Kim Dotcom's lawyers just sent a letter to special counsel Robert Mueller regarding Seth Rich

originally posted by: RomeByFire
How much longer do we have to wait until the truth comes out that KimDotCom are egregious liars?

As the saying goes...

The truth is out there.

a reply to: drock905

Could someone with the wherewithall make sure that this gets posted at Drudge Report. Thank you.

[Deleted]

a reply to: drock905

So what happens if the arrangements he wants are not met?
If he has information that can solve a murder and doesn't give it to the police what are the consequences?
He's already a wanted man looking for a deal.
Who remembers guccifer saying he had info for the FBI regarding Hillary's emails?
He told some news anchor a big fat lie and when the FBI extradited him to answer questions it turned out he didn't have anything.
So if they decide not to give in to his demands and he just says ok I won't give you this evidence I have what then?
And just want evidence could he possibly have there in New Zealand?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: drock905

Kim claims he was speaking with a DNC insider over the course of a few months called "panda". Their discussions revolved around the corruption of the DNC, specifically vote tampering in the primaries.

The person calling themselves "panda" asked Kim for help getting leaked information to wikileaks. Kim is now claiming that "panda" was Seth Rich and he has evidence proving this.

So an anonymous source is okay if it incriminates Democrats? How would Dotcom know who his anonymous source is?

Well...make up your mind! We like to play fire for fire and tit for tat. We are fans of equality. You claimed anonymous sources were fine for the left, so we assume those are the rules.

Unless your a hypocrite.

so then those are the rules? You call it.

a reply to: Jobeycool

How long have you been holding that in?

a reply to: whywhynot

He could give testimony via Skype then he could be cross examined.

Not that he has anything . I'm just offering a technological solution to cross examination via video.

originally posted by: HorizonFall

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: drock905

So if the evidence exists? What is it? Seems like a lot of attention is being made at the illusion of evidence here, but there is literally zero damning evidence linking Rich to Wikileaks.

Just like the Russian collusion thing then, right?

No. Nothing like that. That's real.

Seems Mueller is expanding this investigation after all. He has now included the Paul Manifort criminal investigation dating back to 2014 before the trump campaign as part of what he is looking into. He is also considering including Rod Rosenstein and Jeff Sessions in the investigation as having obstructed justice in the Comey firing ordeal! He is considering g whether he should expand the probe to include them.
Seems his big fish is the big fish after all.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: whywhynot

He could give testimony via Skype then he could be cross examined.

Not that he has anything . I'm just offering a technological solution to cross examination via video.

A technical solution isn't needed or helpful, the judge (yet to be appointed to the yet to be filed case) would need to approve it. If approved the next hurtle would be an objection by opposing council based on the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. All for a guy to testify remotely because he would be arrested if he returned to the US.

Kind of doubtful.

a reply to: whywhynot

Don't over think it. It's a bull # story anyway.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Reciting the facts of law really isn't over thinking a matter. Indeed, if it is then it is a far better solution than under thinking.

Pig In A Poke

The success of any viable trial isn't going to hinge on Kim Dotcom's testimony. If that's all the prosecution has to offer, it will be dismissed with prejudice, and rightly so.

What matters is identifying the criminals, as explained with a lot more words here.

Kim Dotcom does not need to travel anywhere to share what he knows with investigators. He could just pick up the phone right now and tell them, and doesn't need to tell anyone else he did. If the information he provides leads to prosecution, he could be called upon to testify then, and if so, be in a much better position to bargain with the U.S. government.

Kim Dotcom wants something up front in exchange for something he's hiding, but without knowing exactly what he's hiding, no competent investigator would ever make a deal for it.

He knows that, and his attorneys know that, which is why it seems most likely this is just another publicity stunt.

That's what this is really all about.

a reply to: whywhynot

The only fact in this story is the unfortunate murder of this gentleman.
Everything else is fiction.