As a constitutional conservative I try to work forward from the Constitution and work forward from the law rather than working backward from the desired result to a conclusion that soothes my disposition.
Yeah.
Brilliantly ignoring that more underaged victims unequivocally means new crimes.
How brilliant.
And how “intellectual” of you to disregard that point in every way.
Of course he has been a celibate choir boy since 2007 don’t you know.
If the section cited by McCarthy in his article regarding the non-pros is accurate, Epstein was given “immunity” for acts that would violate the section regarding sex trafficking for ANY victim from 2001 thru 2007. This federal immunity was granted on the condition he would plead to the state charge.
SDNY may have a real problem with the double-jeopardy issue if the court views this the same way. McCarthy makes some good points and I don’t ever remember him going off on a tangent like some others have in the past.
As a constitutional conservative I try to work forward from the Constitution and work forward from the law rather than working backward from the desired result to a conclusion that soothes my disposition.
“Yeah.
Brilliantly ignoring that more underaged victims unequivocally means new crimes.”
According to McCarthy, if those additional victims were abused prior to the plea agreement, it won’t make any difference. The agreement covered all such crimes regardless if they had been uncovered or not. If the crimes happened after the 2007 agreement they’re fair game, but news reports claim these new charges stem from the same time frame.