this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
91 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2652 readers
3 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.


Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 4 months ago

THATS WHY IT NEEDS TO BE RELEASED

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 45 points 4 months ago

"Your honor, I object!"

"Why is that?"

"It's devastating to my case!"

[–] ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com 39 points 4 months ago

Gracious no, we wouldn't want one of his primary accomplices to be inconvenienced by people seeing the full details of your actions...

[–] Wytch@lemmy.zip 34 points 4 months ago

Cool. Release the files.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 25 points 4 months ago

Why would that be? What could possibly be in those files, that makes her look even more guilty than a convicted sex trafficker?

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 25 points 4 months ago

It never occurred to me that releasing these files might cause child traffickers and rapists to actually have CONSEQUENCES. The horror. Anyways...

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 20 points 4 months ago

If it can, then it should. This should all be public information, and every unredacted detail should be made clear to the public so that no one can overlook it.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 20 points 4 months ago

"Prejudiced" by seeing the facts of the case? Right. That's kind of the point, yes.

[–] DahGangalang 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Good?

If your appeal requires everyone to have less information about what really went down, then I think were better off with you not having your appeal heard, no?

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 14 points 4 months ago

It's a risk we all are willing to take.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 12 points 4 months ago

Sounds good to me

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 11 points 4 months ago

There's no way "more information I don't have could be incriminating" can be spun positively, so we have this from her lawyers.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 11 points 4 months ago

Everything is so backwards. Releasing facts and proof someone knowingly trafficked children to be raped might have an affect on their appeal!? That's exactly why they need to be released. So the crimes that happened have a light shown on them, and victims have a chance for some semblance of justice.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 10 points 4 months ago

Oh no. Anyways

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 4 months ago

"Out of respect for ~~this fucking criminal~~ Maxwell we've decided not to release the files in their entirety. We wish her the best!"

[–] lorski@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 months ago
[–] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think her lawyer is probably thinking that, if the files are released, he has an argument he can use to legally maneuver around her appeal and get her a better outcome (from her point of view).

If her complaint results in the files not being released, then she presses Trump even harder for a presidential pardon.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Presidential Pardon would invalidate the basis for the Epstein Files not being released. (Not that I think Trump would understand that.)

[–] 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 4 months ago

We live in a post-truth society. Facts don't matter anymore. Sadly.

[–] cheeseburger@piefed.ca 5 points 4 months ago

Please become an hero, Ghislaine.

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago

Too fucking bad, cunt.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 2 points 4 months ago
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago