Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ruben Gallego on Epstein witness: "This is sworn testimony under oath. The DOJ needs to answer for it." [View all]EdmondDantes_
(1,526 posts)73. That's not helping the matter
As I said, a competent attorney wouldn't have taken a case in an area he has no experience in.
And when I said statute of limitations in the context of being prosecuted for perjury that's in a criminal case. It simply doesn't happen in civil cases, so there was no threat of prosecution resulting from a civil matter.
But even after the extended statute of limitations changed in New York, it's not retroactive, so it still doesn't apply.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
76 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Ruben Gallego on Epstein witness: "This is sworn testimony under oath. The DOJ needs to answer for it." [View all]
red dog 1
Jan 31
OP
The most serious presidential criminal scandal in U.S. history, and the DOJ is pretending it never happened.
sop
Jan 31
#2
Even more reason to stop letting Republicans stay over as FBI heads when Democrats win the White House.
W_HAMILTON
Sunday
#61
I've seen it mentioned. But you bring up several interesting points.
littlemissmartypants
Jan 31
#10
I agree and I appreciate that you try to keep DU honest. I'm waiting to see if there is more. nt
Blasphemer
Jan 31
#33
I can see you are one who was perfectly satisfied with Garland's proud recod of service.
Bluetus
Jan 31
#37
For the Felon, Justice and rule of law do not apply or haven't you heard the Supreme Court.
Buddyzbuddy
Monday
#64
To be clear, you're saying there's no evidence because a woman's word is worthless?
questionseverything
Sunday
#42
Hold that statement. We'll circle back and revisit it when more files drop. It's gonna get a LOT worse.
Joinfortmill
Sunday
#54
While we're reminding people, the DOJ/FBI was/is"Trumpland" and the FBI Director has been a Republican.
W_HAMILTON
Sunday
#53
The GQP Congress is bringing 2016 USAG Loretta Lynch up before them in their upcoming Epstein hearings
AZJonnie
Jan 31
#8
This is a from a party planner that worked for Epstein in regard to the Katie Johnson filing
chowder66
Jan 31
#9
Katie likely withdrew her lawsuit due to threats by Trump/Epstein that if she ever told, she & her family would die.
red dog 1
Jan 31
#14
"Or the lawsuit was withdrawn because it was BS from the start. Both are equally likely."??
red dog 1
Sunday
#60
"The Katie Johnson story is almost certainly past the statute of limitations so a sworn affidavit is exceedingly
red dog 1
Monday
#67
It'a all gonna come out. All. Of. It. I'm not sure how, but it will all come out.
Joinfortmill
Sunday
#55