Started By
Message

Edit: Was Maxwell 7/24 questioning recorded?

Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:22 pm
Posted by DeathByTossDive225
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2019
6108 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:22 pm
Updated:

No reporting confirms or refutes whether a stenographer was present. Hopefully they had a court reporter present for this. I would be very disappointed if this was not the case.
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 12:07 am
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
41696 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:23 pm to
You are dumb.

That is all.

Carry on.
Posted by Rip N Lip
Zambodia
Member since Jul 2019
6887 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:24 pm to
Prior to the last two days? Who was running DOJ?

Or are you stating they still have not been recorded?

ETA: Toss 28 Sweep much sweeter play. RTR
This post was edited on 7/25/25 at 11:29 pm
Posted by Rebel
Graceland
Member since Jan 2005
141013 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:26 pm to
What did her attorney say about 100 people?
Posted by DeathByTossDive225
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2019
6108 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:35 pm to
quote:

Or are you stating they still have not been recorded?

We don’t know. It’s being reported by her attorney that she made disclosures involving more than 100 people, and usually you would record that sort of thing in a situation this high-profile even if portions of the tape aren’t presented or are redacted.
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 1:35 am
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
34989 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:36 pm to
There is no standard practice when it comes to nonstandard situations.
Posted by DeathByTossDive225
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2019
6108 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:38 pm to
quote:

There is no standard practice when it comes to nonstandard situations.

We even had audio tapes for Epstein though. I’m not saying I’d expect something to be available a day later, but I’d expect it to be recorded.
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
34989 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:41 pm to
I don’t think it’s an unreasonable expectation on that point. But who really knows the actual happenings and what they did or didn’t truly do. Lots of misinformation and disinformation these days, not to mention misinterpretation.
Posted by Rebel
Graceland
Member since Jan 2005
141013 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:42 pm to
quote:

It’s being reported that she made disclosures involving more than 100 people, but usually you record that sort of thing even if portions of the tape aren’t presented or are redact



She was asked questions of around 100 people by Todd Blance.

She didn’t “name names” during this interview.
Posted by DeathByTossDive225
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2019
6108 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:48 pm to
quote:

She was asked questions of around 100 people by Todd Blance.

She didn’t “name names” during this interview.

Ok, why not record this?

Again, it doesn’t have to all necessarily be presented.
Portions could be classified to protect victims or questions of probative nature where she gives “I don’t know” answers etc.

But normally, you would record the full questioning uninterrupted regardless.
This post was edited on 7/25/25 at 11:48 pm
Posted by Westbank111
Armpit of America
Member since Sep 2013
4370 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:48 pm to
There should have been a court reporter & video recording.

But this entire deal stink and much on the line.

Does OP know for a fact that it was not officially on record like a.normal protocol.

On a side note & since so much CLINTON talk, here’s a documentary on how slimy those 2 are from a financial position.

“CLINTON CASH” - they are rotten!!!!

LINK
Posted by HEtiger
Member since May 2008
1527 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:50 pm to
Wait..,Who disclosed that the two-day interview was not recorded?
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11381 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:52 pm to
I don't see info on it either way. I think proffers aren't usually recorded, but they can be and this case is so atypical in so many ways, it would be hard to interpret either way.
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
34989 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:55 pm to
Y’all are using some terminology and language that presumes the pending existence of an already opened and ongoing case(s) in court. Which is not the case.
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11381 posts
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:56 pm to
She has a case under appeal.
Posted by DeathByTossDive225
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2019
6108 posts
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:01 am to
quote:

I don't see info on it either way. I think proffers aren't usually recorded, but they can be and this case is so atypical in so many ways, it would be hard to interpret either way.

Y’all are both correct. It’s unconfirmed one way or another at this point.
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
34989 posts
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:02 am to
Yeah but if the discussions are about other potential new cases, it’s more of an open investigation type situation. At least that’s what it sounds like to me. Which if so, the typical flow would be, as of now: more investigation, determination of whether investigation yields the necessary probable cause to present to grand jury (as determined by US Attorney), grand jury indictment (or not, but probably), arraignment, trial, prison (or not).
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 12:04 am
Posted by DeathByTossDive225
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2019
6108 posts
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:05 am to
quote:

Yeah but if the discussions are about other potential new cases, it’s more of an open investigation type situation. At least that’s what it sounds like to me. Which if so, the typical flow would be, as of now, more investigation, determination of whether investigation yields the necessary probable cause as determined by USA (US Attorney), grand jury, indictment, arraignment, trial, prison (or not).

Her attorney was present, the AG of the US was present, Blanche was present, and it’s regarding Epstein. She’s two weeks out from a deposition.

There would be no defensible reason not to record this, so I’m just going to assume they did & it just hasn’t been picked up yet that a tape now exists.
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 12:37 am
Posted by TigerDoc
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
11381 posts
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:05 am to
I'll buy that. but at bottom it's really a political cya, of course, so who the f knows?
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
34989 posts
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:11 am to
Recording interviews that are part of an investigation is certainly a common practice. But on the point of whether this particular thing is “on the record” in a pending case bearing a federal docket number, it’s all but a guarantee that’s not the situation. You can’t add in new defendants under her own federal case. New defendants equal new cases, maybe. The actual court case itself isn’t opened until a grand jury is actually impaneled for a particular defendant (or group of defendants if RICO, which of course this isnt).
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram