One point to consider. It is clear there is massive video/photo/other evidence, as Epstein was running a blackmail operation.
So whether Dersh is lying or telling the truth, will be known. And since he knows there is evidence, if he says he is innocent, I would think he possibly is. Why lie when it will all come out? I am on fence. But for him to claim (as I read on thread, didn’t listen to him) that Clinton was inoocent, that’s crazy talk. So... ????
I think the likely existence of evidence in pretty incriminating form (like photos and videos) is the best argument in favor of Dershowitz telling the truth. He doesn’t know what all exists - he can’t possibly know. Even if he thinks it was destroyed, he could never be sure there aren’t copies yet in existence. To lie when it comes down to one person’s word against anothers is one thing, but to lie when incontrovertible evidence is likely to come out is stupid, and Dersh is not stupid.
I have no idea who did what but just based on logical thinking, his confidence that nothing will disprove his claims of innocence are the best argument that they’re true.
However I am not convinced by any of his statements about others, e.g. Bill Clinton, because once again he cannot possibly know. So I think that is a lawyerly attempt to discredit ALL claims by Guiffre on the basis that SOME of them (regarding Dersh) may not be accurate. That’s why each of her claims needs to be investigated and weighed separately. No “guilt OR innocence by association” either, Professor!
So whether Dersh is lying or telling the truth, will be known. And since he knows there is evidence, if he says he is innocent, I would think he possibly is. Why lie when it will all come out?
``````````````
These people will lie to the end. Their end. They must fulfill their quota. They do the work of the father of lies.
Unless they repent. Pray for their salvation.