Ghislaine Maxwell's deposition from April 2016

[ryoder 1,590]

You can download the PDF and search it, if you don't want to read all 465 pages.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-ghislaine-maxwell-s-deposition-from-april-2016/d838c5e5-fae0-4e97-bfeb-7f478e1fb107/

[JoeWeber 2,836]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

You can download the PDF and search it, if you don't want to read all 465 pages.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-ghislaine-maxwell-s-deposition-from-april-2016/d838c5e5-fae0-4e97-bfeb-7f478e1fb107/

Why? We have you. Please search out some cool stuff and post it.

[wmw999 2,544]

Searching it means you're looking for confirmation of what you want to read; in something like this, that's probably not a good thing. I'll wait for the reporter analysis -- they're paid to read through this, and I can go back to pontificating...

Wendy P.

[ryoder 1,590]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Why? We have you. Please search out some cool stuff and post it.

Well, sadly, my searches for Trump, Giuliani, Dershowitz, and Andrew, came up empty. :-(

[wmw999 2,544]

You could always look for "Hillary." 

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,836]

1 minute ago, ryoder said:

Well, sadly, my searches for Trump, Giuliani, Dershowitz, and Andrew, came up empty. :-(

Well, it's just unfortunate it's fallen to me to say it but you've been resting on your laurels far too long. We expect more, and honestly, it's fine if you just make something up. Entertain us, please.

[ryoder 1,590]

1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

You could always look for "Hillary." 

Wendy P.

I just searched for Clinton and found 4 references to "President Clinton", but it is questions from the attorney, so not so interesting. But I also found there are other names redacted, so my original searches may exist in the original document.

[JoeWeber 2,836]

3 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I just searched for Clinton and found 4 references to "President Clinton", but it is questions from the attorney, so not so interesting. But I also found there are other names redacted, so my original searches may exist in the original document.

Try searching for BillVon or Turtle.

[jakee 1,563]

6 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I'll wait for the reporter analysis -- they're paid to read through this, and I can go back to pontificating...

In the very first question after establishing her name, address and DoB she's claiming she doesn't understand what the questioner means by 'female'. Even after the questioner establishes that she knows she is herself a female, she is still confused as to who else might count as one.

465 pages of someone that determined to dodge the questions? Whoever's reading through it had better be getting paid a lot.

[JoeWeber 2,836]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

In the very first question after establishing her name, address and DoB she's claiming she doesn't understand what the questioner means by 'female'. Even after the questioner establishes that she knows she is herself a female, she is still confused as to who else might count as one.

465 pages of someone that determined to dodge the questions? Whoever's reading through it had better be getting paid a lot.

Probably it was the lawyers depo style and how she was coached. Depositions are tricky bits with the trickiest bit not saying something that reads as something else later on. I like to listen to the question, write the question down, and then read back the question asking if I had it correctly. If so then a bit of pondering is in order before offering a yes or no or not much more. If not then rinse, wash, repeat. 

[ryoder 1,590]

I started skimming through, looking just for retractions. It appears every instance of the name of an underage female gets retracted, which is almost all of the retractions.

ETA Looks like the good stuff began around page 72:

Edited October 22, 2020 by ryoder

[JerryBaumchen 1,442]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

I started skimming through, looking just for retractions. It appears every instance of the name of an underage female gets retracted, which is almost all of the retractions.

ETA Looks like the good stuff began around page 72:

Hi Robert,

Update us when she is convicted.  That's good enough for me.

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Probably it was the lawyers depo style and how she was coached. Depositions are tricky bits with the trickiest bit not saying something that reads as something else later on. I like to listen to the question, write the question down, and then read back the question asking if I had it correctly. If so then a bit of pondering is in order before offering a yes or no or not much more. If not then rinse, wash, repeat. 

Plaintiff lawyers must love you and put you on their x-mas lists for the best scotch. By the time a action was done involving you their first born would get their first year at Harvard paid off.

[ryoder 1,590]

I discovered earlier today that there was a way to crack some of the redacted words via a word index at the end of the PDF file. Someone else is already working on it:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/ghislaine-maxwell-deposition-redactions-epstein-how-to-crack.html

[JoeWeber 2,836]

6 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Plaintiff lawyers must love you and put you on their x-mas lists for the best scotch. By the time a action was done involving you their first born would get their first year at Harvard paid off.

That's the general idea. 6 hours of depo and 2+ hours of travel time per day and their clients get nada except a fat bill. Sets a very conciliatory tone.

[Skwrl 56]

Apparently, they did a poor job of redacting, since Slate was able to figure out references to Clinton, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and others.

QAnon folks (well, Ron): prepare to be disappointed as you usually are.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/ghislaine-maxwell-deposition-redactions-epstein-how-to-crack.html

[jakee 1,563]

7 minutes ago, Skwrl said:

Apparently, they did a poor job of redacting, since Slate was able to figure out references to Clinton, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and others.

QAnon folks (well, Ron): prepare to be disappointed as you usually are.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/ghislaine-maxwell-deposition-redactions-epstein-how-to-crack.html

Who was ever expecting there to be anything incriminating in this deposition? She couldn't have incriminated anyone else without incriminating herself, and why on earth would she have done that?

[wmw999 2,544]

Hey -- if they'd been able to subject her to some harsh techniques THEN she'd've copped to anything!

Wendy P.

[Skwrl 56]

10 minutes ago, jakee said:

Who was ever expecting there to be anything incriminating in this deposition? She couldn't have incriminated anyone else without incriminating herself, and why on earth would she have done that?

Oh, I know, but I follow a lot of the QAnon conversations (I have a fascination with insanity) and many of the QAnon community couldn't wait for this to finally be the smoking gun.

But, just like so. many. things. before it....  It wasn't.  

[mistercwood 287]

4 hours ago, Skwrl said:

Oh, I know, but I follow a lot of the QAnon conversations (I have a fascination with insanity) and many of the QAnon community couldn't wait for this to finally be the smoking gun.

But, just like so. many. things. before it....  It wasn't.  

There will be facebook posts and youtube videos though already asserting that the doc confirms that Obama eats babies and Clinton made furniture from the bones, I guarantee you.

They know no-one who wants to believe it is going to actually read the document, they did the same thing already with the last deposition docs that leaked.

[headoverheels 333]

1 hour ago, mistercwood said:

There will be facebook posts and youtube videos though already asserting that the doc confirms that Obama eats babies and Clinton made furniture from the bones, I guarantee you.

They know no-one who wants to believe it is going to actually read the document, they did the same thing already with the last deposition docs that leaked.

Yep.  I saw one on Facebook about the heinous things that were in the Democrat Platform.  It even mentioned the page on which to find that terrible thing.  Turns out, it was nowhere in the platform, and the page number mentioned was about helping veterans.  BTW, it was posted (reposted) by a veteran.  He's said in the past that he doesn't care about the truth, he just wants to stir up shit.