Will Ghislaine Maxwell testify before Congress in 2025?

We were so close yes bros............

There's a lot of speculation, but unless there's a major shift, it seems unlikely that Ghislaine Maxwell will testify before Congress in 2025.

Get i more money if i wait to 2026?

Is it over chat?

Was on vacation but have no issue with losing because they cancelled it. Thats how this goes. Just have an issue with rules changes

indefinitely postponed

i support logan

Logan about to crash out

Logan going to show up to the resolvers house with a ghost gun and crow bar

fine if they cancelled it. Thats a legit loss. Not fine if poly changes the rules

[link removed]

My brothers. Give me one good reason why both sides of the u.s political system and all its intelligence agencies let her publicly say anything now.

[link removed]

Important update for my fellow testimony truthers. It appears the current clarification was posted in request to a discord message asking if a deposition from a member of Congress counts. It really feels like they correctly clarified that that obviously would not count, however in an attempt to also include that official depositions from a subcommittee would count just referred to these using terminology inconsistent with an official depositions from a subcommittee. I really feel that updating this part of the clarification or even just removing it (despite a corrected version being a good clarification IMO) would be super reasonable and correct

If the clarification just changed to this it would make perfect sense and align with the rules while excluding people trying to argue random congress people talking to her counts instead of massively redefining the entire market: A deposition conducted outside the formal (optionally add congressional committee/subcommittee for additional clarity) deposition process will not qualify, regardless of if conducted by a Member of Congress. A recorded video of Ghislaine Maxwell giving testimony may qualify only if the video was filmed after market issuance (July 14, 9 AM ET) and is presented during an official hearing or session of either chamber of Congress or one of their committees or subcommittees. Written submissions provided to Congress will not qualify.

I’m going to bed but the current clarification is an egregious miscarriage of justice regardless of my position. Would happily cancel half my shares at cost if they updated the ~3 word difference between this being one of the most blatant contradictions to the rules via clarification and it being a reasonable clarification to prevent confusion

Anyway I would love to chat with the person who made the clarification to understand this better. Just need clarity I will be friendly regardless of outcome. If we talk and the intention was to clarify, in a way that makes official subcommittee depositions largely impossible as a payout criterion, without just saying that outright and that while also not giving a notice + clearing the book regarding a massive and highly impactful clarification with an obvious instant and huge price impact then I will stop with the frequent attempts to get what also seems like it could be an incorrect mistake of assuming or mistyping thinking that all official subcommittee actions are conducted within hearings so while intending to clarify that it just needs to be an official deposition accidentally banned all depositions. Clarifying that only official depositions count is quite clear in the rules and would have no price impact but can’t hurt so clearing the book wouldn’t be needed prior to this.

Like there are also AGs getting testimony from Maxwell currently as well which def isn’t included in payout criterion but could be something to clarify. Like there are so many better things you hopefully meant to clarify where there was a couple hours disruption to a market but the long term rules in a high volume market pre clarification wasn’t clarified into impossibility, intentionally and also without even clearing the order book before making (if the clarification is intending to exclude official subcommittee depositions) one of the largest rules contradictions via clarification I’ve seen. Seems much better to have meant to clarify only official subcommittee depositions count which is entirely appropriate and also clear enough in the rules that it doesn’t warrant clearing the order book.

It’s way more understandable to re clarify that they just meant official depositions and assumed like most official subcommittee actions those are conducted inside of official hearings but were mistaken. Than to blatantly misresolve a very clear market based on some impossible clarification, which is not forgivable

Like right now we have members of the official house subcommittee walking around saying pretty much “We are going to fulfill the payout criterion in the Polymarket rules exactly and and almost verbatim to the rules wording” vs a clarification saying actually they would need to conduct the deposition inside of an official hearing which is a separate procedure and I believe violates house rules on deposition procedures for this to count. It’s insane and they should update the clarification to say they they meant to specify only official subcommittee depositions conducted under the formal rules and process for these depositions counts and that they meant to just clarify that depositions by members of congress done outside of these official procedures do not count (which is both a correct clarification of the rules instead of being an u clarification requiring an exceedingly unlikely an nonsensical procedural process. Hearings are how most official subcommittee actions are conducted but not depositions which are a separate but equally official process that is initiated via a vote on a subpoena during an official hearing but then doesn’t conduct the actual deposition via an official hearing because they are conducting an official deposition.

Literally we have an official house subcommittee DIRECTLY SAYING “Maxwell is going to testify before our subcommittee” the subcommittee rules regarding depositions require them to be “recorded”. I don’t think I have ever in my life seen such a clear example of something clearly intended to count in a market. THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE IS SAYING “Maxwell is going to provide testimony before our official subcommittee where we are required to record testimony” they are saying verbatim “Wr are satisfying the payout criterion exactly using the exact words and via 1 of the exact processes for getting testimony ” and there’s an argument that depositions somehow shouldn’t count???

New quote from the chairman of the committee: In particular, the Committee seeks your testimony to inform the consideration of potential legislative solutions to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations

Direct quote from the committee member who introduced the motion to subpoena her: Today, I am proud to announce that the Oversight Committee approved my motion directing Chairman Comer to subpoena Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell to appear before the House Oversight Committee. This deposition will help the American people understand how Jeffrey Epstein was able to carry out his evil actions for so long without being brought to justice”