• floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Without providing an explanation, the court declined to hear the former British socialite’s appeal, which means her 20-year sentence will remain in place barring a presidential pardon.

    Ah, we can see where this is going.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        She needs that pardon while she still has leverage over a sitting president. He’s not doing so well, and the midterms are a ways out.

      • Cryan24@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’d bet before… the orange one is too selfish and short sighted, he’ll pardon her before thinking he is saving himself but not think about the repercussions of his party losing seats which will later screw him.

    • Komodo Rodeo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      2 days ago

      “former British socialite” Jesus Christ, they’re still entirely too hesitant to apply the available, more suitable language to her. “Former decades-long significant other, confidante, collaborator and best friend to financier sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Convicted child abuser Ghislaine Maxwell…” would be more apt, no? She isn’t there for fucking tax/wire fraud, take the gloves off FFS.

    • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      I almost hope he tries pardoning her just so his fans can see his naked corruption.

      But she’s also guilty of unfathomable levels of harm, so no, I don’t want any good to come to get.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      There really doesn’t need to be an explanation for this case. It’s one asshole who wants her case thrown out, not any kind of constitutional question.