Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Wiz Imp

(8,680 posts)
29. I think the questioner was trying to trip her up.
Sat Dec 20, 2025, 02:57 PM
11 hrs ago

In the end, I'm not sure why it was supposed to make a difference. Being trafficked to ANYONE is a crime.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the Prime Minister she refused to name was Ehud Barak of Israel. In her memoir, she still didn't name him but said the man was a "sadist" who took pleasure in her pain, repeatedly choked her until she passed out, and laughed at her pleas to stop. She was left bleeding after the assault on Jeffrey Epstein's private island in 2002, when she was 18. It may be too late to charge him with the worst of his crimes due to the statute of limitations, but any possible legal consequences that can be brought against him need to be done.

Recommendations

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

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 18 hrs ago #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 5 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 12 hrs ago #24
I won't dispute any of the points you make, however you are wrong about one thing. Wiz Imp 12 hrs ago #25
Okay, my bad. I thought your post was in two parts, top and bottom (2015 and 2016 testimonies) AZJonnie 12 hrs ago #26
Like I said. I agree. Especially about Bondi. Wiz Imp 11 hrs ago #28
I don't think she understood that president and prime minister are essentially the same thing. everyonematters 12 hrs ago #27
I think the questioner was trying to trip her up. Wiz Imp 11 hrs ago #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*****Updated***** I pulle...»Reply #29