Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
The Supreme Court just refused to even look at Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal. No oral arguments. No grand jurisprudential debate. A curt “hard pass,” and the door clicks shut.
Her conviction stands.
And if you’re Donald Trump, or his Epstein cover-up team, particularly his personal attorney turned deputy attorney general and damage-control valet, Todd Blanche, this is the moment the game stops being theoretical and starts being kinetic.
The one person who knows where an awful lot of bodies are buried just ran out of legal runway, and that gives her something priceless in Trumpworld: leverage.
Let’s set the table.
Donnie “Wonderful Secret” Trump is alive. Jeffrey Epstein is dead. One person can intimately connect them, and Trump’s pet Supreme Court just told her to pound sand.
Rick Wilson
Will he poison or pardon her?
Or ignore it and hope the problem goes away?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Will he poison or pardon her?
Or ignore it and hope the problem goes away?
Probably the latter.
I don't think Ghislaine knows where any bodies are buried. At least, no one important. If she did, she would have cut that deal during her initial prosecution.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't think Ghislaine knows where any bodies are buried. At least, no one important. If she did, she would have cut that deal during her initial prosecution.
She went to prison in 2022, when Lord Trump was out of power. If she had no leverage over Biden, she was stuck. The chatter on the wire is she was pressing Lord Trump's mouthpiece for a Presidential pardon. Epstein's video tapes are probably stashed somewhere. Will Lord Trump commute her sentence to time served, in exchange for his incriminating videos? Or, will the FSB grease her, to keep the videos under wraps, and thus maintain their leverage over Lord Trump?
Steve...ah, you laff now, but what if she "commits suicide" in her cell?
No. of Recommendations: 5
She went to prison in 2022, when Lord Trump was out of power. If she had no leverage over Biden, she was stuck.
She was arrested and indicted in July of 2020, when Lord Trump was not only very much in power. Not only was he in power, but he was actively running for re-election - a time when that kind of information would be most valuable. If she had anything that could be sold to a prosecutor under Trump in exchange for a plea bargain, her lawyers would have cut that deal in 2020.
Since she didn't have anything big enough to be worth a deal in 2020, during Trump's actual re-election campaign, she almost certainly doesn't have anything worth Trump worrying about today.
No. of Recommendations: 1
She was arrested and indicted in July of 2020, when Lord Trump was not only very much in power. Not only was he in power, but he was actively running for re-election
Could his nibs afford to be seen sheltering a sex trafficker, during the campaign? He could have promised "keep quiet about it now, and I'll take care of you later". Of course, then he was wrapped up in prosecuting his delusion, until the day he was out of office, and then it was too late to make good on that promise. She was not convicted until December 29, 2021, long after Trump lost the power to pardon her. There was considerable controversy when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, without him ever going to trial, let alone be convicted.
Steve...who heard that "give me what I want now, and I'll take care of you later" line from bosses several times
No. of Recommendations: 4
Could his nibs afford to be seen sheltering a sex trafficker, during the campaign? He could have promised "keep quiet about it now, and I'll take care of you later"
Yes, he probably could have and would have. If she actually had anything significant to trade, her lawyers would not have accepted a promise rather than a plea deal. While a plea deal might have been less than ideal, it would have been plausibly deniable enough that the political damage would have been low (lower than all the photos of him smiling next to Epstein, at least) - so if Maxwell didn't have anything that was worse than that, she doesn't have anything much at all.
And of course, if she had something and Trump broke her promise by not authorizing/forcing a plea bargain while he was a lame duck, she could have gone back after Biden took over and offered to "unbury the bodies" with the prosecutors before her trial in 2021.
Again, it makes absolutely no sense to think she has anything valuable to trade, when her lawyers weren't able to cut a deal with prosecutors - under either Administration. If she had that card to play, she could have/would have played it years ago. She didn't. So the most likely explanation is that she doesn't know where any bodies are buried that the government doesn't already know about.
No. of Recommendations: 9
where is the tangible damage to trump, from his base, for pictures\text of decades of socializing w/epstein?
if anything, easing of maxwell's prison conditions is the 1 real event that supports the gop being pro-pedo!
MAGA clearly uninterested.
No. of Recommendations: 1
She didn't. So the most likely explanation is that she doesn't know where any bodies are buried that the government doesn't already know about.
Lord Trump doesn't seem worried in the least. The news, this evening, showed a clip of a reporter asking if his nibs would pardon her. He said he would "take a look at it". In my experience, when a "JC" says he will "take a look" at something, it's a blow-off, to make the questioner go away, when he has absolutely no intention if considering that action. "I'll take that under advisement" is also a blow-off.
Steve...HBTT
No. of Recommendations: 0
Or, will the FSB grease her, to keep the videos under wraps, and thus maintain their leverage over Lord Trump?
Ok, what do you mean by that? How would the FSB pay or otherwise give something to Ghislaine to keep her quiet? She's in confinement. Or maybe you mean set up funds for use after she's released?
No. of Recommendations: 0
How would the FSB pay or otherwise give something to Ghislaine to keep her quiet?
The same way they got to Epstein, in jail. Does anyone believe he "committed suicide"? He had been in jail before. Sentenced to 18 months, for crimes that demanded years, and let out to "go to his office to work" 12 hours a day. Then he was released after only 13 months. He would have expected to buy/blackmail his way out of a stiff sentence again in 2019. He was silenced, just like people who make themselves inconvenient to Putin.
Steve....conspiracy theories R us
No. of Recommendations: 1
Steve....conspiracy theories R us
Go sit in the corner with Dope. :)
No. of Recommendations: 1
Go sit in the corner with Dope. :) My source is the Secretary of Commerce!
Howard Lutnick believes Jeffrey Epstein may have used blackmail to get a lighter sentencehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFkJTuCCSZQEpstein tried to blackmail Trump in 19, and was greased, instead. ;^)
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
The same way they got to Epstein, in jail.
So, by "grease"-ing Ghislaine you meant kill?
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, by "grease"-ing Ghislaine you meant kill?
Yes. From the Google net sifter:
"Grease" can be used as a slang term for to kill or murder, often in the context of organized crime or violence, as seen in phrases like "The mob has been known to grease anyone who gets in its way". It also has other slang meanings, such as to bribe (as in "grease someone's palm") and, in military slang, can refer to being killed, particularly during the Vietnam War.
I doubt his nibs may not go that far, but Putin has a long track record of greasing anyone who is inconvenient.
If Maxwell is suspected of having incriminating video of his nibs, that she may swap for a get out of jail free card, like Epstein is suspected of doing in Florida, in 2008, Putin would not want that video to be given to his nibs, because then Putin would lose his leverage.
Steve...conspiracy theories R us
No. of Recommendations: 2
Go sit in the corner with Dope
Ownership.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ok, what do you mean by that? How would the FSB pay or otherwise give something to Ghislaine to keep her quiet?
“Grease”- slang for “murder”
No. of Recommendations: 5
albaby1: I don't think Ghislaine knows where any bodies are buried. At least, no one important. If she did, she would have cut that deal during her initial prosecution.
Wasn't she found guilty in December of 2021 and sentenced in the summer of 2022? Who exactly would she have cut a deal with then?
And there's no way she can't make some damaging comments on the relationship between Trumpedo and his BFF, otherwise why did she end up in Club Fed? Odds are, Trumpedo commutes her sentence and pardons her, and the cult goes on being the cult.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah, I know the two meaning of "grease" but for some odd reason I thought you were using the "grease someone's palm" meaning, which made no sense in the context of the FSB doing that to Ghislaine.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Wasn't she found guilty in December of 2021 and sentenced in the summer of 2022? Who exactly would she have cut a deal with then?
If you have information that will let you cut a deal with prosecutors, you don't do it after you're convicted! Deal time is before the trial. You trade what you have (be it information or an agreement to testify or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains or whatever) before the conviction and sentence as a plea bargain.
And there's no way she can't make some damaging comments on the relationship between Trumpedo and his BFF, otherwise why did she end up in Club Fed?
To get her to come out and affirmatively state Trump was innocent. Trump was trying to squelch the Epstein files debate and was hoping that having Maxwell say that he didn't do anything would calm it down. He was being slammed by the innuendo that he was holding back the Epstein files because they had something incriminating in them. Maxwell saying Trump wasn't involved with anything helped him, irrespective of whether the innuendo was actually true. That deal gets cut whether Maxwell has any damaging information or not: getting her affirmative statement was the bargain.
If she had anything of substance that could really harm Trump, she would have cut a deal during the Biden Administration. She didn't, so she almost certainly doesn't.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wasn't she found guilty in December of 2021 and sentenced in the summer of 2022? Who exactly would she have cut a deal with then?
Exactly right. Yes, she was charged, while Trump was still in office, but he was occupied pressing his claims about the 2020 election. She apparently had no leverage over Biden. As soon as Trump was back in office, she became news again.
Remember her meetings with Trump's mouthpiece?
from the Google net sifter:
Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer for Donald Trump, interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell in July 2025 in his capacity as the Deputy Attorney General. The Justice Department publicly released the transcripts and audio of the two-day interview in August 2025.
Key details of the interview and surrounding circumstances include:
Controversial interview: The meeting was an unusual move for the second-highest official in the Justice Department, and it followed pressure on the Trump administration to release confidential files related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Maxwell's statements: During the interview, Maxwell denied procuring girls for Epstein and stated that she never saw Trump do anything inappropriate. Her attorney said she answered every question honestly and truthfully.
Criticism of the meeting: The interview drew criticism due to Blanche's past work as Trump's lawyer, with some suggesting a potential conflict of interest.
Subsequent transfer: Shortly after the interview, Maxwell was transferred to a less restrictive federal prison camp in Texas, which some observers found inconsistent with typical Bureau of Prisons policy for a convicted sex offender.
-----
Based on reports, Ghislaine Maxwell did not ask Todd Blanche for a pardon during their July 2025 meetings, but her legal team confirmed that she is seeking "relief" from her prison sentence
.
Key details from the interviews and subsequent developments:
Interviews with DOJ: Blanche, acting as Deputy Attorney General, interviewed Maxwell on July 24 and 25, 2025, to discuss Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. A transcript of the interview was released in August.
Immunity terms: According to a BBC report, Blanche informed Maxwell at the start of the interview that he was not promising to do "anything" for her in exchange for her testimony. She was granted limited immunity for her truthful testimony but could be prosecuted for lying.
No pardon requested: Maxwell's lawyer, David Oscar Markus, told ABC News that Maxwell did not specifically ask Blanche for a pardon during the meetings.
"Relief" from sentence: Despite not asking for a pardon, Markus confirmed that his client is seeking "relief" from her 20-year prison sentence. He also stated that Maxwell "would welcome any relief" following her meetings with Blanche.
Subsequent moves: Since the interviews, Maxwell has offered to testify before Congress in exchange for immunity (which was rejected) and has had her appeal rejected by the Supreme Court. A pardon from the president now appears to be one of her few remaining options for early release.
She says Trump was always a gentleman, never did anything scummy, and, by the way, get me out of prison.
The police shows I grew up watching, would call these events "hinky".
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you have information that will let you cut a deal with prosecutors, you don't do it after you're convicted! Deal time is before the trial. You trade what you have (be it information or an agreement to testify or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains or whatever) before the conviction and sentence as a plea bargain.
A year elapsed between her arrest and her conviction. There was plenty of time to work a deal, but the "arty deal" guy was not in power. I have been sitting in a jury room at the Circuit Court, a number of times, while the parties upstairs were trying to avoid putting the perp's fate in my hands.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 2
A year elapsed between her arrest and her conviction. There was plenty of time to work a deal, but the "arty deal" guy was not in power.
He was in power for the first seven months of that year. For seven months after she was arrested. If there was a deal to cut, it would have been cut when he was still in office. If she had anything on Trump, her lawyers would have known that the time of maximum leverage for any such information would be while he was in office and running for re-election.
She didn't cut a deal then, so she almost certainly has nothing worth a deal.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The same way they got to Epstein, in jail.
So, by "grease"-ing Ghislaine you meant kill?
Steve's use of slang and obscure terns like "his nibs" interferes with his communication.
No. of Recommendations: 2
albaby1: If you have information that will let you cut a deal with prosecutors, you don't do it after you're convicted! Deal time is before the trial.
Well, sure, because there was no way the suicide <wink, wink> of Epstein had any influence on her thinking.
albaby1: ...she would have cut a deal during the Biden Administration.
That's absurd. A deal with the Biden administration would have increased sympathy for Trumpedo.
The simplest explanation is that it's extremely unlikely that she and Epstein were extremely close friends with Trumpedo for a decade without her having some damning evidence against him. But it's also likely that she fears ending up like Epstein should she try to play that hand. Look for a commutation of her sentence just after the midterms.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, sure, because there was no way the suicide <wink, wink> of Epstein had any influence on her thinking.
Epstein died in 2019, long before she was indicted. Whatever effect on her thinking it had wouldn't have changed between 2020 and today. If she wasn't in a position to cut a deal then, nothing will have changed.
The simplest explanation is that it's extremely unlikely that she and Epstein were extremely close friends with Trumpedo for a decade without her having some damning evidence against him.
Why is that unlikely? There's no reason to think that Trump actually participated in any of these crimes. Just like the many other hundreds of people in Epstein's orbit, some of which were much closer friends than Trump. Actually, one of the defining (and unusual) characteristics of Trump's personality is that he doesn't seem to actually have any close friends, so I would question the predicate. Another defining characteristic of Trump's personality is that he has the innate caution and paranoia of a mob boss, and so would be exceedingly unlikely to allow himself to be in a position where someone like Maxwell had the goods on him.
The simplest explanation is that Trump never directly engaged in any untoward activity any time Maxwell was around, and she's got nothing. That's why she never cut a deal - she had no cards to play, and this is all conspiracy-theory wishcasting.
No. of Recommendations: 1
... her lawyers would have known that the time of maximum leverage for any such information would be while he was in office and running for re-election.
And his nibs would have been aware of the optics of giving a sex trafficker a free pass, during the campaign, when he was cozying up to the religious nutters. After the election, he would have only cared about prosecuting his challenge to the election.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 5
Actually, one of the defining (and unusual) characteristics of Trump's personality is that he doesn't seem to actually have any close friends, so I would question the predicate.
Typical "JC" mindset: everyone around him is nothing but a tool to be used to get what he wants.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 11
albaby1: Why is that unlikely? There's no reason to think that Trump actually participated in any of these crimes.
Umm, just this morning, senator Whitehouse in a committee hearing asked AG Bondi about a whistleblower's accusation that they had seen Epstein photographs of Trumpedo with half-naked girls. When asked if she had ever seen such photos, rather than giving a simple 'no' she attacked Whitehouse.
Despite Whitehouse asking again, she refused to respond with a simple 'no'.
In short, I think you're wrong here.
No. of Recommendations: 1
And his nibs would have been aware of the optics of giving a sex trafficker a free pass, during the campaign, when he was cozying up to the religious nutters. After the election, he would have only cared about prosecuting his challenge to the election.
He also would have been aware of the optics of having a then-alleged sex trafficker come out and claim that he was directly involved with the sex trafficking. So if she actually had anything on him, he would have been very eager to make sure that went away.
If he didn't care enough about what she had (or didn't have) back then, during the height of an election campaign, he isn't going to care about it now. And it certainly won't be anything significant.
No. of Recommendations: 1
In short, I think you're wrong here.
How does that bear on that? Trump went to events and there are certainly going to be photos of him in the files. If there are photos of some of those times that have underage girls in them, then Maxwell doesn't have anything to offer (or conceal).
If Maxwell had actual knowledge of Trump doing anything with underage girls that is credible enough for Trump to do cut a deal today, she would have been able to cut a deal in 2020. She didn't cut a deal in 2020, so she almost certainly doesn't have anything significant.
No. of Recommendations: 7
albaby1: How does that bear on that? Trump went to events and there are certainly going to be photos of him in the files. If there are photos of some of those times that have underage girls in them, then Maxwell doesn't have anything to offer (or conceal).
Of course there are photographs of Trumpedo with underage girls in them but that wasn't what Whitehouse asked... he asked Bondi if she had seen any evidence of photographs of Trumpedo with half-naked young women, not underage girls. Why didn't she just say "no" or "absolutely not"?
For each of the other nearly dozen questions that she refused to answer, it was pretty clear that her honest answers were going to be a problem for her and for the administration.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If Maxwell had actual knowledge of Trump doing anything with underage girls that is credible enough for Trump to do cut a deal today, she would have been able to cut a deal in 2020. She didn't cut a deal in 2020, so she almost certainly doesn't have anything significant.
2019 was the second time Epstein was charged with sex trafficking. On the first go around, he "negotiated" a scandalously light sentence. Having already been an experienced jailbird, and sentence "negotiator", it doesn't scan that he could have been so despondent that he would off himself. So. the theory goes, he would barter evidence to Trump, for another scandalously light sentence. But, the FSB wanted to keep the leverage over Trump. The FSB did not want the evidence bartered to save Epstein's skin, so they greased Epstein, to prevent him handing the evidence over to Trump. Maxwell took the lesson, and kept her piehole shut. Then Trump was out of office, and she lost what leverage she had.
Recall, at the start of the year, Trump was parroting the Kremlin line: the war was all Ukraine's fault. Ukraine had to hand over a big chunk of land to Russia. Ukraine would never join the EU or NATO. Ukraine had "no cards". Ukraine had to sit alone and nekked, while Putin re-equipped and re-trained, until he was ready to attack Ukraine again. In other words, Ukraine was required to surrender. Recall the words of Richard Clarke, an intelligence analyst during the Bush junta. Watching the body language of Trump and Putin at Helsinki, Clarke said Trump was clearly "an asset".
The theory then says that Maxwell sent a discrete message to Trump "prison really sux. I have a proposition for you". Learning that Maxwell has the evidence, rather than the FSB, Trump did a 180, venting at Putin's intransigence, and suggesting he will happily sell all the arms to Ukraine that the rest of Europe is willing to pay for. Trump sends his mouthpiece to see what Maxwell has to offer. When the mouthpiece reports back, Maxwell is transferred to a more comfortable, lower security, prison, for saying that Trump is as pure and innocent as the driven snow. The thought occurs, the lower security prison will also be easier for the FSB to penetrate.
We will see how this plays out. But there is no amount of money in the world, that you could pay me, to be in the situation Maxwell put herself in.
Steve...plans on living a long life
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course there are photographs of Trumpedo with underage girls in them but that wasn't what Whitehouse asked... he asked Bondi if she had seen any evidence of photographs of Trumpedo with half-naked young women, not underage girls. Why didn't she just say "no" or "absolutely not"?
The most likely reason is that she doesn't know. She wouldn't have reviewed the files before her appearance. She probably hasn't seen them since earlier this year, and almost certainly hasn't reviewed every single document in every single file.
The other likely reason is that she wanted to use her appearance as an opportunity to fight, to refuse to cooperate, and to be as aggressive as possible when being questioned by Democrats - regardless of the subject.
No. of Recommendations: 4
2019 was the second time Epstein was charged with sex trafficking. On the first go around, he "negotiated" a scandalously light sentence. Having already been an experienced jailbird, and sentence "negotiator", it doesn't scan that he could have been so despondent that he would off himself. So. the theory goes, he would barter evidence to Trump, for another scandalously light sentence. But, the FSB wanted to keep the leverage over Trump. The FSB did not want the evidence bartered to save Epstein's skin, so they greased Epstein, to prevent him handing the evidence over to Trump. Maxwell took the lesson, and kept her piehole shut. Then Trump was out of office, and she lost what leverage she had.
Wow. Just....wow. I guess I underestimated the degree to which this argument was motivated by some wild conspiracy theory stuff...
No. of Recommendations: 5
albaby1: The most likely reason is that she doesn't know.
That doesn't scan. She could have still said 'no' without a qualifier.
albaby1: The other likely reason is that she wanted to use her appearance as an opportunity to fight...
And what a stupid question to use to do so. By refusing to simply say 'no' the answer appears to be 'yes'.
No. of Recommendations: 1
That doesn't scan. She could have still said 'no' without a qualifier.
If she didn’t know, she can’t say no. She can only say “I don’t know.” Which is a worse answer than just attacking back, whether there are pictures or not.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Wow. Just....wow. I guess I underestimated the degree to which this argument was motivated by some wild conspiracy theory stuff...
As I said "conspiracy theories R us".
Wild conspiracy theory stuff that leverages public statements by the US Secretary of Commerce.
Steve...truth in advertising. ;^)
