It's not believable that he hasn't thought about it. Just to hear the question Have you thought about it? is to think about it... depending on the meaning of "thought." I think he means to assert that these current discussions his Justice Department is having with Maxwell are not about making some sort of deal with her to give them useful testimony in exchange for a pardon. But how can that not be implicit? How can he not have thought of it... he who has portrayed his whole existence as endless, ongoing dealmaking?
***
"Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks" — Donald Trump, "The Art of the Deal."
పోస్ట్లు
64 కామెంట్లు:
He has a lot on his mind -- maybe Epstein, et al, is far down the list.
He’s thought about commuting her sentence in exchange for cooperation.
He’s parsing like Clinton
Thoughts and considerations. The former is why we are unsuitable candidates to godhood and the latter is how we strive for self-improvement.
Was the question to Trump "did the thought ever occur to you," which seems to be the Althouse interpretation, or whether he gave a pardon serious thought?
If Cheeto Pedo is lying about THIS question, I wonder what else about this case he’s not coming clean about?
I found this background video, from Nate the Lawyer, interesting about the topic of Ghislaine Maxwell. Honestly, there is a lot there that people can spin all sorts of way. For me, the takeaway is there are various rules in our judicial system that continue to suggest a two-tiered system, but mostly likely a system in which those that know and can take advantage of the loopholes the rules provide will do better than those who can't.
"Haven't thought about" can mean different things. Usually it means "haven't thought about until now" but it can also mean "haven't seriously considered." Whichever applies, the difference is minor and context can be your guide.
A thought in passing or serious consideration? Perhaps he should’ve said “haven’t given much thought to it”.
There’s old marble-mouth…
Take Trump seriously but not literally. As others have said, he surely meant he hadn't given it any serious thought.
"That's how I get my kicks." -- ghostwriter
--- Whichever applies, the difference is minor and context can be your guide.
Mellow!
Hasn't thought about it, that is until the end of his presidency when she suddenly gets pardoned for keeping her mouth shut.
Rest assured, Mark, if that were ever to happen, it wouldn’t be via auto-pen.
Maxwell wants a pardon, Donnie wants her to lie and tell people he wasn’t involved.
Even the dumbest of MAGAts like Iman know this, in their black little hearts.
TBH thinks her "MAGAts" is an insult. We are proud to join DJT in "making American great again." TBH and her ilk hate America and it shows in every piece of drivel she offers up.
D-bagInag - Is a desperate troll.
It could be it’d be a waste of time to think about because there is no possible deal to be made at this point. It’s too early to think about it. Good/Great execs are efficient that way.
Ghislaine Maxwell Can’t Help But Notice Interview Room Covered In Plastic Sheeting ~ The Onion
“Perplexed that the Department of Justice had chosen a setting with such strange decor to ask her about Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators, Ghislaine Maxwell confirmed Thursday that she couldn’t help but notice her interview room was covered in plastic sheeting. “Wow, you’ve got the whole room tarped up—you guys doing some painting later?” said Maxwell as she stepped into the Florida courthouse’s windowless office, with eyewitnesses reporting that she then carefully shuffled over to a plastic-wrapped chair after briefly slipping on the slick, sheeted floor. “I see you’ve got plenty of bleach, too. You must be pretty concerned about hygiene with all the people who pass through here. And hey, you’re all wearing ponchos. Is it supposed to rain later? Looked sunny when I came in, but I’d take a poncho too if you’ve got a spare.”🤣
Is MAGAts insulting?
I hadn’t thought about that.
It's often overlooked — but Trump was the first to mention Epstein in a political context, repeatedly attacking Bill Clinton in 2015. He did so at CPAC and in a Bloomberg interview at the time.
It seems like we should look at everything Trump claims his enemies are doing and assume that it's exactly what he is doing.
With Maxwell, there are only two possibilities- either the DoJ wasn't interested in making a plea deal with her in exchange for testimony against people on the "client list" or she didn't have any actionable information. I think it is almost certainly the latter case that is operative here. When Epstein died, her only leverage for a deal died with him.
Your disingenuousness aside, I don't find it insulting, Ballsucker.
The president and his team would definitely want Maxwell to THINK that there's an opportunity for clemency if she has useful evidence to reveal. That would be somewhat important in getting her talking at all.
Needless to say, the people suggesting that the fact of the interview itself somehow proves that Trump was involved in Epstein-related sex crimes, Maxwell has evidence of his guilt, and that the interviewer's mission is to cut a deal with Maxwell to withhold her evidence or give perjured testimony that exonerates Trump are way out on a limb. These are clearly defamatory assertions being made with literally no evidence to back them. Trump and the lawyers should sue anyone making these claims.
"Do you think that myself, Bongino and others would participate in hiding information about Epstein’s grotesque activities?” ~ Kash Patel
Rhetorical question 🤣
"It hasn't even crossed my mind" and "I haven't given it serious consideration" are both translations of the sentence. It all makes more sense if you consider that Trump doesn't really want Maxwell to speak, most likely for national security reasons of one sort or another.
Does Maxwell really want to spill all the beans, or just enough to get her sentence reduced? Or is it a purely tactical play on her lawyers' part? The Democrats' insistence on releasing the files is also tactical. They don't want all the beans spilled either
*
Compare this with what people are calling "Obamagate" (since Obama must have been involved). The lesson there is that the government and its law enforcement and intelligence agencies aren't to be trusted. If that's the lesson learned, it's hard not to apply it to the Epstein case.
The cases mutually reinforce the impression that the CIA, FBI, and the government in general incessantly lie to the country, but the contradiction in Trump's approach to the two cases hurts his credibility.
I saw the movie “ Advise & Consent ”. When I was a kid. So I know that the government lies to me but that leadership is morally admirable so they only lie to us for our own good.
The way to deal with the Epstein files and the approach I expect will eventually happen is that a facility is set up where anyone who wants to can enter and examine all files and videos but can only enter with a pen and paper- no photos and no copies. You can write anything you want about them in public but you take your own risks of libel with you.
The democrats just voted against releasing the Epstein files.
They just make it more obvious every day they don’t believe a single word that they say.
"Trump's Epstein scandal" should be renamed "Russia-Gate II" because it, too, is made up out of whole cloth, has no evidence behind it and its sole purpose is a pathetic attempt to libel Trump. As evidenced by TBH and Rich, above, our lefty commenters do not have the intellect to build a credible smear campaign so how do they convince anyone who is not consumed with TDS that Trump is a child molester? Precisely what is the evidence for these smears? Did he ever shower with his preteen daughter or indiscriminately sniff little girls like Slow Joe? You zeros need to up your game or crawl back under your rock because merely annoying the adults in the room is not likely to bring you any success.
Benghazi style hearings should help clear up this matter.
A-Shill-Ease, that is incorrect.
I do think you really might think it’s true though and it’s really emblematic of why MAGAts are often wrong but never in doubt.
Did Alex jones tell you that? Maybe turn off the Breitbart, Newsmax, Fox News or put down the crack pipe.
This is really stupid. Does anyone believe that if Maxwell "exposes" any other important person or persons, that person or persons is/are not going to sing like a canary about Trump (assuming there is any basis for doing so)?
If there were any plea discussions at all with Maxwell before or after trial they went like this:
DoJ: "Ms. Maxwell, do you have anything to tell us about Jeffrey Epstein's dealings with Donald Trump?"
Maxwell: "Not really, they knew each other but that is pretty much all I know, however, I do have information about ..."
DoJ: "Ok, we are done here, enjoy your 20 years in prison."
You literally have to have the IQ of a garden slug to not understand that if Biden's DoJ had anything at all to leak about Trump and Epstein or with which to indict him, they would have used it 100% for certain. Hell, they would have made it up if they could have plausibly done so.
Its difficult to understand why the Administration can’t get on top of the Epstein mess. It has been months since Bondi claimed the files were right in front of her. Even if she was sincere but wrong, there has been plenty of time to review what is there and determine what to say about it. The DOJ motion to release grand jury minutes in Florida was doomed to fail because of binding 11th Circuit law. Motions are also pending in NY, which has slightly looser rules as to grand jury secrecy but are unlikely to find any exception applies.
Reports that some FBI files “mention” Trump are meaningless since his having a relationship with Epstein is well-established. With all of the attention to this issue and the resources devoted to it, and given Trump’s expressed desire to put the issue behind him, what is holding them back from declaring what is and isn’t in the files, at least as it relates to Trump.
That Trump’s former personal counsel and current deputy AG is only now interviewing Maxwell years after she was convicted and jailed is both irregular and peculiar. Pardoning her or commuting her sentence in the face of all the current brouhaha would give new legs to the controversy.
If by now the Administration doesn’t know what’s in the files, they are really incompetent. If they do but are saying nothing, someone is being protected, not necessarily Trump but also not a Democrat since the Administration has no reason to hide dirt on the Dems.
The Democrats and the media certainly are happy to keep this alive but it is up to the Administration to clarify or not. That they aren’t is strange.
Perhaps some deals you don’t even think of making?
As the wheels start to fall off: Four Seasons Total Landscaping 2.0
Just for old times sake, right before the release of any more Epstein files, can we have Bill Barr hold a news conference to let us know that they totally exonerate Trump?
Barr’s father gave Epstein his predatory start at the Dalton School. "Epstein-Barr Scandal" is pretty catchy.
“D-bagInag - Is a desperate troll.”
Peachy, I know you are not an intelligent person, but if you can’t tell the difference in Teabag Hag’s style of speech and mine you are just a dummy who posts too many stupid comments.
"Do you think that myself, Bongino and others would participate in hiding information about Epstein’s grotesque activities?” ~ Kash Patel
Rhetorical question 🤣“
I laughed too when I heard him say that as if everyone would just say, “Oh no, of course not!”
shitbird teabaghag
is always halfinthebag
brain’s maggot riddled
Yancey, there's no way the Clintons would allow Biden to release that.
After claiming that Biden was an empty shell being manipulated during his presidency, you now claiming that those pulling the strings would have wanted the Epstein files released is hilarious.
The fact that you make this your argument suggests that you have memory problems and the IQ of a carrot.
Well, counselor, if you sprung that trap on me in the witness box, I would point out that you asked me if I had thought about pardoning her, a past tense question.
Garlands justice department handled all the settlements, one judge engelmayer remember him, handled seven epstein related cases, (thats a fantastic coincidence,)
the future cia director, then assistant secretary of state william burns visited epstein as late as 2014
it doesn't take a whole lot of time, to find this out,
Lefty Mark again showing how dumb he is- Clinton had nothing to do with the Biden DoJ not leaking out Trump material. Your fellow idiot, Lonejustice, tried a similar arguement the other day but this requires the Biden people to be so fucking stupid as not being able how to selectively leak whatever most benefitted them. They are dumb, but they aren't that dumb. But you are.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/25/maxwells-lawyer-says-shes-undecided-on-appearing-for-congressional-testimony-00477405
“A lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell said his client is still deciding whether she will honor a congressional subpoena demanding her testimony next month before House lawmakers.
“We have to make a decision about whether she will do that or not,” said David Oscar Markus, an attorney for Maxwell, the convicted sex trafficker and co-conspirator of the deceased financier Jeffrey Epstein. “That’s been scheduled for the week of August 11th and we haven’t gotten back to them on whether we’ll do that.
Well, that’s unsurprising. Of course she won’t testify in front of Congress, they can’t pardon her. The deal will be made with Trump’s personal attorney, Todd Blanch who is pretending to be the DOJ Deputy AG. What a farce.
Coast-bound,
If I am correct about the nature of the files, releasing them will make literally no one happy because it will turn out to really be a big pile nothing that isn't already in the public domain. Trump will then be accused of not releasing the stuff that damages him even it doesn't exist. Like I wrote above, the way out of this is to put the materials in SCIF but with open access to everyone but you don't get to take any devices in with you- you get a pen and paper inside the room that you can take out with you as notes.
Dingabat, Congress can make her appear- it really isn't up to her.
If I recall correctly, Trump flew several times to Florida on Epstein's plane in the 1990s when his own was unavailable, never alone and never with Epstein himself. He never went to the island. He broke off relations with Epstein and kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago in 2003, following some inappropriate overtures to underage members of the staff. He cooperated with either the Florida or Federal investigation in the 2006-7 time frame -- hence the breathless reports of his "name being mentioned" in the files -- and has been publicly accusing him and his friends of pedophilia since 2015.
If he has something to hide or is susceptible to blackmail, he's behaved in a singularly unusual and dangerous manner, practically uniquely among Epstein's camera-shy former associates.
because Maurene? handled the prosecution and didn't list any other co defendants, her case should be reviewed, but since the settlements came a year later, well you can see why this was pursued in this manner,
“Congress can make her appear- it really isn't up to her.”
Dumbass Yancey, of course they already voted to subpoena her. But what makes you think she will show up just because she is subpoenaed by the Congress, what will they do to her? Put her in jail? Fines? She’s in jail with no income. They can’t pardon her, they can offer her immunity, but she’s probably looking for a pardon which they can’t give her.
Yes, Inga, she can prosecuted for contempt of Congress and will be if she doesn't show up. It isn't up to her- she will show if Congress demands it. What is wrong, Dingabat- you afraid she will show up and torpedo your Trump-pedo delusions?
I guess it takes pseudo scandals like this to awaken Igna from her Chardonnay and Xanax stupor.
Oh my, dumbass Yancey! Maxwell will be so intimidated if they charge her with Contempt of Congress, she’s already in prison for child sex traffing for 20 years. She is a known liar, but I would love to have her testify under oath in front of Congress anyway. Maybe she can be charged with perjury then. If the Epstein files get released we can all see for ourselves who is lying and who is telling the truth. What are you so afraid of that might be in the Epstein Files?
What are you so afraid of that might be in the Epstein Files?
How many fucking times do you need to be told we WANT to see the files. All of them.
We always have. Always.
It's only now - when the left thinks they can make some political hay out of it - you've suddenly changed your tune.
If he has something to hide or is susceptible to blackmail, he's behaved in a singularly unusual and dangerous manner, practically uniquely among Epstein's camera-shy former associates.
This is what I've been saying. No one ever responds. I suppose it is possible to consider that Trump is so arrogant that he thinks somehow he could ride this out if he were guilty - but Occam's razor would suggest that his behavior reflects self-knowledge of his own innocence.
(Concerning Trump's arrogance: let's say he is just that arrogant. He also went through four years of hounding, impeachments, reputational destruction, and then four more years of lawfare, indictments, court cases, fines, and felony convictions for things no one had ever been convicted for before - and some of this was thanks to the defection of people from his own administration. I'll try this one more time: in his second administration, when he can choose whom to put in and whom not to put in, why on Earth would he choose to elevate people who were committed to exposing the contents of these files if he knew that he could be implicated in them? No matter how arrogant he may be, why would he think he would be immune?)
In case it's unclear, my hypothesis is that yes, there are names or events in the files that Trump wants not to reveal. But - again, my hypothesis - he wants not to reveal them because they are still useful to our intelligence services. Still my hypothesis: he was sufficiently stymied in his first term that he could not fully review these files, and of course during his four years in the political wilderness he had no access to then, nor did his associates.
So they raise questions about Epstein's death, they demand to see the files, they swear to reveal the files - and then they win. And then they find out that there are things in there that will cause harm to ongoing ops if revealed.
Why - why would an administration that came in knowing it was going to be fighting for every inch of terrain decide to go this way? Because this situation is 100% predictable. Q.E D. There's nothing incriminating about Trump in there, but the IC really really doesn't want the files opened.
Dingabat, Maxwell will get out of prison sometime in the 6-8 years. She will not risk getting a contempt sentence added at the end of that period. It is almost as if you have zero understanding of human nature.
And I am right- the Democrats are hoping Maxwell doesn't testify because it will end the Trump-pedo ploy almost instantly.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.