4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

I never really gave it much thought since I used to do reclassifications and know how they work. I assume her lawyer put together a cogent case for her reclassification, like all lawyers do. There are even judicial remedies available.

Keep in mind that she is in a Prison. Tell us how wonderful it is for her to go to a minimum security co-ed lockup to all all female "camp" lock up. She getting caviar and silk sheets now? You do know the difference in the various facilities right?

I dont obsess over Maxwell. She was convicted and got locked up. Fabulous, I hope she enjoys pooping on a stainless toilet. If she would have had anything meaty against Trump, her lawyers would have used it to keep her out of the can or get a sentencing break in the first place, even if the DOJ refused to listen.

Now go out and tilt windmills, nothing anyone ever points out to a Trump obsessive makes a difference. Maybe your time would be more usefully spent for advocating for the victims of illegal alien sex crimes who seem to be forgotten in all the silly brouhaha over where a 60 year old lady will probably die.

Here's your chance to "give it some thought".

Do you think a deal was done with Trump's blessing to get her moved? Do you think it a coincidence that it just all happened at the same time?

We don't need what seems like the ramblings of a madman, just cogent thinking.

So far we have tilting of windmills, Trump obsession....all kinds of weird thoughts, but a strange inability to discuss the topic matter without seeming to lose it.

It's not personal you know. We are discussing current affairs. Any chance that you can act like a civil human being whilst we are doing so?

So, back to the topic. I've already demonstrated that Trump's story about banning Epstein in 2007 makes no sense at all. Even you, a rabid Trump supporter, can see that.

So must we assume that you don't care what he does and that you are with him come hell or high water?

You certainly aren't of a neutral opinion. Anyone who merely questions the narrative coming out of that administration is attacked by you as being obsessed, deranged...

I don't ever recall such tactics in debates at school nor university. That's because it's your way to try to shut down conversation. You just don't want to have to admit that it stinks to high heaven. To be fair, I don't necessarily believe that he's an actual kiddy fiddler. But the fact is that he was close friends with Epstein and only began to distance himself many years later, after their falling out over Maison de L’Amitié. After which Epstein began to be investigated. Another coincidence I guess.

He certainly didn't cut him off in 2000 when he found out about Guiffre and Maxwell.

So why do you think that Trump ok'd her move?

7 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

So why do you think that Trump ok'd her move

Who says he did

43 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

They cant. They work only with spin and innuendo. Its like the Kennedy assassination redux

Exactly, Get Trump didn't work again ,another get Trump effort flops, but it keeps shining a light on the pedo networks and enablers the international left has historically shielded.

17 hours ago, gargamon said:

Once the Dems get back in control and release the full Epstein files they can. And civil courts will extract billions from the Trump grift family.

Let’s place a bet.

5 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Given the number of redactions and the disagreement with your statement from those who have seen unredacted versions, there is no way either that you can prove you're right. So what is your point?

My point is, you have nothing.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

They cant. They work only with spin and innuendo. Its like the Kennedy assassination redux

You are spot on.

7 minutes ago, Fact said:

My point is, you have nothing.

All you have is empty insults unbacked by reasoning or evidence.

2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

All you have is empty insults unbacked by reasoning or evidence.

"It seems like you're resorting to a personal attack, which suggests you might not have any substantial arguments to back your position."

5 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Let’s place a bet.

Pointless as you would have changed your name again many times by then.

11 hours ago, Fact said:

There is nothing in the public files that would be useful in a court of law against Trump. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Until all the files have been unredacted except for the victims identities and released to the public there is no way to confirm whether Trump is guilty or not but IMHO the amount of time he spent being Epstein's best buddy and why he continues having the DOJ refuse to release all the files for the public to see.

18 hours ago, Presnock said:

I totally agree with your assessment. Today I learned from the public hearings, upon assuming the presidency this time he had the DOJ drop the office that monitors cryptocurrency activity and as we know, from reporting he has garnered 1.5 BILLION USD in this past year with cryptocurrency dealings! Also, from a different hearing, Melania was invited to the SCOTUS hearing about 1.2 billion US dollar properties that had been frozen by the court previously. They read out before beginning the questions, amounts and dates of transfers of those frozen accounts and noting that she signed for each one. She the report stated was shocked! She said that DJT and his lawyers told her it was okay to sign for those actions! Now I learned from the same public source, Ivanka was visited by the FBI who requested and took her passport. Interesting one can learn from public videos of government activities. The congressional hearings are televised for the public's awareness of the lack of secrecy involved in blatant violations of the US Constitution.

Trump is by far the most corrupt president in American history and he makes Richard Nixon look like a law-abiding Boy Scout and man of honor and integrity, by comparison.

Don is a truly filthy criminal and a very talented scam artist.

Have any "victims" accused Trump of anything Epstein related?

No, Trump has never been accused by a single victim. Not even a democrat paid fraud, due to fearing the horrendous revelations of discovery!

Not one.

Zero depositions, zero testimony, zero flight logs to the island, zero criminal referrals.

Just Epstein desperately trying to reach him years after Trump cut the creep off forever.

Meanwhile, a democrat known as Bill "I never had sex with her" Clinton litters the black book, the flight logs, hot tub, massage photos and the plea deal witness lists.

11 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

All you have is empty insults unbacked by reasoning or evidence.

Tell us why the Biden DOJ never prosecuted Trump. They had all the non redacted files, they could have put sick Jack Smith on it

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Tell us why the Biden DOJ never prosecuted Trump. They had all the non redacted files, they could have put sick Jack Smith on it

Well, for one reason, the Statute of Limitations. The Biden Administration would have had to prove a continuing conspiracy to overcome that obstacle.

Also, there was a civil lawsuit pending and the Biden Administration would have had a high bar to overcome because many of the people named in the lawsuit were also named in the files. So to protect the victims they couldn't proactively release the files.

And now why don't you answer me this? In this video from the Daily Caller, why did Trump name Kash Patel, the guy who said this,to be the head of the FBI? The good stuff starts at 1:11

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Well, for one reason, the Statute of Limitations. The Biden Administration would have had to prove a continuing conspiracy to overcome that obstacle.

LOL. Easy enough. I could make up a RICO indictment it in a heartbeat.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Also, there was a civil lawsuit pending and the Biden Administration would have had a high bar to overcome because many of the people named in the lawsuit were also named in the files. So to protect the victims they couldn't proactively release the files.

LOL. Since when does a civil matter trump a Grand Jury?

They could have indicted Trump anytime they want, but they didnt even have enough to make even a fake casse.

You have nothing, again.

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

LOL. Easy enough. I could make up a RICO indictment it in a heartbeat.

LOL. Since when does a civil matter trump a Grand Jury?

They could have indicted Trump anytime they want, but they didnt even have enough to make even a fake casse.

You have nothing, again.

I guess AI has nothing, too

Gemini said

The intersection of a civil trial and a criminal grand jury investigation creates a complex legal landscape, particularly when sensitive evidence like allegations of sexual abuse is involved.

In the United States, the general rule is that grand juries have exceptionally broad subpoena powers, but there are specific legal grounds and procedural hurdles that can be used to challenge the transfer of evidence from a civil case to a criminal one.

---

1. Protective Orders in Civil Discovery

In civil cases involving sensitive topics like sexual abuse, courts often issue Protective Orders (under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). These orders restrict the use of discovery materials (depositions, documents) to the civil case only.

• The Conflict: If a prosecutor issues a grand jury subpoena for this "protected" evidence, a legal battle ensues.

• The Balancing Test: Most federal circuits use a "balancing test" to decide if the subpoena overrides the protective order. The court weighs the grand jury's need for the information against the civil parties' reliance on the protective order to maintain privacy.

• The "Per Se" Rule: Some jurisdictions (like the Second Circuit) have historically leaned toward a rule where the grand jury subpoena almost always "trumps" a civil protective order unless there are "extraordinary circumstances."

Here's Chatgpt

2) When Evidence Can Be Restricted from Prosecutors

✅ A) Protective Orders in Civil Discovery

Civil courts often issue protective orders to limit dissemination of sensitive materials (especially in sexual abuse cases).

These can:

• Restrict who can see the evidence

• Prohibit sharing with third parties

• Require court permission before sharing with law enforcement

BUT:
Many protective orders explicitly allow disclosure to law enforcement, or courts will modify them upon request.

3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I guess AI has nothing, too

Yep, you use AI selectively and bury the important stuff to mislead. Here is a bit of reading material for folks interested.

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/small-world-after-all-extending-martindell-standard-block-grand-jury-access-sealed

So you are saying the Biden admin just decided, well we cant win this one, so lets just not do it?

You lose again. The Biden admin didnt prosecute Trump because:

They had Nothing

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Yep, you use AI selectively and bury the important stuff to mislead. Here is a bit of reading material for folks interested.

https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/small-world-after-all-extending-martindell-standard-block-grand-jury-access-sealed

So you are saying the Biden admin just decided, well we cant win this one, so lets just not do it?

You lose again. The Biden admin didnt prosecute Trump because:

They had Nothing

The Martindell Standard has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It's about the right to obtain sealed evidence from a private party. Not about the right of the DOJ to use evidence that it has in its possession.

9 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

The Martindell Standard has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It's about the right to obtain sealed evidence from a private party. Not about the right of the DOJ to use evidence that it has in its possession.

Better read the case. So now that we know protective orders dont necessarly bar a Grand Jury investigation, so now that we know that the Statue of Limitations can be defeated, tell us why the Biden admin, with the unredacted files at their fingertips and 39 million references to Trump, did nothing.

Because thats what they had, and all of you have, nothing but obsessive innuendo that gets you clicks on Social media

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Better read the case. So now that we know protective orders dont necessarly bar a Grand Jury investigation, so now that we know that the Statue of Limitations can be defeated, tell us why the Biden admin, with the unredacted files at their fingertips and 39 million references to Trump, did nothing.

Because thats what they had, and all of you have, nothing but obsessive innuendo that gets you clicks on Social media

You made the broad claim about civil vs criminal. Not me. And you got it wrong. And we also know that there would have to have been proof of a continuing conspiracy to revive the sex abuse charges. That's a very high bar to clear and no indication that there was such a conspiracy. Despite the claims of loons like Kash Patel.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You made the broad claim about civil vs criminal. Not me. And you got it wrong. And we also know that there would have to have been proof of a continuing conspiracy to revive the sex abuse charges. That's a very high bar to clear and no indication that there was such a conspiracy. Despite the claims of loons like Kash Patel.

And the Biden DOJ didnt even try LOL. Got it. You can have the last word, the normal members here know you got owned again.

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

And the Biden DOJ didnt even try LOL. Got it. You can have the last word, the normal members here know you got owned again.

The Bidens administration possibly didn't try for reasons I listed.

And once again you declare yourself the victor. So much could be construed from such a declaration repeated three times. Three times! But this is not the appropriate forum for that sort of exercise.

2 hours ago, boganJoe said:

Have any "victims" accused Trump of anything Epstein related?

No, Trump has never been accused by a single victim. Not even a democrat paid fraud, due to fearing the horrendous revelations of discovery!

Not one.

Zero depositions, zero testimony, zero flight logs to the island, zero criminal referrals.

Just Epstein desperately trying to reach him years after Trump cut the creep off forever.

Meanwhile, a democrat known as Bill "I never had sex with her" Clinton litters the black book, the flight logs, hot tub, massage photos and the plea deal witness lists.

yeah, have to agree, but did you notice in the Judicial Committee hearing yesterday when the victims present there were asked if they have tried to testify with the Justice Dept and they all said that they have tried but the DOJ continues to shut them out. IMHO the DOJ is responding to guidance from DJT and IMHO he is trying to keep the total files from being made public because the committee members that have seen the unredacted files say that his name appears "millions" of times. Too much smoke as the saying goes. Just like the 3 minutes during which Epstein supposedly committed suicide. Oh BTW why are we talking about this still, didn't you notice that the DOW average was over 60K and Nasdac at record level? We should be thanking DJT for that instead of asking questions about the Epstein files.....per Bandi's comment anyway!

3 hours ago, boganJoe said:

Have any "victims" accused Trump of anything Epstein related?

No, Trump has never been accused by a single victim.

Seems someone has.........

Rep. Lieu Says Epstein files Have Allegations of Trump Raping & Threatening to Kill Children

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

The Bidens administration possibly didn't try for reasons I listed.

And once again you declare yourself the victor. So much could be construed from such a declaration repeated three times. Three times! But this is not the appropriate forum for that sort of exercise.

Got it. The reasons you listed as a "possibility" are spurious as I just demonstrated.

But, its "Possible" too that they had nothing, right?

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

Got it. The reasons you listed as a "possibility" are spurious as I just demonstrated.

But, its "Possible" too that they had nothing, right?

You demonstrated no such thing apart from your predilection to making yourself the referee

It certainly is possible that they had nothing. Although not so long ago, that was pretty much universally considered impossible among the maga forces. Remember Epstein's list? Kash Patel called that non-existent article of faith Epstein's black book or something like that. This is the current director of the FB for whom you are apparently unable to offer any defense for his wild accusations.

On 2/11/2026 at 9:46 PM, Alan Zweibel said:

What's more, later on Trump denied that he had any knowledge that Epstein was a pedophile.

He wasn't.

And it has an A in it.

59 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You demonstrated no such thing apart from your predilection to making yourself the referee

It certainly is possible that they had nothing. Although not so long ago, that was pretty much universally considered impossible among the maga forces. Remember Epstein's list? Kash Patel called that non-existent article of faith Epstein's black book or something like that. This is the current director of the FB for whom you are apparently unable to offer any defense for his wild accusations.

Got it: so you avoid the question again: Is it possible that Bidens DOJ did not take action against Trump over Epstein because there was nothing there? Is that a possibility?

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Got it: so you avoid the question again: Is it possible that Bidens DOJ did not take action against Trump over Epstein because there was nothing there? Is that a possibility?

What don't you understand about this from my answer to you?

"It certainly is possible that they had nothing."

30 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

What don't you understand about this from my answer to you?

"It certainly is possible that they had nothing."

Great. Glad you accept that possibility. So do you think that accusing someone of being a paedophile based on a "possibility" is libelous? How about this possibility: folks accusing Trump of being a paedophile are projecting their own fantasies? Is that possible? How about John Weaver from the Lincoln Project?

Possibilities, possibilities....