That is something that is relatively easy to provide - based on his emails. Conviction for breaching UK Official Secrets Acts involves severe penalties, with espionage carrying up to 14 years in prison and unauthorized disclosures under the 1989 Act risking up to two years, say UK Parliamentary documents. Prosecutions are rare (less than one a year) and require Attorney General approval, targeting the mishandling or leaking of sensitive national security information, as reported by The House of Commons Library.
He escaped any prosecution over allegations by Virginia Giuffre because US prosecutors deemed her evidence too tainted to be relied on it court - with good reason. A criminal conviction requires proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but her evidence was deemed unlikely to reach that standard.
Firstly, fellow victims disputed her claims in a host of areas - blaming her use of drink and drugs. That she used them was entirely understandable given what she went though - but it meant there was a significant doubt over her memories.
Secondly, she had accused one person of abusing her, only to have to admit in court in a defamation case that she was wrong.
Both those would leave jurors unable to reach the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold in a case where she was a witness. Jurors might even believe that the allegation was true, meeting the civil standard of "balance of probabilities", but that wouldn't be enough. They would have to have no reasonable doubt, and questions over her memory and reliability, and the fact that she admitted in one allegation she had named the wrong person, would leave jurors with a "reasonable doubt" - meaning they must acquit. (In percentage terms, "balance of probabilities" is akin to 51% likelihood, whereas "beyond reasonable doubt" is akin to 85-90% certainty.)
DAs as a result decided her reliability was not strong enough to win a case with her.
Nor would the fact that someone paid her money be evidence. Firstly, it could not be used as evidence. Secondly, prominent people are always advised to pay off a person making allegations even if the allegations are 100% false, as their reputation would be damaged just by the allegation. Charlie Chaplin's reputation was badly damaged by allegations in court by his second wife. She admitted decades later that the allegations were entirely false.
Fatty Arbuckle was found not guilty of the allegation that he had murdered actress Virginia Rappe. She had died from peritonitis caused by a ruptured bladder. She also had suffered from chronic urinary tract infections, and the alcohol she took at the party in his house, reacting to the infections, led to her death. However his reputation never recovered from having been tried for her murder, even though it was shown that he had nothing to do with her death. But the allegations alone destroyed his reputation.
Since then, all prominent people are told to pay off someone making allegations - no matter how untrue they are. Their reputation would be destroyed if the false allegations were made public. So every prominent person is told to pay off the person making the allegation to avoid the reputational damage of the allegations being made public.
So the Giuffre allegations were never likely to go to court as no DA thought she was a reliable witness who would deliver a guilty verdict. However the leaking of highly classified information is easily provable if he sent an email sending such documents to Epstein. That is why it is a far more dangerous allegation from the point of view of prosecution, and would lead to a very long prison sentence. It would not hinge on the reliability of a witness's memory, but on a simple paper trail in emails.
As to he giving evidence to Congress, that is extremely unlikely. Legally Congress cannot summon him. Given his disastrous interview with the BBC, and how disastrously he handled it, I cannot imagine any lawyer advising him ever to appear before Congress. A bit like Trump's lawyers' determination never to let him into the witness box, as they know he is incapable of telling the truth or controlling his temper, Mountbatten-Windsor's lawyers would move heaven and earth to stop him ever answering questions, whether in Congress or in court.
They will be more worried that he may have broken the Official Secrets Act. That is where the big danger is, though the Epstein files may contain other devastating allegations.
No comments