"I oppose the destruction of evidence that may contain smoking gun proof that my false accuser made up her story," Dershowitz said. "I want all the evidence preserved because I have absolutely nothing to hide. I did nothing wrong. The evidence to be destroyed may also contain proof of wrongdoing by others. It should be preserved for appeal and for history. Destroying evidence risks destroying truth."
So she wants evidence destroyed damaging any civil recourse victims may have had against those involved. Talk about someone who should not have any form of construct immunity
Maybe I'm literally the devil's advocate here, but isn't there something to be said about legal procedure and what counts as evidence?
We do not know how the material was compiled or on what basis.
There is a lot at stage here. And we can't let questionable evidence taint the process.
it was enough for the Steele Dossier to start a witch hunt on the president of the mofugging united states. A few pedos can be brought down with something less.
If it's Guiffre's evidence, why should she have to destroy it? I seriously hope she's smart enough not to do so (I think she is). Because if it's hers and she 'collected' it during her time with Epstein, then it belongs to her. Doesn't matter if it could be used against him or wasn't 'properly' collected. It belongs to her. She gets to keep it. What actually needs to be destroyed is the swamp creatures.
Epstein's defence lawyer said this
So she wants evidence destroyed damaging any civil recourse victims may have had against those involved. Talk about someone who should not have any form of construct immunity
Maybe I'm literally the devil's advocate here, but isn't there something to be said about legal procedure and what counts as evidence? We do not know how the material was compiled or on what basis. There is a lot at stage here. And we can't let questionable evidence taint the process.
it was enough for the Steele Dossier to start a witch hunt on the president of the mofugging united states. A few pedos can be brought down with something less.
Innocent people could be brought down with something less too. So could the president.
What if someone on that list falsely accused the president? Should it be taken as truth?
Or should justice be done through a rigorous process?
Paging Wikileaks
Cunt.
fuck you cunt
Isn't Virginia a resident of Australia, now?
Send it to the media. Thats what Bolton did.
Reno 911
If it's Guiffre's evidence, why should she have to destroy it? I seriously hope she's smart enough not to do so (I think she is). Because if it's hers and she 'collected' it during her time with Epstein, then it belongs to her. Doesn't matter if it could be used against him or wasn't 'properly' collected. It belongs to her. She gets to keep it. What actually needs to be destroyed is the swamp creatures.