BREAKING: First names released as part of new Jeffrey Epstein document dump

By Hannah Nightingale – The Postmillennial

BREAKING: First names released as part of new Jeffrey Epstein document dump

Names that were previously kept anonymous on court documents related to associates of infamous financier Jeffrey Epstein began to be released on a rolling basis on Wednesday.

The Southern District Court of New York released the documents on Wednesday night. These names were all redacted from a 2015 lawsuit by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell. Bill Clinton is among those mentioned as John Doe 36.

The document dump includes testimony that Epstein said Bill Clinton “likes them young, referring to girls.”

The records also reveal Maxwell suggesting that Bill Clinton had a meal on Epstein’s private plane during global travels, while refuting any claims that the ex-president had ever visited Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James.

 

“The allegation that Clinton had a meal on Jeffrey’s island is 100 percent false,” Maxwell said. “I’m sure he had a meal on Jeffrey’s plane.”

Maxwell declined to comment on whether she had a romantic involvement with Doug Band, an advisor to Bill Clinton, questioning her interrogator about the specific meaning of “romantic.”

 

In 2019, Clinton spokesperson Angel Urena released a statement regarding Epstein that stated: “President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York. In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the work of the Clinton Foundation.

“Staff, supporters of the Foundation, and his Secret Service detail traveled on every leg of every trip. He had one meeting with Epstein in his Harlem office in 2002, and around the same time made one brief visit to Epstein’s New York apartment with a staff member and his security detail. He’s not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico, or his residence in Florida.”

Another document advocating for compelling Maxwell to undergo additional testimony discloses that, while under oath, Maxwell claimed to ‘not recall’ being in London with Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew, despite the existence of photographs depicting the three together.

In a deposition from 2016, Johanna Sjoberg, an accuser of Epstein, stated that Prince Andrew placed his hand on her breast while posing for a photo with Epstein, Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend. This incident has been previously reported on, but is also revealed in the document dump.

Some of those names that were mentioned in the 946-page of documents include investor Glenn Dubin and Alan Dershowitz. Donald Trump is also expected to be mentioned.

The names of Jane Doe 107 being kept anonymous for at least 30 days, with concerns that she will be in danger if publicly named. John Doe 110 is also being kept anonymous until January 10.

In an email to Maxwell, Epstein asserted that Stephen Hawking was not involved in an underage orgy on his Caribbean Island in 2006. The renowned physicist, who used a wheelchair and passed away in March 2018 at the age of 76, was one of the attendees at a barbecue held during a conference sponsored by Epstein on the island.

Manhattan federal judge Loretta Preska ordered in December that court documents related to a defamation lawsuit filed against Ghislaine Maxwell in 2015 by one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre be unsealed. The case was settled in 2017.

According to Newsnation, some of the names on the document were ordered to be redacted to protect the anonymity of minors or victims of sex crimes.

Criminal defense attorney Janey Johnson told the outlet that those named in the documents are unlikely to face prosecution if they haven’t already.

“These names were actually kept secret because the judge found that because they did not do anything wrong, there wasn’t any reason at that point to release them and embarrass them,” Johnson said.

Start the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*