General Discussion

Wiz Imp

(8,689 posts)

16. Huh? These restrictions in the law are expicitly to NOT protect the criminals.

Fri Dec 19, 2025, 11:23 PM

Friday

You're completely misreading it. It does not say "a victim can't depict physical abuse that has gone on to harm a victim from one of these pedo perps". It says the DOJ can't publicly release pictures showing that abuse. The purpose of this is to protect the victims. Any evidence like that is perfectly permissable to be used as evidence against the criminals. (And the law requires them to explain all withheld information and all redactions so if there is any such evidence, the DOJ must say 'we withheld pictures of Victim X being abused by Perp Y - only with Perp Y being explicitly named - because it depicted physical abuse). And it's always been perfectly acceptable (and legal) for victims to publicly share any evidence they have against anyone.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

4 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

BeerBarrelPolka RockCreek pat_k explorer4

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

*****Updated***** I pulled up a random document from the release and found proof that the DOJ [View all] Wiz Imp Friday OP

The coverup continues Blues Heron Friday #1

Well. If this is a transcript of a videotaped deposition, Volaris Friday #2

Good point. Wiz Imp Friday #7

Let the motions and lawsuits to compel compliance begin pat_k Friday #3

It's explicitly stated in the law what can and can't be redacted. Wiz Imp Friday #6

Protecting the criminals. Color me surprised! NOT! BComplex Friday #13

Huh? These restrictions in the law are expicitly to NOT protect the criminals. Wiz Imp Friday #16

Got it! BComplex Yesterday #23

I understand they have to list legal reasons why each and every redaction was made. halobeam Friday #20

Yep. I believe everything you said is correct. Wiz Imp Yesterday #22

They probably will claim that [redacted] os an ongoing investigation Bluetus 21 hrs ago #30

Besides the general hideousness of this (and all the girls, young women violated)... electric_blue68 Friday #4

All redactions by law, were supposed to come with Emile Friday #5

I think that is what is due 15 days from today? halobeam Yesterday #21

And the Trump Administration moved Maxwell to a much cushier prison too. Botany Friday #8

Agreed. And given the specific question about Victoria's Secret lingerie Wiz Imp Friday #9

Les Wexner is the person behind Victoria's Secrets and the brand but he would have no interest in a woman Botany Friday #12

Sorry, but info released in January 2024 confirms it WAS Wexner she was talking about. Wiz Imp Friday #15

That is surprising Botany Friday #18

Wow. Who is questioning her? Demanding, borderline mean. Horrible. Joinfortmill Friday #10

This was in relation to lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz brought by Giuffre's lawyer. Wiz Imp Friday #11

Ah, that explains it. Joinfortmill Friday #14

Working link: Celerity Friday #17

The only way Bondi will release this is when she sees the handcuffs coming for her. mn9driver Friday #19

Guiffre's 2015 testimony against Maxwell in her civil case mentioned in the OP has long been publicly available AZJonnie Yesterday #24

I won't dispute any of the points you make, however you are wrong about one thing. Wiz Imp Yesterday #25

Okay, my bad. I thought your post was in two parts, top and bottom (2015 and 2016 testimonies) AZJonnie Yesterday #26

Like I said. I agree. Especially about Bondi. Wiz Imp Yesterday #28

I don't think she understood that president and prime minister are essentially the same thing. everyonematters Yesterday #27

I think the questioner was trying to trip her up. Wiz Imp Yesterday #29