It was no secret that Deputy A.G. Todd Blanche, Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, didn’t go down to interrogate Ghislaine Maxwell to get real answers as to the monsters who raped girls supplied by Epstein. Everyone “knew” beforehand the mission: get Maxwell to remove Trump from any wrongdoing in the Epstein sex-trafficking nightmare. And she played along, of course, then was nakedly awarded a prohibited placement in Club Fed in Texas. The move was so “in your face” that most people ignored the transcripts as entirely useless, obviously not to be believed, and didn’t examine them too closely. Until now. Maxwell did mention current cabinet ties to Epstein’s criminal conspiracy, and Blanche helpfully refused to follow-up.
Despite the fact that Maxwell has already been convicted of lying about her involvement in Epstein’s enterprise, a line attorney would have pressed her on specifics (Perhaps that is why A.G. Bondi summarily fired working S.D.N.Y. attorneys like Maureen Comey, because they knew too many specifics.) But Blanche is most certainly a good enough trial attorney that he would have absolutely pressed the issue if he were looking for the truth. In fact, he was looking for the opposite, as painfully demonstrated by a breakdown of the questioning by The Guardian in a recent report:
For example, Blanche asked Maxwell whether people around Epstein – including the numerous high-profile and powerful men who had known him – were associating with him for the purpose of sexual encounters. In her reply Maxwell said that some of the “cast of characters” around Epstein were “in your cabinet, who you value as your co-workers”.
Yet Blanche never asked the obvious: “Like who?”
At another point in the interview, Blanche asked Maxwell had ever had contact with Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.
“Well, not deliberately,” Maxwell said. Blanche responded: “Pardon me?” She again said “not deliberately” and Blanche then moved on to a question about whether Epstein was receiving money from any intelligence agency.
What does that mean? “Not deliberately.” One very reasonable inference is that Epstein didn’t plan on working with the Mossad but was approached in a way that he could not refuse the “invitation.” Had just one Mossad agent said: “Well, we have penetrated your club and are willing to send specific information with video and testimony to the local prosecutor if you do not work with us,” would likely have done it – but not “deliberately.” The Mossad, after all, would have one goal, and it wasn’t to get a massage. It would be to get damning material on the powerful and then “own” that person from that point forward, friend or enemy of Israel. That is the most logical takeaway from “not deliberately” working with the Mossad.
But the more intriguing, indeed – infuriating non-follow-up is the reference to cabinet members, “your colleagues” in the administration. If she remembers that these people were involved and are currently powerful figures as “colleagues” (Anywhere in the cabinet) it would seem that she remembers specifics. She likely remembers just a shitload of specifics and denied it because it was such a friendly interview. After all, she was rewarded for her generalizations, not damning information, such as one would expect from a prosecutor actually wanting to close in on child assailants.
Indeed, it seems like the media largely slept through an incredible reference (And we might be one of those entities, I know I didn’t read the full transcripts). It represents just how little faith anyone had in any real truth coming out. This is a woman who has a case that is a bit too strong in front of the SCOTUS and didn’t have any guarantees of immunity from her testimony. The entire purpose of the interview was laid bare beforehand.
There is also the critical fact that Maxwell had every reason to be evasive, or even silent, referencing anyone currently in power. She could easily have focused solely on Trump’s enemies, with a remarkably clear memory of those people. But there is the off chance that Maxwell knew damned well that the DOJ didn’t want her to note anything on anyone in Trump’s orbit, but let that bit “slip” as a threat to those in power if they didn’t play ball with her.
She is absolutely aiming for a pardon, and Trump is already so openly corrupt that he might give her one, saying it was “unfair” to her to bear responsibility for people associated with Epstein. He might label her as a victim, too. She was a predator, knowing exactly what was awaiting her recruits. Trump, by his own Access Hollywood admission, is also a predator. They think alike.
So watch what might happen when victims come forth on September 3rd (Wed) to make statements at the Capitol. We are promised that some of the allegations have never been aired before. (Though the fact that Rep. James Comer is also involved in the Committee certainly reduces the chance that any will name Trump or someone in Trump’s orbit.)
Last, if there are very prominent colleagues in the cabinet who were themselves predators, one might ask why they are so prominently placed in the cabinet. Isn’t that a bit weird that Trump would “accidentally” name so many such people? Is it a conscious effort to keep possible trouble close? Where they can be threatened by others in positions of power? It is entirely possible. It is also possible that these are just the type of people that Trump trusts, those who were also engaged in predatory behavior, people with secrets, isn’t that what Trump referenced in his birthday letter?
So this is worth noting as infuriating and unforgivable. If Blanche’s mission wasn’t clear enough going down there, it most certainly is now. The job wasn’t to get answers to questions; it was to get questions denied and left unanswered. Job well done, Ghislaine. The reward is yours. Now expect a possible pardon if the SCOTUS rules against her, because it would be so obviously “unfair” in Trump’s world.
They are all alike. Predators protect predators. Isn’t it wonderful to have friends who share secrets? (The letter.) Yes, some things never age. Some things like “secrets.”
**** Please follow me now on Bluesky
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and also on X at @JasonMiciak.
Zoomers, we are always in need of donations. We work hard to get you analysis that you will not find in the mainstream media, but all media have been hit hard since the big companies have gobbled up and monopolized commentary. Anything you can spare will be immensely appreciated. And thank you to all who have donated generously already. Ursula
September 3rd, not September 10th.
Changed. Another Grok error. Thank you.
jason
Excellent article, Jason! Thanks!
interedying. the only one i ca⁸n think of who seems like he might be in epstein’s orbit is hegseth though there are also the super rich dudes, one of who is gay.