Yes I would assume those now immune have given info on others including those in the black book. Time will tell.
The other point that I have seen made is that as Epstein is now dead, their immunity is no longer valid. Not sure about that - does immunity last forever regardless? What if new info becomes available, for example?
ETA this is how it works in the UK. Immunity for witnesses is given for a particular conviction. Once the conviction is achieved (or defendant is acquitted ) then that immunity is over. In the case of Epstein, the conviction/acquittal never happened because he died. So is that immunity in this instance now expired ? I am not familiar with the US immunity laws.
No person taking part in legal proceedings, such as the judge, the advocates including the barristers and solicitors representing their clients, the witnes...
www.carruthers-law.co.uk
I will say that one thing I think we all agree on is we would like to see all prosecuted or held accountable that should be. That is also why I feel/felt the way I do/did about Ghislaine BUT I also feel it about the men involved AND women that were aware (wives of big wigs? party attendees that knew what others were doing?) And I DO NOT like that Epstein got off. In fact I hate the fact. So in all that I think most agree or feel that way.
When I put up the former post, the thought crossed my mind as well that immunity should now not exist or shouldn't have any longer once Epstein was gone. But not sure how it works and think any type of deal can possibly be struck or worked or pounded out but there may be parameters, especially in the federal system, I have no idea.
I really have no idea but I agree the question should be asked and reporters and others should be saying why are these men (presumably) still being protected and are they still immune?? I guess the possibility exists they used and are using their info still to look at others and/or all possible cases and facts and the immune ones may still be of use to them if not the worst offenders but can help hand over others or lead them down the right path in search of others and evidence, etc. Hard to say.
There is also the possibility we have corruption again or payoffs, threats, etc. AND all are hoping (both the deal givers and those getting deals or immunity) it will just be slid under the rug and forgotten that these men perhaps should no longer have immunity...
I guess the argument could be made that they did make a deal, were willing to testify or help and did so and therefore immunity should remain BUT we don't know what the immunity deals say.
The UK may have guidelines or laws re such but I am not sure if we do or not. I think if all sides agree any kind of deal can be struck but they risk if it is too sweet of a deal, the public and others scrutinizing and judging same and those who made it.
I can think of deals in nonfederal cases that still leave me outraged. Even one in Canada.
I hope of course more is coming but I worry all is above board or that others will not be charged. These two were so sickeningly high up the food chain in the sense of playing with powerful people in this world (or more accurately providing a playground and play things for them) anything is possible and some seriously powerful people probably want this under wraps and going away and as administrations come and go who knows what will happen... HOPEFULLY those in the fed courts will do their job above board but administrations can change how that all works and who is in charge as well...
www.nbcnewyork.com
