In a letter to Congress, the lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator says clemency would allow her to talk to lawmakers.
Archive - https://archive.is/I2XSz
In a letter to Congress, the lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator says clemency would allow her to talk to lawmakers.
Archive - https://archive.is/I2XSz
She was supposed to have immunity after Epstein’s first conviction from Florida but New York decided that they didn’t have to honor that. Why would she try again?
Because the POTUS is an idiot, and is in the list. Two facts that the immunity will conveniently make her forget.
How many times does this need to be repeated? State and Federal crimes are separate, as are every individual State.
They were flying girls from New York to Florida, so you not only have Federal crimes, but both states can prosecute for the crimes on their State.
Then why is she sitting in Federal Prison? She was prosecuted in federal court on federal charges regarding the activity she should have had immunity on when Epstein was convicted the first time. He had a deal with the federal prosecutor in Florida that they would grant immunity to his co-conspirators. He did what he was supposed to under the deal but the New York prosecutor who convicted Maxwell decided to ignore that.
Ah, I see you missed one of the major events in this saga. One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, saying she and other victims were not informed that the Epstein case was being resolved with a plea deal, as required by law. This was a sealed agreement made via the U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta that seemed to specifically be intended to prevent the victims from knowing about the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement). In 2019, a judge ruled in their favor.
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/25/735804464/jeffrey-epsteins-sex-offender-plea-deal-must-stand-federal-prosecutors-say
Ah, so a Trump appointee made an illegal deal that was supposed to keep everything hidden from the victims and public at large… It’s almost like Trump had a vested interest in keeping stuff related to the case hidden.
Alex Acosta was appointed to the U.S. attorney for Southern District of Florida by George Bush in 2005. Acosta only became a Trump lackey in 2016.
And that is NOT the fault of Epstein. He upheld his end of the bargain and if the prosecutor did something underhanded that is not Epstein’s fault. The agreement should have been honored. Look at the Smollet and Cosby cases. But imagine if it was the way you wanted. All the prosecution has to do is break some rules on their end just so they can invalidate any deals made to the defense. Who would make deals then? They typically give immunity to secure convictions and this would make it impossible.
So let me get this straight: you are OK with a prosecutor making illegal deals that hurt victims as long as it benefits the defendant?
No. Let me get you straight before you try to put words in my mouth to paint your narrative.
I am against prosecutors GOING BACK on the deals they’ve made. I don’t care if the prosecutor did something wrong ON THEIR END. They are the ones who have to make sure their side is straight. If the defendant enters an agreement with the prosecutor and fulfills their end of the agreement then the govt has to uphold their end as well. The defendant is at no fault for the prosecution’s mistake.
And before you continue to try and paint your narrative I want to be clear that I’m not siding with the govt or Epstein. IDAF, Epstein is dead. But during his first conviction a deal was made by the prosecution who represented the US Govt and that deal granted immunity to his co-conspirators which was broken by someone else who represented the US Govt.
Again, this was an illegal deal that hurts victims and protects a guilty defendant. There is a reason why this kind of deal is illegal.
You are saying quite clearly that you don’t care if the government broke the law to protect a defendant and hurt victims, as long as they keep their word. You care more about keeping promises than you do about why the laws are there in the first place. The defendant actually is at fault here, and they are making a deal to keep their friends safe after breaking different laws. If that deal is illegal, why should it be honored? To protect a criminal?
If I make a deal to have the prosecutor murder the person who accused me of my crimes in exchange for giving up information to convict someone more important, are you OK with the prosecutor making and honoring that deal?
You are clearly arguing just to argue.
How is the defendant at fault? They didn’t make the deal, the prosecutor did. All they did was agree to the terms and kept their end of the bargain. Literally lawyers on both sides and the one who is not a lawyer is at fault?
AGREEING to a deal that protects one party from prosecution is the WHOLE POINT OF IMMUNITY. If the govt is known for not honoring immunity deals then no one will ever agree to them and key witnesses will be hard to come by in cases against organized crime.
If you make a deal THEN YOU HONOR IT! The example you gave on murder is fucking stupid. That’s clearly an illegal act. But the govt had their lawyers AND STILL MADE THE DEAL. Honor your deal.
Let me guess though. You are the type of person who goes back on their word just because you felt some type of way. Enter a contract and back out halfway through because things change?
Because what other option does she have?