On Thursday, The American Thinker posted an article about the strange case of Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell was originally sentenced to 20 years in the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut. The Institution in Danbury is known for bad food and small cells. Then, almost magically, she was transferred to a low-security federal correctional institution in Florida that includes various “recreation, leisure and social programs” designed to “help develop an individual wellness concept.”
The article notes:
Specifically, her case has set before us the question of whether we, as a people, are willingly turning a blind eye to our government’s complicity in protecting the anonymity of the powerful and elite among us whom our government knows to have participated in the sex trafficking of children. Or, will we take a stand and demand that our government reveal the identities of the criminal pedophiles that Epstein and Maxwell “serviced” for nearly 25 years and compel them to hold these criminals accountable for their crimes?
How we choose to answer that question will likely define our nation’s moral trajectory for many years to come.
To those who may doubt this characterization of our government’s corruption, perhaps it will help for them to pause and consider the implications of the following facts:
In typical criminal cases involving more than one perpetrator, one primary reason that a prosecutor would offer a plea deal to a defendant is to extract — i.e. legally extort — information from that defendant about others who may have been involved in the crimes at issue — e.g. like the pedophiles who raped the young girls she and Epstein provided.
In Maxwell’s case, however, the prosecutors evidently decided this would not be necessary. In fact, they did just the opposite. Attempting to appear tough and unrelenting to the public, the prosecutors informed Ms. Maxwell — and thus, the public — that she would be offered no plea deals whatsoever.
The article has two theories on the reason Maxwell was not offered a plea deal. The first is that they did not want to risk exposing the client list to the public. The article notes that the trial was conducted in a way that prevented any client was identified in court. The second reason (I think more likely) is that the government already had all of the client information from things they seized at Epstein’s island and Manhattan mansion.
The article concludes:
Under the present circumstances of her life, the only thing that could make such a deal any sweeter for Maxwell, is if our government also secretly agreed with her to a prearranged sentence reduction at a future time provided that, even after her release, she must take her secrets to the grave to avoid the risk of triggering the ever- available “suicide” option lurking in the background.
Given the totality of this reality, one can readily understand Maxwell’s silence.
What can’t be understood, nor tolerated, however, is our acquiescence to our government’s unlawful complicity in that silence.
The question is, of course, do we as a nation have the moral fortitude to take the actions necessary to expose and bring to justice the ghouls our government is presently allowing to roam among us and who are, in fact, a threat to our children?
Or will we, as a nation take the easier path and buy into the fiction corrupt officials within our government are currently attempting to sell:
That Maxwell really is the only person in history to be convicted for trafficking children for sex …to apparently nobody.
I guess the lesson here is that if you are going to commit a horrendous crime, make sure you have evidence on those in power who committed it with you.