U.S. media has seemingly sided with the DOJ and Judge Alison J. Nathan by not speculating about the unnamed “third party” in the USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell.  Judge Nathan ruled that the “individual’s personal privacy interests outweigh the presumption of access.”

So why do I think the “third party” is Chelsea?  Let’s briefly go through some history of Ghislaine and the Clintons.  

You’ve probably heard of Hillary Clinton’s “emailgate” or whatever you want to call it.  The House Select Committee on Benghazi formed in July, 2014 to investigate events related to an attack of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.  (source) This committee requested that Hillary Clinton provide emails to them from her private email account.  

Mrs. Clinton provided some emails to the Committee, but she withheld 32,000 emails that she deemed to be of a personal nature.  

In a speech at the United Nations Security Council on March 10, 2015, Mrs. Clinton explained her reasons to withhold these emails.  Full text is here. Video is below.

“At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.”

Chelsea Clinton married Marc Mezvinsky on July 31, 2010.  Ghislaine Maxwell attended.  So it’s possible, even likely, that Mrs. Clinton would have emailed Ghislaine regarding Chelsea’s wedding.  And this wedding took place under some circumstances that the Clintons should have been aware of.

Around 2009-2010, Ghislaine was sought for questioning by attorney Bradley Edwards, attorney for several victims of Jeffrey Epstein.  On September 22, 2009 Ghislaine Maxwell was served with a subpoena as she left a Clinton Global Initiatives conference. (source)  On June 29, 2010, about a month before Ghislaine attended Chelsea’s wedding, attorney Bradly Edwards was scheduled to fly to New York to take Ghislaine Maxwell’s deposition.  On this day, June 29, 2010, an attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell informed Bradley Edwards that Ghislaine was leaving the United States for England and that she had no intentions of returning.  (source) Then, of course, Ghislaine returned to the United States for Chelsea’s wedding on July 31, 2010.  (source)

Now let’s look at some information that is likely related to the “family vacation” emails which Mrs. Clinton also kept from the Benghazi Committee.  

According to Politico, Ghislaine Maxwell vacationed on a yacht with Chelsea Clinton sometime in 2009.  No further information on the date or location of the vacation or who owned the yacht was disclosed by Politico.  Mrs. Clinton’s private email server, clintonemail.com, was registered on January 13, 2009 by “a longtime aide to Bill Clinton,” according to the Washington Post.  (The aide appears to be Brian Pagliano, who referenced the 5th Amendment while refusing to answer questions on the email server in a deposition of Pagliano dated June 22, 2016). (source)

From these facts, we can assume that Mrs. Clinton’s email server was set up before the vacation of Chelsea Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell on a yacht in 2009, and before Chelsea’s wedding in 2010.

Further circumstantial evidence that Chelsea Clinton is the “third party” in U.S.A. v Ghislaine Maxwell is found in the comments of Judge Alison Nathan.  Judge Nathan wrote:  “At least some of the redactions to which the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) objects relate to private ‘family affairs’ of a third party…”  Mrs. Clinton used the term “family vacations” in her explanation before the United Nations to withhold emails from the Benghazi Committee.  

In Judge Nathan’s ruling against Ghislaine, who wanted the government to remove redactions concerning the “third party,” Judge Nathan also wrote that “Defendant’s objections relate to her contention that some of the information contained in the redactions has been made public by other means.”  The information on Chelsea’s wedding which Ghislaine attended was reported by the Daily Mail in 2015.  The information that Chelsea vacationed on a yacht was reported by Politico in 2019.  

Here’s where it gets even more interesting.  Ghislaine didn’t present any evidence to support her claim.  Judge Nathan:  “And though the Defendant contends that some of the information contained in the redactions is public, she furnishes no evidence to that effect.”  In other words, Ghislaine didn’t try too hard to win her point.  It’s not the judge’s responsibility to search the internet for information on when the “information contained in the redactions” was “made public by other means.” 

Why not produce the evidence if it was already public?  What kind of legal tactic is this?

Ghislaine got her way on something else.  She was allowed by the Judge and the DOJ to choose something to redact in exchange for not trying to hard to reveal criminal information related to the Clintons (my opinion).  

Judge Nathan:  “In addition, the Court adopts the Defendant’s proposed additional redactions to pages 129 –134 of the Government’s brief.  Those portions of the transcript, which were redacted in the civil matter, concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to cater to a ‘craving for that which is sensational and impure.’”

And who knows what the “sensational and impure” evidence is?  This information could be related to Jeffrey Epstein or Prince Andrew, just to mention a few possibilities.  (Donald Trump reportedly does not use email, and that’s what I assume the documents in question are).

So the game between the DOJ, courts, and the public of the United States continues.  The DOJ, under extreme public pressure to act, has finally been forced to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.  The DOJ’s conundrum is how to prosecute Ghislaine while protecting politicians and VIPs in the United States.  They orchestrated a pretrial strategy to reduce the amount of evidence allowed into U.S.A. v Ghislaine Maxwell.  Ghislaine bluffed to disclose evidence related to the Clintons; the Judge denied her deliberately weak legal motion, and agree to allowed Ghislaine to redact other information of her choosing. 

Judge Nathan was as wrong as she could be by allowing any redactions related to this criminal network.  She even wrote that there is a “First Amendment presumption of access” related to these legal documents.  

The public has absolutely no confidence in the fair administration of Justice after the death (assassination, rendition, suicide, or whatever) of Jeffrey Epstein in prison under absurd and borderline unbelievable circumstances as he was awaiting trial.  The Attorney General of the United States, no less, William Barr, promised a full accounting of Epstein’s “death” which has never materialized. Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are connected to no less than two former Presidents of the United States.  It is all but certain that the DOJ has already been using legal (illegal in my opinion) principles of “National Security” and “Executive Privilege” to limit damage of reputation to these Presidents.

Under these circumstances, using the common English meaning of the words, I believe that the ruling of Judge Alison Nathan constitutes an Obstruction of Justice.

Nothing short of full transparency in these legal proceedings is either legal or should be tolerated by the public of the United States.

Author: Charles Wright