Information from a major hack targeting Israel revealed that Jeffrey Epstein played a significant role in brokering multiple deals for Israeli intelligence.
Information from a major hack targeting Israel revealed that Jeffrey Epstein played a significant role in brokering multiple deals for Israeli intelligence.
Why would I? My comment is limited to the unlikelihood that Virginia Giuffre “submitted all the evidence she had,” and nothing else you’ve said changes that. I do not believe she told all she knows.
Nor do I believe that we, the public, have any right to expect anything from victims of trafficking, even the “full truth” at their own expense and with no personal guarantees of safety from those who use them, because if we were doing our collective job as a society, it would never be needed.
If Ms. Giuffre withheld names and/or information for her own safety, good on her. It’s not like anyone else was looking out for her.
Ms Giuffre gave Sworn Deposition. Changing her story later to add names that she “held back” is called purjury, and renders all of her testimony null and void.
She would have been told this multiple times. No lawyer will let a witness into a courtroom without first getting their testimony as a sworn statement before hand. it’s part of the process of a court case.
So legally, we must treat her testimony as full and complete to her knowledge. Hell, Trump and company would have loved for her to purjur herself. That would have made their day.
Purjury from a key witness can completely sink a case.
Beyond ignoring the fact that legal testimony is tightly limited in scope by both sides, you have your sworn evidence and non-sworn evidence entirely confused.
But she did give interviews, talk to friends, and even write a book. This is not sworn testimony. But it is still evidence.
There are zero indications Virginia Giuffre ever lied under oath, or committed perjury. Rather, those who spoke with her tended to find her genuine, and her attorneys were willing to go to bat for her all the way, which they would not have done had she been unbelievable.
Counting both sworn and non-sworn statements made over the course of the last thirty years or so, can YOU prove she did, or did not, reveal all she knew?
No. You cannot. And jumping from that to “She committed PERJURY!” is frankly just insulting to what she stood for. It’s becoming apparent that you are not writing in good faith, twisting a definition of perjury to cover all statements made everywhere at any time, so peace out.