It doesn't sound the slightest bit absurd. It sounds extremely intelligent, situationally aware, and laser-focused.
२३ ऑक्टोबर, २०२०
"I don’t understand what you mean by ‘female.’ I don’t understand what you mean by ‘recruit.’... What do you mean by ‘romantic’?... What do you mean by ‘know’?... What do you mean by ‘prostitution’?... What’s a sex toy?... I don’t know what you mean, if she looked like a child.... What do you mean by ‘school’? Let’s characterize ‘school.’"
Questions asked by Ghislaine Maxwell during her deposition that shed some light on why the thing is so terribly long but yields no juicy information, quoted in a NY Post column, "Inside Ghislaine Maxwell’s absurd deposition — ‘What do you mean by ‘prostitution’?"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
It doesn't sound the slightest bit absurd.
It doesn’t??? She’s been hanging around Bill Clinton, demanding to know what the meaning of “is”’is.
She-wolves are cunning, some might say clever. It's in their nature.
Smart person.
Hoping for the aristocracy to take over the US Government again so these investigations will go away.
It is the norm in every country everywhere else throughout the entirety of history for the wealthy elite to get away with these things.
It is this norm that democrat voters accept and even feel some nostalgia for.
That is why people can vote for known rapists like Joe Biden and Bill Clinton and still call themselves feminists.
The United States is a complete outlier in that we are actually pursuing these types of investigations. The only other country I have seen this sort of thing in regularly is South Korea which is occupied by the US.
Everywhere else there are investigations used by political opponents to gain power, but never as an actual pursuit of justice.
Before she answers, she wants to be certain she understands their questions. What exactly are they trying to find out? She's smart.
Defense lawyers typically describe witnesses who respond this way as very good witnesses. She listened to her preparation and did not give an inch, refusing to answer any question she did not fully understand and requiring the interrogator to be specific in the terms he was using. It works in depositions but can be off-putting to jurors in open court as the witness who constantly questions the question can look evasive.
In depositions, vague questions should get vague answers, if any.
As my criminal law professor said many years ago, "Just because you did it doesn't mean you're guilty."
Bahahahhahhahha.....whatever. If you like your underaged trafficking, you can keep your underaged trafficking.
That is a guilty person speaking.
Sounds like proof positive that the Clintons and Epstein were joined at the hip
Better Q's than most Judges interpreting deciphering laws.
The Clintons trained her well.
refusing to answer any question she did not fully understand and requiring the interrogator to be specific in the terms he was using. It works in depositions but can be off-putting to jurors in open court as the witness who constantly questions the question can look evasive.
I guess I have more the mindset of a juror, as it sounds like obfuscation to me. Any question, no matter how simple, can be fended off that way. "What is 2+2?" "What do you mean by 'is'?" "Please define '+'." "Under what circumstances?"
If the plaintiff's attorney wasn't getting the answers he wanted, maybe he should have asked different questions.
I've actually seen this sort of thing in action before. The witness was before a grand jury. The D.A. was investigating corruption of a public official. There was no question that the target was guilty, but proving it was another matter. Every question was answered evasively. At times the witness acted as if he had never been asked a question before and was baffled by the novelty. It was very effective to the point that the D.A. was getting visibly and vocally angry while the witness was about as relaxed as you could expect anyone in such a situation. By the end of it nothing was learned that wasn't already known.
If you want a witness to sing, you need leverage. My guess is she believes they don't have any leverage over her or at least not enough leverage, so she is fine wasting their time. Her gamble is either they will have to let her go due to lack of evidence, or they will give her a deal she can accept. Given giving out the truth may be a death sentence for her, she has little to lose.
"It works in depositions but can be off-putting to jurors in open court as the witness who constantly questions the question can look evasive."
How do you mean "evasive"?
"I don’t understand what you mean by ‘female.’"
A lot of that going around lately.
Ha ha it reminds me of when I was deposed. If he read something and got even word wrong..."do you see the email of December 12, 2016 that reads blah blah blah"... I would say "no." He would then reference it again and I would say "no" again. I would then repeat what he said and then read what it actually said back to him. "It doesn't say that it says this. Huge time waster. Funny thing is that it took him awhile to change his ways and actually carefully read whatever he was referencing. He would sometimes just reference an email on such and such date. Sadly for him there were often two or more emails on that date, and I would then ask a lengthy question like "Do you mean the one at 1:04PM that says blah blah or the one at 3PM that says blah blah blah.
He also would ask leading questions that I would ask him to clarify, or would dispute.
We spent more than half the time in the weeds. It was fun!
Thing is, she also just tells flat-out egregious lies, so it's not like she is actually protecting herself legally. My impression is that she is sticking to a strategy that has always worked before, even if it doesn't seem to be working now. A lot like Bill Clinton. Seems to have worked for him. Of course, the entire phenomenon of Epstein and Maxwell makes one wonder, how much of what goes on in this World is determined by a combination of large payoffs and very effective blackmail?
BarrySanders20,
Your criminal law professor sounds like a psychopath.
In fact, one is guilty of the thing precisely at the moment one does the thing.
Whether that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (guilty under the law) is irrelevant to guiltiness.
The ethics of doing bad things does not depend on a legal outcome.
What your professor did was excuse all sorts of bad behavior for the clever.
And that's monstrous.
Of course, the entire phenomenon of Justice Roberts becoming a lapdog of the democrat party makes one wonder, how much of what goes on in this World is determined by a combination of large payoffs and very effective blackmail?
enhanced it for you
they always talk about "once you move to Washington, you sink into the swamp"
they seldom talk about "once they've videoed you raping and beating 14 year olds; they HAVE you"
"The Clintons trained her well."
Her life depends upon it.
As someone who has been deposed over 40 times (as an expert witness), I have a reflexive sympathy for anyone going through the process. It's like getting an all-day root canal from a dentist who hates you. And you are not there to make the opposing attorney's job easy. Your basic responses are:
Yes.
No.
I don't know.
It depends.
I don't understand the question.
I have no judgment on how honest she's being, but I can't fault her on her approach.
"She-wolves are cunning, some might say clever. It's in their nature."
And sometimes they perform cunning stunts.
I'm no AA, but it looks like a brilliant legal strategy to me.
With the 'big guy' dead (Jeffrey, not Joe) all she really has to be worried about are photos and video...
It's hard to tell from the sample whether it's an evasive tactic or a true effort at precision.
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘female.’
You may laugh but this is the most essential distinction for Maxwell to draw. The opposing attorney would like to conflate woman and girl. Maxwell is insisting on specificity since one is categorically a crime and the other is not.
It doesn't sound the slightest bit absurd. It sounds extremely intelligent, situationally aware, and laser-focused.
In lawyerland, perhaps. To the rest of the world, it is ridiculous. It must have been extremely annoying to any layperson in the room.
Remember a deposition reserved for civil cases, like the libel case against Maxwell. Here not to preserve testimony, since the defendant will be at her trial. So will be used to find out her "story" and to impeach if she gives different answer at trial. Sounds like she went to great lengths to keep it sealed because the overall impression it creates for her is bad. She won't answer questions this way at trial.
It worked for Clinton. It would be sexist to deny a female the same out.
"It doesn’t??? She’s been hanging around Bill Clinton, demanding to know what the meaning of “is”’is."
Clinton was asked about how he answered the question "is" there a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. He said no. He didn't ask the questioner at the deposition what do you mean by "is." He just answered "no." When he later had to testify about why he answered "no" and wasn't that a lie, he should have said: I was asked IS there a relationship, and there was no current relationship. IS is the present tense. I was asked about the present time. I answered "no" because it was absolutely correct in response to the question asked.
To be like Maxwell, Clinton would have said, in the first deposition, when asked "is" there a sexual relationship, "what do you mean by 'is'?" He chose not to draw attention to the limited form of the question. If he had, the question would have turned into "Is there now or was there ever a sexual relationship?" To be like Maxwell, Clinton would have responded "What do you mean by a sexual relationship?" That would have drawn attention to the limitedness of the question, tipping off the lawyer to asks something like "Is there now or was there ever an sort of action between you and Ms. Lewinsky that could be called "sexual," such as...." blah blah blah.
Clinton was not like Maxwell at all.
Maxwell testified like someone who wanted to make sure she didn't get trapped by the language that was being imposed on her.
Clinton saw how the lawyer deposing him had left the trap door open.
I am wondering if Interrogation at Gitmo is equally inept?!
also if she was Mossad as claimed elsewhere maybe she had trained to be interrogation resistant
Omertà
"I don’t understand what you mean by ‘female.’"
A lot of that going around lately.
They conflated ("=") sex and gender for purposes of normalizing trans/homosexuals and indoctrinating and corrupting youth for social progress. They did that previously with life, science, and religion (e.g. ethics, law), for purposes of normalizing selective and cannibalized-child under planned parenthood, and to socially distance abortionists, feminists, and politicians from their victims. Under the Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, and liberal ideology, life, the universe, reality is fluid, specifically politically congruent (a "secular" sociopolitical construct).
Clinton saw how the lawyer deposing him had left the trap door open.
An open trap door is exactly what you don't want to step into. What you must have in mind is an escape hatch.
I read about 1/4 of the deposition yesterday- she is very smart and very evasive. There is nothing that I read in the deposition or other peoples' description of it that nails her down. However, she is facing federal charges, and a criminal trial testimony won't go like this deposition did, but then she isn't forced to answer questions then, either.
Jupiter said...
"It works in depositions but can be off-putting to jurors in open court as the witness who constantly questions the question can look evasive."
How do you mean "evasive"?"
Exactly! It is subjective. Good witnesses don't accept the characterization in a question designed to get them to admit something they either dont agree with or dont want to admit. Go prove whatever point some other way or let the jury reach the conclusion (evasive = likely guilty) based on the actual demeanor or conduct of the witness they saw testify.
I was asked IS there a relationship, and there was no current relationship.
This is reminiscent of Covid-19 cases that include past, probable, plausible, and present. Oh, well. The virus...
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
It depends when life is life.
Ms. Maxwell is currently practicing her extremely intelligent, situationally aware, and laser-focused depositional skills at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Brooklyn, New York, where she spends her time not getting trapped by her bedsheets.
Let them all soak in their corruption. I hope those fucking Democrats sort it all out to THEIR satisfaction.
Rotten, soulless, good for nothing shitheels...
"We spent more than half the time in the weeds. It was fun!”
And you got to put the lawyer’s kid through college! What were you hiding? That’s what I read, that you were hiding something.
All she needs to do is stay out of jail until Biden wins, and like everybody else, use whatever dirt she has to get out of jail free.
how much of what goes on in this World is determined by a combination of large payoffs and very effective blackmail?
Why does this look like a Econ 101 supply-and-demand curve?
Clinton was not like Maxwell at all.
Two things:
First Bill Clinton, do we really know the extent he insisted lawyers provided definitions for every word in every sentence? I recall the "meaning of is" was a leak from the deposition, but I don't recall the entire deposition being leaked.
Second, Hillary Clinton used a similar tactic, such as, "what do you mean by wiped?".
I agree that the Clintons were likely better at it than Maxwell, but the overall strategy is the same. We know Bill wanted to suggest penetrating Monica with his penis wasn't sexual because it was via her mouth and not her vagina. Hillary wanted to suggest she had nothing to do with destroying evidence. Maxwell wants people to believe the young girls got a nice vacation in the Caribbean while they gave messages to nice men. It's no more prostitution than a wife giving maintenance sex for her husband taking her to a resort.
Maxwell testified like someone who didn't want to answer the question. Those weren't ambiguous words she was wrestling over.
Yes, just like Hillary and Bill.... "I don't recall", "not to my knowledge", "what does 'is' mean", "what does sex mean"?
Just a bunch of lying sleezebags.
She sounds exactly like Hillary when she "testified" to Congress, and Comey when he "testified" to Congress. Very smartly protecting themselves from perjury or giving evidence, but attempting to thwart the justice system, lying that they can't recall or remember information. There's almost no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone doesn't remember something. As long as they are willing to lie under oath (and there is no doubt Hillary and Comey and Maxwell have no compunction about that), there is no way to get evidence or prove perjury.
Maybe they can get her on tax evasion.
Depends what you're definition of "is" is.
Knowing how we do the bias of the deep state, and the generally leftward lean of the legal profession: do you think maybe the attorney deposing Clinton deliberately left that trap door open?
And it’s a terrible shame poor Jeffrey isn’t around to back me up on all of this.
Clinton saw how the lawyer deposing him had left the trap door open.
Excellent point, one that is new to me at least. But it raises the question of why the deposing lawyer did that, and there are only two choices: Incompetence or duplicity.
I've never been deposed. Curious George's take makes me almost want to be.
This is how I’d respond in any deposition. G
MadisonMan said...I've never been deposed. Curious George's take makes me almost want to be.
I have been deposed as an expert witness and found it pretty straightforward. You simply keep in mind that you have to say as little as possible in order to avoid word traps. I watched my ex give extremely brief answers in court testimony and the judge was completely deferential to her despite the opposing counsel's attempts to get her to opine more..
Word meanings are extremely important to lawyers. Thus, it should be no surprise that lawyers turned politicians play a lot of word games that annoy people. They cannot stand Trump who is straightforward, but meandering and boastful. His lack of word discipline must really annoy them.
I suspect that is one reason that Althouse will never vote for Trump.
I have no sympathy for her, but I can't fault her response to a deposition. If *I* were being deposed by the notoriously corrupt federal authorities (regardless of my own guilt or innocence), I'd be as uncoopeative and cagey as possible. Especially if I suspected they were out to get me. Anyone with any sense would.
As for how it would look to a jury, well, I'm not going to testify in court. There are more laws, rules, regulations, and court decisions at the federal, state, and local level than ANYONE can even count, and I'm legally responsible for following each and every one. Anything I say could potentially incriminate me. So I'll just take the Fifth, thanks.
Her testimony was evasive.
That’s why the judge in the case ordered Maxwell to submit to a second deposition.
This was the first deposition. The second deposition hasn’t been made public yet.
I haven’t read the transcript, but, in the opening “admonitions” it is common for examining counsel to say “If I ask you a question that you don’t understand please tell me, otherwise I will assume you understand it, is that fair”, and get a “Yes.” Answer. So . . .
"I have heard from a reliable anonymous source that was talking to my cousin who was talking to a Russian in a London bar that democrats have changed their mascot from the donkey to the ostrich"
Best comment at the Journal so far imo
Birkel said...
BarrySanders20,
Your criminal law professor sounds like a psychopath.
In fact, one is guilty of the thing precisely at the moment one does the thing.
Whether that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (guilty under the law) is irrelevant to guiltiness.
The ethics of doing bad things does not depend on a legal outcome.
What your professor did was excuse all sorts of bad behavior for the clever.
And that's monstrous.
It was a pithy way of explaining that you have the right to remain silent and make the state prove its case (due process). But it also helped convince me not to do criminal defense work.
In defense of the accused prof, however, how does the guy who killed another in self defense fit into your ethical framework? That is, he did the deed but it does not mean he is guilty.
She seems to have studied at the Bill Clinton school of deposition prep.
"I have heard from a reliable anonymous source that was talking to my cousin who was talking to a Russian in a London bar that democrats have changed their mascot from the donkey to the ostrich"
An ostrich, maybe. A jackass that kicks and brays, certainly. Fortunately, for them, their Twilight faith, Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic quasi-religion (e.g. "ethics"), and liberal ideology, gives them peace of mind, backed by public and private, domestic and foreign, special and peculiar interests, offer them secular incentive in a fascist utopia.
Mark Jones, if you take the Fifth in a civil case in many states it can be used against you. In some, like California, it may not. She is the defendant in this civil case, so would be tough if she did not testify in her deposition. Can't change at trial. So she waived.
Positivly Clintonesque
The "I don't know what you mean by..." schtick. Common technique today by lefty femme types in debate/questioning scenarios. Be deliberately obstructive by pretending that every piece of language is up for biased interpretation.
"I read about 1/4 of the deposition yesterday- she is very smart and very evasive."
I (and many others) believe that she is an intelligence agent...probably Mossad. No wonder she knows what she's doing...
Intelligent, maybe. Smart, yes. She's reading from the Urban Dictionary, or a Social Justice blog, where words are routinely appropriated, reused, recycled and normalized with popular, "living", politically congruent meanings. This semantic evolution has occurred for over 1/2 (21-20th) century.
Micro-parsing of language as a diversion strategy: Sounds like Ghislaine had been reading Althouse.
Sounds like Althouse approves, too. Interesting.
“It doesn't sound the slightest bit absurd. It sounds extremely intelligent, situationally aware, and laser-focused.”
I agree, and I’m not a lawyer, Clintonista, or pedophilic procurer. We’ve seen the perjury traps lawyers will produce out of thin air. Guilty or not, if they’re out to get you, why would you help them? Make them whittle their innuendo into bare, well-defined questions.
I don’t know if she’s guilty (and I sure as hell am not going to take some Netflix hitjob at face value) but she’s clearly smarter than the average bear.
It sounds lawyerly; and totally disingenuous. Only a lawyer would look at that in admiration. It's all a show for the rubes, Ma & Pa Kettle out in the provinces. She's going walk or at worst, receive a couple years probation and time served. We all know it.
At 400+ pages, she ain't deposing, she's bragging!
To reprise an old joke about the confessional.
John Henry
If you've ever been in a deposition you'll appreciate what she is doing. She's under oath and the other side is throwing broad questions to her and she wants them to say what the terms mean. Like her or not she's well-coached and there's no reason not to be asking these questions.
Well, some of those words used to cost extra on Epstein Island.
She's running out the clock. Trump can't pardon her until after the election.
She's trying to make the best defense for herself. Can't fault her for that. It's her right. It's what you or I would do under the same circumstances. Of course I doubt anyone here other than the Usual Suspects would put themselves in this situation. It just means that the prosecution better be at the top of their game to prove the facts of the case. It will be in teresting to see what comes out in court.
I understand they found bodies buried on Epsteins island.
Life is the most dangerous toy!
https://chemicalgorithms.blogspot.com/
From the soundtrack of "O Lucky Man"... "We all want justice but you gotta have the money to buy it". Great movie, nearly Emmy winning soundtrack by Alan Price!
Big Mike nailed it in the first comment. And exactly what I thought upon reading the post.
Both prolly know what jiz is also.
Not to mention, lying BIG TIME.
Sounds like she’s a better lawyer than the lawyer questioning her.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा