🧵 THREAD: Ghislaine Maxwell just filed a Supreme Court appeal to toss her conviction and her attorney is now publicly calling on Trump to back her.
Here’s what’s actually in the filing.
Here’s what’s actually in the filing.
1/
This isn’t just legal paperwork, it’s a direct shot at the DOJ and a signal to Trump.
Maxwell’s legal team says she should’ve never been prosecuted at all, and that the U.S. broke a deal it made in 2007 to protect Epstein’s co-conspirators, including her.
This isn’t just legal paperwork, it’s a direct shot at the DOJ and a signal to Trump.
Maxwell’s legal team says she should’ve never been prosecuted at all, and that the U.S. broke a deal it made in 2007 to protect Epstein’s co-conspirators, including her.
2/ Her lawyer David Oscar Markus says the 2007 Epstein plea deal wasn’t just about Epstein.
It was a binding non-prosecution agreement that included “any potential co-conspirators,” a category Maxwell absolutely falls under.
It was a binding non-prosecution agreement that included “any potential co-conspirators,” a category Maxwell absolutely falls under.
3/
The government’s argument?
The deal was only valid in Florida, not New York, where Maxwell was later prosecuted.
Maxwell’s team says:
“That’s not contract interpretation. That’s alchemy.”
Translation: they’re accusing the DOJ of rewriting the deal after the fact.
The government’s argument?
The deal was only valid in Florida, not New York, where Maxwell was later prosecuted.
Maxwell’s team says:
“That’s not contract interpretation. That’s alchemy.”
Translation: they’re accusing the DOJ of rewriting the deal after the fact.
4/
They even quote the DOJ’s own language:
“The United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators…”
That’s in the original agreement.
No “if,” no “only in this district,” no caveats.
They say it covers everyone, everywhere.
They even quote the DOJ’s own language:
“The United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators…”
That’s in the original agreement.
No “if,” no “only in this district,” no caveats.
They say it covers everyone, everywhere.
5/
Her lawyers go further, saying this deal wasn’t vague or sloppy. It was intentional, and DOJ officials at the highest levels signed off.
They argue the feds only turned on her once the Epstein case resurfaced and now they’re trying to act like the deal never existed.
Her lawyers go further, saying this deal wasn’t vague or sloppy. It was intentional, and DOJ officials at the highest levels signed off.
They argue the feds only turned on her once the Epstein case resurfaced and now they’re trying to act like the deal never existed.
6/
They even reference the DOJ’s own Office of Professional Responsibility, which called the 2007 deal “unusual in many respects,” but still binding.
Unusual ≠ illegal.
And Maxwell’s lawyers are using that admission as a shield.
They even reference the DOJ’s own Office of Professional Responsibility, which called the 2007 deal “unusual in many respects,” but still binding.
Unusual ≠ illegal.
And Maxwell’s lawyers are using that admission as a shield.
7/
Here’s the real kicker:
Maxwell’s team doesn’t just ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
They call out Trump by name, asking him to recognize how “unjust” it is to “scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s crimes.”
Here’s the real kicker:
Maxwell’s team doesn’t just ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
They call out Trump by name, asking him to recognize how “unjust” it is to “scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein’s crimes.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
