• sulfidedisburseangledafternoontipper@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Folks aren’t going to like hearing this, but there’s nothing untoward or unreasonable about her demanding immunity before testifying. Any lawyer would advise any person in a similar situation to either demand immunity or to avail themselves of their right against self-incrimination. This is literally the foundation of due process and if you don’t care about that for “monsters,” then you don’t really care about it for anyone because it’s real easy for the state/media to make anyone a monster. Immunity isn’t even necessarily a good thing for the person being questioned (prosecutors can non-consensually “immunize” an unwilling witness to force their testimony, opening the witness up to theoretically unlimited contempt penalties for failure to testify).

    What is untoward is the DOJ “interviewing” her behind closed doors, particularly when their guy has pardon power and they’ve refused to release the docs they have.

    Maxwell is, to put it offensively mildly, a bad guy in this story, but she’s not the bad guy. For every person she trafficked, there is a rich predator who continues to pay no price whatsoever. I have no hopes that she’ll decide to “do the right thing” out of any sense of morality. I do, however, have a modicum of hope that she’ll be so bitter about being the only person punished that she goes scorched earth in her testimony.

    • criss_cross@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      15 hours ago

      What is untoward is the DOJ “interviewing” her behind closed doors, particularly when their guy has pardon power and they’ve refused to release the docs they have.

      I think this hits why the request is upsetting.

      You’re totally right that bargaining for immunity is normal. In fact that’s normally how you flip lower guys to tattle on the bigger leaders in white collar crimes.

      However I argue there’s a few things that make this icky.

      1. She’s not a small fish in this pond. She was one of the partners.
      2. All of the behind the scenes with trumps personal lawyer.
      3. Shes been convicted of perjury before covering up for Epstein and refused to say anything during her trial. Why would anyone want to give her immunity and trust her to speak truthfully?
  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    They’re talking about Ghislaine Maxwell in the headline. Not some government official with the same last name. (It’s getting difficult to keep up with all of this ridiculous corruption.)

    • neidu3@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Yeah, considering how common that name is through history, I prefer it including the first name. After all, my job involves a lot of Maxwell’s theoretical work from the 19th century. Probably not the same person as is described in this article, tho.

  • sndmn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Maybe they should confer with the victims instead of the perpetrators?

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Hmm ok so is it weird that she’s suddenly requesting appeals and immunity right now?

    The fuck is going on with this story. It’s like it’s one giant Mafia and we aren’t in it