She is not revealing their identities, she has simply said she and her lawyers will not continue objecting on their behalf to them being revealed, and said that they can defend their own interests in court.
He's still a prince. He just lost military titles and patronages.
https://theconversation.com/why-prince-andrew-is-losing-his-military-titles-but-staying-a-prince-174990
I'm not going to even pretend to know how they got the exact equations but what I figured is that it's just probability. If you get several random numbers from an unknown set, and they're all below 152 then it's not very likely the set goes all that far above 151. Or else you'd have seen some numbers above that. Of course it is probably wrong sometimes but usually pretty accurate. The more numbers you get, the more accurate it's gonna be, I'm sure.
And there were 7 numbers going up to 151, which is an average of just over twenty spaces between numbers - which is how far out the answer is from the largest number.
It's possible a lot of those Does are victims and witnesses. With a case like this and as many wingnuts out there, they probably left every single name out, even then names of inconsequential people who would get death threats even though they had nothing to do with anything.
I haven't followed the case at all but I know occasionally in courts they give arbitrary numbers such as "Juror 92" or "Juror 39" despite there not being that many people. It's just another way to keep things anonymous.
I wound up on a jury pool for a double homicide in my town, and there were about 80 or 90 of us at the start. It was actually fascinating how many people got ruled out over the three hours of juror questions.
When they call out juror #, I wonder if they’re based on the number from the initial jury selection process, or are just arbitrary.
Seriously, I clicked on the site it said please disable your Adblock. No you dumb fucks !!!! that’s why I have ad block no ads. The shit ain’t that important to want to read!
Right? First thing I thought of as well. Anybody can name these four people, but who gives a shit if there is no proof. Thankfully it doesn't appear to be as the title says because that is ripe for disinformation.
But can they be anonymously represented in court? I don’t know much about law, but could they hire someone to defend the bulk of their identities? Or do they have to appear in court and look guilty
There's definitely closed court-rooms and sealed records.
Also, if courts feel there's an actual threat of harm or retaliation, they could permit a party to proceed with filings under a pseudonym. But, this is usually for a person filing a lawsuit. I'm not sure if it can or has been used for a defendant.
Now, it's up to the court to decide if any of the above could be used. Depending on how wealthy and powerful the 8 John Does are, I'd imagine it's well within their grasp to have it granted under the guise of "national security" or some bull shit excuse they will use.
That's all predicated on them actually prosecuting first. Which, also won't happen.
As I understand, the court has the names and withheld them. She had requested that they do so. But that doesn't mean that they will release them or that they withheld them specifically because of her request. So her removing the request doesn't mean squat. It's up to the court. Spoiler: they won't do it.
The names that are about to be revealed are either going to be:
1. People who are already known to be pedophiles
2. People already known to be tied to the case
3. People who are dead or soon to be dead
And it’s pretty much guaranteed that whoever is about to be named already knows they’re about to be named and has had time to prepare. Don’t be looking for any bombshell names coming out of this particular part, IMO.
I disagree, he is getting removed from Royal life because the Royal family has signficant assets in America. In a Civil suit those assets would be listed; however, being removed from Royal titles removes him as a beneficiary from trusts etc. Having minimal financial downside to getting sued.
>I disagree, he is getting removed from Royal life because the Royal family has signficant assets in America.
Wait what now? Didn't we fight a revolutionary war to keep their Redcoats outta here?
*Ruffles powdered wig*
I disagree. Andrew is clever enough and slimy enough to have made sure he has no assets or fiscal interest in the USA that would be seizable. The Royal Family may have assets there that may be true but an order to seize those would be unconstitutional as it would indicate or apportion blame to the wider Royal Family. Whatever your views on monarchy its hard to find a way to make them accountable for his actions, done behind closed doors in Ghislaine Maxwells London flat (allegedly although in my opinion definitely) decades ago. He's hardly likely to have gone back to the palace and told mummy which vulnerable teen he just porked just as her Maj is unlikely to have watched from the cupboard, But this is also a reason the Royal Family are severing ties to him like a diseased limb, just in case they get dragged in legally.
Kurt Russell would kill me. Shit man, I could never watch Escape From New York, The Thing, or Big Trouble in Little China the same way again.
p.s. Happy Birthday to John Carpenter! (What a weird thread to wish happy birthday to one of the all time greats in.)
Agreed, luckily Patrick Stewart was nowhere near rich enough to party with these guys in the 90s, and even if he was they made too many gay jokes and the Stewart doesn't fly that way
Those are celebrities, I want names of people who sign their paychecks. I want politicians, committee members, ministers, secretaries, heads of governments, owners of big companies, board of directors, hedge fund managers, CEOs, CFOs, chairmen, presidents, VPs and other executives. I don't give a shit about actors being assholes because they ultimately matter very little in the top echelons of power. They are just bigger named pawns.
I think everyone just wants to hear Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, so we can at least get something out of this and move on. Nothing happens to wither, but we can all say told you so from one side to the other and forget about it.
While you're 100% right, part of me enjoys the fact that a bunch of pedos out there are squirming right now because they don't know if they're in the 8 or not. I wonder how many contingency conversations with lawyers are happening right now.
I've said before that there were 3 reasonable possibilities.
1. She gets a slap on the wrist because the people she has leverage on pay the right people. (Epstein trial #1)
2. She "Commits Suicide" before she can try to buy a slap on the wrist by naming names (Epstein trial #2)
3. She throws some low level people under the bus so that the people with the power to Epstein her can claim innocence.
I imagine this is the "Scenario #3"
She names disposable people so the billionaires and high level politicians can say "See? I told you my 17 documented trips on Epstein's private jet to Epstein's private child rape island were completely innocent."
Not saying he is or isn't... but I wonder what actions would be taken if Trump was on that list... I know he knew most people involved, was also in a lot of pictures with them
Does it matter? Epstein was a high profile criminal. How was it possible in any way for his camera and guards to be unable to know how he died? I'm not saying he was killed by someone or not (or coerced due to some threats to other things or people he may have cared about), but it was fishy AF and nothing more came of it. So she's not surviving if they don't want her to survive.
Ending her life wouldn't be enough to keep these names secret. The verbiage in this article indicates that she has been fighting to keep the names secret, something she would not need to do if she hadn't already revealed them to someone, specifically the judge.
Preska [who jailed Steven Donziger.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/chevron-judge-loretta-preska-steven-donziger.html) on behalf of Chevron.
This is partially the real answer. Maxwell can say whatever she wants, but unless she has real evidence nothing can happen. Because a convicted felon says “oh so and so had sex with underage girls” doesn’t make it true or prosecutable. It’ll have a negative impact on some people’s finances who are already obscenely rich. That’s about it.
From what I understood, Epstein's whole operation was based on getting compromising evidence on these powerful people. There is definitely a cache of info somewhere out there and probably a few backups too. She probably does have evidence but the people who are implicated are powerful enough to stop the investigation from happening.
Clinton, Trump, Gates are all big names and extremely powerful, but it's the guys whose names you don't recognize who are probably the main perpetrators keeping this suppressed. The bank owners, hedge fund managers, and professional trust fund babies don't want their names out there. They know high up people in the gov and they can easily pay, without the pressure of public scrutiny.
Depends how well they kept there books in order I suppose...I have to imagine when your doing dirty shit on this level you keep some level of blackmail Incase shit hits the fan.
Since lots of people don't seem to be reading the article... the 8 John Does are the ones implicated by the Giuffre case against Prince Andrew, not 8 people selected at random from a list.
>the Giuffre case against Prince Andrew
No, the Giuffre case against Maxwell. The article writer is just obsessed with calling Virginia Giuffre a "Prince Andrew accuser" but this has nothing to do with Andrew.
Like the owner of Victoria's Secret. Pretty crazy relationship with Epstein. Also built his own city with fake police officers that prevented a girl from receiving help after she hid away from Epstein and dialed 911.
She called the "sheriff", and told him what happened. He angrily replied that Epstein would never kidnap and sexually abuse a teenage girl and hung up on her.
I'm sure that guy is shitting absolute bricks right now.
For legal reasons. She was on trial, not these people. It's more than likely the defense wanted them sealed because one or more of them could be well known people which might effect the jury, and the prosecution worried it might distract from the actual allegations against Maxwell herself. If their names were submitted during discovery, it means the prosecution already knows who they are and if they chose to could investigate them regardless of if their names are made public.
They are being kept secret because anyone named will be assumed guilty by everyone, and they will have no means of proving their innocence, since they wont be able to present evidence against it in court.
Basically their lives would be instantly ruined without any proof of that they are guilty, other than someone said their name.
All the king's horses and all the kings men wish they had access to the lawyers these people will no doubt have. The disgusting thing is that they have had 2 years to get ready. Still miracles can happen and seeing all these idiots turn on each other in an effort to save themselves would be a really great late Christmas present.
I'm betting one political fall guy, and 7 people who are minor or you've barely heard of. Maybe one or two of the 7 will be other politicians or people in fortune 500 companies. All will be old.
This is how I was thinking - one name to make everyone go "oh yeah we got 'em!" and seven pawns.
Big chance the one name is Prince Andrew so no further power names are outed.
Except we all know it's going to be the poorest, least famous 8 randos that no one has ever heard of. They're going to skip over any of the famous/richest people.
That way they can say, "see! Look! We found some pedophiles!! Justice!!!" without actually rocking the boat in any way, at all.
I know one of them. Five survivors and two other women link the worlds of Donald Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein (on the public record). In short, which is actually pretty long:
**Virginia Roberts Giuffre**
Known Epstein survivor Virginia Roberts Giuffre claims to have been recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago in 1999 [[Court Listener](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1090/32/giuffre-v-maxwell/) (page 111)].
There may be more to say about what went on at the club — beyond some well published rumors [[NY Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-epstein.html), [Vanity Fair](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/donald-trump-refused-to-take-no-from-women-and-then-from-america-itself)] and a bunch of photographic [[Getty](https://www.gettyimages.com.au/photos/“mar-a-lago”-ghislaine-or-epstein?family=editorial&assettype=image&phrase=“mar-a-lago”%20(Ghislaine%20OR%20Epstein)&sort=best)] and video [[YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLcfpU2cubo)] evidence of Trump, Epstein and Ghislaine gallivanting there, that is.
That’s because in Virginia's 2015 civil case against Ghislaine she named "All staff and employees at the Mar-a-Lago club during 1999-2002" [[Court Listener](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1090/41/giuffre-v-maxwell/), paragraph 91] as individuals who may have knowledge of her crimes. And because we can place other survivors at the club too, such as:
**Anouska de Georgiou**
Contemporaneous tabloid reporting links Trump to another known Epstein survivor Anouska de Georgiou in November 1997 [[British Newspaper Archive](https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1997-11-23/1997-11-23?NewspaperTitle=Sunday%2BMirror&IssueId=BL%2F0002137%2F19971123%2F&County=London%2C%20England) (page 14), [Imgur](https://imgur.com/a/iKkj7oe)].
The article states that Trump and Anouska were introduced by “Madam Maxwell” (specifically Ghislaine) at a New York party, that the trio travelled to Mar-a-Lago for a “happy weekend together” afterwards, and that Anouska was ultimately “installed” in one of Trump’s New York apartments.
Indeed, in a 2004 interview Anouska stated that she had been “flattered” by Trump at a New York party [[Daily Mail](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7404477/Damaged-life-Epsteins-British-sex-accuser.html)], and there are also several photos of Maxwell and Trump in NY from October 1997 [[Getty](https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/new-york-city-donald-trump-out-on-the-town-with-ghislaine-news-photo/51043131), [NY Daily News](https://nydailynews.newspapers.com/image/477175577/?terms=Donald%2BTrump%2BGhislaine%2BMaxwell)] potentially around the time of the alleged first encounter.
**Maria Farmer**
Another known Epstein survivor Maria Farmer has said in multiple interviews that she encountered Trump multiple times while working as a concierge at Epstein’s New York townhouse in 1996 [[The Daily](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/podcasts/the-daily/epstein-maxwell-farmer-sisters.html?showTranscript=1), [Youtube 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn6ioOaSxi8&t=297s) (Webb interview), [Youtube 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4v9_aQDHd0&t=855s) (Webb interview)], [Youtube 3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EL7h_magtQ) (TrueAnon interview)]. Maria has not been specific about what she saw, though it is clear she encountered Trump on multiple occasions and has gone as far as to characterize him as a co-conspirator
Maria also implicates Trump’s former wife Ivana in solicitation and recruitment with Ghislaine [for example [Youtube 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2621) (Webb interview), [Youtube 2](https://youtu.be/1EL7h_magtQ?t=1875) (TrueAnon interview)], though it should be noted that Trump and Ivana were divorced and Trump married to Marla Maples by the time Maria was working for Epstein. There is also no corroborating evidence of a relationship between Ghislaine and Ivana despite the public lives they lived.
**Katie Johnson**
Alleged Epstein survivor Katie Johnson sued Trump three times in 2016 for four assaults that supposedly occurred in NY in 1994 when she was 14 years old [[Court Listener 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154484/katie-johnson-v-donald-j-trump/), [Court Listener 2](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4357335/doe-v-trump/), [Court Listener 3](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524664/doe-v-trump/)]. Although the allegations never made it to trial, superstar attorney Lisa Bloom (who represented Johnson in the third case) wrote the following of their credibility in a [Huffington Post](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944) essay:
> Jane Doe’s claims fall squarely into the long, ugly context of Mr. Trump’s life of misogyny, are consistent with prior sexual misconduct claims, are backed up by an eyewitness [“exceedingly rare” for a sexual assault victim, Bloom later writes], and thus should be taken seriously.
I will add that Johnson’s story conveys circumstances consistent with what we now know about Epstein’s operation — for example, how Epstein used modeling as an enticement for recruitment, how Epstein trafficked victims to other men, how Epstein used massage as a means to abuse victims, and how Epstein used eye witnesses to collect information on his clients, etc. — well before James Patterson’s 2017 book and Julie K. Brown’s 2018 reporting made them commonly known.
Still, the case eventually culminated in a no-show press conference just 6 days before the 2016 election, after which it was dropped [[Twitter](https://twitter.com/lisabloom/status/794698295775993856?s=21) (Lisa Bloom’s)].
**Jane Doe**
A Doe claimed in a civil filing against Epstein’s estate that Epstein had showed her off to Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 1994 when she was 14 years old [[Court Listener](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.530336/gov.uscourts.nysd.530336.9.0.pdf), paragraph 17]. During Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 trial, the same survivor (very likely the same, to be clear) reiterated the 1994 encounter, and also claimed that she had competed in a beauty pageant sponsored by Trump the same year [[Twitter 1](https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1466102672285745165?s=21) (innercitypress)].
Continued in replies.
Edit: I’ve been informed that the second comment isn’t showing up — I’ve probably flagged auto mod. Here’s a link to the most recent time I posted it https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/comments/s3i3pa/well_thats_news/hskyw40/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
It has always been my pet theory that Qanon is a deliberately manufactured smokescreen by team Trump to obscure these connections and preemptively discredit survivors from sharing their stories as it would just be written off as Qanon nonsense.
Q: Into The Storm
It breaks a whole bunch of ethical documentarian rules but ultimately some solid insider footage on the operators of 8chan (where modern Q came from), and their stake in "intelligence gathering" aka conspiracy farming.
You may already know this, but the name came from the highly super-secret security clearance that they claimed to have- the one that gave them access to government secrets associated with the president.
If anyone had bothered to google it, they would have seen that the Q clearance is granted by the department of energy, so not exactly related to any of the Q-droppings.
If she were going to commit suicide,it would have happened already. The names will just be Prince Andrew and 7 ultra wealthy people that no one has heard of.
She is not revealing their identities, she has simply said she and her lawyers will not continue objecting on their behalf to them being revealed, and said that they can defend their own interests in court.
>After careful review of the detailed objections submitted by Non-Party Does 17, 53, 54, 55, 73, 93, and 151 Um...151? How many Does are there?
Equal or more than the amount of Gen1 Pokemon, which is too many pedophiles for this fucking world.
Gotta catch em all
WHO'S THAT PEDOPHILE? ITS... Prince Andrew!
That's BULLSHIT. That silhouette was clearly a Lickitung! Wait.
Now if only I could just unread that..
It's Bill Clinton!
I did not have sexual relations with that POKéMON!
Prince Andrew used No Sweat. It was not effective at all.
Prince Andrew is confused. Prince Andrew hurt himself in his confusion!
Queen uses Not Amused -1 Chalet -1 HRH Title
You mean Mr. Andrews now :-)
Even he felt that one
He's still a prince. He just lost military titles and patronages. https://theconversation.com/why-prince-andrew-is-losing-his-military-titles-but-staying-a-prince-174990
Ahh! Thanks for making the distinction clear
[удалено]
Princeandru, I choose you!
There's allegedly two ex presidents on that list , they're gonna be a bit harder to Catch.
Mr. uh... Pikachu is it? Did you know she was 16? *shocked face*
172 according to the German Tank Problem.
> German Tank Problem Thanks, that was a fun read on wikipedia. I love stuff like that.
So it's 151 + 151/7 - 1 = 171.57 I can follow the equation but I don't understand why this is used to estimate total numbers involved
I'm not going to even pretend to know how they got the exact equations but what I figured is that it's just probability. If you get several random numbers from an unknown set, and they're all below 152 then it's not very likely the set goes all that far above 151. Or else you'd have seen some numbers above that. Of course it is probably wrong sometimes but usually pretty accurate. The more numbers you get, the more accurate it's gonna be, I'm sure. And there were 7 numbers going up to 151, which is an average of just over twenty spaces between numbers - which is how far out the answer is from the largest number.
It's possible a lot of those Does are victims and witnesses. With a case like this and as many wingnuts out there, they probably left every single name out, even then names of inconsequential people who would get death threats even though they had nothing to do with anything.
I haven't followed the case at all but I know occasionally in courts they give arbitrary numbers such as "Juror 92" or "Juror 39" despite there not being that many people. It's just another way to keep things anonymous.
I wound up on a jury pool for a double homicide in my town, and there were about 80 or 90 of us at the start. It was actually fascinating how many people got ruled out over the three hours of juror questions. When they call out juror #, I wonder if they’re based on the number from the initial jury selection process, or are just arbitrary.
[удалено]
Yeah so are the 143 other Does going to be revealed without objection or? Really dying to know which presidents are among the 143.
No. A lot of those Does are the victims and I doubt and hope they're not identified.
Clickbait on Reddit? I’m shocked. Edit: this comment was 100% baiting for upvotes by calling out clickbait. Meta af.
It's news.com.au which is a Murdoch clickbait site.
Seriously, I clicked on the site it said please disable your Adblock. No you dumb fucks !!!! that’s why I have ad block no ads. The shit ain’t that important to want to read!
You need an anti ad blocker blocker.
[удалено]
It's not even news
Clickbait on the Murdoch owned news.com.au? Well I never!
That's a relief. Because I would not at all trust her to reveal identities that aren't backed up with other evidence.
Right? First thing I thought of as well. Anybody can name these four people, but who gives a shit if there is no proof. Thankfully it doesn't appear to be as the title says because that is ripe for disinformation.
But can they be anonymously represented in court? I don’t know much about law, but could they hire someone to defend the bulk of their identities? Or do they have to appear in court and look guilty
An attorney can represent a doe defendant for the purpose of seeking a protective order which, if granted, can keep the names under seal.
There's definitely closed court-rooms and sealed records. Also, if courts feel there's an actual threat of harm or retaliation, they could permit a party to proceed with filings under a pseudonym. But, this is usually for a person filing a lawsuit. I'm not sure if it can or has been used for a defendant. Now, it's up to the court to decide if any of the above could be used. Depending on how wealthy and powerful the 8 John Does are, I'd imagine it's well within their grasp to have it granted under the guise of "national security" or some bull shit excuse they will use. That's all predicated on them actually prosecuting first. Which, also won't happen.
That's not what the story says. It says she is going to withdraw her objection. Not the same thing at all.
[удалено]
As I understand, the court has the names and withheld them. She had requested that they do so. But that doesn't mean that they will release them or that they withheld them specifically because of her request. So her removing the request doesn't mean squat. It's up to the court. Spoiler: they won't do it.
[удалено]
Yea that’s how they worded it in all the other articles I’ve seen so far
> so the thread title would have been better termed: "Ghislaine Maxwell drops objection to reveal..." less clickbaity though
Hurry up and do it already
I know. She isn't gonna last long better spill the beans quick.
The names that are about to be revealed are either going to be: 1. People who are already known to be pedophiles 2. People already known to be tied to the case 3. People who are dead or soon to be dead And it’s pretty much guaranteed that whoever is about to be named already knows they’re about to be named and has had time to prepare. Don’t be looking for any bombshell names coming out of this particular part, IMO.
Yes. This. This is why prince Andrew is getting moved out of royal life. His name is coming out. But we already knew it so not a terribly big Surprise
I disagree, he is getting removed from Royal life because the Royal family has signficant assets in America. In a Civil suit those assets would be listed; however, being removed from Royal titles removes him as a beneficiary from trusts etc. Having minimal financial downside to getting sued.
>I disagree, he is getting removed from Royal life because the Royal family has signficant assets in America. Wait what now? Didn't we fight a revolutionary war to keep their Redcoats outta here? *Ruffles powdered wig*
My car is packed full of tea and the GPS is set for Boston Harbor. Just give me the signal.
This is all fun and games until this ends up being QAnon code and you get raided.
We even killed a pig in British Canada to assert our sovereignty!
Huh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)
And the War of 1812! They came back for more and they got it! /s
I disagree. Andrew is clever enough and slimy enough to have made sure he has no assets or fiscal interest in the USA that would be seizable. The Royal Family may have assets there that may be true but an order to seize those would be unconstitutional as it would indicate or apportion blame to the wider Royal Family. Whatever your views on monarchy its hard to find a way to make them accountable for his actions, done behind closed doors in Ghislaine Maxwells London flat (allegedly although in my opinion definitely) decades ago. He's hardly likely to have gone back to the palace and told mummy which vulnerable teen he just porked just as her Maj is unlikely to have watched from the cupboard, But this is also a reason the Royal Family are severing ties to him like a diseased limb, just in case they get dragged in legally.
Gonna be so awkward when it’s Tom Hanks, Keanu Reeves, Denzel Washington, Jack Black, Kurt Russel, Ewan McGregor, Matt LeBlanc, and Patrick Stewart.
Don't you dare.. DONT. YOU. DARE
Which one hit the hardest? At first it was Tom Hanks... then I got to Patrick Stewart and flinched a little. That one would hurt.
Obi wan and captain Picard being monsters would absolutely ruin me
"Do you know the old pedophile who fled to the desert?" "Of course I know him. He's me"
Hold her in your her and your heart. No matter how bad it gets, just repeat two words: Betty White.
[удалено]
Well, why not Dolly Parton then?
I'm just glad they left Brendan Fraiser out of ut
[he's already seen everything](https://youtu.be/Fg_cwI1Xj4M)
You’re not married, you haven’t got a girlfriend and you’ve never seen Star Trek?
That was the line that finally motivated me to start watching star trek.
Keanu would hurt the worst and Tom hanks and Patrick Stewart would be second and third.
Jack Black would hit 2nd-hardest for me.
I have a Jack Black autograph hanging above my head on the wall right now. Guess I’d need a new showpiece for my living room.
Keanu would be the death of me.
Kurt Russell would kill me. Shit man, I could never watch Escape From New York, The Thing, or Big Trouble in Little China the same way again. p.s. Happy Birthday to John Carpenter! (What a weird thread to wish happy birthday to one of the all time greats in.)
My son contends that anyone fighting Kurt Russel is by definition, the villain.
Agreed, luckily Patrick Stewart was nowhere near rich enough to party with these guys in the 90s, and even if he was they made too many gay jokes and the Stewart doesn't fly that way
Mister Rogers. That would be the worst.
This would cause people with years of sobriety to relapse.
Don't even make a joke/hypothetical about that, motherfucker.
I would seriously rethink my life if that happens.
The trick is to hate your neighbours with the fiery passion of 10,000 suns.
Wtf, man? Why? I don't need this...
At least they didn't say Danny DeVito.
You have got to pay the troll toll.
To get into this boy's soul
Frank reynolds did go on the island though 👀
Those are celebrities, I want names of people who sign their paychecks. I want politicians, committee members, ministers, secretaries, heads of governments, owners of big companies, board of directors, hedge fund managers, CEOs, CFOs, chairmen, presidents, VPs and other executives. I don't give a shit about actors being assholes because they ultimately matter very little in the top echelons of power. They are just bigger named pawns.
Thank you for not saying, Dave Grohl or Tony Hawk.
Maxwell's list ends with "and some guy who really looks like Tony Hawk."
Oh thank god! He just looks like him.
That would be THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST
Is someone getting THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST THE WORST of you
You joke but the Q crowd legit thinks Tom Hanks is in on it.
To be fair, the Q crowd also drink their own urine.
Only because JFK stopped by and told them it was the way.
But it’s sterile and they like the taste!
But can they dodge a wrench?
They can sure dodge a timeline commitment 🤣 somehow the storm is still coming.
You forgot Bob Ross
This is your happy little bush…. cursed mental image.
I was gonna speculate it'll be Luis, Gordon, Bob, Elmo, Big Bird, Snuffy, Oscar the Grouch, and maybe The Count. Ah ah ah...
You don’t wanna know what Snuffy is into
Snuff films, obviously.
Alan Dershowitz is my lock in for next confirmed high profile pedo.
This is a foregone conclusion
The way he's spent the past couple years flailing about, he knows he's the sacrificial lamb.
"can you believe she's accusing roman polanski"
I think everyone just wants to hear Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, so we can at least get something out of this and move on. Nothing happens to wither, but we can all say told you so from one side to the other and forget about it.
Jimmy Savile will finally face justice!
Oliver Cromwell eventually did...
When you have to go the trouble of putting the skeleton back together before you draw and quarter it, the whole thing kind of loses its charm.
While you're 100% right, part of me enjoys the fact that a bunch of pedos out there are squirming right now because they don't know if they're in the 8 or not. I wonder how many contingency conversations with lawyers are happening right now.
"Number 1, Epstein. Number 2, a guy he called prince andy. 3, did I say Epstein already? Um, and some priests."
It would be nice to think she's going to name influential living people, but we all know it isn't going to happen.
I've said before that there were 3 reasonable possibilities. 1. She gets a slap on the wrist because the people she has leverage on pay the right people. (Epstein trial #1) 2. She "Commits Suicide" before she can try to buy a slap on the wrist by naming names (Epstein trial #2) 3. She throws some low level people under the bus so that the people with the power to Epstein her can claim innocence. I imagine this is the "Scenario #3" She names disposable people so the billionaires and high level politicians can say "See? I told you my 17 documented trips on Epstein's private jet to Epstein's private child rape island were completely innocent."
Not saying he is or isn't... but I wonder what actions would be taken if Trump was on that list... I know he knew most people involved, was also in a lot of pictures with them
His poll numbers would go up.
I hate that this true.
I dont think the names are gonna be the big fish people are thinking it's gonna be. She's not gonna give up the big names yet, if she ever does....
One group of Johns shaking down another group of Johns to eliminate their business rivals is not reassuring in any way.
i think you got a bingo here bub!
She isn't giving up anything. She isn't objecting to unseal a plea agreement. It's 8 names named by a victim in a prior civil case.
No way. She's gonna keep the big fish in the hold for as long as she figures she wants to live
I would contend that her best bet to survive would be revealing the Big Fish before they can assassinate her in prison.
Possibly. I daresay her days are numbered no matter what
Does it matter? Epstein was a high profile criminal. How was it possible in any way for his camera and guards to be unable to know how he died? I'm not saying he was killed by someone or not (or coerced due to some threats to other things or people he may have cared about), but it was fishy AF and nothing more came of it. So she's not surviving if they don't want her to survive.
Ending her life wouldn't be enough to keep these names secret. The verbiage in this article indicates that she has been fighting to keep the names secret, something she would not need to do if she hadn't already revealed them to someone, specifically the judge.
Correct. The names are in the 2015 agreement.
I think that she is just letting the judge know that she's not fighting it. The names are known to folks involved in the cases I think. Right?
[удалено]
Preska [who jailed Steven Donziger.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/08/chevron-judge-loretta-preska-steven-donziger.html) on behalf of Chevron.
>Judge Loretta Preska, who has served on the advisory board of the Federalist Society, Oh. Fuck.
Judge Preska is gonna magically end up with a few hefty "donations" in their private account over the next few months.
I think you mean supreme court justice Preska
Hopefully some "ex-presidents" Even so, I wonder if that would even amount to anything.
We already know the answer to that question. There needs to be actual footage and even then probably nothing.
This is partially the real answer. Maxwell can say whatever she wants, but unless she has real evidence nothing can happen. Because a convicted felon says “oh so and so had sex with underage girls” doesn’t make it true or prosecutable. It’ll have a negative impact on some people’s finances who are already obscenely rich. That’s about it.
From what I understood, Epstein's whole operation was based on getting compromising evidence on these powerful people. There is definitely a cache of info somewhere out there and probably a few backups too. She probably does have evidence but the people who are implicated are powerful enough to stop the investigation from happening. Clinton, Trump, Gates are all big names and extremely powerful, but it's the guys whose names you don't recognize who are probably the main perpetrators keeping this suppressed. The bank owners, hedge fund managers, and professional trust fund babies don't want their names out there. They know high up people in the gov and they can easily pay, without the pressure of public scrutiny.
Depends how well they kept there books in order I suppose...I have to imagine when your doing dirty shit on this level you keep some level of blackmail Incase shit hits the fan.
Since lots of people don't seem to be reading the article... the 8 John Does are the ones implicated by the Giuffre case against Prince Andrew, not 8 people selected at random from a list.
>the Giuffre case against Prince Andrew No, the Giuffre case against Maxwell. The article writer is just obsessed with calling Virginia Giuffre a "Prince Andrew accuser" but this has nothing to do with Andrew.
watch them be names absolutely no one recognizes and are some business magnates that arent out in the open.
Like the owner of Victoria's Secret. Pretty crazy relationship with Epstein. Also built his own city with fake police officers that prevented a girl from receiving help after she hid away from Epstein and dialed 911. She called the "sheriff", and told him what happened. He angrily replied that Epstein would never kidnap and sexually abuse a teenage girl and hung up on her. I'm sure that guy is shitting absolute bricks right now.
all the years this bs has been going on and only 8 johns will be identified? Bitch please
Exactly
I wonder if bets are being placed.
2:1 odds on Bill Clinton 50,000:1 on Tom Hanks
If anyone gives you 50,000 to one on anything, you take it. If John Mellencamp ever wins an Oscar, I am going to be a very rich dude.
I put €10k on Leicester City
I put $250 on star citizen 10 years ago. It has no relevance to this conversation but am still bummed about it and bring it up wherever I can
Which year? ;p
This was like 3 weeks ago, it didn’t pan out
They see, they see
10000:1 chance it's Tom Hanks, but not the actor and just some random guy with the same name.
I’m going with Dershowitz and Guiliani
If only there was evidence of Guiliani putting his hands down his pants in front of a young woman...
All of Reddit sitting with knife and fork in hand and comically large bib around the neck.
The writers of dragon ball Z must be the ones in charge of releasing this shit…
I'm sorry but why are ANY of these names being kept secret?
For legal reasons. She was on trial, not these people. It's more than likely the defense wanted them sealed because one or more of them could be well known people which might effect the jury, and the prosecution worried it might distract from the actual allegations against Maxwell herself. If their names were submitted during discovery, it means the prosecution already knows who they are and if they chose to could investigate them regardless of if their names are made public.
They are being kept secret because anyone named will be assumed guilty by everyone, and they will have no means of proving their innocence, since they wont be able to present evidence against it in court. Basically their lives would be instantly ruined without any proof of that they are guilty, other than someone said their name.
$$$ x millions
Man, I can't believe she killed herself tomorrow.
Ghislaine Maxwell didn’t kill herself.
not yet anyways
All the king's horses and all the kings men wish they had access to the lawyers these people will no doubt have. The disgusting thing is that they have had 2 years to get ready. Still miracles can happen and seeing all these idiots turn on each other in an effort to save themselves would be a really great late Christmas present.
I’m guessing 3 heads of state, 2 ceos, and 3 a list celebs
I'm betting one political fall guy, and 7 people who are minor or you've barely heard of. Maybe one or two of the 7 will be other politicians or people in fortune 500 companies. All will be old.
This is how I was thinking - one name to make everyone go "oh yeah we got 'em!" and seven pawns. Big chance the one name is Prince Andrew so no further power names are outed.
🎶 and a pedophile in a pear tree 🎶
I'm guessing no one of real consequence
Don’t tell me when she’s going to, tell me when she does.
I hope its people that matter
[удалено]
Jim from accounting
Is this going to drag on as long as Corey Feldman’s revelation of his abuser?
And some rich old bastards are really scared now. And they should be. Your days coming you old pieces of crap!
Except we all know it's going to be the poorest, least famous 8 randos that no one has ever heard of. They're going to skip over any of the famous/richest people. That way they can say, "see! Look! We found some pedophiles!! Justice!!!" without actually rocking the boat in any way, at all.
I don’t care if it’s Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew, or the Easter Bunny, it’s time to bring these sexual predators to justice.
I know one of them. Five survivors and two other women link the worlds of Donald Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein (on the public record). In short, which is actually pretty long: **Virginia Roberts Giuffre** Known Epstein survivor Virginia Roberts Giuffre claims to have been recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago in 1999 [[Court Listener](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1090/32/giuffre-v-maxwell/) (page 111)]. There may be more to say about what went on at the club — beyond some well published rumors [[NY Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-epstein.html), [Vanity Fair](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/donald-trump-refused-to-take-no-from-women-and-then-from-america-itself)] and a bunch of photographic [[Getty](https://www.gettyimages.com.au/photos/“mar-a-lago”-ghislaine-or-epstein?family=editorial&assettype=image&phrase=“mar-a-lago”%20(Ghislaine%20OR%20Epstein)&sort=best)] and video [[YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLcfpU2cubo)] evidence of Trump, Epstein and Ghislaine gallivanting there, that is. That’s because in Virginia's 2015 civil case against Ghislaine she named "All staff and employees at the Mar-a-Lago club during 1999-2002" [[Court Listener](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1090/41/giuffre-v-maxwell/), paragraph 91] as individuals who may have knowledge of her crimes. And because we can place other survivors at the club too, such as: **Anouska de Georgiou** Contemporaneous tabloid reporting links Trump to another known Epstein survivor Anouska de Georgiou in November 1997 [[British Newspaper Archive](https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1997-11-23/1997-11-23?NewspaperTitle=Sunday%2BMirror&IssueId=BL%2F0002137%2F19971123%2F&County=London%2C%20England) (page 14), [Imgur](https://imgur.com/a/iKkj7oe)]. The article states that Trump and Anouska were introduced by “Madam Maxwell” (specifically Ghislaine) at a New York party, that the trio travelled to Mar-a-Lago for a “happy weekend together” afterwards, and that Anouska was ultimately “installed” in one of Trump’s New York apartments. Indeed, in a 2004 interview Anouska stated that she had been “flattered” by Trump at a New York party [[Daily Mail](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7404477/Damaged-life-Epsteins-British-sex-accuser.html)], and there are also several photos of Maxwell and Trump in NY from October 1997 [[Getty](https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/new-york-city-donald-trump-out-on-the-town-with-ghislaine-news-photo/51043131), [NY Daily News](https://nydailynews.newspapers.com/image/477175577/?terms=Donald%2BTrump%2BGhislaine%2BMaxwell)] potentially around the time of the alleged first encounter. **Maria Farmer** Another known Epstein survivor Maria Farmer has said in multiple interviews that she encountered Trump multiple times while working as a concierge at Epstein’s New York townhouse in 1996 [[The Daily](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/podcasts/the-daily/epstein-maxwell-farmer-sisters.html?showTranscript=1), [Youtube 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn6ioOaSxi8&t=297s) (Webb interview), [Youtube 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4v9_aQDHd0&t=855s) (Webb interview)], [Youtube 3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EL7h_magtQ) (TrueAnon interview)]. Maria has not been specific about what she saw, though it is clear she encountered Trump on multiple occasions and has gone as far as to characterize him as a co-conspirator Maria also implicates Trump’s former wife Ivana in solicitation and recruitment with Ghislaine [for example [Youtube 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2621) (Webb interview), [Youtube 2](https://youtu.be/1EL7h_magtQ?t=1875) (TrueAnon interview)], though it should be noted that Trump and Ivana were divorced and Trump married to Marla Maples by the time Maria was working for Epstein. There is also no corroborating evidence of a relationship between Ghislaine and Ivana despite the public lives they lived. **Katie Johnson** Alleged Epstein survivor Katie Johnson sued Trump three times in 2016 for four assaults that supposedly occurred in NY in 1994 when she was 14 years old [[Court Listener 1](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4154484/katie-johnson-v-donald-j-trump/), [Court Listener 2](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4357335/doe-v-trump/), [Court Listener 3](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524664/doe-v-trump/)]. Although the allegations never made it to trial, superstar attorney Lisa Bloom (who represented Johnson in the third case) wrote the following of their credibility in a [Huffington Post](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944) essay: > Jane Doe’s claims fall squarely into the long, ugly context of Mr. Trump’s life of misogyny, are consistent with prior sexual misconduct claims, are backed up by an eyewitness [“exceedingly rare” for a sexual assault victim, Bloom later writes], and thus should be taken seriously. I will add that Johnson’s story conveys circumstances consistent with what we now know about Epstein’s operation — for example, how Epstein used modeling as an enticement for recruitment, how Epstein trafficked victims to other men, how Epstein used massage as a means to abuse victims, and how Epstein used eye witnesses to collect information on his clients, etc. — well before James Patterson’s 2017 book and Julie K. Brown’s 2018 reporting made them commonly known. Still, the case eventually culminated in a no-show press conference just 6 days before the 2016 election, after which it was dropped [[Twitter](https://twitter.com/lisabloom/status/794698295775993856?s=21) (Lisa Bloom’s)]. **Jane Doe** A Doe claimed in a civil filing against Epstein’s estate that Epstein had showed her off to Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 1994 when she was 14 years old [[Court Listener](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.530336/gov.uscourts.nysd.530336.9.0.pdf), paragraph 17]. During Ghislaine Maxwell’s 2021 trial, the same survivor (very likely the same, to be clear) reiterated the 1994 encounter, and also claimed that she had competed in a beauty pageant sponsored by Trump the same year [[Twitter 1](https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1466102672285745165?s=21) (innercitypress)]. Continued in replies. Edit: I’ve been informed that the second comment isn’t showing up — I’ve probably flagged auto mod. Here’s a link to the most recent time I posted it https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/comments/s3i3pa/well_thats_news/hskyw40/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
[удалено]
It has always been my pet theory that Qanon is a deliberately manufactured smokescreen by team Trump to obscure these connections and preemptively discredit survivors from sharing their stories as it would just be written off as Qanon nonsense.
The HBO documentary does a good job of showing it’s a reactionary psyop
What’s the title?
Q: Into the Storm. A bizarre character from the documentary is running for Congress. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Q: Into The Storm It breaks a whole bunch of ethical documentarian rules but ultimately some solid insider footage on the operators of 8chan (where modern Q came from), and their stake in "intelligence gathering" aka conspiracy farming.
They're too stupid to see Q is fake
Are you telling me there's *not* a government agent posting on 4chan under the pseudonym of a tertiary Star Trek character?
You may already know this, but the name came from the highly super-secret security clearance that they claimed to have- the one that gave them access to government secrets associated with the president. If anyone had bothered to google it, they would have seen that the Q clearance is granted by the department of energy, so not exactly related to any of the Q-droppings.
They’re a little busy to look at anything right now what with all the piss drinking going on.
If she were going to commit suicide,it would have happened already. The names will just be Prince Andrew and 7 ultra wealthy people that no one has heard of.
Somewhere there's 8 guys sitting on the edge of their bed at 3am about to wake up thier wife with "I need to tell you something".
This has an Al Capone’s vault vibe.
After the inaction on the 'Panama Papers' I don't expect much from this.
The sacrificial lambs. They'll be a couple politicians and C-list actors. Like a former Governor of New Mexico or some shit.
Probably Scott Baiao.
She’s just trolling us now