- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Edit: Was Maxwell 7/24 questioning recorded?
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:22 pm
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.
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:23 pm to DeathByTossDive225
You are dumb.
That is all.
Carry on.
That is all.
Carry on.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:24 pm to DeathByTossDive225
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
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:26 pm to DeathByTossDive225
What did her attorney say about 100 people?
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:35 pm to Rip N Lip
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:36 pm to DeathByTossDive225
There is no standard practice when it comes to nonstandard situations.
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:38 pm to davyjones
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:41 pm to DeathByTossDive225
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:42 pm to DeathByTossDive225
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:48 pm to Rebel
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:48 pm to DeathByTossDive225
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
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:50 pm to DeathByTossDive225
Wait..,Who disclosed that the two-day interview was not recorded?
Posted on 7/25/25 at 11:52 pm to HEtiger
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:55 pm to TigerDoc
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 on 7/25/25 at 11:56 pm to davyjones
She has a case under appeal.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:01 am to TigerDoc
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 on 7/26/25 at 12:02 am to TigerDoc
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 on 7/26/25 at 12:05 am to davyjones
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 on 7/26/25 at 12:05 am to davyjones
I'll buy that. but at bottom it's really a political cya, of course, so who the f knows? 
Posted on 7/26/25 at 12:11 am to DeathByTossDive225
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).
Popular
Back to top

7






