Loading...

"There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss."
link : "There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss."

"There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss."

"She certainly should, in my mind, because a lot of people skated here, while she bore the brunt of the government’s full wrath."

Said Jeffrey Lichtman, "the defense attorney who represented the Mexican drug trafficker Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán at trial two years ago," quoted in "Speculation grows that Maxwell may try to cut a deal for reduced sentence/Experts say any deal depends on whether US government believes it is worth investigating network that may have been involved" (The Guardian).

"It all depends on who she would be cooperating against, and what she has to offer. I would not be surprised if she had already tried to cooperate and it had failed.... They don’t want to take the hand of someone involved a criminal operation and let them cooperate against people who are well below them. That may be the case here – they just feel that she’s so bad they won’t allow her to cooperate,” Lichtman said....

Former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig said on Twitter: “Maxwell’s cooperation is not particularly likely, but it is possible. You’d need (1) Maxwell to be willing and fully on board, (2) SDNY to be fully convinced of her truthfulness, and (3) a realistic plan to use her information versus others.”...

“Of all the people supposedly involved with Epstein, 99% of them never made it into the government’s evidence,” said Lichtman. “Perhaps they were trying to avoid any frolic by the jury – that they’d get distracted by the bold-face names – but many people didn’t get prosecuted here when it seems like they could have,” he added....

The lawprof Bennett Gershman asks whether the case cries out for more: 

“Are the victims and people who really care about this case satisfied now Maxwell has been convicted or do they want to see other people in the larger network investigated?... They have limited resources and personnel, so does this case cry out for further investigation and prosecution? That’s a political decision by the US department of justice and the US attorney’s office.”

Another way to put that is: Does the case cry out for less? 

If it's a political decision, the political minds might want to suppress this story — to say, look, we got that one person and hope the response is: Good for you. That solves the problem.

But shouldn't Maxwell worry that as long as she's holding the story inside herself that she's a target for murder in prison? 

One reason to tell all now is so that killing her won't work to suppress the story. Does she know or believe that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered and if so, who murdered him and why? How does she feel about that and what effect would that have on her motivation to continue to protect the powerful people she could talk about?

ADDED: Evidence that the political minds want to be done with this: "Federal prosecutors quietly dropped their case against Jeffrey Epstein's jail guards in the middle of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial" (Insider).

Loading...

"She certainly should, in my mind, because a lot of people skated here, while she bore the brunt of the government’s full wrath."

Said Jeffrey Lichtman, "the defense attorney who represented the Mexican drug trafficker Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán at trial two years ago," quoted in "Speculation grows that Maxwell may try to cut a deal for reduced sentence/Experts say any deal depends on whether US government believes it is worth investigating network that may have been involved" (The Guardian).

"It all depends on who she would be cooperating against, and what she has to offer. I would not be surprised if she had already tried to cooperate and it had failed.... They don’t want to take the hand of someone involved a criminal operation and let them cooperate against people who are well below them. That may be the case here – they just feel that she’s so bad they won’t allow her to cooperate,” Lichtman said....

Former federal and state prosecutor Elie Honig said on Twitter: “Maxwell’s cooperation is not particularly likely, but it is possible. You’d need (1) Maxwell to be willing and fully on board, (2) SDNY to be fully convinced of her truthfulness, and (3) a realistic plan to use her information versus others.”...

“Of all the people supposedly involved with Epstein, 99% of them never made it into the government’s evidence,” said Lichtman. “Perhaps they were trying to avoid any frolic by the jury – that they’d get distracted by the bold-face names – but many people didn’t get prosecuted here when it seems like they could have,” he added....

The lawprof Bennett Gershman asks whether the case cries out for more: 

“Are the victims and people who really care about this case satisfied now Maxwell has been convicted or do they want to see other people in the larger network investigated?... They have limited resources and personnel, so does this case cry out for further investigation and prosecution? That’s a political decision by the US department of justice and the US attorney’s office.”

Another way to put that is: Does the case cry out for less? 

If it's a political decision, the political minds might want to suppress this story — to say, look, we got that one person and hope the response is: Good for you. That solves the problem.

But shouldn't Maxwell worry that as long as she's holding the story inside herself that she's a target for murder in prison? 

One reason to tell all now is so that killing her won't work to suppress the story. Does she know or believe that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered and if so, who murdered him and why? How does she feel about that and what effect would that have on her motivation to continue to protect the powerful people she could talk about?

ADDED: Evidence that the political minds want to be done with this: "Federal prosecutors quietly dropped their case against Jeffrey Epstein's jail guards in the middle of Ghislaine Maxwell's trial" (Insider).

Thus articles "There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss."

that is all articles "There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "There’s a tremendous amount of information she has on some very important people. Now that she’s been convicted she may be more eager to discuss." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/12/theres-tremendous-amount-of-information.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: