all the rest of us who have tolerated that kind of behavior in public figures).  After all, it is no secret that Bill Clinton used a foolish young woman as a humidor, and yet he is still a hero to many, despite that gross behavior.

    My only point is that their gross behavior with teenage prostitutes is not “pedophilia” in any meaningful sense.  In contrast, sexual abuse of pre-pubescent 12-year olds (male or female) would indeed be pedophilia.  Perhaps you could help me by explaining why that view which seeks to keep words meaningful is woefully misguided?

    0

  11. Gavin Longmuir:
    Some teenage girls are devious fiends.

    They are.

    That does not relieve powerful men of their culpability when they use them as playthings to be briefly enjoyed and then discarded.

    Neither does it relieve the “handlers” of their culpability in manipulating these young people into situations where their bodies can be used as objects.

    Nor does it relieve culpability from investigators, prosecutors, journalists, publishers and politicians who help to veil these despicable acts from view or prosecution.

    2+
    avataravatar
  12. Gavin Longmuir:
    In contrast, sexual abuse of pre-pubescent 12-year olds (male or female) would indeed be pedophilia.

    Yeah, we all had to learn that in a different context.  “Pedophile priests” turned out not to be pedophiles, but homosexuals preying on teenage boys.  Media maintained a constant and consistent use of “pedophile” in order to hide the homosexual aspect of that grave scandal.

    1+
    avatar
  13. Gavin Longmuir:
    Robert Mc — we are not in any disagreement that the Best & Brightest hiring willing teenage prostitutes is depraved behavior which reflects very badly on those individuals — and also reflects badly on the wider society (ie you, me, and all the rest of us who have tolerated that kind of behavior in public figures).  After all, it is no secret that Bill Clinton used a foolish young woman as a humidor, and yet he is still a hero to many, despite that gross behavior.

    My only point is that their gross behavior with teenage prostitutes is not “pedophilia” in any meaningful sense.  In contrast, sexual abuse of pre-pubescent 12-year olds (male or female) would indeed be pedophilia.  Perhaps you could help me by explaining why that view which seeks to keep words meaningful is woefully misguided?

    It just seemed to me, for a moment, that there was an attempt to deflect. I see your point and apologize if I displayed any hostility. Pedophilia or not, it is reprehensible behavior and we agree on that point.

    1+
    avatar
  14. MJBubba:

    Gavin Longmuir:
    In contrast, sexual abuse of pre-pubescent 12-year olds (male or female) would indeed be pedophilia.

    Yeah, we all had to learn that in a different context.  “Pedophile priests” turned out not to be pedophiles, but homosexuals preying on teenage boys.  Media maintained a constant and consistent use of “pedophile” in order to hide the homosexual aspect of that grave scandal.

    Great point Bubba.

    1+
    avatar
  15. MJBubba:  “That does not relieve powerful men of their culpability …

    Agreed — it does not.  But perhaps it should teach an important real-world lesson to the devious fiends among teenage girls — they may be worldly & smart & willing to use their sexual desirability to accomplish their own goals, but there are powerful older rich men out there who are even more devious and devoid of principles than they are.  They need to be careful who they tango with.

    The troubling issue is that the culpability extends beyond those powerful men to the rest of us.  Mr. Epstein himself  “committed suicide” while under 24/7 suicide watch in jail — and no-one is held accountable.  The media bleat about “pedophilia”, but have no interest in getting to the truth of an improbable event which would not pass muster with the editor of a dime store thriller.

    President Clinton took advantage sexually of a very junior (and clearly emotionally very vulnerable) female employee in the work place during working hours — not just gross behavior, but also totally illegal.   Democrats — those brave proponents of women’s rights — could & should properly have booted him out of office and replaced him with Vice President Al Gore.  But they did not.  The culpability in some of these cases extends far beyond the perpetrator.  Serious question:  how do we deal with that?

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  16. MJBubba:

    Gavin Longmuir:
    In contrast, sexual abuse of pre-pubescent 12-year olds (male or female) would indeed be pedophilia.

    Yeah, we all had to learn that in a different context.  “Pedophile priests” turned out not to be pedophiles, but homosexuals preying on teenage boys.  Media maintained a constant and consistent use of “pedophile” in order to hide the homosexual aspect of that grave scandal.

    Predator priests, it should be. Not pedophile (except in a very few cases.)

    Same with Clinton, Epstein, etc.

    3+
    avataravataravatar

Leave a Reply