I don't think it's that kind of immunity. They're arguing that the old case should be it and he can't be punished further, the prosecutor is arguing this... A trump appointed prosecutor.Immunity? But, that would imply he's tellin' on everybody though.
Pak is a Trump placed
I don't think it's that kind of immunity. They're arguing that the old case should be it and he can't be punished further, the prosecutor is arguing this... A trump appointed prosecutor.
DOJ argued there was no grounds to invalidate Epstein's 2007 sweetheart deal even though a judge ruled prosecutors broke the law by giving it to him.I get bitchslapped by a GDPR "You are in Europe - we can't talk to you!"-message. Any chance of a TL:DR on that link?
no, it's about his old non-prosecution agreement in Florida. SDNY says that deal isn't binding on their district.Immunity? But, that would imply he's tellin' on everybody though.
It reeks of politically connected sex trafficking. There are different rules for these people. The only reason this is even coming up is the Miami Herald sorta made it impossible to sit on.
DOJ ruled there was no grounds to invalidate Epstein's 2007 sweetheart deal even though a judge ruled prosecutors broke the law by giving it to him.
here's a different article: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article231916968.html
no, it's about his old non-prosecution agreement in Florida. SDNY says that deal isn't binding on their district.
I 100% don't believe Clinton when he says ANYTHING regarding to sex.
Prosecutors broke the law not telling the victims about the deal, no question. It's the judge decision on if it gets tossed or come to agreement on what happens to make up for it.So, I'm no lawyer, and I thankfully have never had to deal with legal issues such as these. Who is right, here? I would presume that such an agreement wouldn't make him immune from prosecution if new crimes were discovered. That seems to be the case, if reports are to be trusted.
I 100% don't believe Clinton when he says ANYTHING regarding to sex.
I mean to be fair -- it had to be extremely specific -- especially about the island. If it hadn't delineated each of the instances it did it would have looked extremely vague.
Now could Clinton be a scumbag? Too late. He defo is one.
But the specificity is precisely what's required. Let's see what happens with follow up questions and what other jet set rodeo clowns say.
I mean to be fair -- it had to be extremely specific -- especially about the island. If it hadn't delineated each of the instances it did it would have looked extremely vague.
Now could Clinton be a scumbag? Too late. He defo is one.
But the specificity is precisely what's required. Let's see what happens with follow up questions and what other jet set rodeo clowns say.
maybe bill clinton fucking sucks and is in the news for some reason 🤔🤔Man that guy really doesn't like Bill Clinton. His whole timeline is littered with Jacobin retweets and Clinton nonsense lol
I think the fact you have to make a statement about the known paedophile plane you repeatedly went on is pretty bad in itself lol,maybe bill clinton fucking sucks and is in the news for some reason 🤔🤔
Man that guy really doesn't like Bill Clinton. His whole timeline is littered with Jacobin retweets and Clinton nonsense lol
What is the "26 times" number from? It's certainly possible that he only flew 4 times in 2002-03, and they just didn't mention the 22 times from all other years. If the logs are all public, this won't be difficult to check.So Clinton is already caught lying about how many times he flew on the plane. Pants on fire.
What is the "26 times" number from? It's certainly possible that he only flew 4 times in 2002-03, and they just didn't mention the 22 times from all other years. If the logs are all public, this won't be difficult to check.
So, I'm no lawyer, and I thankfully have never had to deal with legal issues such as these. Who is right, here? I would presume that such an agreement wouldn't make him immune from prosecution if new crimes were discovered. That seems to be the case, if reports are to be trusted.
There is a zero percent chance that the Clinton's did not know who this woman was.
Why?While this is all looks to be true, maybe we shouldn't share tweets from someone called "lib crusher"
So Clinton is already caught lying about how many times he flew on the plane. Pants on fire.
lib_crusher is not even close to being an alt-right Trump supporterObviously biased messenger. The message is legit, but it's better not to give any validity to alt-right, Trump-humping hacks.
Obviously biased messenger. The message is (likely) legit, but it's better not to give any validity to alt-right, Trump-humping hacks.