[I hope this stuff expands. That disgusting Jew paedophile, Epstein's legacy… I really hope some of this truth comes out. We need TRUTH so badly. Jan]
The identities of Ghislaine Maxwell’s “unnamed co-conspirators” are set to become public, making powerful politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and members of the British royal family extremely nervous.
Ghislaine Maxwell, a personal friend of Bill Clinton and the Clinton family, is currently awaiting trial at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York.
For years, Maxwell operated as Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile pimp, and the DOJ was aware that they were supplying underage females as young as 12 to the wealthy and powerful, yet they did nothing.
Thegatewaypundit.com reports: Last month Assistant US Attorney Alison Moe asked US District Judge Alison Nathan, an Obama appointee, to mask the names.
In a three-page ruling, Judge Nathan ordered the government to “disclose all co-conspirator statements it intends to offer at trial no later than” Oct. 11, Law & Crime reported.
Law & Crime reported:
Federal prosecutors must disclose the “identities of any unnamed co-conspirators” whose names they plan to refer to at trial to Ghislaine Maxwell, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
“The government argues that there is no risk of surprise because ‘it currently intends’ to introduce the alleged co-conspirator statements of only two individuals,” the order states. “At the same time, however, the Government proffers that it ‘may change its view as it prepares for trial.’ […] The Court thus finds the Government’s reassurance hollow and insufficient to ensure that the Defendant may adequately prepare her defenses.”
“Moreover, the Government has not alleged that disclosure here would create ‘potential danger to co-conspirators’ or risk ‘compromising continuing investigations,’” the judge wrote. “It merely argues that disclosing the identities risks ‘harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial.’”
Judge Nathan was skeptical about this claim.
“The Government provides no explanation for this purported harm and none is apparent to the Court,” she wrote. “Thus, the Court finds that this concern alone does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay.”