Quote:
Originally Posted by marsplasticeraser
I feel like this is a very good way to get at the real Epstein issue.
First off, what he is accused of seems like a pretty cut and dry case: Did he share this information with Epstein? Not a lot of nuance.
Secondly, if convicted he has a maximum penalty of life in prison.
So together this seems like a way to get him to give some pretty incriminating evidence. I'm sure he can name some names, perhaps bring them into the case?
And while the police are at it, they will need to investigate deeper to try and find what's related to Andrew. No idea how deep they can go, but it feels like they could use this to gain access to some pretty incriminating stuff beyond the redacted Epstein files. But even having those litigated in court will be big news.
|
Without hard evidence, it's all hearsay though. And because saying whatever he needs to will provide a personal advantage to himself(lighter sentencing), he has incentive to. Given he's now proven to be a liar(under oath? not sure) how can a court take anything he says into account? He could provide corroborating evidence, but anything he says without backing is going to be highly dubious.