Sean Kent

Do I believe it's realistic? Probably not. Mostly based upon her statement. Because her statement is very, a very, very strong denial. And if the prosecutors were going to meet with her and put her on the stand, you would assume her statement would have been so bold as I've never done anything wrong whatsoever because it was open her up for cross examinations. And why did you lie in the statement?

And now you're lying on the stand. I don't. I mean, and that's just my gut reaction.

And now you're lying on the stand. I don't. I mean, and that's just my gut reaction.

And now you're lying on the stand. I don't. I mean, and that's just my gut reaction.

Yes and no, because remember, anybody can bring a lawsuit. Anybody can make allegations that they want to. And so they are in a way corroborating each other's lawsuit by facts. But there is no independent evidence corroborating what they're saying. So it'd be like I could bring a lawsuit today and say she did the same thing to me and Diddy's did the same thing.

Yes and no, because remember, anybody can bring a lawsuit. Anybody can make allegations that they want to. And so they are in a way corroborating each other's lawsuit by facts. But there is no independent evidence corroborating what they're saying. So it'd be like I could bring a lawsuit today and say she did the same thing to me and Diddy's did the same thing.

Yes and no, because remember, anybody can bring a lawsuit. Anybody can make allegations that they want to. And so they are in a way corroborating each other's lawsuit by facts. But there is no independent evidence corroborating what they're saying. So it'd be like I could bring a lawsuit today and say she did the same thing to me and Diddy's did the same thing.

So technically it's corroborating, but it's just me. It could also be me just parroting things that other people have said.

So technically it's corroborating, but it's just me. It could also be me just parroting things that other people have said.

So technically it's corroborating, but it's just me. It could also be me just parroting things that other people have said.

That is such a great question because there's a difference between state system and federal system. And in the state system, you can claim ignorance. But in the federal system, there's something called willful blindness, which means if you willfully do this and are hiding, they can still prosecute you for it. So if you like exactly what you said, you can.

That is such a great question because there's a difference between state system and federal system. And in the state system, you can claim ignorance. But in the federal system, there's something called willful blindness, which means if you willfully do this and are hiding, they can still prosecute you for it. So if you like exactly what you said, you can.

That is such a great question because there's a difference between state system and federal system. And in the state system, you can claim ignorance. But in the federal system, there's something called willful blindness, which means if you willfully do this and are hiding, they can still prosecute you for it. So if you like exactly what you said, you can.

She willfully blinds herself, and that's something that the federal prosecutors will tell the jury that, nah, she knew what was going on or knew or should have known what's going on. So, yeah, she can't extricate herself from the situation and think that absolves all liability. She still would be in trouble if they chose to charge her under that scenario.

She willfully blinds herself, and that's something that the federal prosecutors will tell the jury that, nah, she knew what was going on or knew or should have known what's going on. So, yeah, she can't extricate herself from the situation and think that absolves all liability. She still would be in trouble if they chose to charge her under that scenario.

She willfully blinds herself, and that's something that the federal prosecutors will tell the jury that, nah, she knew what was going on or knew or should have known what's going on. So, yeah, she can't extricate herself from the situation and think that absolves all liability. She still would be in trouble if they chose to charge her under that scenario.

One would think, and that's something that people need to understand is a lot of times, and I was a prosecutor, what we end up doing is, and maybe this is just assumptions, maybe they met with her, maybe they talked to her, and then they said, you know what, we cannot prosecute this case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the civil standard, which is more likely than not. Both things.

One would think, and that's something that people need to understand is a lot of times, and I was a prosecutor, what we end up doing is, and maybe this is just assumptions, maybe they met with her, maybe they talked to her, and then they said, you know what, we cannot prosecute this case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the civil standard, which is more likely than not. Both things.

One would think, and that's something that people need to understand is a lot of times, and I was a prosecutor, what we end up doing is, and maybe this is just assumptions, maybe they met with her, maybe they talked to her, and then they said, you know what, we cannot prosecute this case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the civil standard, which is more likely than not. Both things.

So a lot of folks are saying, well, they didn't go after a criminal, which means her civil case isn't true. Well, both things can be independently true. A civil case is brought if it's more likely than not that something happened. To prosecute her criminally or make her a co-conspirator, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.