In a letter to Congress, the lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator says clemency would allow her to talk to lawmakers.

Archive - https://archive.is/I2XSz

all 55 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 106 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I’m confused. Is she offering to lie on the stand about Trump’s guilt in exchange for a presidential pardon?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 74 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Am I alone in not caring what she has to say? The FBI has all the documents and her previous testimony already. She already had the opportunity to defend herself in court pleading her case, was found guilty, and is serving time for crimes she's done.

    Hey, Judge person, just say "nope, back to your cell" and close the book.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is the most obvious setup ever. What she has to “say” will have nothing to do with previous testimony and everything to do with exonerating Trump and his hundreds of millions of apologists.

    For a pardon that Americans will accept because Trump is worth it to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    Known child rapist has something to say about other child rapists in exchange for a reduced sentence from another child rapist.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    She's gonna name like 50 democrats and that's it. We know how this goes. Disgusting.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Source: https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/07/the-100-names-ghislaine-maxwell-named-as-being-on-the-epstein-list

    • Barack Obama
    • Definitely NOT Donald Trump, of whom Jeffrey Epstein often said “I wish Donald Trump would stop foiling my plans to do pedophile crimes!”
    • Bill Clinton
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Chelsea Clinton
    • Socks the cat
    • Rosie O’Donnell
    • Stephen Colbert
    • Rachel Maddow
    • Barack Hussein Obama
    • Joe Biden
    • Hunter Biden
    • Joe Biden’s wife
    • Justin Trudeau
    • Mark Carney
    • Trey Parker
    • Matt Stone
    • Cartman from South Park
    • the starting lineup of the 2018 Philadelphia Eagles who refused to come to the White House
    • Barack Obama
    • Liz Cheney
    • Robert Mueller
    • everyone that works at NPR
    • Kamala Harris
    • woke Superman
    • Nancy Pelosi
    • Jack Smith
    • Mark Milley
    • Letitia James
    • Adam Schiff
    • Anderson Cooper
    • you guessed it… Barack Obama
    • Elmo
    • John Bolton
    • Anthony Fauci
    • Seth Meyers
    • Jimmy Kimmel
    • Michelle Obama
    • also Barack Obama
    • Kristen Stewart
    • George W. Bush
    • Dick Cheney
    • the woke Pope
    • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a major Epstein co-conspirator from 1995-99
    • Bruce Springsteen
    • Taylor Swift
    • Beyoncé
    • Chris Christie
    • Bono
    • Oprah Winfrey
    • “Barry O”, aka, Barack Obama
    • James Comey
    • Warionald Trump, evil twin of Donald Trump who is often mistaken for him in photographs
    • Sonia Sotomayor
    • that nerd Ezra Klein
    • Prince Andrew (some of these have to be real)
    • Whoever discontinued St. Tropez Orange Spray Tan No. 4
    • Central Park Five #1
    • Central Park Five #2
    • Central Park Five #3
    • Central Park Five #4
    • Central Park Five #5
    • Leona Helmsley
    • Stephen King
    • Stormy Daniels
    • E. Jean Carroll
    • Tony Schwartz
    • Alec Baldwin
    • the guy who played Biff Tannen in Back To The Future Part II
    • Ivana Trump
    • the cast of Saturday Night Live circa 2016-2025
    • Jon Leibowitz, aka “Jon Stewart”
    • Bill Gates
    • Anthony Blinken
    • Mike Pompeo
    • Adam Kinzinger
    • everyone who ever attended Harvard University
    • Kilmar Abrego Garcia
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Barack Obama
    • Alan Dershowitz, but actually
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    She was supposed to have immunity after Epstein's first conviction from Florida but New York decided that they didn't have to honor that. Why would she try again?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    How many times does this need to be repeated? State and Federal crimes are separate, as are every individual State.

    They were flying girls from New York to Florida, so you not only have Federal crimes, but both states can prosecute for the crimes on their State.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Then why is she sitting in Federal Prison? She was prosecuted in federal court on federal charges regarding the activity she should have had immunity on when Epstein was convicted the first time. He had a deal with the federal prosecutor in Florida that they would grant immunity to his co-conspirators. He did what he was supposed to under the deal but the New York prosecutor who convicted Maxwell decided to ignore that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Ah, I see you missed one of the major events in this saga. One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, saying she and other victims were not informed that the Epstein case was being resolved with a plea deal, as required by law. This was a sealed agreement made via the U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that seemed to specifically be intended to prevent the victims from knowing about the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement). In 2019, a judge ruled in their favor.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/735804464/jeffrey-epsteins-sex-offender-plea-deal-must-stand-federal-prosecutors-say

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ah, so a Trump appointee made an illegal deal that was supposed to keep everything hidden from the victims and public at large... It's almost like Trump had a vested interest in keeping stuff related to the case hidden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    And that is NOT the fault of Epstein. He upheld his end of the bargain and if the prosecutor did something underhanded that is not Epstein's fault. The agreement should have been honored. Look at the Smollet and Cosby cases. But imagine if it was the way you wanted. All the prosecution has to do is break some rules on their end just so they can invalidate any deals made to the defense. Who would make deals then? They typically give immunity to secure convictions and this would make it impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    So let me get this straight: you are OK with a prosecutor making illegal deals that hurt victims as long as it benefits the defendant?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    No. Let me get you straight before you try to put words in my mouth to paint your narrative.

    I am against prosecutors GOING BACK on the deals they've made. I don't care if the prosecutor did something wrong ON THEIR END. They are the ones who have to make sure their side is straight. If the defendant enters an agreement with the prosecutor and fulfills their end of the agreement then the govt has to uphold their end as well. The defendant is at no fault for the prosecution's mistake.

    And before you continue to try and paint your narrative I want to be clear that I'm not siding with the govt or Epstein. IDAF, Epstein is dead. But during his first conviction a deal was made by the prosecution who represented the US Govt and that deal granted immunity to his co-conspirators which was broken by someone else who represented the US Govt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Again, this was an illegal deal that hurts victims and protects a guilty defendant. There is a reason why this kind of deal is illegal.

    You are saying quite clearly that you don't care if the government broke the law to protect a defendant and hurt victims, as long as they keep their word. You care more about keeping promises than you do about why the laws are there in the first place. The defendant actually is at fault here, and they are making a deal to keep their friends safe after breaking different laws. If that deal is illegal, why should it be honored? To protect a criminal?

    If I make a deal to have the prosecutor murder the person who accused me of my crimes in exchange for giving up information to convict someone more important, are you OK with the prosecutor making and honoring that deal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You are clearly arguing just to argue.

    1. How is the defendant at fault? They didn't make the deal, the prosecutor did. All they did was agree to the terms and kept their end of the bargain. Literally lawyers on both sides and the one who is not a lawyer is at fault?

    2. AGREEING to a deal that protects one party from prosecution is the WHOLE POINT OF IMMUNITY. If the govt is known for not honoring immunity deals then no one will ever agree to them and key witnesses will be hard to come by in cases against organized crime.

    3. If you make a deal THEN YOU HONOR IT! The example you gave on murder is fucking stupid. That's clearly an illegal act. But the govt had their lawyers AND STILL MADE THE DEAL. Honor your deal.

    Let me guess though. You are the type of person who goes back on their word just because you felt some type of way. Enter a contract and back out halfway through because things change?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
    1. It is the defendant's fault because he is a criminal who chose to make a deal that protected other criminals while stealing justice from victims. Also, the guy is dead.

    2. He made a deal on the behalf of other people, not himself. Those other people did not agree to this deal. The person who did agree to the deal is dead. The government honored the illegal deal until he died.

    3. You say my murder example is stupid because "that's clearly an illegal act." This deal is clearly an illegal act. It is illegal to make this deal. Period. Just because the lawyers agreed to the deal does not make it any less illegal. It is and was illegal. You say "honor your deal" but ignore that the deal was illegal. In the US Justice system, illegal deals are not binding.

    I'm not arguing just to argue. This is important stuff. The basis of our legal system isn't "honoring handshake agreements." There are real reasons why we have laws and don't go by backroom deals. The justice system is a deal between the government and the people to protect victims and deliver justice. Honoring this illegal deal is breaking the agreement between the victims and their government.

    And nice try making me out to the some kind of bad guy and saying I don't keep my word. What kind of ignorant argument is that? If the government said my word was illegal then I would be forced by law to go back on my word. That is the case here. One party made an illegal agreement that cannot be legally held.

    If you made an agreement to buy a car from someone, but that someone actually sold you a stolen car, guess what happens. The answer is not that you get to keep the stolen car because the person who broke the law needs to keep his side of the bargain. The person who had their car stolen gets it back (hopefully).

    In this case, one of the parties who made the agreement is dead. The other party broke the law in making the agreement. The people who are being protected by the agreement never agreed to it in the first place. So it makes no sense to honor an agreement between a dead guy and a criminal lawyer in order to protect other criminals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No you are arguing just to argue.

    I never said anything about “honoring handshake agreements” as the basis of our justice system and this isn't a handshake agreement. It was literally done in a court of law.

    1. Once again the defendant is NOT AT FAULT. If you want to put blame on anyone then you put it on the prosecutor. And the reason why you claim he is at fault is the literal definition for granting immunity. Immunity means you cannot be prosecuted for the crimes committed within it's scope. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with a lot of cases that were won because immunity was granted towards co-conspirators.

    2. The govt should honor their agreement regardless of if the person is alive or dead. Would you be ok with the govt reneging on a deal if the victim died? Someone takes a plea deal and gets 15yrs, the victim dies in year 5, the govt goes back on the deal and releases the inmate. Is that ok? I bet it isn't.

    3. The deal was not clearly illegal and ONCE AGAIN THE FAULT IS WITH THE PROSECUTOR. Did the prosecutor know if the deal was illegal? The deal they made? The deal was done in federal court between the defendant, his lawyer, the prosecutor, AND approved by the fucking judge. You're telling me that of all those legal experts involved the only one at fault is the one person who isn't a legal expert (the defendant) and because those legal experts made an illegal deal that the defendant has to be punished for agreeing to the deal that all the legal experts drafted for him? Shut the fuck up. You're just here to argue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act

    "A crime victim has the following rights:

    (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

    (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

    (9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement."

    The crime victims were not given those rights. This agreement was clearly illegal.

    Also, the defendant isn't being punished. The defendant is dead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Who was the one who wrote that agreement that Epstein signed? That's the person you have beef with. And this has gone off topic. I argue that if the govt made an agreement in their plea agreement then they have to honor it. I don't give a fuck about legality of the agreement. If they make the agreement, both parties sign it, and the judge approved it then honor it. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Immunity? Okay. The government makes deals like that all the time.

    Clemency? She can rot. I hope her death is slow and painful.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Hmmm I'm more interested in the Epstein list that Bondi had. Maybe we finish going through that list before starting on a second one?

  • source
  • Hope she's immune to bedsheets.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I'm completely shocked. /s

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    How about isolation or clementines?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    I'd write her a year off if she'd send Trump and the others to jail for 20+ years. That's my deal—take it or leave it.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Her deal is more likely leave Trump out of it and hang 20 others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm sure that's the case. I guess we'll soon see how corrupted (or not) the american judicial system is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There is no American judicial system anymore. There are no laws in a failed fascist state

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments