Login

WallFlowerActive · 08-23-2025, 07:31 AM

(08-23-2025, 06:57 AM)andy06shake Wrote: That's not a prison, it's a gated all-inclusive holiday camp with reception.

And point of fact, holding her there violates all sorts of established rules and regulations.

Then commit a crime that will place you in the holiday camp.

**andy06shake** · 08-23-2025, 07:34 AM

(08-23-2025, 07:31 AM)WallFlowerActive Wrote: Then commit a crime that will place you in the holiday camp.

Please elaborate?

Why would i want to do that?

I think you may find the idea is not to commit crime.

And sex trafficking is one of the worst.

It's still a holiday camp with walls/rules and people who most likely wish her the worst.

Think ile stick to the likes of the Maldives or Caribbean holiday destination wise ta very much. Saint2

Oldcarpy2 · This post was last modified: 08-23-2025, 09:12 AM by Oldcarpy2.

(08-22-2025, 06:54 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Yeah so what.. Mr Prosecutor,

Im not Trump's buddy, but it doesn't keep you from regurgitating in every thread sooner or later

So you aren't even going to put on your powdered wig for a moment, and dazzle us in your legal briefs...

figures...

[Video: https://youtu.be/zDylgpGHcic?si=hib4AlrJtr9ukJIT]

No legal knowledge required.

Just a smidge of common sense, healthy scepticism and critical thinking, rather than blind loyalty.

Thanks for the video. Have a mirror.....

putnam6 · This post was last modified: 08-23-2025, 10:33 AM by putnam6.

It's a few simple questions...

Is the interview admissible evidence?

IF so, we now have 2 corroborative witnesses supporting Trump.

How would a prosecutor counter this effectively

Ive read more excerpts from the interview... FWIW

Sure, even for "gullible" me, it's clear this is legal maneuvering and PR "shucking and diving," but it doesn't mean I like it either; it is what it is.

Attorneys build cases like this for the innocent and the guilty, creating a shadow of doubt that builds to an overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

How many victims and perps are hidden behind the NDAs?

Statistically, the fewer the better for OMB, but if there are double digits?

Even then, any related occurrences after the first conviction would be unlikely; multiple witnesses support Trump, and Epstein had a falling out.

I don't remember the exact date, but I think it's before or around 2012.

Oldcarpy2 · This post was last modified: 08-23-2025, 10:34 AM by Oldcarpy2.

(08-23-2025, 10:08 AM)putnam6 Wrote: It's a few simple questions...

Is the interview admissible evidence?

IF so, we now have 2 corroborative witnesses supporting Trump.

How would a prosecutor counter this effectively

Sure, it's clear this is legal "shucking and diving," but it doesn't mean I like it either; it is what it is.

Who would be prosecuted?

If you are talking about Trump:

1. I am not US qualified.
2. I am not privy to the evidence needed to support any prosecution so, I don't know.

putnam6 · 08-23-2025, 10:50 AM

(08-23-2025, 10:29 AM)Oldcarpy2 Wrote: Who would be prosecuted?

Theoretically, if I were prosecuting OMB

I would be trying to discredit and counter this theatrical interview that is being presented as evidence that exonerates Trump.

It overwhelmingly feels like they interviewed Maxwell because it's all they could do to try and turn down the heat and add another layer of protection around Trump.

as I mentioned earlier... It feels completely unsatisfactory

Oldcarpy2 · 08-23-2025, 10:53 AM

(08-23-2025, 10:50 AM)putnam6 Wrote: "Theoretically, if I were prosecuting OMB

I would be trying to discredit and counter this theatrical interview that is being presented as evidence that exonerates Trump.

It overwhelmingly feels like they interviewed Maxwell because it's all they could do to try and turn down the heat and add another layer of protection around Trump.

as I mentioned earlier... It feels completely unsatisfactory"

Well, then, it seems we have, an Accord? Smile

WallFlowerActive · 08-23-2025, 10:57 AM

(08-23-2025, 10:50 AM)putnam6 Wrote: Theoretically, if I were prosecuting OMB

I would be trying to discredit and counter this theatrical interview that is being presented as evidence that exonerates Trump.

It overwhelmingly feels like they interviewed Maxwell because it's all they could do to try and turn down the heat and add another layer of protection around Trump.

as I mentioned earlier... It feels completely unsatisfactory

Or there really is nothing there.

putnam6 · 08-23-2025, 11:04 AM

(08-23-2025, 10:57 AM)WallFlowerActive Wrote: Or there really is nothing there.

It's a possibility, but so is the opposite... in my mind almost equally so... especially after reading elsewhere

Oldcarpy2 · 08-23-2025, 11:08 AM

(08-23-2025, 10:50 AM)putnam6 Wrote: Theoretically, if I were prosecuting OMB

I would be trying to discredit and counter this theatrical interview that is being presented as evidence that exonerates Trump.

It overwhelmingly feels like they interviewed Maxwell because it's all they could do to try and turn down the heat and add another layer of protection around Trump.

as I mentioned earlier... It feels completely unsatisfactory

Was it on Oath?