This is more propaganda touted by the same groups as the ones spewing Setch Rich conspiracy claims. Sigurdur was not a key witness. The indictments do not rely on his evidence. Go look at the FBI statements if you don't believe me. Even if he was a key witness, you don't think law enforcement has ever dealt with a witness retracting a statement that they agreed to in exchange for a plea deal or immunity? It wouldn't simply invalidate their statement. Prosecutors plan ahead for things like witnesses dying during trial. Seriously, I've seen this same propaganda being pushed here already based on the same theory that Siggi was holding the entire case together which is just false. It is actually pretty funny... I imagine prosecutors seeing this laughing, saying.. we should use this tactic more where we make people think the case is falling apart, maybe we can get more evidence of crimes in the process of people letting their guards down.
It's less that the evidence was extremely crucial evidence, though it was important enough for them to file a new indictment right before the hearing to include it, and more that the prosecution has basically been found to have "paid" a witness to make false testimony.
Making deals to get testimony isn't unprecedented at all. The terms of the deal are disclosed and can be considered as an element of credibility. If this guy recanted to the media he can be put back under oath and admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record.
This sounds great if you assume the DoJ was unaware he was lying when they made the deal. Given his past with the FBI and the other public abuses of justice in.this case, I find that unlikely.
>admit to perjury and get his deal rescinded or admit to pandering the media and keep his original statement on the record.
So his options are admit that he lied and face perjury charges or admit that he lied and walk away free? Tough choice.
I haven't seen any critic of the USA "security" state mention Seth Rich in years, yet as seen here he is regularly cited by fans of the authoritarian status quo. Are you guys feeling guilty about something?
What are you even talking about? Are you trying to imply that I'm somehow a member of US intelligence, and trying to spread a conspiracy while simultaneously denying that you are doing so?
Julian Assange was spreading Seth Rich conspiracies in 2016.. to pretend that it was just a one time occurrence and that his supporters stopped "believing" in the conspiracy is just denialism.
Yet somehow you think they wouldn't want people bringing up how conspiracies, like those Assange spread, hurt the family the most. Assange supporters, mainly now alt-right types and bots posing as being on the opposite side oh politics--like you saw with Cambridge Analytica--are still spreading the same conspiracy far and wide today hoping to catch people during a mental break to recruit them into their cults.
