Reporter: Would you consider a pardon or commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?
Trump: I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I haven’t thought about
Lol, I think we all know what's coming...
After his lawyer met with her twice, Im expecting a list of democrats, late night show hosts, hollywood "elite", even the now ex trumper shaman accused by Maxwell.
Care to go on record stating that a pardon of Maxwell would be wrong?
This is what I am saving.
Willowarbor wrote:
Reporter: Would you consider a pardon or commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?
Trump: I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I haven’t thought about
Lol, I think we all know what's coming...
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/368 … ost4377928
Your context is clear. You predict a pardon. Nothing in the comment mentions "pardon of Maxwell would be wrong?"
I certainly feel she does not deserve a pardon. But you have left several comments that indicate she will be. I think if she is not pardoned, your predictions are not worth reposting.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/368 … ost4377735
Would you like to go on record that a pardon of Maxwell would be wrong? Or maybe she's just a poor old victim of the courts, right? I mean if Trump says that that's what she is...
I see you didn't go on record that Trump shouldn't pardon Maxwell.
I agree, when Trump equivocates like that, history shows there is a better than even chance he will go through with it.
Further, if he flatly said no, this liars history still shows a significant likelihood he will pardon her.
PARDON INCOMING
Attorney for Maxwell says she was not fairly treated during trial. He claims the then government promised not to charge co-conspirators in the case....
OH MY, WE ALL KNOW HOW TRUMP LOVES A "VICTIM" DON'T WE.
Maxwell is not a victim, she’s the victimizer. She also committed perjury, so she’s a liar as well. What is trump up to in this case ?
She has an appeal in process. Why does this particular criminal get special treatment, why is the AAG meeting privately with her? Read the court transcripts and testimony that were unsealed in ‘24- it’s horrifying what the victims suffered at Maxwell’s hand.... And now? I think it looks a certain she will be fairly quickly pardoned...they're laying the groundwork
This entire comment is built on implication, not fact. You're assuming motives, predicting outcomes, and stitching together unrelated events into a conspiracy narrative, all without evidence. Let’s break this down.
Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted and is currently serving time. She’s not walking free. That alone proves the justice system did not let her off easily, quite the opposite. Now, her attorney is raising concerns about co-conspirators not being charged or government promises is standard legal maneuvering during appeals. Defendants have the right to appeal and challenge procedures, especially when there are questions about due process. That’s the law.
There's zero credible evidence that Donald Trump is involved in her case now, no court filings, no official statements, no indication he’s advocating for a pardon. Just because someone somewhere raises a legal point in her favor doesn't mean “Trump is plotting a pardon.” That’s pure speculation, and politically motivated speculation at that.
Your comment about the Assistant Attorney General “meeting privately” with her is based on what? If you're referring to legal procedures like prison interviews or standard DOJ reviews, that’s normal in any high-profile federal case. If you’re suggesting some secretive deal is being made, then show actual evidence, because court documents and processes are usually a matter of public record.
Throwing around language like “OH MY, WE ALL KNOW HOW TRUMP LOVES A ‘VICTIM’” is just emotional bait. Whether you like Trump or not, there's no link between him and her legal appeal, none. If you're going to imply he's somehow manipulating the justice system, bring something real to the table, not just feelings and projection.
What? Where does this indicate a pardon? You certainly keep busy with innuendo. But, in my view, this is common with some liberals. It stands as a "tell".
So many liberals live in the world of conspiracies. When one fails, they move to another. And for some of the comments here--- very much based on media reports that don't use quotes.
I'm guessing you didn't hear the little presser Maxwell's attorney had after the meeting with Trump's lawyer?
I listened to the press conference with Maxwell's lawyer, as well as Trump’s statement in response to the question about whether he would pardon her. I'm not sure how or why you’ve concluded that Trump is a pedophile, as you stated in your comment, or that Maxwell will be pardoned based on something her attorney said. Maybe you could elaborate on how you came to those conclusions.
From my perspective, much of what you're saying on this topic feels like conjecture. It makes it hard to have a real conversation because it comes across a bit like the “Russia, Russia, Russia” narrative, which, as we’ve seen, was largely contrived to smear Trump. The documents that Tulsi Gabbard has released provide solid evidence that shows Obama ignored his intelligence briefings to smear Trump. The Documents are there for all to read. They very much condemn Obama, as well as many in his intelligence agencies. I am very sure this will not go away due to the media ignoring it. And it should not... here is a link to the documents.
https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documen … ly2025.pdf
Tulsi's information has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by both Democrats and Republicans. I provided a fact check here also, do I need to repost? she has been made of fool of... Literally no one's getting behind her bunk.
Tulsi Gabbard’s claims of a “treasonous conspiracy” and intelligence manipulation by the Obama era are not supported by credible evidence..... From the source that so many rely on AI
Didn't you mean to say "so many MAGA live in the world of conspiracies? Why else is MAGA driving this Epstein saga?
It seems to me she keeps busy using her brain to draw valid conclusions from past observations and a myriad of reliable sources.
Not Surprisingly, Trump keeps stepping all over the Epstein Files, digging himself deeper and deeper in his own quagmire.
"We don’t yet know the full story of the Trump administration’s sudden reluctance to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. Its reversal appears to have coincided with the president being told his name appeared in the files, but there are gobs of unanswered questions."
Hmmmm
"Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein. But in an effort to downplay the whole thing, he’s added fuel to the fire with the kind of dodgy claims that he himself once suggested could raise suspicions about one’s ties to the convicted sex offender."
Hmmmmm
"The most recent is his denial last week that Attorney General Pam Bondi had told him his name was in the Epstein files.
“No, no,” Trump said July 15. “She’s given us just a very quick briefing.” It turns out Bondi had, in fact, told Trump precisely that back in May, CNN confirmed Wednesday.
And not only that, but sources familiar with the Justice Department’s review of the files told CNN they appeared to include several unsubstantiated claims about Trump and others. DOJ found those claims not to be credible, according to the sources, but whatever those claims were, they could have posed problems for Trump if aired publicly."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
"And last year, Trump claimed on social media, “I was never on Epstein’s Plane …”
In fact, Trump flew on it seven times in the 1990s, according to flight logs released as a part of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal proceedings.
What was most striking about that denial is that those flight logs had already been released years prior."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/25/politics … s-analysis
Trump has not ruled out pardoning child sex trafficker Maxwell. Why? Well she knows things. A pardon would keep her from talking. A true warrior against traffickers would quickly say “Hell no”...right?
Lol... Who do you think he was speaking to? This kind of stuff happened regularly. They purposely stoked the base
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1945255742497239466
In my opinion it is clearly within Trump-Bondi-Blanch character to bribe Maxwell with a pardon or commutation to get her to say she never saw Trump when she or Epstein were abusing children..
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/25/politics … pstein-doj
"I mean, so many today feel it is their privilege to slander without any form of facts."
Seriously?
Pot," Kettle - you-re black!"
MTG...
"Dangling bits of red meat no longer satisfies. They want the whole steak dinner and will accept nothing else.”
Trump has brought this on himself. The base is going to ultimately be the force that brings him down and I love it.
" In my view, what I’ve observed is that those who lean right on this forum generally aim to keep the conversation civil and respectful, avoiding insults and labels. In contrast, some individuals on the left seem more inclined to use name-calling and inflammatory remarks, often trying to provoke rather than engage in thoughtful dialogue."
It says we are all subject to confirmation bias.
I agree that we’re all subject to bias. However, I’ve noticed that some who lean left here tend to fall into conspiracy thinking and often use broad labels to generalize others. To me, that reveals a lot about a person and their character. That’s just my opinion, of course, and we all have one. In an open forum like this chat, it’s important that we can share our views respectfully.
Respectfully. you have it backwards, until you get to the extreme left. of course.
I think I have mentioned that is called "transference".
Not sure what your one-liner is getting at. I did share my view, and I never beat around the bush with one-liners. In my experience, one-liners usually signal that someone doesn’t have much to contribute beyond critiquing what someone else took the time to say in an actual conversation. For context, my view was: 'I agree we’re all subject to bias, but I’ve noticed some on the left here often drift into conspiracy thinking and use broad labels to generalize others." Or was it my thoughts on " That’s just my opinion, of course, and we all have one. In an open forum like this chat, it’s important that we can share our views respectfully." At any rate, both statements are my opinion.
"In my experience, one-liners usually signal that someone doesn’t have much to contribute beyond critiquing what someone else took the time to say in an actual conversation."
It doesn't always take a lot of words to make a point.
I don't know if someone already stated the obvious. Trump suggests possibility of presidential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. Of course in return of not Talking about the relationship between Trump and Epstein.
A pardon shouldn't even be considered. Only someone who has something to hide is obstructing the process. As he motivates Maxwell not to cooperate with the law.
By talking about clemency Trump makes a big swamp out of the Epstein Files.
Only someone who has something to hide benefits from obstruction.
"I don't know if someone already stated the obvious. Trump suggests possibility of presidential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell. Of course in return of not Talking about the relationship between Trump and Epstein. " Peter
I have not heard that. Would you have a link to your source?
Yes, I did see that live clip. I did not see where the context of his words claimed he would pardon her. Here is what I heard.
When asked about the possibility of pardoning her, Trump responded, "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about." He emphasized that the matter is "very sensitive" and declined to provide further details.
Did I miss him saying something more--- that he would pardon.
I think when one is posed with the question as to whether they will pardon a convicted child sex trafficker, that the immediate answer would be no...
I’m simply going by what he has said so far. I think he handled it professionally, clearly stating it’s something he hasn’t thought about. To me, that means exactly what it sounds like: he hasn’t thought about it, while admitting he could do that. How else can you interpret that?
Yet, some seem to read way too much into his words and ignore the full context. I’ll also point out that I notice this pattern with you, coming in with insinuations based on very little factual basis.
Time will tell.
How do you even consider pardoning a child's sex trafficker/rapist?
I can't speak to what was going on in his mind when he addressed the question. I can only share how I interpreted the context of what he actually said. I don’t feel it’s fair to read too much into someone’s words. I prefer to focus on the context and break things down from that angle. We approached this from different mindsets. I tend to stick to facts and avoid speculation.
Now, if someone were to ask me whether Ghislaine Maxwell should be pardoned, I’d say no. She had her trial, she appealed, and she lost. She’s now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case. From my perspective, she’s been given due process, and whatever the Supreme Court decides should be respected. A pardon wouldn’t sit right with me.
The problem with the context thing, Sharlee is that it can be used to confuse others as to what he did or did not actually say. What Trump actually says is the fact, I don’t need to speculate beyond that.
Decency would require that this woman be answered with a resounding NO, regarding the very idea of a pardon. You will give Trump the benefit of the doubt, I generally wont. I am glad that at least you realize that a pardon is not appropriate in this case.
I also fail to see how anyone believes that it was appropriate that Trump's own personal lawyer go and talk with this woman over a two-day period while granting her immunity to speak... And he has made no statement regarding that meeting. Can you imagine all of this happening under a Biden Administration LOL??
On social media, Blanche said he would reveal what he learned from Maxwell "at the appropriate time." This is the only statement thus far from the DOJ.
This is someone who has clouded the whole issue due to the fact he has an established relationship with Trump as his personal lawyer, a relationship that does not end. The whole thing reeks of a cover-up.
I have to shake my head, seriously, do you ever take a break from conspiracy theories? Just my view, but honestly, the whole situation seems like Bondi is being cautious, making sure that if she releases more of the Epstein files, she has solid evidence to back everything up. It makes sense to be careful and confirm the facts before potentially ruining people’s lives. With Todd’s statement, it sounds like he’s focused on connecting the dots and verifying facts before discussing what Maxwell said. We do know she’s assembled a team to investigate the matter, and Maxwell’s lawyer has said she answered all his questions, including those involving names. So, if we’re going down a “this might be the case” path, that would be my scenario.
Yes, indeed, Willow, honesty demands that the talk and the walk are consistent. Why would Trump continue to send mixed messages regarding his addressing of this matter? Innocent people should be able to engage in direct talk and not innuendo.
Are you certain it was Trump who sent the Assistant Attorney General to speak with Maxwell? Let’s not jump to conclusions. We know the AG is actively looking into the case, and speaking with Maxwell could actually serve a legitimate purpose, especially if it helps her feel more secure in revealing sensitive information. We’re talking about details that could damage powerful reputations on both sides of the aisle. It’s not unreasonable that she would want to ensure the accuracy and credibility of what she’s disclosing before setting off a political firestorm.
With pressure coming from both Republicans and Democrats demanding transparency, this is starting to look more like a carefully calculated move than some kind of cover-up. She knows what's in those documents, and she also knows the weight of releasing them without being absolutely certain of their validity.
"It’s not unreasonable that she would want to ensure the accuracy and credibility of what she’s disclosing before setting off a political firestorm."
Huh? Maxwell he's already been convicted on the information that's in the files.... there's no question as to the validity of the proceedings
Yes, she was convicted. But there’s no way of knowing what she may have shared with the Assistant Attorney General. The point of my comment was simply to offer a different perspective from the one Cred shared. He seemed to suggest that Trump personally sent the Assistant AG to question Maxwell, but we have no evidence that this is factual. What we do know is that the Assistant AG operates under the authority of the Attorney General, not directly under the President.
We also certainly don’t know if what Maxwell may have shared with the Assistant AG is the same as what’s contained in the documents Pam Bondi now has. That was the reasoning behind the view I shared, there are still many unknowns. It’s entirely plausible that AG Bondi is comparing the two sets of information, and as I mentioned, she would likely avoid releasing anything that Maxwell could later dispute. Maxwell’s case is now before the Supreme Court, and Bondi would be incredibly careless not to thoroughly review all relevant material before taking further action.
Here is the full conversation I was having with Cred. I feel my context is very clear.
Credence2 wrote:
Yes, indeed, Willow, honesty demands that the talk and the walk are consistent. Why would Trump continue to send mixed messages regarding his addressing of this matter? Innocent people should be able to engage in direct talk and not innuendo.
Sharlee ---Are you certain it was Trump who sent the Assistant Attorney General to speak with Maxwell? Let’s not jump to conclusions. We know the AG is actively looking into the case, and speaking with Maxwell could actually serve a legitimate purpose, especially if it helps her feel more secure in revealing sensitive information. We’re talking about details that could damage powerful reputations on both sides of the aisle. It’s not unreasonable that she would want to ensure the accuracy and credibility of what she’s disclosing before setting off a political firestorm.
With pressure coming from both Republicans and Democrats demanding transparency, this is starting to look more like a carefully calculated move than some kind of cover-up. She knows what's in those documents, and she also knows the weight of releasing them without being absolutely certain of their validity.
Cred, I appreciate your point, and I want to say that as a rule, I don’t jump to conclusions, maybe because over many years, I’ve learned from my own mistakes when I’ve done so in the past. I believe that rushing to judgment hasn’t served our society well; honestly, just look at where it’s brought us.
Context isn’t about confusing anyone; it’s about understanding the full picture before making a call. What someone actually says is important, but so is how and why they say it. Without context, facts can be misunderstood or misrepresented. Trump needed to say more, but he did not. I just considered that he said a few words, and read the context of the few words.
Regarding the pardon, note that no one asked me the question about my feelings regarding a pardon for this woman. It seemed some felt my view was a gimme---- You see what I am getting at? I’m glad we agree that a pardon is not appropriate here.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt doesn’t mean overlooking facts; She has the benefit of due process, and I trust the high court to rule appropriately.
I respect your perspective, and I hope we can keep discussing these things with that same spirit. We seem to be more or less understanding each other, and I enjoy how you communicate.
I try to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I think it's just the fair thing to do. Like I said, there is always time to point a finger once evidence has proved wrongdoing.
I asked earlier but I don't think you answered. So did Willowarbor, I believe.
Thanks, for that Sharlee, but ESO makes a good point of these issues having an overriding theme about them, where our leaders need more than the ability to dodge and parry, or toss word salad, but instead reaffirm to citizens that actions and intent are consistent with what is being said, that there cannot even be the appearance of honesty and integrity being shelved for political reasons, especially from the head of the Executive Branch.
I get the concern about holding leaders accountable, but this attitude overlooks important nuances and risks rushing to judgment based on incomplete information. First, demanding absolute clarity or immediate condemnation in every response ignores the complexity of legal and political processes. A simple "I won’t rule it out" doesn’t equate to an endorsement or guarantee of action; it’s often a strategic or legally cautious reply, not a moral declaration.
Second, interpreting non-answers as signals of moral failing can dangerously distort public discourse. Politics is filled with calculated ambiguity, and reading too much into a single statement without full context risks turning legitimate political communication into a trial by social media. This kind of black-and-white thinking, either you condemn fully or you’re complicit, doesn’t allow room for the reality of governance, where leaders must weigh many factors before taking irreversible steps like pardons.
Third, it’s important to remember the principle of due process. No one should be judged on speculation about what might happen in the future, especially with something as serious as pardons, which involve complex legal considerations and aren’t simply political gestures. Jumping to conclusions based on ambiguous statements undermines fairness and inflames partisan divisions, rather than fostering the informed, balanced judgment democracy needs.
Finally, while voters must absolutely be informed, they also deserve honesty about the limits of what can be known at a moment’s notice. Insisting that every hesitation or refusal to condemn is a damning signal risks encouraging snap judgments and eroding the space for thoughtful political debate. Holding leaders accountable is crucial, but so is recognizing that politics isn’t always black and white, and that meaningful judgment often requires patience and a fuller picture.
I’d also add that Ghislaine Maxwell is still undergoing legal due process. Would it really be fair—or wise—for a president to publicly offer either a positive or negative comment about someone with an active case? Doing so could influence public opinion, media narratives, or even legal proceedings. In a country founded on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” it’s entirely reasonable for a president to withhold judgment until the legal system has fully run its course.
"it’s entirely reasonable for a president to withhold judgment until the legal system has fully run its course.
Yeah but Trump isn't reasonable is he?
Trump publicly commented on ongoing litigation concerning others on several occasions, most notably? in relation to the cases of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone... He also commented on the jury forewoman in the Stone trial, referring to her as "totally tainted" and "an anti-Trump person, totally".
Do you agree the insurrectionists who had their trials should have been pardoned by Trump, especially those that led to cops being injured or dying?
Why would Trump do the same for Maxwell since he is PURPOSEFULLY not ruling out the possibility?
No he did not say that he would pardon her. But he did not say he would not.
True--- I guess one can form an opinion, I mean that is the trend of the day. I lean toward just a "wait and see".
That's to easy.
Trump should not even talk about a pardon. And simply say no. We are talking about child traffic and sexual abuse of minors.
But as Trump had a close relationship with Epstein, he does not want Maxwell to talk about secrets and testify against him. So he tells her that if she behaves she could get a pardon.
Is this far fetched?
Peter, I can see your comment reflects your views, but it seems you're responding to a situation where Trump was asked a question by someone from the press corps. What you may not realize is that when he doesn’t respond to a question, the media often jumps in immediately with speculation and accusations about why he didn’t answer.
Also, you're assuming that Trump had a close relationship with Epstein—something he has publicly denied.
You wrote: “So he tells her that if she behaves she could get a pardon. Is this far-fetched?”
That’s an opinion, of course, but is it a fair one without any supporting evidence? There has been no credible proof that Trump said or did anything like that.
At this point, we simply don’t have any proven facts. In Trump’s case, it’s important to recognize that much of what has been alleged against him has later been shown to be untrue, yet those claims continue to be treated as fact. Perhaps adopting a “wait and see” approach is the most reasonable stance regarding these new, unproven accusations related to Epstein.
Many seem to overlook that the district court, which handled all the Epstein documents, never accused Trump of any wrongdoing, unlike what happened with Maxwell, who was charged and convicted, due to evidence that came from the Epstein case. That’s how our legal system works. The same district court had the authority to bring charges against anyone they believed was involved in wrongdoing, but no such charges were brought against Trump.
In my opinion, a lot of people are eager for something to latch onto and, without solid evidence or even basic common sense, they’re quick to throw around accusations. Personally, I try to consider all sides and take a “wait and see” approach. I find it really unfair,and honestly distasteful, to make accusations or create stories first and then hope that evidence will eventually show up to back them up. It just doesn’t sit right with me.
I hope this comment does not come off as being sarcastic --- it is just how I feel about the recent pile-on Trump unproven scandal. I always appreciate your thoughts.
By saying "What you may not realize is that when he doesn’t respond to a question," are you suggesting that Trump didn't answer the question about pardoning Maxwell?
Maybe this will help clear things up:
Reporter Question that Trump Heard: “Would you consider a pardon or commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?”
Here is Trump's answer: “It’s something I haven’t thought about. I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I have not thought about.”
When pressed further he answered; “Nobody’s approached me with it. ... But right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it.”
All Peterstreep and Credence are wondering is why Trump equivocated and dodged?
Any rational person would have said NO. Trump didn't say NO. So why not?
Nobody is accusing Trump of anything right now, but his actions and lies certainly call his innocence into question which must be now investigated don't you think?
"That's to easy.
Trump should not even talk about a pardon. And simply say no. We are talking about child traffic and sexual abuse of minors.
But as Trump had a close relationship with Epstein, he does not want Maxwell to talk about secrets and testify against him. So he tells her that if she behaves she could get a pardon.
Is this far fetched?" Peter
"Trump should not even talk about a pardon. And simply say no." Peter
Peter, I can see your comment reflects your views, but it seems you're responding to a situation where Trump was asked a question by someone from the press corps. What you may not realize is that when he doesn’t respond to a question, the media often jumps in immediately with speculation and accusations about why he didn’t answer.
Also, you're assuming that Trump had a close relationship with Epstein—something he has publicly denied.
You wrote: “So he tells her that if she behaves she could get a pardon. Is this far-fetched?”
That’s an opinion, of course, but is it a fair one without any supporting evidence? There has been no credible proof that Trump said or did anything like that.
At this point, we simply don’t have any proven facts. In Trump’s case, it’s important to recognize that much of what has been alleged against him has later been shown to be untrue, yet those claims continue to be treated as fact. Perhaps adopting a “wait and see” approach is the most reasonable stance regarding these new, unproven accusations related to Epstein.
Many seem to overlook that the district court, which handled all the Epstein documents, never accused Trump of any wrongdoing, unlike what happened with Maxwell, who was charged and convicted, due to evidence that came from the Epstein case. That’s how our legal system works. The same district court had the authority to bring charges against anyone they believed was involved in wrongdoing, but no such charges were brought against Trump.
In my opinion, a lot of people are eager for something to latch onto and, without solid evidence or even basic common sense, they’re quick to throw around accusations. Personally, I try to consider all sides and take a “wait and see” approach. I find it really unfair,and honestly distasteful, to make accusations or create stories first and then hope that evidence will eventually show up to back them up. It just doesn’t sit right with me.
I hope this comment does not come off as being sarcastic --- it is just how I feel about the recent pile-on Trump unproven scandal. I always appreciate your thoughts.
The reason why Trumps answer is so important, and should have been a simple NO is because,
that Trump did the same thing with the investigation into the probe into the Russian interference in the elections.
Trump granted a full pardon to George Papadopoulos, a former campaign aide who pleaded guilty as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Same with Paul Manafort. Manafort didn't cooperate with the investigations knowing that he would get a pardon. So if Trump hints at a pardon. (What he did in the interview by not saying NO). It's clear that Trump tries to avoid that Maxwell will open up and talks about his imitate relationship with Epstein. A deal, if she doesn't talk she can get a pardon.
It's a reaping pattern.
These answers to the journalists questions where not a small thing if you look at how Trump used a pardons before.
O yeah, same with the criminals who attacked the Capitol. a pardon because they where loyal to him. The message: Loyalty gets you a pardon.
It's clear that Trump tries to avoid that Maxwell will open up and talks about his imitate relationship with Epstein. A deal, if she doesn't talk she can get a pardon.
Or for her to accuse other people (his "enemies" list is long), true or not, prosecutable or not. Just enough to keep his MAGA conspiracists entertain. MAGAs dont want to believe Trump could be the same thing they abhor. They know something is fishy, but are still "hoping for the best".
Im waiting... The (prob fake) "bomb" is coming.
And one or two will get the boot to justify this debacle.
So MAGA is Trumper happy again.
We are pretty happy now - I mean, we won, and Trump is keeping the promises he made. But, he did tell his supporters, "you will get sick of winning"... Not me, I am loving it. And loving having a front seat to the Democratic party's meltdowns.
We are pretty happy now
"That’s your opinion, and you’re absolutely entitled to it — but you don’t have the right to speak on behalf of everyone else. That’s a clear tell: when something doesn’t align with your narrative, you try to drag others into it to give your view more weight. Speak for yourself."
When it suits?
Yup. Really happy. LOL
I stand by that view, and it's hard when dealing with some on this chat to not blanket. Very hard. I mean, see carbon copies of the same attitudes, same ideologies, same one-liners. But I make an effort, I will admit it's hard, and I slip more than I would like to.
Oh my--- neither did you --- "Or for her to accuse other people (his "enemies" list is long), true or not, prosecutable or not. Just enough to keep his MAGA conspiracists entertain. MAGAs dont want to believe Trump could be the same thing they abhor. They know something is fishy, but are still "hoping for the best".
( MAGA, MAGA's)
Im waiting... The (prob fake) "bomb" is coming.
And one or two will get the boot to justify this debacle.
So MAGA is Trumper happy again"
(MAGA) You blanketed big time. You always do.
Actually, so many times in that comment --- I returned the gesture.
Exactly — the more rational and wise attitude is to wait and see, rather than jump to conclusions based on speculation. No, I’m not sure Trump would pardon Ghislaine Maxwell,and, frankly, there’s no solid evidence to suggest that he intends to. In fact, if he doesn’t pardon her (and there’s no indication that he will), it completely undercuts the entire narrative that he's using pardons to cover up supposed relationships or buy silence.
The assumption that he will pardon her is rooted more in distrust or bias than in fact. He didn’t promise her anything publicly. He didn’t pardon her during his presidency when he had the chance. And there's been no indication from his legal team, campaign, or statements that he's concerned with her situation at all. If anything, his ties to Epstein were far less extensive than others in politics, media, and business; he distanced himself from Epstein long before Epstein’s arrest.
So yes, it is far more reasonable to wait for actual decisions and facts before forming a conclusion. Jumping to accuse Trump of secret deals based on vague comments or speculative patterns only weakens the argument when real facts come out. If he doesn’t pardon Maxwell, which is likely, then this whole theory collapses under its own weight.
When Maxwell went to prison Trump said: "I just wish her well, frankly'.
No words of sympathy about the abused children. but a wishing well for the woman who went to prison for child sex trafficking.
That's because Trump is friends with Maxwell. Now how can you be friends with someone who abuses children like Epstein and Maxwell did?
I can understand that you go to a party once or twice for business, without knowing what Epstein was about. But the relation of Trump with the Epsteins was far deeper, not just a couple of business dinners.
That’s a fair concern, and I won’t defend Trump’s exact words because I agree, they came across as poorly thought out and lacked any visible empathy for the victims. Saying “I wish her well” in that context, especially after Maxwell was arrested for child sex trafficking, was tone-deaf at best. It gave the wrong impression, especially when no words were offered for the young girls whose lives were damaged.
That said, I think it’s important to look at the rest of the picture and not reduce everything to one comment. Trump did cut ties with Epstein long before many others did, reportedly banning him from Mar-a-Lago years before the full scope of Epstein’s crimes became widely known. That detail doesn’t erase the past entirely, but it does complicate the narrative that Trump was somehow deeply aligned with Epstein and Maxwell after their behavior became obvious.
It’s also true that high-profile people often crossed paths with Epstein and Maxwell, Clinton, Gates, and even members of British royalty. Attending parties, business dinners, or even having photographs taken doesn’t automatically mean someone knew or endorsed what Epstein was involved in behind the scenes. I agree that a shallow or long-term friendship is no excuse, but I’d also say we need to look at concrete actions, not just associations.
So yes, the comment Trump made about Maxwell sounded cold and insensitive. But it doesn’t erase the full record, which includes him distancing himself from Epstein long before many others and taking a strong stance against human trafficking while in office. In my view, it was a clumsy remark, not evidence of support for what she did.
I guess I am more apt to look at a fuller picture, and ty not to read in. But I see your point regarding that comment, and we agree, it was insensitive.
Bondi is accusing Dan Bongino of secretly leaking info to the media to damage her reputation, per The Wall Street Journal.
So now it’s Bondi vs. Bongino.
Trump’s inner circle is eating itself alive
And the Epstein fallout hasn’t even peaked yet....
And Bongino? This man is a ticking time bomb....a young man with absolutely no future in politics. Left a lucrative podcast with an enormous following.... I'm guessing he's not going down with this ship. He has a future long beyond Trump to consider.
They are Trumpers, so I dont trust any of them. The fight, sure. But Im also sure all of them are trying to get Trump out of trouble. What would be the "bomb"? And which one of them is going to be the scapegoat? We'll see.
Would MAGA weaklings get back in line?
What? This X statement is vague and broad.
It does not mention Bondi, any leaks, or media smears.
It seems to relate more to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or the broader internal DOJ conflict.
I have not found one quote from Bondi or Bongino that supports your post. Once again, WSJ comes out with a vague article with the word
alligation used the word throughout the piece. No facts whatsoever.
The Wall Street Journal piece relies entirely on anonymous sources and offers no direct quotes from either Pam Bondi or Dan Bongino. The word “allegation” is used throughout, and that matters. At no point are Bondi or Bongino quoted verbatim regarding the accusations or denials at the center of the report. Everything is attributed to unnamed individuals said to be familiar with the meeting, rather than to public statements or documented transcripts. Even the claim that Bongino called Bondi a “liar” isn’t backed by a direct quote; it’s a paraphrased assertion filtered through third-party summaries. That should give anyone pause before treating these claims as settled fact.
Really poor journalism-- but I give it an A for slop.
The Wall Street journal stands behind its journalism and none of this has been refuted...lol what do you think bongino read/learned that shocked him so much that he will never be the same???
July 2025, the Wall Street Journal is being sued in a $10 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Trump. This lawsuit accuses the WSJ of publishing a false and defamatory report about a 2003 birthday letter allegedly sent by Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump denies the existence of the letter and claims the article was fabricated.
It has been very obvious that the WSJ is left-leaning. One would feel these left-leaning outlets would learn that allegations need to be backed by actual quotes. I mean, Trump has already won several of his lawsuits against those who slandered him.
I don't think anyone would agree with your statement that Wall Street journal is a left-leaning outlet LOL you do realize it's owned by Rupert Murdoch... Who also owns Fox??
"This lawsuit accuses the WSJ of publishing a false and defamatory report about a 2003 birthday letter allegedly sent by Trump to Jeffrey Epstein."
It's certainly has not been proven "false"
WSJ...
It's also interesting that you've made contradictory statements about The credibility of the journal...
Peterstreep, Credence, Willowarbor — I’ll be honest: I find it difficult to engage with people who consistently refuse to hold leaders accountable for their words or actions, especially when those leaders align with their own views. To help me respond constructively rather than emotionally, I turned to ChatGPT to help phrase something I can live with:
I respect the desire to avoid speculation, but in politics—especially at the national level—intentions and signals matter as much as actions, because they shape public perception, guide policy, and embolden or deter bad behavior.
In this case, when Trump is asked whether he would pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted child sex trafficker, and refuses to rule it out, that’s not a neutral act. That’s a signal—whether intentional or not. It suggests that some crimes, even horrific ones, might be forgiven if you're politically connected. That’s not speculation; that’s reading the implications of what was actually said—or deliberately left unsaid.
“Wait and see” might sound like a cautious or balanced approach, but in practice, it suspends judgment at the very moment when judgment is most needed—when the public is deciding whether to trust someone with power again.
Democracy depends on voters making informed decisions based not only on actions already taken, but also on the values and character candidates display in real time. When a politician avoids condemning something clearly reprehensible, it is both fair and necessary to ask: why?
“I respect the desire to avoid speculation, but in politics—especially at the national level—intentions and signals matter as much as actions, because they shape public perception, guide policy, and embolden or deter bad behavior.
In this case, when Trump is asked whether he would pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted child sex trafficker, and refuses to rule it out, that’s not a neutral act. That’s a signal—whether intentional or not. It suggests that some crimes, even horrific ones, might be forgiven if you're politically connected. That’s not speculation; that’s reading the implications of what was actually said—or deliberately left unsaid.
“Wait and see” might sound like a cautious or balanced approach, but in practice, it suspends judgment at the very moment when judgment is most needed—when the public is deciding whether to trust someone with power again.
Democracy depends on voters making informed decisions based not only on actions already taken, but also on the values and character candidates display in real time. When a politician avoids condemning something clearly reprehensible, it is both fair and necessary to ask: why?”
—————-
WELL Said, ESO, it is definitely more on point regarding the truth behind the issue, said with the succinct and beauty akin to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. If I did not know better, I would have said that you wrote it for him.
Bipartisan Pair Say They Will Force House Vote on Releasing Epstein Files After Recess
Reps. Massie and Khanna say they have enough votes to pass a measure seeking more information about Epstein...
Reps. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) are readying a petition to force a floor vote on legislation that would give Attorney General Pam Bondi 30 days to release files related to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Fantastic, Mike Johnson can't hide forever.
Just for giggles . . .
From the Onion (July 21, 2025)
What To Know About The Epstein Files
Some MAGA supporters are turning on President Trump after he walked back campaign promises to declassify information about deceased financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Here is everything you need to know about the Epstein files.
Q: Why are people so interested in the Epstein case?
A: It’s the only example of money and power influencing an otherwise just legal system.
Q: What’s the difference between Epstein’s client list and his alleged black book?
A: The black book includes alternate cover art, gilded page edges, and a foreword by actor Kevin Spacey.
Q: Is Donald Trump named in the Epstein files?
A: There is no record of Epstein’s best friend hanging out with him.
Q: Does a cabal of super-rich pedophiles really exist?
A: It’s more of a loose friend group.
Q: Who was president when Epstein mysteriously died in prison?
A: The alleged suicide took place in between the end of Obama’s second term and the beginning of the Biden administration.
Q: How does the Department of Justice plan to release the files?
A: They will pin the list onto the White House bulletin board like a high school theater cast announcement.
From Fareed Zakaria:
"According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 69% of Americans, including 62% of Republicans, believe the government is hiding Epstein’s alleged client list. This is understandable; there are so many unanswered questions about Epstein. How did he become so rich? What is in the mountains of computer files and videos recovered from his homes and properties? Since he had already tried to commit suicide once while in jail, why was he not monitored properly afterward?"
Can someone explain why Trump has now given THREE DIFFERENT reasons for his breakup with Epstein?
1. Epstein hit on a young girl at a Mar-A-Lago event and he through him out. (~2007)
2. They fought over a real estate deal.(~2004)
3. And today, Epstein stole employees from Trump (I wonder if one of them was Virginia Giuffre?) (timing unknown)
One might be the truth making the other two explanations a lie. Why is he lying?
Good morning and Happy Tuesday to everyone who agrees that anyone who says it would've been "a privilege" going to Epstein Island, where girls were abused, is a sick individual who shouldn't be President.
This is disturbing: Not only does Trump refer to being invited to Epstein Island as a "privilege," when he mentions being mad at Epstein for doing something inappropriate, he's not talking about child rape, he's pissed about Epstein stealing his employees.... Tell me more about how you relate to this mindset maga... Good help is so hard to find, right?
Rogan: Trump administration ‘gaslighting’ supporters on Epstein
Podcaster Joe Rogan is turning up the heat on President Trump, a onetime ally whom he accused of “gaslighting” his supporters over the controversy involving his administration’s handling of information about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“There’s a line in the sand,” Rogan said of the saga on a recent episode of his podcast, in comments first highlighted by Mediaite.
“This one’s a line in the sand, because this is one where there’s a lot of stuff about, you know, when we thought Trump was going to come in and a lot of things are going to be resolved, going to drain the swamp, going to figure everything out, and when you have this one hardcore line in the sand that everybody had been talking about forever, and then they’re trying to gaslight you on that,” he added.
Rogan was one of Trump’s most vocal supporters in the media during his 2024 run for president. He is also one of several conservative media personalities who have admonished Trump in light of the Epstein drama and suggested he is betraying his supporters and mishandling the crisis.
Trump: People were taken out of the spa, hired by Epstein… I told him we don’t want you taking our people, whether it’s spa or not spa. He did it again, I said out of here.
Reporter: Was one of the stolen people Virginia Giuffre?
Trump: I think so. He stole her.
This is just all sorts of crazy but why was the 15-year-old working at Trump's "spa"?
Also...
Trump having thousands of employees worldwide and somehow knowing the name of one 15-year-old girl at a spa & being angry enough about her specifically being poached by Epstein to say he cut ties with him for it is surely very normal and means nothing...lol, right?? Weird
You get all of this from "I think so"? Really? You are really digging --- come up for air.
Importantly, Giuffre herself stated in past depositions that she did not believe Trump was involved in Epstein’s abuses. She said she never witnessed anything inappropriate from him, and that she did not think he was part of the ring or actions against her.
What I have found she did work in a locker room at Trump's spa ----Was It Legal for her to work at That Age?
Under Florida state labor laws and federal child labor laws, it is legal for minors aged 14–17 to work in certain jobs, including at resorts, spas, and clubs like Mar-a-Lago, with restrictions on:
Has she accused Trump of anything --- not that I can find.
In my view- This is the kind of slop some subsist on --- sad
Great to know that Trump's beef with Epstein stems from stealing "spa" employees.... I've seen him direct more anger toward Jessica tarlov, Taylor Swift LOL.... But anger , disgust toward a sex trafficker of children? He doesn't seem to have it in him does he?
I guess we can all relate though huh? Good help it's just so hard to find!
Virginia Giuffre's family reacts to Trump's recent comments:
"It was shocking to hear Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been 'stolen' from Mar-a-Lago. It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal actions, especially given his statement two years later that his good friend Jeffrey 'likes women on the younger side… no doubt about it.' We and the public are asking for answers."
As the old question goes - What did Trump know and When did he know about Epstein's abuse of young girls like Virginia.?
So many people stood by him, insisting he was of sound mind—few deceptions have been as thorough as this one. Sorry, it's tough to gauge exactly how many believed the points you raised. But what I can say, without question, is that Biden’s cognitive state was openly defended by Democratic members of Congress, left-leaning media, countless users on social media, and right here on HPs.
Do you mean the way that people believe Trump still has all his faculties?
I believe Trump is cognitively sound. So far, no one close to him has come forward with a book or account suggesting otherwise, unlike in Biden’s case. In my view, it’s hard to take criticism of Trump’s mental sharpness seriously from anyone who has spent years defending Biden’s cognitive state. If you've stood by Biden, you really don’t have much ground to question someone else’s.
Trump is doing a great job, in my estimation. I feel he will leave this Country in much better shape than he found it.
Wrong again. I have provided you the titles of at least four books published about Trump's mental illness.
"I believe Trump is cognitively sound."
That's the most frightening part. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Yes, he is cognitively sound in the same way Ted Bundy or Vladimir Putin is. Both were or are dangerously mentally ill.
Or put another way - murderous psychopaths are normally very cognitively sound, but they are nevertheless dangerously mentally ill.
And is not mentally ill even though so many mental health professionals say he is? I think the count is up to 60 or 70 mental health experts that have PUBLICALLY said their ANALYSIS shows Trump is dangerously mentally ill with some of them calling on him to step down.
Do you have similar authority to back up your claim about Biden?
The difference between the two memes is Willowarbor's is true, yours is false.
So, was this lying or mental decline? And there is plenty of video...
Trump said he was ‘surprised’ that Powell had been nominated to be chair of the Federal Reserve. ‘I was surprised he was appointed,’ Trump said. ‘I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him.’
HE DIDN'T REMEMBER HE APPOINTED POWELL
As an aside, the way he sucks air is disturbing
Check out this video from this search, Trump says that Biden hired Jerome Powell https://share.google/aWUXTFZ9REhIcqNIo
Again, a couple of clips, with no information to give a reference to why Trump said what he said on both. Full conversations are not provided; only a carefully cut conversation is provided. Please provide a full press conference on the current blurb you are trying to sell.
We now have Trump nominating him in his first term. Yes, during his first term, President Trump expressed significant dissatisfaction with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, even considering removing him from his position. Trump's frustration stemmed from Powell's decisions to raise interest rates, which Trump believed were hindering economic growth. In July 2018, Trump publicly stated he was "not thrilled" with Powell's rate hikes and continued to criticize the Fed's actions throughout the year. By October 2018, Trump referred to the Federal Reserve as "crazy" and "loco," and suggested it had "gone wild" with its interest rate increases. These remarks led to concerns about potential attempts to dismiss Powell. In November 2018, Trump reportedly asked advisors if he could legally fire Powell, and the White House Counsel's Office examined the request. Despite these tensions, Trump publicly denied plans to remove Powell and acknowledged Powell's independence. However, internal reports indicated that Trump privately considered Powell's removal and even compared his legacy to that of Herbert Hoover due to Powell's decisions. In January 2019, Powell stated he would not resign if asked to do so by Trump, reaffirming his commitment to the Fed's independence. While Trump did not formally attempt to fire Powell during his first term, his expressed desire and internal discussions highlighted the ongoing conflict between the executive branch and the Federal Reserve.
The latest statement was clear to me, because I followed Trump's great displeasure with Powell in his first term. He clearly throughout that term showed great dispeasure for him.
In this current statement, Trump is expressing surprise that President Biden reappointed Powell to the position. In my view, He seems to suggest that he did not expect Biden to make that choice or to keep him in the role for longer than initially expected.
The full content of that clip gives clear context. The clip you offered has little to no content and does not include the full conversation. It is skewed.
Lol...what context is needed?!?
The fact is... Trump appointed Powell. Not Biden.
"I was surprised he was appointed,’ Trump said. ‘I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him.’
What context makes that statement true? Why is Trump surprised Powell was appointed? Why does he state Biden "put him in?"
Anyone??
Yes, he did appoint him; he was very greatly disaffected with him, and even threatened to fire him, and he was verbally insulting to the man. And as your clip shows, he was shocked Biden reappointed him. Trump's context was clear: Biden did appoint him. I guess he could have used the word reaapoint. But the meaning is the same. Biden had the choice to appoint, and he did. Why was he surprised that Biden appointed him? Trump made it clear throughout his first term that he felt Powell was a failure at the job. He seemed shocked Biden would even consider keeping him. Watch the full presser. He never said Biden put him in. He meant to keep him. You are changing context to suit a narrative. Pull up the presser where he made that recent comment. The full context is obvious.
"I was surprised he was appointed,’ ‘I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him." NOTE the word "extended"
Whatever, it's clear you see something different --- enjoy
Again, why would Trump be surprised that he was appointed? Was he trying to fool some into believing that he didn't actually appoint Powell?
"I was surprised he was appointed,’ ‘I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him." NOTE the word "extended"
Note the statement..
I WAS SURPRISED HE WAS APPOINTED
Why would he be surprised?
And I thought "Ruminating on the past wasnt healthy", right?
Again, when it suits. LOL
Come on, please give us break. How many different ways are there to interpret
‘I was surprised he was appointed,’ Trump said. ‘I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him.’
There is ONLY ONE reasonable way to understand his claim no matter how much you try to spin it or excuse it.
And of course Trump was "displeased". Powell had the fortitude not to be brow beaten and bullied by Trump unlike the Republicans in Congress.
Trump said it back in 2016. "I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and my followers wouldn't leave me."
Well, he has. He's shot the Constitution. He's shot the dignity of the presidency. And he is shooting America in the foot.
Someone said it best. "I'm not against Trump because I'm a democrat not a republican, or because I'm WOKE not MAGA, or because I'm liberal not conservative - but because I'm a decent human being and he is not."
Why so many otherwise decent people still support him is beyond understanding. They really will excuse anything.
Why on earth was Maxwell transferred to a minimum security camp in Texas?? The length of her sentence and her status as a sex offender would disqualify her for such a placement.... Apparently someone waived requirements. Is this what Trump's personal attorney was setting up during his 2-day rendezvous with Maxwell?
I was listening to a lady who is somehow involved with getting prisoner's transferred in the federal system and she said this stinks to high heaven and looks very much like a cover up of some sort.
* One point she made was that nobody who as committed the kinds of crimes Maxwell has is ever sent to that type of facility - NEVER, EVER
* She also questioned BOP transferred her in a van instead of the U.S. Marshalls who almost always does that. What are they not wanting the Marshalls to see.
There does seem to evidence that Trump and his DOJ are giving special favors to a convicted pedophile
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ghi … p-in-texas
It's easier to kill her. (or let an accident happen....)
Hadn't thought of that. I did read the women there are resentful Maxwell was put in their midst.
it's a bit of a cynical thought. I guess, it's more a way to give Maxwell some better food and more freedom to do things.. Part of sugaring her up. (or what's the expression again). So she will apply more to the wishes of Trump.
She probably asked for it herself now she is back on the negotiation table.
GOP lawmakers caution Trump, Bondi on Maxwell pardon
Republican lawmakers are cautioning President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi to be very careful about granting a pardon to Ghislaine Maxwell, the Jeffrey Epstein confidante, or commuting her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.
Republican senators are waving the caution flag after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell in Florida recently to gather more information on what she knows about Epstein’s illicit activities.
GOP lawmakers say Trump and Bondi need to proceed carefully on any decision to pardon Maxwell or lighten her sentence for sexually exploiting teenage girls.
They worry it could be seen as rewarding her for making statements to distance the president from Epstein’s activities, or further fuel conspiracy theories about a government cover-up to protect powerful people who were in Epstein’s orbit.
“It’s ridiculous that he would consider shortening a sentence for somebody who aided and abetted sexual trafficking as she did,” said a Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment on the sensitive topic.
“She’s trafficking underage children. I can’t imagine anything she could say could nullify her heinous crimes,” the senator added.
The senator said Maxwell has incentive to “lie” to reduce her sentence.
Maxwell’s attorneys David Markus told ABC News that Maxwell did not ask Blanche for a pardon but confirmed she is seeking “relief” from her prison sentence.
Prison officials confirmed Friday that they moved Maxwell from a federal prison in Florida to a lower security federal prison camp in Texas, where inmates are allowed to move around relatively freely.
It seems they gave this pedophile the next best thing. But, the writing is on the wall I fear.
I imagine Trump thinks Maxwell got an unfair sentence. Look at what he got for sexual abuse - a fine.
They knew who he was. They know what he is. No excuses.
Yuck!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GeQvbBAimI4
Hopefully, the new victims that are coming out have a profound effect of bringing light on what is happening in the Trump-Bondi cover up of the Epstein files. Maybe more victims will speak up.
I know they want to protect their identities, and rightly so, but wouldn't it be powerful if a few hundred of them got together and protested in front of DOIJ.
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-2673858404/
Republicans subpoenaed - well everybody for the Epstein files. Finally, they are doing something good.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/05/politics … d-congress
Given that Trump seems willing to release the interview, it makes me think that Trump isn't mentioned by Maxwell, at least in a bad light. That, of course, assumes they don't edit Trump's name out, which nobody wouldn't put it past them to do.
Further, to believe Trump says he didn't know (or approve) of Maxwell being transferred is beyond ludicrous.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/06/politics … s-analysis
Ghislaine Maxwell’s move to ‘country club’ prison smacks of special treatment, experts say
Federal guidelines would ordinarily bar an inmate serving 20 years for sex trafficking from a minimum-security prison camp.
With its red-roofed dormitories, grassy courtyards and wrought-iron fences, the Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas looks almost like a college campus, befitting its reputation as one of the nation’s most lenient lockups for nonviolent women offenders.
That it’s now Ghislaine Maxwell’s new home for serving her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking flouts federal guidelines on who should be held in such minimum-security facilities, according to corrections experts, who said Maxwell appeared to have received preferential treatment for answering the Justice Department’s questions about her deceased partner in crime, Jeffrey Epstein.
“Someone gave special preference to Maxwell that, to my knowledge, no other inmate currently in the Federal Bureau of Prisons has received,” said Robert Hood, a former warden of the Florence supermax prison in Colorado, home to some of the world’s most notorious criminals and on the opposite end of the security spectrum from Bryan.
“It’s a country club,” Hood said 0f the camp about 100 miles northwest of Houston. “Inmates, if they have a sex offense, are not going to a place like that, period. It’s truly unheard of.”
Long-standing policy from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) restricts inmates with certain elevated security classifications, known as “public safety factors,” from serving in federal prison camps. Sex offenses are among the most severe. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein groom, traffic and abuse dozens of underage girls.
Inmates serving sentences of 10 years or more generally aren’t eligible for transfer to minimum-security facilities. This, too, would have applied to Maxwell, who is not due for release until 2037. Exceptions can be made through what’s known as a “management variable.” In Maxwell’s case, prison staff would have had to request this waiver to move her, and senior prison officials would have had to sign off on it, according to BOP policy.
While it’s not uncommon for prison officials to allow inmates who cooperate with investigations to move to lower-security facilities, it’s rare for sex offenders to receive such benefits, and they almost never get moved into prison camps like Bryan, experts said.
“It’s enormously preferential treatment,” said Judi Garrett, a former BOP assistant director. “Getting a public safety factor for a sex offender waived is monumental.”
But Maxwell could have been in a position to leverage special treatment. She has become a focal point of efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to calm a growing furor over its about-face decision last month to release no further information from the FBI’s Epstein files.
Maxwell’s transfer from a low-security prison in Tallahassee came to light just a week after she sat for two days of interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Neither Markus nor the Justice Department has commented on the reason for her transfer. A spokesperson for the prisons bureau didn’t respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
And while some have speculated that Maxwell’s move could be the precursor to clemency, Trump has been non-committal on the subject, though telling reporters he is “allowed to give her a pardon.”
But one aspect of Maxwell’s housing is clear: Conditions at the Bryan prison camp are among the best in the corrections system and a significant improvement over even the low-security prison where the 63-year-old had been held.
“A low-security prison has a substantially higher ratio of staff to inmates than a camp. You’re on a different planet,” said Larry Levine, founder of Pink Lady Prison Consultants, which helps women prisoners navigate the system. “You’re looking at double razor wire around the fence, trucks driving around it, cops with rifles. They’re locking the doors of the housing units at night.”
At the Bryan camp, located in a residential neighborhood, doors to dorms with bunk beds and suite housing remain unlocked, and the 635 khaki-clad inmates are generally free to roam the compound. A single layer of razor-wire fencing stretches around the back part of the perimeter, while the front entrance is lined with low, wrought-iron fencing.
“The token fence there is to keep the public and press out, really,” Hood said. “It’s not really keeping the inmates in.”
Most inmates are serving time after being convicted of financial crimes or low-level drug offenses, and have less than 10 years left in their sentence.
Among the highest-profile inmates is Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing company Theranos, who was convicted of defrauding investors. Another is Jennifer Shah, a “Real Housewives of Salt Lake City” cast member serving time for wire fraud. Bryan also briefly housed Michelle Janavs, heiress to the Hot Pockets food empire who was sentenced for paying a fixer to help get her children into the University of Southern California.
The camp offers recreational options, including an athletic field, library, and arts and crafts programs. Inmates can participate in vocational training or take on work assignments including landscaping, food service and cleaning. The camp also partners with Canine Companions for Independence, a program that allows inmates to raise and train service dogs.
During the day, staff consists of a chaplain, department heads, facility workers, teachers and correctional officers — a few dozen people in total, experts said. When the camp shuts down at night, they said, fewer than a half-dozen correctional officers may remain on-site.
Many inmates go to camps to prepare to leave the prison system, so conditions are less volatile and violence extremely rare.
“People are on their best behavior. They don’t want to get transferred out,” said Sharon Dolovich, a prison system expert at the UCLA School of Law. “The people inside are more relaxed. The staff are more relaxed. They’re mostly just grateful.”
LINK
Yes, in agreement, speculatively a condition met in order to have the interview with her. I would ask for something similar. Isn't there something that sex crimes are considered to be violent crimes?
Off topic, I am wondering if that is where Martha Stewart served her time? I'll check later.
*I edited my post to add most of the article cause of the paywall.
I dont think is the same. I believe Martha was at West Virginia. But I could be wrong.
There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security “camp”. We don’t send sex offenders to low security. Quid pro quo. Trump is the most corrupt POTUS EVER.
"There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security “camp”. We don’t send sex offenders to low security. Quid pro quo. Trump is the most corrupt POTUS EVER." Willow
Please post what evidence you have run across to offer some facts to your statement, "There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security “camp".willow
Have I missed something?
Why haven't we heard a statement from Trump's attorney on his meeting with Maxwell?
What would be the reasoning to move this woman to a camp? A convicted sex offender, according to rules of the bureau of prisons does not qualify for such an arrangement.... Why has this bunch deemed it appropriate? Why have the rules been broken for a heinous woman who Trump once "wished well"
A lot of smoke there.... By Republican standards, enough smoke for an investigation, right?
You did not in any respect offer a source to where you got this information --"There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security “camp”. willow
I have no idea why she was moved, and neither do you. Honestly, the mindset you're projecting feels deeply corrosive from my perspective. There's plenty of smoke, sure, but until there's actual fire, I have nothing but water to put out the endless 'what ifs.'
What information are you refuting? That she was sent to camp cupcake or that sending a convicted sex offender to the lowest security environment is against the bureau's rules? Both are well documented.... Nothing corrosive about the truth
When you stated- “There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security ‘camp’,” I felt you were fully presenting your claim as factual, not just suggesting a possibility or sharing an opinion. The phrase “there is a direct correlation” carries a tone of certainty, as though you are referring to something proven or backed by evidence. You did not frame it as speculation or say it appears that way; you state it flatly, which implies you believe the connection is real and supported by facts.
I’ll backtrack and give you the benefit of the doubt, that you were sharing an opinion and connecting innuendo to support your thoughts on the issue.
There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security ‘camp’,”
My statement stands. By the very definition of correlation.. it certainly is a correlation.
How many felons with 20 year sentences are reassigned to a low security prisons? Yes, we don’t know the specifics, but it stinks on its face. I and other lefty folks will beat Trump to a pulp if it is discovered that improper intent is behind it.
I could agree with the premise if Willow had framed her comment as her personal perspective. I’d also like to point out that in another comment you posted this morning, you specifically stated that you take people’s words as they are said, seriously. You referred to Bessent’s comment as well, where she clearly referred to prioritizing Social Security. Should this not ally with Willows' comment?
"While Treasury Secretary Bessent’s “backdoor” comment was poorly worded and understandably raised alarms, he and the administration clarified multiple times that these accounts are meant to supplement, not replace, Social Security.
————
I have to hold people responsible for what they say. Of course, people are alarmed, he should have made the clarification between selling out to Wall Street verses a proposed hybrid plan, right then and there." Cred
Willow clearly stated ""There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security “camp”."
I simply asked her for a source for her very clear claim.
There is direct correlation with Maxwell saying nothing bad about Trump and Maxwell being moved to a very low security “camp”. We don’t send sex offenders to low security. Quid pro quo. Trump is the most corrupt POTUS EVER.
———————
I understand, Willow and I need the administration to be candid about how a convicted felon of a heinous crime is getting a break at all. While we don’t know the reasoning, the act is suspicious in itself and is open to a negative interpretation and criticism. I could be included as part of that belief.
That is different from statements made by cabinet level officers in the Trump administration from a position of authority. A statement of such a magnitude regarding as sensitive an Issue as Social Security, if muddled and ambiguous regarding the future viability of the program from an expert supposedly in the know, it will be interpreted by the public in a negative light. In the face of that, any idea of a misstatement is a poor excuse or justification.
"Trump calls on Intel CEO to resign"
Exactly what an UnAmerican authoritarian would, sorry IS DOING. You must agree now.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/07/business … sign-trump
Remember when folks on this forum told us about capitalism. How they are capitalists and that capitalism was so important to them LOL...
MAGA said Democrats would bring communism… but Trump brought something far closer: authoritarian economic nationalism.
Trump is in the process of ending free market capitalism in America.
He now acts as a centralized authority figure, dictating to private businesses and entire industries what they can produce, where they can operate, and how much they can charge. He’s also personally enriching himself through crypto payments and backroom deals with these same companies, offering exemptions from his policies in exchange for loyalty. That’s not capitalism. That’s authoritarianism.
And his tariffs? Totally unconstitutional. The power to regulate trade belongs to Congress, not the president. By taking that power for himself, Trump has created artificial market volatility...volatility he profits from and uses it to control businesses like political weapons.
This is what authoritarian economic nationalism looks like: central control, political favoritism, personal profit, and a rigged system that punishes dissent and rewards loyalty. It’s not American. It’s Soviet Communism with better branding...
Why does no Republican ever acknowledge that Trump hates capitalism?
Well, they have definitely had a change of heart - there is nothing capitalist about Trump - he appears to be leading us to a planned economy - they just don't notice it.
"I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"
DJT
EW.
The photo alone is not nec bad.
But knowing he says things like "she' got the best body", "she does have a very nice figure. I've said that if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her.", "what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married, and ya know, her father...", "She’s actually always been very voluptuous." Or that what they have in common is sex.
Also,
“My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka,” says Trump.
“By the way, your daughter,” says Stern.
“She’s beautiful,” responds Trump.
“Can I say this? A piece of ass,” Stern responds.
“Yeah,” says Trump
Yuck! Sick POS!
I would have punched Stern, the creep. It is telling that Trump agreed.
Who is responsible for Maxwell being transferred to camp cupcake?
Someone made the decision.
This person should be testifying before Congress, under oath....where's Comer?!
Epstein victims speak out: This ‘smacks of a cover up’
NEW YORK — Victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are alarmed over the Justice Department’s effort to unseal grand jury testimony in their cases and its cooperation with Maxwell, a convicted sex offender.
Several victims, in letters from their lawyers, have balked at the department’s approach, saying it “smacks of a cover up,” calling aspects of it “cowardly,” and arguing that it demonstrates the Trump administration considers the victims “at best, an afterthought."
And they warn that the Trump administration, with its treatment of Maxwell, is on the precipice of undoing the only measure of justice the victims received from a sex trafficking ring that, by the government’s own account, harmed more than 1,000 girls and young women.
In letters to the federal judges fielding the government’s request to unseal the materials, victims have largely — though not entirely — agreed with the Justice Department’s move to reveal the testimony, despite the fact that the department itself has acknowledged that much of the information is already public.
But they have derided the administration’s suggestion that it will seek to redact not only victim information but also “other personal identifying information” of third parties from the transcripts.
And they expressed fear and disgust over the administration’s recent treatment of Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking. After a pair of interviews with a top DOJ official, Maxwell was transferred to a less restrictive facility, an unusual upgrade in her prison accommodations. She has also advocated for a pardon from President Donald Trump, who has reiterated he has the power to grant her clemency.
Maxwell has said she opposes the unsealing of the material since she is in the midst of attempting to overturn her conviction. Epstein, her longtime associate and onetime boyfriend, died by suicide in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
DOJ declined to comment.
Bradley Edwards, Brittany Henderson and Paul Cassell represent numerous victims, including some whose names, they said, appear in the grand jury materials and one who testified at Maxwell’s trial. In a letter to the court, they said their clients could support unsealing only if extreme care is taken to protect victims.
“The survivors support transparency when it can be achieved without sacrificing their safety, privacy, or dignity,” they wrote. “But transparency cannot come at the expense of the very people whom the justice system is sworn to protect — particularly amid contemporaneous events that magnify risk and trauma: the public platforming of Ms. Maxwell as a purportedly credible commentator despite her sex-trafficking conviction and perjury charges, her transfer to lower-security custody, a government request to unseal filed without conferral, and the looming specter of clemency.”
The lawyers especially took aim at what they said was the Justice Department’s failure to consult the victims or their attorneys before seeking the unsealing of the records, a step they said is not only required by law but one DOJ has previously failed to take in the Epstein saga.
In 2019, a federal judge found that federal prosecutors in Florida had broken the law by signing a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein without notifying victims. The 2007 agreement was struck by prosecutors led by Alex Acosta, who at the time of the judge’s ruling was Trump’s secretary of Labor during his first term.
“It is especially troubling that, despite the outcome of that litigation, the government has once again proceeded in a manner that disregards the victims’ rights, suggesting that the hard-learned lessons of the past have not taken hold,” Edwards, Henderson and Cassell wrote.
They also urged the judge not to consider the unsealing request in a vacuum. “Survivors are acutely concerned that unsealing, coupled with the transfer and Ms. Maxwell’s public platform, may be a prelude to clemency,” they wrote. “For some, the Maxwell conviction is the only meaningful measure of criminal accountability; its erosion would be devastating.”
A lawyer for Annie Farmer, a victim of Epstein and Maxwell who testified at Maxwell’s trial, also expressed revulsion that Maxwell “is now, to the victims’ horror, herself attempting to escape justice.”
She said the unsealing request, while it “will help expose the magnitude and abhorrence of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes,” doesn’t go far enough, and suggested the government should disclose the “more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence” it possesses.
Farmer’s lawyer Sigrid McCawley also took issue with the government’s pledge to withhold identifying information about third parties, writing that “any effort to redact third party names smacks of a cover up.” And she faulted the administration’s statement that it had found no evidence to merit opening an investigation into any third parties. “The Government’s recent suggestion that no further criminal investigations are forthcoming is a cowardly abdication of its duties to protect and serve,” she wrote.
Yet another lawyer who said he represents multiple Epstein and Maxwell victims, John Scarola, told the judges that the court should release “all Epstein-related information and documents in the possession and control of law enforcement, prosecutorial and other government agents and entities,” with victim information redacted. He also said the court should order the disclosure of the complete transcripts of all interviews with Maxwell.
And an anonymous victim whom federal prosecutors said was represented by Edwards pleaded with the court for “more transparency.”
“I think the victims’ lawyers should have access to all these findings,” this person wrote. “We have a right to take legal action against these institutions and/or individuals involved in Epstein’s and co-conspirators crimes.”
Do you think Trump will sign an EO directing the DOIJ to start investigating the lawyers of the victims or the victims themselves for "not being nice to him"?
Gosh Pam sure has had a change of heart hasn't she??
Bondi talked about Jeffrey Epstein last year, saying anyone on the documents who's trying to keep their name private has ‘no legal basis to do so.’
She goes on to say..
"There’s no legal basis for people to redact their name unless they’re “a child, a victim, or a cooperating defendant.”
Bondi’s FBI in 2025: Redacts Trump’s name from the Epstein Files.
But what is Pam saying this week?
She is requesting to shield personal identifying information could protect others from being tied to the case....
A complete 180....
One of the victims responding...
""Any effort to redact third party names smacks of a cover up," victim Annie Farmer said through her lawyer in an Aug. 5 letter to the court. Farmer testified for the prosecution in Maxwell's 2021 criminal trial."
Here is Pam last year with her radically different stance.... But this is when she was campaigning for trump and pandering to the base..
https://x.com/DefiantLs/status/1865067426867745072
A reminder, Pam already has thousands of pages of documents on her desk she could release right now...
Federal judge denies Justice Dept. request to unseal grand jury materials in Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case.
From the Judge....
Judge Engelmeyer is particularly brutal here: "The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal."
Engelmeyer says he reviewed the grand jury material and confirmed there is virtually nothing in it that isn’t public already. It would “not reveal new information of any consequence.”
Again, Pam has the goods....
For those who subscribe, here is a timeline of Trump's EXTENSIVE association with Epstein and Maxwell.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/12/politics … e-invs-vis
Three interesting excerpts are:
January 1993
Trump has a “calendar girl” party at Mar-a-Lago with just two other male guests, Florida businessman George Houraney and Epstein, according to Houraney and his girlfriend at the time, Jill Harth. Later, Harth said in a 1997 lawsuit that during a business dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Trump took her to a private area, forcibly kissed her, fondled her, and restrained her from leaving a bedroom. Trump settled the lawsuit and has denied the allegations."
1993 - "Epstein and Williams visit Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan, according to Williams. Williams told CNN this year that, as they stood outside his office, Trump groped her. “His hands were all over me. They were on my breasts. They were on my butt. They were on my hips, up and down while the two of them just kept having a normal conversation.” Trump’s campaign denied in 2024 that this happened and told the New York Times the allegations are “unequivocally false” and politically motivated. Williams described Epstein and Trump as “very close,” and said Trump “was his bro... his wingman. It was clear.”
1995 - "Maria Farmer, an artist who worked for Epstein, told CNN that Trump once “stood over me in a very imposing way” outside Epstein’s office. She said Epstein then told Trump, “She’s not here for you,” and Trump joked, “Oh, I thought she was 16.” A White House spokesman denied Farmer’s account to the New York Times, saying “the president was never in his [Epstein’s] office. Farmer, who later accused Maxwell and Epstein of sexually assaulting her, also described Trump and Epstein as “best friends.”
Three women among dozens accuse Trump of bad conduct. He denies them all yet in 2024, Trump is found by a jury of his peers to have committed sexual battery on E. Jean Carroll.
Just so those of you who look up to Trump as a "good guy" can remember, besides his Hollywood Tape comment here is a list of women who think he is scum:
Civil verdicts (legally established liability)
E. Jean Carroll — Jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse (2023) and for defamation (additional $83.3M in 2024).
AP News
Courthouse News
Wikipedia
Wall Street Journal
Women with published accusations (alphabetical by last name)
Kristin Anderson — Says Trump groped her at a NYC nightclub in the early 1990s.
The Washington Post
Amy Dorris — Former model alleges Trump assaulted her at the 1997 U.S. Open.
The Guardian
CBS News
Tasha Dixon — Former Miss Arizona USA says Trump entered dressing rooms while contestants were changing.
The Guardian
Jessica Drake — Adult film actor alleges unwanted kissing and propositions in 2006.
The Guardian
Rachel Crooks — Says Trump forcibly kissed her at Trump Tower (2005).
The Washington Post
Lisa Boyne — Says Trump made women walk on a table so he could look up their skirts (mid-1990s).
The Washington Post
Cassandra Searles — Former Miss Washington USA alleges groping/harassment.
The Washington Post
Cathy Heller — Says Trump forcibly kissed her at Mar-a-Lago (1997).
The Washington Post
Jill Harth — Filed a 1997 lawsuit alleging attempted rape/assault in the 1990s (later settled).
PBS
Temple Taggart McDowell — Former Miss Utah USA says Trump kissed her without consent (1997).
The Washington Post
Mindy McGillivray — Says Trump groped her at Mar-a-Lago (2003).
The Washington Post
Karena Virginia — Says Trump groped her at a 1998 event.
The Washington Post
Ninni Laaksonen — Former Miss Finland says Trump groped her (2006).
The Guardian
Jessica Leeds — Says Trump groped her on an airplane in the early 1980s.
The Washington Post (This is who Trump may have been thinking of with his infamous "grab them by the p*ssy" comment)
Natasha Stoynoff — People magazine writer says Trump forced a kiss at Mar-a-Lago (2005).
The Washington Post
Summer Zervos — Former “Apprentice” contestant alleged assault; later withdrew her defamation suit (no settlement reported).
PBS
Samantha Holvey — Miss USA contestant says Trump inspected contestants in a state of undress (2006).
The Guardian
Alva Johnson — 2016 campaign staffer alleged an unwanted kiss; lawsuit dismissed without prejudice.
The Washington Post
https://www.wkyt.com
Ivana Trump — In 1990 divorce filings described a violent incident she later said shouldn’t be taken as “a literal or criminal sense.” (Included in several news roundups for historical context.)
by Readmikenow 4 weeks ago
Note: This is from a left-wing publication.FBI Document Reveals Biden Family’s International Bribery SchemeIn a stunning turn of events, an unclassified FBI document has been released, implicating President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in an alleged international bribery scheme. The document,...
by Readmikenow 4 weeks ago
During the last few months the violence of the left has been put on full display. A health care executive is executed outside his hotel, Tela's are firebombed, IVF clinics are torched, Governor Shapiro's house in Pennsylvania is set on fire.The common thread in all of these incidents is they...
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
Trump’s appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, in her classified documents trial wants the trial to be over by September. However, she wants all the lawyers on the case to have been granted top secret clearances. In terms of time, those two demands are in conflict with each other. I know having been...
by Sharlee 6 months ago
Just read this article on AOL--- seems like the Democrats are attempting to weaponize the DOJ."Garland has said he wouldn’t make the second volume of Smith’s report, focused on the classified documents case, public while the charges against Nauta and De Oliveira are still being...
by Willowarbor 5 months ago
When DOJ lawyers take their oath, it's not just fancy words; it's a promise to uphold the Constitution above all else. Their duty is to justice and the rule of law, not to any political agenda. It took Bondi and Bove five whole days to do something so corrupt. Inform yourself about the...
by Sharlee 3 years ago
A New York judge held former president Donald Trump in contempt on Monday over his lack of response to a subpoena from the state's attorney general and ordered him to pay $10,000 a day in fines until he complies.Attorney General Letitia James sought the contempt order earlier this month, saying...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |