Today, there is good reason to believe that Ghislaine Maxwell has been moved to a minimum-security prison. The scoop ultimately comes from the New York Sun…
…but as you will see if you click the link, they have their coverage paywalled. But Newsweek doesn’t…
…and the headline is, amusingly: ‘Ghislaine Maxwell Quietly Moved To Minimum Security Prison: What We Know.’ We say it is amusing because the entirety of ‘what they know’ reads as follows:
Ghislaine Maxwell has been quietly moved to a Texas minimum-security prison, according to The New York Sun.
Up until recently, Maxwell had been serving her 20-year sentence for helping her ex Jeffrey Epstein recruit and abuse young girls at a Florida prison.
Now she has been relocated to the Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Bryan, Texas, a Bureau of Prisons spokesperson told the Sun.
So, ‘what we know’ actually is barely anything, at least as of this writing. Still, we will note a strange thing we found when we went to the Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate locator. They are currently saying she is not in bureau of prisons custody at all. Here’s a screenshot we took:
By comparison, we also looked up the Boston Marathon Bomber and this is what it says:
But we have dealt with enough government databases to wonder if this is an artifact of transit—that is, somehow while she was in transit, she was declared out of custody and, now that she is in a new facility, it will eventually update to having her in custody at this new prison. After all, you will note that her official release date is set for 2037, so she isn’t supposed to released for another twelve years. We also looked up the name of an ex-con that we knew to have been released to see how they describe it when they do release a prisoner. It said of him that he was ‘Not in BOP Custody as of: 06/05/2001.’ So that is how they ordinarily tell you a prisoner has been released.
Thus, we suspect that Maxwell’s new status will be updated soon, but when we are talking about the government ‘soon’ might be ‘at close of business today’ or ‘at midnight tonight.’ We shall see.
And, of course, this also leads to speculation that this is either part of a deal or part of the negotiation of a deal with Maxwell, perhaps in exchange for her testimony. That might be a tough pill to swallow for any of her victims, but this is sometimes how the sausage is made: You make a deal with one awful person to convict either a much more awful person, or many other awful people. If a deal with Maxwell results in one hundred rich perverts going to prison, is that acceptable to you? That will have to be your call, but at the moment we don’t know for certain if there is a deal at all, and what its terms might be, so it is impossible to judge at the moment. And if this is related to an ongoing criminal investigation, we might not know the details of any deal for years.
But the other concern is that minimum security prisons tend to have less security for the prisoners. And not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don’t believe Epstein killed himself, you might think Maxwell needs more security, not less.
As an additional wrinkle the Houston Chronicle has this confusing coverage:
As of this writing the article’s first two paragraphs say:
Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell has been moved to a federal prison in Bryan, a maximum-security facility in Texas, which has hosted a number of notable and celebrity prisoners.
Federal Prison Camp in Bryan is a minimum security facility roughly 100 miles outside of Houston and is home to more than 500 inmates, most of which are serving non-violent offenses and white-collar crimes.
(Boldface added.) So, it is somehow both a minimum security and maximum security prison at the same time? shrugs
But overwhelmingly, the sources we have found say that it is a minimum security prison.
On to reactions:
No, if she was pardoned, she would be let out completely.
The cut off text:
No leaked footage.
No client list.
No accountability.
Just silence.
And comfort.
⸻
They buried Epstein.
They silenced victims.
They protected the powerful.
⸻
And now they’re rewarding the madam who kept their secrets.
Because the truth…
Was never meant to go public.
Why does the American justice system go softest on those who know the most?
Or alternatively, this is how we get the client list and prosecute the people on it. We completely understand why any person would be skeptical, but let’s strive to be logical.
For the record, clemency is a reduction in sentence without relieving the person of the conviction. A pardon, more or less obliterates the conviction. But both are considered to be part of the pardon power of the presidency.
She can hang out with Roman Polanski.
The cut off text from the first post:
You can guarantee she is ecstatic about using this nation’s interest in this case and Trump’s precarious situation to get the best possible conditions for herself and ultimately freedom if she can. This is a game she’s trying to win. She’s not a dope.
Interesting allegations, but we have no idea if they are true. And we should be clear that we have no idea if any of the allegations made by these Twitter/X users are true.
The cut off text:
I’m waiting to watch this comes to light.
On the topic of trust, prosecutors know that if you get testimony by using a ‘deal’ that a jury is going to be very skeptical. It is hard, maybe impossible, to get to proof beyond a reasonable doubt if the only testimony is by someone who has a deal like that. So, what prosecutors do is they find evidence to shore up the testimony of such a witness. If a witness says he saw something at a particular place and time, for instance, the prosecutors will find receipts from a nearby gas station that can be tied to the witness showing that he was where he said he was—things like that. We expect that if Maxwell is talking and incriminating anyone else, they will try to find additional witnesses and objective evidence to support or discredit what she is saying. Seriously, this is all just Prosecution 101.
Finally, we will note that a lot of people are claiming that somehow this is to protect Trump, such as:
We will treat this accusation the same way we treat every accusation that the Biden administration could have released additional dirt on Trump but didn’t: With extreme skepticism.
We just saw four years of all-out lawfare that culminated in multiple civil suits against Trump (including E. Jean Carroll’s ridiculous accusations of sexual assault), a lawsuit trying to take Trump off the ballot that failed unanimously in the United States Supreme Court, and four indictments against Trump.
And there is no question that the indictments were politically driven. The math alone tells you the story. Trump is the first former president in American history to have been indicted. Before Trump’s first term in office, there were 43 people who served as president before Trump. We call Trump the 45th and 47th president, but that is only true if you double count both Trump and Cleveland (the other president who served non-consecutive terms). If you don’t double count Cleveland or Trump, he is the 44th person to serve as president. So, before Trump there were 43 actual human beings who served as president. Of them, only 35 lived to be former presidents. The other eight died in office, either by assassination (like Lincoln) or natural causes (like FDR).
And the Democrats are telling us that out of 35 former presidents, Trump is the first one who deserved to be indicted?
To put that in perspective, that list of former presidents who somehow were never indicted included Richard Nixon. Of course he was pardoned, but no federal pardon can protect you from state indictments or convictions, and the chances that Nixon’s behavior never crossed into at least Virginia and Maryland are about slim and none. Meanwhile, President Andrew Jackson straight up shot people, often in duels—and no indictments for him? For his part, Jackson accused previous President John Quincy Adams of stealing the Presidency in 1824 through a 'corrupt bargain,' but he never thought to indict the younger Adams when he became took office in 1828. And President Grant actually participated in a shooting war on American soil and not a single Southern county in a single Southern state indicted him? Not to mention how much the left hated every other Republican president since Nixon, such as Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush (again)… But somehow Trump was the first president in almost two hundred years of American history to be indicted?
And not only was Trump the first former president to have been indicted, but he was indicted four times. So 35 former presidents didn’t deserve it, but Trump deserved it four times? And, what a coincidence, all four of those indictments were timed so that, but for the intervention of the Supreme Court, these cases would have caused maximum disruption of the campaign season. Even then, one case did go to trial and during that case, Trump was slapped with an unconstitutional gag order that put him at a disadvantage in terms of both the primary and the eventual general election. That is he was the only person running for president at the time who could comment on his case—Trump was forbidden from even denying that he committed the crime. And the Democrats’ position is that in all of that, the prosecutors were just following the evidence where it led?
So, mathematics alone tells us that the left went as far as extreme lawfare to keep Trump from winning a second term at the White House—not to mention recent revelations that allegations that Russia wanted Trump to win in 2016, or that Trump colluded with the Russians have now been shown to be pure fantasy.
And with all that background, the left is telling us that the Democrats had control of the FBI and the DOJ between 2021 and early 2025, and they didn’t bring out every incriminating allegation or piece of evidence against Trump? Their official story is that they were holding things back?
Nothing would have made Merrick Garland happier than to indict Trump for something, anything related to Epstein. And if they didn’t even have enough to indict, you can bet they would have leaked what they had, instead.
So, if anyone is claiming that that suddenly there is evidence that the Biden administration either had or could have gotten easily, that they didn’t release before the 2024 election… this author is going to be extremely skeptical. That doesn’t mean we are impervious to proof, but we need a lot more evidence than we have seen.
RELATED: WATCH As the Company That Employed the ‘Coldplay Cheaters’ Runs an Absolute Clinic on Damage Control
South Park Just Showed All of Us Who Paramount, CBS and Comedy Central Are REALLY Afraid of
No, Joe Biden, There Isn’t a 28th Amendment… Says the Ninth Circuit?! Wait, What?! (A Deep Dive)
BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Blows Open Russiagate With Document Dump
BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)
LAWSPLAINING: Margot Cleveland Suggests That the FBI Has Systematically Violated Defendants’ Rights
‘First Do No Harm:’ Fisking John Oliver on the Transgender/Sports Issue
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about President Trump, his administration, and conservatives.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Twitchy VIP today and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.