THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
If you thought the worst of the Jeffrey Epstein storm had passed, think again.
It’s barely even begun.
Now comes news that a new release of explosive documents is set to happen very soon.
Take a look:
Remember folks, the Media will try everything they can to tie this to Donald Trump (like the picture above) but the truth is Trump has no real connection to Epstein.
If Trump were really connected to Epstein, don't you think we would have heard all about it by now?
Especially back in 2016 before he won?
If there was any credible connection, they would have been shouting it from the rooftops, but it's all B.S. Pure noise. Pure bogus fluff.
But connection to other prominent people including big name celebs, politicians and even royal family members?
Check, check and check!
Here's more on the upcoming release, from The Telegraph:
In Room 270, the records management unit, on the second floor of an imposing granite and marble courthouse in lower Manhattan, 167 documents totaling more than 2,000 pages are being kept under lock and key.
But they are about to be unsealed and made public - making a host of important people around the world, including celebrities, politicians and royals, very nervous.
The files contain explosive allegations in the case of Giuffre v Maxwell, in which Virginia Giuffre, a woman who claims to have been Jeffrey Epstein's teenage "sex slave", sued Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and the billionaire's former girlfriend, for defamation.
The case was settled in May 2017 on the eve of the trial but the details were not disclosed and the final judgment and supporting documents were sealed, with the court noting the "highly sensitive nature of the underlying allegations."
According to other court documents that have been published, Ms Giuffre has made allegations of sexual abuse against "numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well‐known Prime Minister, and other world leaders."
An appeal to unseal the rest of the documents was launched by the Miami Herald newspaper, which has spearheaded media investigations into Epstein. It was rejected three times.
But last month the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered their release, ruling that the public's right to know outweighed the privacy rights of the high-profile individuals named.
It what may be an indication of the fame of those individuals, the judges made a striking plea to the media to "exercise restraint" in reporting the allegations about to come to light. They also allowed parties involved to apply for minor redactions, delaying the release.
Another delay is possible as Miss Maxwell has launched an appeal to keep the documents sealed, her lawyers arguing that a full release would trigger a “furious feeding frenzy."
They wrote: "Plaintiff Giuffre made numerous allegations of sexual, if not criminal, conduct against a wide range of third parties. Because of the media no reference to anyone in this case is benign: a reference to any person is toxic and lethal to that person’s reputation. Facts and truth are all but irrelevant."
The legal battle between Ms Giuffre and Miss Maxwell began in late 2014 when Ms Giuffre claimed that Epstein sexually abused her starting in 2000 when she was 16, with the “assistance and participation” of Miss Maxwell. She also made allegations against the Duke of York, which were categorically denied by Buckingham Palace.
Miss Maxwell described the claims as "obvious lies," and Ms Giuffre then sued her for defamation.
In a recent statement Josh Schiller, a lawyer for Ms Giuffre, said the appeal court was unlikely to overturn an unsealing decision, and he believed Miss Maxwell's appeal would cause only a "short delay" in releasing the documents. He added: "There is an overwhelming public interest."
The appeal court's decision to release the documents came just three days before Epstein was arrested last month, charged with sex trafficking. Prosecutors in New York have accused him of assaulting dozens of girls as young as 14.
And from Bloomberg:
A British socialite who has long denied she was involved with Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse of underage girls told a federal appeals court that the media’s “furious feeding frenzy” justified keeping documents from a defamation suit by an alleged victim secret.
Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of publishing magnate Robert Maxwell, on Wednesday asked for a rehearing by a full panel of the appeals court in Manhattan of her request to keep the filings, which run about 2,000 pages, from the 2015 case sealed.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit against Maxwell by Virginia Giuffre, a Floridian who claims Epstein sexually abused her for two years starting in 2000, when she was 16 years old, and that Maxwell participated. Giuffre sued Maxwell in 2015 after the socialite publicly called her a liar.
A three-member appeals panel ordered a federal judge to publish the documents. The ruling was handed down three days before Epstein’s arrest on sex-trafficking charges. The filings could shed light on Giuffre’s claims that prominent politicians and business leaders joined in Epstein’s alleged abuse for years.
“The media have shown an insatiable appetite for any shred of information/speculation to publish and broadcast since Mr. Epstein’s arrest,” Maxwell said. “They have published articles speculating Ms. Maxwell may be the subject of the ongoing criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein.”
The media’s intense interest in the case after Epstein’s arrest justified keeping the documents sealed, she said. The longtime friend of Epstein cited a Miami Herald article speculating she may have been involved in the alleged crimes or could be named as a cooperating witness.
Josh Schiller, one of Giuffre’s lawyers, said in a statement that the New York-based appeals court rarely overturns a decision by one of its panels.
“There is an overwhelming public interest both in getting access to these documents as well as the indictment of Mr. Epstein and his prosecution,” Schiller said. “I anticipate that this will merely be a short delay before the decision is affirmed.”
Maxwell also said that Giuffre, in anticipation of the documents being made public, filed “irrelevant documents solely to advance her ulterior, non-litigation profit purposes.”
The press interest could result in “due process concerns” for Epstein and other potential prosecution targets and witnesses, she said.