Although there are many problems with the criminal justice process, I find it frustrating when innocent people get brought into evidence or testify, only to become a target for lawyers and the media.
Just this week, during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the alleged “Number 2” in the Jeffrey Epstein pedophile sex ring which victimized numerous girls for several decades, we got another look at what I believe is gross prosecutorial misconduct, which should have earned the prosecutor an immediate benching from the trial and firing from the DOJ.
On Wednesday, during testimony from one of Epstein’s victims, defense Attorney Laura Menninger questioned the woman known in court as “Jane,” about an encounter with Donald Trump in the 1990s at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida. Menninger asked specifically about Epstein introducing Jane to Trump, referring to language that Epstein used during the introduction allegedly questioning “This is a good one, right?”
Although I was able to expect the same caliber defense lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell’s piece of human remains, it is not unreasonable that the prosecution would have objected at some stage on grounds of relevancy.
Why? It’s simple. Donald Trump isn’t on trial. These questions were asked by the defense attorney to help make the trial more about opinions and less about facts. It was clear to her how the testimony would be conducted. She also knew that Trump would take the spotlight away from those who had victimized the girls.
Of course, the media wasn’t far behind with their headlines and articles, leaving exculpatory evidence further down in the article, hoping that the mindless sharers on social media would share the article if for no other reason than to impugn the former President. The New York Daily News was on the hunt, with the headline “Jeffrey Epstein introduced 14-year-old victim to Trump at Mar-a-Lago, Ghislaine Maxwell trial testimony reveals.”
“An underage victim of Jeffrey Epstein competed in Donald Trump’s teen beauty pageant in the 1990s after being introduced to the future president by the notorious sex offender, according to testimony Wednesday.”
NBC News wasn’t far behind with, “Jeffrey Epstein introduced me to Trump at 14, Ghislaine Maxwell accuser says.”
One of the four women who say they were “groomed” for sex by Ghislaine Maxwell testified Wednesday that the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein took her to meet Donald Trump when she was just 14.
CNBC also joined with: “Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Sex crimes accuser testifies Jeffrey Epstein took her to meet Trump when she was 14.”
According to a witness, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were sexually abusive of a 14-year-old girl.
UPI also had an offering, “Maxwell accuser testifies Epstein brought her to meet Donald Trump at age 14.”
A woman who accused Ghislaine Maxwell of grooming her to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein testified Wednesday that the late financier took her to meet Donald Trump when she was 14 years old.
And even Insider had “Accuser who testified Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused her for years says she was on a flight with Prince Andrew and met Trump.”
These headlines are very different. “Introduced 14-year-old victim to Trump”… “introduced me to Trump at 14″… “accuser testifies Jeffrey Epstein took her to meet Trump when she was 14″… “accuser testifies Epstein brought her to meet Donald Trump at age 14″… “Accuser who testified Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused her for years says she was on a flight with Prince Andrew and met Trump” The first suggests that the victim was Trump’s victim. Numerous people use Epstein for context in their introductions. The third suggests that “sex crimes” were the reason Epstein introduced Trump to the victim. The fourth uses the word “brought” intentionally making the victim in this case a product to be delivered. This last one suggests that Trump was allegedly met by the victim on a flight with Epstein or Prince Andrew. The victim has never claimed this to have happened.
After much of the accusations, the majority of articles stated that Trump’s victim had never been accused of wrongdoing. Then, they contextualized Epstein’s introduction to Trump in order to encourage her participation in Miss Teen USA, which Trump owns. But that’s not counting the many instances where Trump tried to plead guilty by association or even the attempts to make things sound like he was involved in criminal activity or complicit. The court’s focus seems to be on the victim (as it should), but they should also protect the identities of those who cannot be proven guilty. Where are mentions of any of the other dozen people on Epstein’s black book or other people that Epstein may have introduced the victim to, for the purpose of committing a crime? The prosecution raised objections. Is the judge requesting to see where this particular line of questioning was taking place? How much information, if any was required, were the jurors able to obtain during cross-examination These questions do not provide any explanation for why Trump was inappropriately mentioned in court. This was purely an attempt to defame Trump and drag him into the mess that Menninger’s client is in. Shame on them. Shame on them for not objecting the questioning. It is shameful that the Judge did not stop it while it was taking place.
They have to remember this, and the case should be run this way: Donald Trump is not on trial here, and unless they have direct evidence of Trump engaging in illegal behavior or any other way of showing he is connected to the accusations that Maxwell faces, his name should be prohibited from being included testimony.
Oh, and Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself.
About Post Author
