Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 06, 2025

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

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

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

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"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 | Reply

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 | Reply

"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 | Reply

ahem... PBS

www.youtube.com

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

ahem... PBS

The man is pathetic.

"I know nothing!"

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

Sgt. Drumpf!

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

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 | Reply

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 | Reply

paired the old saying down

I've got education degrees
I like homophones too
hyuk

#9 | Posted by fishmarket at 2025-10-06 08:39 PM | Reply

"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 | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trumpy should not be "speaking to the DOJ" about anything.

The United States Department of Justice, also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department.
So of course Trumpy should be "speaking to the DOJ" about anything.

This is prelude to a pardon.

#11 | Posted by fishmarket at 2025-10-06 09:09 PM | Reply

"I didn't say "I can't remember", I said "I can't recall"
No, of course I was never alone with her. It's not possible to be alone and with her at the same time. Alone means not with anybody.

#12 | Posted by fishmarket at 2025-10-06 09:18 PM | Reply

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 | Reply

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 | Reply

I'm getting a boner.
--Republicans

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

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort