This is not a SDNY normal case, the information Parnas gave to Rachel was not useful to the SDNY, but it was useful to Congress and needed to be exposed publicly to be of use, where without it there could be a "trial" in the Senate without witnesses. So prosecutors would weigh that. Additionally Parnas testimony is backed up by documentary support, while on the other side, the people he complains against have long ago shed their last shred of credibility. So what's to guess at? Does anyone still guess whether or not Trump is lying when he says things that don't seem to be true?
No comments:
Post a Comment