Supreme Court Rejects Maxwell Appeal in Epstein Case

Monday, October 06, 2025

The US Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell ...

Posted by Corky at 07:32 PM | 30 COMMENTS | permalink

The Supreme Court rejected a bid to hear convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. Arick Fudali, who represents several Epstein accusers, and @barbmcquade.bsky.social join @anacabrera.bsky.social to share their analysis of the decision. www.msnbc.com/ana-cabrera- ...

[image or embed]
-- MSNBC Reports (@msnbcreports.msnbc.com) Oct 6, 2025 at 11:57 AM

Comments

"Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security prison facility in Texas after her interview with justice department officials in July. In those interviews, she denied seeing any inappropriate conduct by Trump during his interactions with Epstein.

The facility, FPC Bryant, is located about 100 miles (160km) from the Texas capital of Austin.

The family members of Giuffre, Sky and Amanda Roberts and Danny and Lanette Wilson, said in a written statement that they "remain hopeful that the DOJ will realize that she belongs in a maximum security prison, not the country club one she is currently in".

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-06 12:30 PM

Maxwell was rewarded by Trump with relocation to Club Fed for her role in luring underage girls for her former boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein to exploit.

Edited for accuracy.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-06 12:32 PM

"Trump on pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell: I'd have to take a look at it'"

"President Trump said Monday he would have to talk to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and review the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, after the Supreme Court declined to review her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction.

Trump was asked in the Oval Office whether he was considering a pardon for Maxwell, and he repeatedly declined to rule out a pardon, instead stressing that he would need to look into the matter."

"Well, I'll take a look at it. I'll speak to the DOJ," Trump said. "I wouldn't consider it or not consider " I don't know anything about it. I will speak to the DOJ."

thehill.com

He sent his Personal Attny to shut her up and exonerate him, but he doesn't know anything about it?

Yeah, right....

Here's the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WN9s7j1SZ8

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-06 07:18 PM

ahem... PBS

www.youtube.com

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-06 07:19 PM

ahem... PBS

The man is pathetic.

"I know nothing!"

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-10-06 07:27 PM

Sgt. Drumpf!

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-06 07:32 PM

Sgt. Drumpf!

I was thinking exactly that. He's either lying, or even stupider than he appears to be.

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-10-06 07:45 PM

He's always one or t'other. Sometimes both.

He's paired the old saying down to 'a sucker is born every' second now.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2025-10-06 07:57 PM

"Well, I'll take a look at it. I'll speak to the DOJ," Trump said. "I wouldn't consider it or not consider " I don't know anything about it. I will speak to the DOJ."

Right there is our problem. While it's an obvious lie that Trumpy "knows nothing about it" Trumpy should not be "speaking to the DOJ" about anything.

This is how far off the democratic rails we have gone when at remark such as this is being accepted as "normal" and not even questioned anymore.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-10-06 08:43 PM

The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E.
Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C. ; 2241 by
sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and
depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.

#13 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-10-06 09:23 PM

The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by
the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four
month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only
a minor of age 13.
. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling
career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant
Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.

#14 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-10-06 09:24 PM

I'm getting a -----.
--Republicans

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-06 09:30 PM

And after all that, the twisting, turning, deflections, hemming and hawing Trump lets us know that his
E
P
S
T
E
I
N

C
O
V
E
R
U
P
continues ...

#16 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-10-07 03:33 AM

Real simple-release the files and prove this lady was improperly prosecuted and convicted.

I'll wager she will be pardoned in time for Christmas, and out of the country minutes later ...

#17 | Posted by catdog at 2025-10-08 07:38 AM

And now some Dems are saying there are pics of Trump with Epstein and a naked underage girl, but they can't show them. Makes sense, I mean if bankrupting, jailing, removing him from the ballot and then trying to kill him wouldn't work why waste your time with simple photos?

#18 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-10-08 12:43 PM

The 300 lb orange pedo is all over the Epstein Files and Lolita Express flight logs.

#19 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-10-08 12:47 PM

#19 I know, I was waiting to see the proof when the Biden Admin and the Dems had control of them for 4 years. Why didn't they just release them? Would have been a lot easier than the other crap they did to try and get him out of the election.

#20 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-10-08 12:54 PM

"Why didn't they just release them?"
Apparently that was bad, for Biden not to do that.

Why don't Republicans just release them?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-08 12:58 PM

"Why didn't they just release them?"
Apparently that was bad, for Biden not to do that.
Why don't Republicans just release them?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-08 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you honestly think if there was something there that would prevent Trump from getting elected the Dems would withhold it? I think that there are names out there of prominent people who travelled to the island but didn't partake in illegal activities whose lives would be ruined for no reason if the info was released.

#22 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-10-08 01:11 PM

#22 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Just release the Epstein files.

Arguments to the contrary are flatly stupid.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2025-10-08 01:13 PM

prominent people who travelled to the island but didn't partake in illegal activities whose lives would be ruined

#22 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

And I think that the files contain evidence of the worst sort of perversion and criminality.

Which Donald Trump is covering for.

All you have to do is release the damned Epstein files to find out.

#24 | Posted by Zed at 2025-10-08 01:15 PM

prominent people who travelled to the island but didn't partake in illegal activities whose lives would be ruined
#22 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

What makes you say that? We know of plenty of people who visited.
Is Bill Gates's life ruined?
Is Bill Clinton's life ruined?
Is Stephen King's life ruined?

Your life is ruined, but that's another story!

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-08 01:24 PM

"Do you honestly think if there was something there that would prevent Trump from getting elected the Dems would withhold it?"

I think Biden would choose to obey the law, which is what happened.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-10-08 01:25 PM

22 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

The Epstein files are MAGA's last chance for any sort of moral redemption.

If you can't follow through on that, then you admit that you're garbage and are fine with that.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2025-10-08 01:27 PM

Knowing about a crime and not reporting it is a crime.

#28 | Posted by horstngraben at 2025-10-08 01:28 PM

FISHPAW running cover for billionaires and pedos. How quaint.

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-10-08 01:59 PM

Why won't Trump release the Epstein files?

My first guess is that there are a number of very prominent GOP campaign contributors with deep pockets, not to mention a couple or three sitting members of congress . . . who would be exposed if their names come out. Not that they don't deserve to be run out of town on a rail but that's not how Trump's MAGA circle play the game.

And then, of course, there are those rumored photos of Trump himself frolicking with some young stuff.

In short, the answer to "why" is . . . . all Hell would break loose.

America would go through a massive sea change. And to put some icing on the cupcake, we'd probably end up with our first Madam President.

#30 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-10-08 02:54 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

What Is the Minnesota Social Aid Fraud Scandal About? (172 comments)

MTG: I Was 'Naive' Believing Trump a Man of the People (35 comments)

The Best Foods to Eat for a Long Life (35 comments)

Russia Likely Placing New Hypersonic Missiles in Belarus (18 comments)

Trump Whines About Nobel Snub Again (15 comments)

Putin Humiliates Trump With Kyiv Strike on Eve of Peace Talks (14 comments)

The Moscow-Mar-A-Lago Hotline (13 comments)

How the Press Utterly Failed Us in 2025 (12 comments)

Americans Getting Sicker Just as Obamacare Subsidies End (11 comments)

Trump: Ukraine Peace 'Closer Than Ever' After Zelenskyy Meeting (11 comments)