I don't for a moment think that Trump and his pals would see any moral bar to pardoning Mrs Maxwell for favourable false testimony. Unless they have lost all touch with political reality, I can't see how they could think it would do them any political good - expect duping wavering MAGA supporters (do they exist?). It would certainly give the Trump and Epstein story a whole lot of extra legs for a very long time.
Reality with this bunch went bye-bye a long time ago. Trump is a shark who will keep swimming and feeding to survive to the detriment to all who get in his way.
Of course false testimony exonerating Trump would be valuable. He NEEDS his base to return to the MAGA fold because otherwise, the midterms will crush the GOP.
Thanks for catching that. I caught it, too. I wish journalists would be more careful with important facts. What Virginia Guiffre suffered was heinous enough without lowering her age to try to make it more salacious.
I gather she WAS working for trumpity since 14, or at least came with her father when he worked at the WH at that age. She appears to have been 17 by the time Epstein got his appendages into her. Her relatives can probably clear this up.
I don't believe he will pardon Maxwell. But pardoning is not an all or nothing affair. He has the power to commute all of part of her sentence. My estimation is that his advisors will urge he take this latter course. To avoid the political firestorm a full pardon would whip up he will likely either commute her sentence to time served, effectively releasing her immediately or he will commute her sentence such that she only has to serve a token amount of time further. He may do either
This strategy gives the illusion that justice is being somehow served, remaining agnostic on the issue of her guilt, and gives him a false halo of being just and clement (all for the benefit of his base,)
Now is our moment—take action against this harmful government. Covering up a pedophile ring. Ignoring court orders. Blatant corruption. The poor, the needy, and children are being abused—by our government. In the streets we must protest outright crooks and the pedophiles until after their shooting us starts, until we go down or we oust tyrants. I made 54 protest signs, and will make many more to share. You will see something different in these signs! Help yourself to this second batch, and share them as far as you can.
Assuming Maxwell can, if she chooses, provide credible evidence against several wealthy and powerful men, both Democrats and Republicans, implicating them in the sexual abuse of children and of young women below the age of consent in the jurisdiction where it took place (I make the distinction because, in some US and in many European jurisdictions, the age of consent is 16, not 18), which option is preferable:
1) Maxwell gives evidence against all abusers, whatever their politics and some or all of them face trial, in return for a pardon/her sentence being commuted, whatever the outcome of the trial?
2) Maxwell gives evidence selectively, concentrating on known Democrats, and exonerates Donald Trump and other Republicans, leaving only some of the abusers to face trial?
3) Maxwell offers to give evidence at trial, whether selectively or not, but the prosecuting authorities decide (not unreasonably) that her evidence is hopelessly tainted by the offer of a pardon and is, therefore useless so no one faces trial?
4) Trump makes it clear that he has no intention of pardoning Maxwell/commuting her sentence, so Maxwell declines to cooperate any further with any prosecutions and, again, none of the abusers face trial?
Americans should unite to lobby all our representatives in Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any president from pardoning Maxwell. Our Constitution explicitly and implicitly supports such legislation.
As the Preamble emphasizes, "We the People" did "ordain and establish" our "Constitution" to "establish Justice," "promote the general Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves."
Article I promptly emphasized that "All legislative Powers" were "vested" by the People in our representatives in "Congress." It further emphasized that the People vested in Congress the power to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution" not only in Congress but throughout any part of "the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." So the People vested in Congress the power to make laws governing how the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges exercise the powers that the People subsequently (in Articles II and III) vested in the executive and judicial branches.
The power the People granted to our representatives in Congress necessarily includes the power to enact legislation regarding criminal conduct, including legislation that regulates (governs) the president's power to pardon people. In fact, our Constitution explicitly withheld from Congress only particular powers regarding criminal conduct, i.e., prohibiting legislation that would replace a trial by jury (it prohibits any "Bill of Attainder") or legislation making conduct criminal that was not criminal when the alleged crime occurred (it prohibits any "ex post facto Law").
There is absolutely no reason to believe that our Constitution delegated to the president an absolute (unlimited) power to pardon even the people who are most dangerous to our society. In fact, Article II expressly emphasizes that principle. The president clearly cannot always override the determination of Congress. Article II emphasizes that the president was not delegated any "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States" (federal crimes) in any "Cases of Impeachment," and "Impeachment" can be for whatever conduct Congress made criminal as "Bribery" or any "other high Crimes" or "Misdemeanors." Clearly, the president's pardon power never was meant to be absolute.
Article II expressly emphasized that the president's first, foremost, constant and overarching duty is to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability." Congress always necessarily has the power (and the duty) to enact legislation to ensure that the president fulfills his oath (his promise) to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability."
As always, it’s the coverup that does the damage. But here, we have an adoring public putting up with all! Rape - adult or other - you bet! Lies? Go for it! Fraud? Canny business sense! DEI? Go die!
Indeed, if Maxwell had any valuable information she would've given it at trial, or before.
I think this is political theater setting the real stage - faked grand jury minutes both heavily redacted and containing fictitious statements by Maxwell being asked about Trump being a client, to which she will say no.
I don't for a moment think that Trump and his pals would see any moral bar to pardoning Mrs Maxwell for favourable false testimony. Unless they have lost all touch with political reality, I can't see how they could think it would do them any political good - expect duping wavering MAGA supporters (do they exist?). It would certainly give the Trump and Epstein story a whole lot of extra legs for a very long time.
Reality with this bunch went bye-bye a long time ago. Trump is a shark who will keep swimming and feeding to survive to the detriment to all who get in his way.
Of course false testimony exonerating Trump would be valuable. He NEEDS his base to return to the MAGA fold because otherwise, the midterms will crush the GOP.
On the other hand, this is Trump. He’s in office, he doesn’t care, whatever HE thinks is “rational” is a-ok
"she was a 14-year-old girl, not a vassal on Trump’s estate. Giuffre was working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 2000"
She was born in 1983, which would make her 17 in 2000. Are we supposed to understand that she had been working for tfg already for 3 years???
Thanks for catching that. I caught it, too. I wish journalists would be more careful with important facts. What Virginia Guiffre suffered was heinous enough without lowering her age to try to make it more salacious.
I gather she WAS working for trumpity since 14, or at least came with her father when he worked at the WH at that age. She appears to have been 17 by the time Epstein got his appendages into her. Her relatives can probably clear this up.
I don't believe he will pardon Maxwell. But pardoning is not an all or nothing affair. He has the power to commute all of part of her sentence. My estimation is that his advisors will urge he take this latter course. To avoid the political firestorm a full pardon would whip up he will likely either commute her sentence to time served, effectively releasing her immediately or he will commute her sentence such that she only has to serve a token amount of time further. He may do either
This strategy gives the illusion that justice is being somehow served, remaining agnostic on the issue of her guilt, and gives him a false halo of being just and clement (all for the benefit of his base,)
Now is our moment—take action against this harmful government. Covering up a pedophile ring. Ignoring court orders. Blatant corruption. The poor, the needy, and children are being abused—by our government. In the streets we must protest outright crooks and the pedophiles until after their shooting us starts, until we go down or we oust tyrants. I made 54 protest signs, and will make many more to share. You will see something different in these signs! Help yourself to this second batch, and share them as far as you can.
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/more-free-protest-signs?r=3m1bs
Assuming Maxwell can, if she chooses, provide credible evidence against several wealthy and powerful men, both Democrats and Republicans, implicating them in the sexual abuse of children and of young women below the age of consent in the jurisdiction where it took place (I make the distinction because, in some US and in many European jurisdictions, the age of consent is 16, not 18), which option is preferable:
1) Maxwell gives evidence against all abusers, whatever their politics and some or all of them face trial, in return for a pardon/her sentence being commuted, whatever the outcome of the trial?
2) Maxwell gives evidence selectively, concentrating on known Democrats, and exonerates Donald Trump and other Republicans, leaving only some of the abusers to face trial?
3) Maxwell offers to give evidence at trial, whether selectively or not, but the prosecuting authorities decide (not unreasonably) that her evidence is hopelessly tainted by the offer of a pardon and is, therefore useless so no one faces trial?
4) Trump makes it clear that he has no intention of pardoning Maxwell/commuting her sentence, so Maxwell declines to cooperate any further with any prosecutions and, again, none of the abusers face trial?
I'm really not sure which one I'd go for.
Crime on crime—which liar do we believe?
Americans should unite to lobby all our representatives in Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any president from pardoning Maxwell. Our Constitution explicitly and implicitly supports such legislation.
As the Preamble emphasizes, "We the People" did "ordain and establish" our "Constitution" to "establish Justice," "promote the general Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves."
Article I promptly emphasized that "All legislative Powers" were "vested" by the People in our representatives in "Congress." It further emphasized that the People vested in Congress the power to "make all Laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution" not only in Congress but throughout any part of "the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." So the People vested in Congress the power to make laws governing how the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges exercise the powers that the People subsequently (in Articles II and III) vested in the executive and judicial branches.
The power the People granted to our representatives in Congress necessarily includes the power to enact legislation regarding criminal conduct, including legislation that regulates (governs) the president's power to pardon people. In fact, our Constitution explicitly withheld from Congress only particular powers regarding criminal conduct, i.e., prohibiting legislation that would replace a trial by jury (it prohibits any "Bill of Attainder") or legislation making conduct criminal that was not criminal when the alleged crime occurred (it prohibits any "ex post facto Law").
There is absolutely no reason to believe that our Constitution delegated to the president an absolute (unlimited) power to pardon even the people who are most dangerous to our society. In fact, Article II expressly emphasizes that principle. The president clearly cannot always override the determination of Congress. Article II emphasizes that the president was not delegated any "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States" (federal crimes) in any "Cases of Impeachment," and "Impeachment" can be for whatever conduct Congress made criminal as "Bribery" or any "other high Crimes" or "Misdemeanors." Clearly, the president's pardon power never was meant to be absolute.
Article II expressly emphasized that the president's first, foremost, constant and overarching duty is to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability." Congress always necessarily has the power (and the duty) to enact legislation to ensure that the president fulfills his oath (his promise) to "preserve, protect and defend" our "Constitution" to "the best of" the president's "Ability."
As always, it’s the coverup that does the damage. But here, we have an adoring public putting up with all! Rape - adult or other - you bet! Lies? Go for it! Fraud? Canny business sense! DEI? Go die!
Indeed, if Maxwell had any valuable information she would've given it at trial, or before.
I think this is political theater setting the real stage - faked grand jury minutes both heavily redacted and containing fictitious statements by Maxwell being asked about Trump being a client, to which she will say no.
Pls review Michael Cohen‘s comments about the drawing… He thinks he can pinpoint who in the office drew the outline of the female.