FWIW, Maxwell didn't implicate Bill Clinton in anything improper or illegal in her interview

[bigtree]

...I know her word isn't worth spit, but if we're going to have her denials about Trump bandied about, her answers about Clinton should be known and considered, as well, fwiw.







...and former Sen. George Mitchell:






interview transcript: https://www.justice.gov/storage/audio-files/Interview%20Transcript/Interview%20Transcript%20-%20Maxwell%202025.07.24%20(Redacted).pdf

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Not yet anyway, they will do almost anything including

They will have AI generated video and photos of all prominent Democratic politicians including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama doing horrific things.

At least they will try, since we all know the piece of shit wasn’t anything on earth wants Obama in prison God knows what they will do.

Obviously John Bolton told the truth about the piece of shit so now he will have to pay because the Department formally known as the department of justice is going to fabricate garbage and put him in jail.

[RockRaven]

2. Her denials also cover herself, and yet she was convicted on evidence which

is in the public record because of the trial, so her denials are worthless no matter who they are about.

I don't care what she said about Bill Clinton, no matter what it was, and no rational person should either. Her statements, unless accompanied by corroborating evidence, mean nothing regardless of their subject or content.

[bigtree]

4. I don't think it's worth a damn, but if there are going to be denials issued about Trump on her behalf

Last edited Fri Aug 22, 2025, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

...it doesn't make any sense to not report the denials about the Democrats republicans were claiming did something wrong.

We can't pretend these things are being politically disseminated and received by the public on our own terms or principles.

If republicans and others are going to make political hay out of the Trump denials, they'll have to eat the ones about Clinton right along with them.

[Prairie Gates]

3. A woman in prison with everything to gain being interviewed by Trump's attorney

acting - somehow - under the color of the Justice Department.

And, in fact, she immediately received relief that most convicts can only dream of, being transferred to an easy facility far outside her classification level just after the production of this so-called testimony.

A bigger farce has rarely been seen in the US justice system, which is fucking awful and farcical on its face.

[taxi]

5. Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly

[C_U_L8R]

6. She's careful not to implicate herself.

Admitting there's a child sex slave scheme (involving anyone) only undermines her defense. Of course, she's going to lie, obfuscate, distort, deflect, etc.

[Irish_Dem]

13. Yes she cannot implicate someone else without implicating herself.

[bigtree]

19. and she'll need friends when she busts out of the minimum security prison escapes to France.

...can't let the johns think she's going to drop a dime on any of them.

With the immunity granted she'd likely only be liable in this interview if someone could prove she lied; if anyone in this admin wanted to.

[Irish_Dem]

20. Good point. If she id's the johns, she will be Epsteined.

Last edited Sat Aug 23, 2025, 06:15 AM - Edit history (1)

And she will need friends in high places to get herself free.

[EarlG]

7. Have to disagree with the premise of this thread

Nobody should listen to a single thing this convicted child sex trafficker says. She was being interviewed by the former personal lawyer of the man who can decide whether she stays in jail or goes free, and her words were broadcast irresponsibly by the Department of Justice who for some reason are giving special consideration to the words of a convicted child sex trafficker. Nothing that comes out of her mouth can or should be trusted.

[bigtree]

11. I'll try to post this again... I'm older than I'm young these days

I think I said essentially that in the op.

But yours and my own consumption of this interview isn't going to necessarily be shared by those who will likely tout her words as an exoneration.

As I said above, for what it's worth, ignoring her words about Clinton and others while her accounts of Trump are presented as relevant just leaves an ambiguity about the charges that doesn't need to exist.

If and when cultish republicans feel they want to advance her denials about Trump as the truth, they should be reminded of the similar denials about the 'big dog' whose relationship they've been pointing to deflect from Trump.

Moreover, her account of the plane trips is right in line with what Clinton has been saying about the flights and the relationship; especially the flights which people like to reporesent as a series of trips, rather than just the one that Maxwell confirmed.

I really don't get any impulse to not talk about or refuse to point to what she said about Clinton, as if the only political takes on this are going to come from our like minds; or as if there isn't potential political advantage that will be gained by this.

Like I said, any attempt to make political hay out of her denials by people who are inclined to believe her will need to reconcile all of that Trump love with all of their Clinton hate and accept that the denials came out of the same mouth.

Not all politics that's relevant, or necessary to counter is about what we believe; or assuaged by our beliefs.

[EarlG]

16. Okay

I misread what you’re getting at, my apologies. If the idea is to bring up Clinton in specific situations where some MAGA is trying to say that Maxwell exonerated Trump, then yes, I get it. If the MAGA already believes that Maxwell is truthful, then the Clinton part will confuse them.

Aside from using her words for the purpose of confusing a MAGA, we agree that Maxwell is not worth listening to.

[bigtree]

17. look at the news reports telling viewers what she said about Trump

...and recognize there are people who will take that report at face value without any critical thinking about rebuttals, victims, or fired prosecutors; especially those who would exonerate Trump while accusing Clinton in the same breath.

I'd guess that conundrum was obvious to the Trump WH as well, seeing how long it took to release this and nothing in there to leak out that would hurt any Democrats.

There's this interview that we can see is a farce, for all sorts of reasons. But none of that would matter in the political attack game if she had played along with the finger-pointing accusations at Democrats, confirming all of the worst accusations about Clinton's relationship with Epstein (which I think was the aim all along with Trump's personal attorney-turned Deputy AG staging this interview).

They have a limited amount of ammunition against suspicions about Trump, and I suspect this was to be the centerpiece of their defense against the almost inevitable release of the Epstein files - put out something that got their people talking about Bill Clinton instead of Trump, hoping that would satisfy the questions about what Trump is hiding for THEIR OWN supporters.

What they got was a muddle, but they put it out today anyway, hoping it diverted people from the actual files now in the hands of Congress, and hoping her denials impact at least those who pay less attention or can't fathom it all.

The backstory here, underneath all of the stuff that people should actually care about, is that the interview of Maxwell was basically a bust for Blanche and Trump.

Very few will believe the convicted child sexual predator, and the rest are still left with denying any common sense they might have in favor of the doublethink political game which is getting really deep and mucky for their cult leader.

[misanthrope]

8. Great! That means-

–it will more completely discredit her statements with the right-wingers and MAGAs who dearly wanted Clinton to be caught up in the scandal.

[bigtree]

12. that's exactly what I'm getting at

...I think it's interesting that she's not playing the political finger pointing game that Blanche and Trump evidently wanted out of this.

It will also be interesting to see if the cult takes the bait. It's just something sort of relevant to their inevitable bullshit.

[Johnny2X2X]

9. They transferred her to a luxury prison

For what she said about Trump. And she’s going to get work release now too.

Home arrest is around the corner.

[Irish_Dem]

14. Why did Todd Blanche bring up Clinton's name when he knew what GM would say?

He knew all of her answers before hand.

This was only a media stunt.

He knew she would exonerate Clinton.
Why did TB do this??

Sending some sort of message?

[bigtree]

18. he likely knew from the proffer

,,,but he was already committed at that point, and I'd guess he hoped to lead her into saying something damning his client could use to deflect from the release of the Eprstein files they knew was coming.

Big Blanche fail.

[Irish_Dem]

21. Or maybe he is making a deal.

Drop the Epstein business and I don't id any one, including liberals.

[BootinUp]

15. better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. nt