By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ghislaine Maxwell reportedly told Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche she never witnessed anything concerning regarding Donald Trump during their meetings about the Jeffrey Epstein case. The Trump administration is considering releasing the transcripts from these meetings, amidst mounting calls for transparency surrounding the “Epstein Files.” Maxwell’s attorneys have opposed the unsealing of grand jury transcripts, citing potential reputational harm. The Justice Department has prepared annotated versions of the transcripts and is seeking to address legal questions before they can consider releasing them, but some survivors have expressed concerns about the handling of sensitive information.
Read the original article here
Ghislaine Maxwell told the Justice Department she never saw Trump do anything concerning with Epstein, a report says, and frankly, it’s not that surprising, is it? Given her own history and the nature of the charges against her, hearing she wouldn’t perceive anything as “concerning” in that context feels almost predictable. She was convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy, a woman whose very life revolved around facilitating and participating in the abuse of young girls. What constitutes “concerning” behavior in that world? It’s a warped perspective, a reality so far removed from the everyday that the normal rules of decency and morality simply don’t apply. One can only imagine her definition of concerning doesn’t align with the rest of the world.
The mere fact that this information is being reported shouldn’t come as a shock, either. It’s almost the blueprint for how these situations play out. Someone implicated in a high-profile, potentially devastating case, suddenly singing a different tune that just happens to benefit a prominent figure. In this case, the prominent figure is someone with the power to pardon and to influence the release of more information. To many, this looks like a clear quid pro quo, a calculated maneuver to gain favor. The fact that her testimony may be used to exonerate or cast doubt on the actions of a former president is just the icing on the cake, and one might wonder how the wheels are being greased to secure a pardon.
Let’s be frank; Ghislaine Maxwell is not someone to be trusted. She was charged with two counts of perjury for a reason. Her lies are her stock in trade. Given her history of dishonesty, it’s difficult to see this statement as anything other than a strategic move to secure her own release. She’s a convicted felon, desperate for any chance at freedom, and what better way to achieve that than to align herself with the person who controls her fate? She’s angling for her pardon, pure and simple. This would be the easy way out for her if it gets her out of prison.
The timing is also suspect. The alleged statement comes at a time when there is still significant interest in the Epstein case, and the prospect of releasing more documents is a very real possibility. This statement, if true, would conveniently work to protect one individual from further scrutiny, and potentially damaging revelations, and who wouldn’t want to avoid that? Given her history and position, it’s incredibly difficult to give her words any credibility.
It also prompts a more pertinent question: why aren’t the Epstein files being released in full? Why is the government seemingly reluctant to let the public see the complete picture? The answer, unfortunately, may be more complex, and it might involve the protection of powerful people. If everything is above board and there’s nothing to hide, then there should be no hesitation in releasing the files, with the appropriate redactions to protect victims, of course.
The situation is a disturbing reminder of how power, influence, and corruption can intertwine. It’s a stark illustration of how those who have broken the law, committed heinous acts, will attempt to manipulate the system to their advantage, even if it means further harming victims. It seems there is a great effort on the part of the involved parties to kill the story and protect themselves.
This isn’t about justice; it’s about survival. It’s a desperate attempt to rewrite history, to minimize the role of the parties involved. And, as we all know, the only people who can protect themselves in such situations are the guilty. She already has the ability to be moved into better conditions, so it is no surprise that the effort to secure a pardon may be next on the agenda. The entire situation is a tragedy, and all we can do is stay informed and see how it plays out.