3 ms·
It's less that the evidence was extremely crucial evidence, though it was important enough for them to file a new indictment right before the hearing to include
by boomboomsubban 5y ago
It's less that the evidence was extremely crucial evidence, though it was important enough for them to file a new indictment right before the hearing to include it, and more that the prosecution has basically been found to have "paid" a witness to make false testimony.
- tootie 5y agoMaking deals to get testimony isn't unprecedented at all. The terms of the deal are disclosed and can be considered as an element of credibility. If this guy recanted to the media he can be put back under oath and admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record.
- boomboomsubban 5y agoThis sounds great if you assume the DoJ was unaware he was lying when they made the deal. Given his past with the FBI and the other public abuses of justice in.this case, I find that unlikely. >admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record. So his options are admit that he lied and face perjury charges or admit that he lied and walk away free? Tough choice.