- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 23,690
- SLU Posts
- 18459
I can see that his testimony was crucial in denying that she had been an escort, and I can see that he received access (and a fat cheque, apparently) as a quid pro quo for somthing.I have seen several posts about it that say that his testimony was false. I will find some references to it. The implication is he was crucial to denying that she had been an escort, which is now contradicted by Amanda Ungaro and others. It was a quid pro quo for access.
What is less clear is what that "pro quo" represents -- did he receive access and cash simply in return for his testimony or in return for giving false testimony?
As it is, I can see this latest development renders his testimony suspect (or even more suspect that it was already) but I don't see it necessarily proves it was false.

