"While it prevents the direct use of those statements in the government's case, the immunity is not absolute. The agreement can be voided if they provide false or misleading information"

When Maxwell, Epstein's accomplice gave her interview she was granted "queen for a day" immunity. Nonetheless she insisted she did nothing criminal and there are many *known* lies in what she said.

So technically she could be prosecuted for perjury for this.

"While it prevents the direct use of those statements in the government's case, the immunity is not absolute. The agreement can be voided if they provide false or misleading information"

When Maxwell, Epstein's accomplice gave her interview she was granted "queen for a day" immunity. Nonetheless she insisted she did nothing criminal and there are many *known* lies in what she said.

So technically she could be prosecuted for perjury for this.

"While it prevents the direct use of those statements in the government's case, the immunity is not absolute. The agreement can be voided if they provide false or misleading information"

When Maxwell, Epstein's accomplice gave her interview she was granted "queen for a day" immunity. Nonetheless she insisted she did nothing criminal and there are many *known* lies in what she said.

So technically she could be prosecuted for perjury for this.

I think the most consequential lie is when she said that she and Epstein did not recruit from mar a lago.

The president of the united states and the victim, Virginia both contradict her. I think Trump is truthful here because it would help him to lie like Maxwell but he did not. And I just believe Virginia. (Virginia also said she liked working a mar a lago) She also said Maxwell showed up there and recruited her. Trump said she was stolen.

Maxwell LIES.

Although normally I think going after someone based on their statements under this kind of temporary immunity is only done if they don't give the government what they want.

Though I wonder what the statue of limitations is on such things. I've been thinking about statue of limitations very often as of late.

The more I look at the sheer heap of lies she said in the interview the more I think she's one of those people who lies so easily and often (instinctively) that this is really the best she could do. She did use some weasel phrases "I don't recall that happening" which is a way to lie about not knowing something without possible perjury.

But, yeah, she's a useless witness. I don't think she could be truthful if she wanted to.

Can't stop lying any more than a shark can stop swimming.