By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ghislaine Maxwell has reportedly offered to testify that neither Donald Trump nor Bill Clinton were culpable in their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. This offer, made during a closed-door deposition, was viewed by some lawmakers as an attempt to gain clemency for her own conviction. Maxwell is currently seeking to overturn her sentence, presenting new evidence to a federal judge regarding alleged constitutional violations during her trial.
Read the original article here
The notion that Ghislaine Maxwell isn’t cooperating with authorities because she’s actively seeking a pardon from former President Donald Trump is a prominent perspective being discussed. It seems the idea is that Maxwell’s silence is a strategic move, a calculated decision aimed at preserving any potential avenues for leniency, which, in this scenario, is believed to be a Trump pardon. This line of thinking suggests that her cooperation might inadvertently harm her chances of receiving such a pardon, perhaps by incriminating individuals who could influence such a decision or by eliminating leverage she might possess.
Furthermore, the argument unfolds by considering the implications for Donald Trump himself. On one hand, issuing a pardon to someone convicted of such serious crimes could undeniably be a public relations nightmare, a move that might alienate a significant portion of the electorate, even those who typically support him. The visual of a former president pardoning someone associated with such heinous allegations is, for many, unpalatable and difficult to reconcile with any claim of moral leadership.
However, the complexity deepens when considering the alternative: Trump simply allowing Maxwell to face the full consequences of her actions. This perspective suggests that Maxwell, due to her deep involvement in the Epstein saga, likely possesses knowledge that could be deeply damaging to powerful individuals, potentially including Trump or his associates. Therefore, completely abandoning her might be seen as a risky move, potentially leaving Trump vulnerable to further revelations or accusations. It’s a delicate balancing act, a situation described as being caught between a rock and a rather…less formidable obstacle.
The conviction that Trump supporters, often referred to as the “MAGA” base, would inevitably rally behind a pardon, regardless of the circumstances, is also a significant part of this discussion. The sentiment is that if Trump were to issue a pardon, this group would be persuaded, or perhaps instructed, to accept it, even if it meant overlooking or downplaying the severity of Maxwell’s crimes. The expectation is that loyalty to Trump would supersede any moral outrage concerning the specifics of the case.
Interestingly, the origin of this idea isn’t solely attributed to partisan speculation. It’s noted that Maxwell’s own legal team has alluded to discussions that suggest a potential pardon, which lends a layer of credibility to the theory. The idea that Maxwell’s lawyer stated something along the lines of “I’ll lie for you if you get me out of jail” captures a cynical interpretation of these alleged exchanges.
The question of pardoning crimes, particularly those as universally condemned as child abuse, is also raised. The very concept of a pardon for such offenses is seen by many as fundamentally unconscionable and a betrayal of basic moral principles. The belief is that even within the most fervent Trump supporters, the idea of pardoning Maxwell would be a bridge too far, potentially alienating them from their own base.
The idea that Donald Trump might have already secured a deal for a pardon, possibly to be enacted on his last day in office, is another angle explored. This suggests that Maxwell’s lack of cooperation isn’t necessarily her actively campaigning, but rather her adhering to an pre-existing understanding, a quiet agreement where her silence is the price for future freedom.
There’s also a pragmatic viewpoint that questions the significance of Maxwell’s cooperation at this stage. With the files already in possession of authorities and a multitude of witnesses having come forward, some argue that the information Maxwell could provide might be redundant or insufficient to significantly alter the course of justice, especially if her testimony lacks corroborating evidence. The emphasis shifts to the existing evidence and the potential for state-level prosecutions, which might not be affected by a presidential pardon.
The possibility of Maxwell’s pardon being her “only chance” is also a recurring theme, implying that without such intervention, her sentence is effectively a life sentence. This highlights the perceived corruption associated with Trump, suggesting that only he, among political figures, would be willing to entertain such a pardon. The question is posed: why wouldn’t Maxwell attempt to expose Trump further, given her own dire circumstances?
The chilling possibility of Maxwell meeting a similar fate to Jeffrey Epstein – being “Epsteined” – is also raised, suggesting that her silence might be a matter of self-preservation, a fear of retaliation if she were to speak out or cooperate too readily. This introduces the element of the justice system potentially failing victims not only through pardons but also through the silencing of witnesses.
The intricacies of her testimony are further examined, with the acknowledgment that if she has already testified and that testimony has been contradicted by evidence, any further statements could be construed as perjury. This puts her in a difficult position, unable to speak freely without potentially incriminating herself further, regardless of whether she seeks a pardon or not.
The effectiveness of a presidential pardon is also questioned in the context of state-level charges. The argument is made that a federal pardon might not shield her from prosecution in various counties or states, suggesting that she could still face legal repercussions even if Trump intervenes on the federal level. This highlights the layered nature of the legal system and the potential for multiple avenues of prosecution.
The thought that sending her back to a harsher prison environment might spur cooperation is also considered, a stark reminder of the conditions of confinement and the potential for leverage. The prediction that she *will* be pardoned is made with a sense of resignation by some.
The notion that Maxwell is “blackmailing the president of the US in exchange for a pardon for perjury” is a particularly strong accusation, framing her non-cooperation as a form of high-stakes extortion. The potential fallout for Trump and his supporters, particularly the idea that even the “cult” might struggle to defend such an action, is a point of discussion.
The idea that Maxwell doesn’t need to “campaign” for a pardon because the offer or understanding is already in place is also presented. The observation that “only in America” such situations might arise, where those accused of severe crimes seem to possess more agency than their victims, is a poignant critique of the justice system.
Ultimately, the overwhelming sentiment among many is that Maxwell’s silence is intrinsically linked to the potential for a Trump pardon, and that this calculated silence serves her best interests in a situation where cooperation might be more perilous than quiet defiance, especially in the shadow of Epstein’s suspicious death.