Update: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Jack Smith DID NOT Even Download Exculpatory Evidence that Clears Trump Until TWO DAYS AFTER ...
On Friday TGP’s Cullen barger reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith either failed to review evidence that exonerates President Trump and Mayor Rudy Giuliani or he ignored the findings altogether.
When he went before the Judge he could Truthfully say I have seen no evidence that would suggest Mr. Trump is innocent.
That is true. Now ask why having this information he does not request to drop the charges ?
I'm starting to think Jack may not be playing fair
No dude he actually looks like a straight up commie
Gotcha
Wait a minute, you're thinking a man... of the law... is... crooked?
Im reading sarcasm. But if not, STARTING TO?
Appears he has a history of this.
Bernie Kerik is not charged in this case and this lawyer is not part of this case.
Trump's lawyers did meet with the special counsel and they could have provided any evidence they wished to. Prior to this being turned over, they were claiming it was privileged
I think this material would be Brady Material. Meaning they have to turn it over to Trump's lawyers or else that would be misconduct.
But if these are emails from say Kerik to Rudy, the prosecutors would have already seen these from Rudy's side.
They are required by law to hand over all evidence. They have a history of holding back exculpatory evidence as we have heard on J6 prisoners.
Honestly folks can Jack Smith be this stupid? This is the highest profile case of his pitiful career. Is there a chance he has been flipped? One can only hope...
I agree with you. For years now I have questioned this all. While criminals are stupid , but this stupid makes it suspect. It smells more like a declass in progress IMO.
My big question is did Trump"a lawyer, JOSH LAURO, EVEN ASK FOR IT?
Here's the lowdown on exculpatory evidence.
DO PROSECUTORS ACTUALLY TURN OVER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE?
The vast majority of prosecutors take their Brady obligations (which are also ethical obligations) seriously, and when they come across a piece of exculpatory evidence they will turn it over. Unfortunately, this does not translate into the vast majority of defendants getting all exculpatory evidence all the time. Here is why:
Prosecutors are advocates and will look at cases from the perspective of guilt. They are not thinking about—let alone looking for—all of the types of evidence that would weaken their case. This inherent bias means that sometimes exculpatory evidence that is not immediately obvious will be overlooked. Also, prosecutors do not always play by the rules.
HOW DOES THE DEFENDANT GET THAT HELPFUL EVIDENCE? You simply DO NOT count on the prosecutor to turn it over. Instead, it is up to the defendant and defendant"s lawyer to be proactive about getting any and all favorable evidence. In other words, the defendant needs an EFFECTIVE LAWYER
AN EFFECTIVE LAWYER WILL DO THE FOLLOWING TO ENSURE HIS/HER DEFENDANT GETS THE RIGHT HELP.
In summation, there is no substitute for having an experienced and aggressive defense attorney, who will do all that is necessary to make sure you get evidence favorable to your case—whether at trial or at sentencing.
All valid points. I just know we turned it all over to the defense teams in the past. If we felt during the investigation there was evidence that could clear the suspect we investigated further and did not charge the suspect. Many times we sat with the DA and discussed the case to determine the strength of the case.
The Courts have been disappointing for decades ago from what I witnessed. The Courts were overwhelmed with court cases. So many DA's would offer plea deals that were disgusting and no longer did the punishment fit the crime. Their agenda was to clear as many cases as they could. That is the reality of where the system broke down.
Yep, it's spelled out nicely in "The Nonsense Factory," a book by Bruce Cannon Gibney (litigator turned venture capitalist) about how our legal system has deteriorated since the 1950s as laws have become needlessly complex, clouded by politics and influenced by money.
Amen on the politics. The DA would run for election with the claim that they cleared out any cases with convictions. What they failed to mention in their campaigns was that it was the victims who were shorted on justice. There is truth and there is absolute truth. I prefer absolute truth. There is a difference.
Here is what famous lawyer Gerry Spence said about prosecutors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcjwgaVuMhw
MOST of them are not worth a damn. They will not do everything they can and should do to win. They are more worried about not offending the judge or other attorney.
Their loyalty is not to the person paying the bill. It is to the court system, and their own career.
Absolutely correct. Quite often prosecutors do not play by the rule. That's why Trump's attorney better be on top of this shit.
On Friday TGP’s Cullen Linebarger reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith either failed to review evidence that exonerates President Trump and Mayor Rudy Giuliani or he ignored the findings altogether.
Tim Parlatore, the attorney for former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, told CBS News that Smith’s office has within thousands of pages of records turned over by Kerik that contains “exculpatory evidence.” The exact reason why Smith has not disclosed this critical information remains unclear.
On Saturday morning Attorney Tim Parlatore told FOX and Friends Weekend hosts that Jack Smith did not even download the exculpatory evidence against President Trump until TWO DAYS after his junk indictments against President Trump’s free speech.
Well that's Zod. (that's odd).
https://www.themarysue.com/general-zod-is-running-for-office-in-canada/
Ever seen them both in the same place?
Zod to 'Jack Smith': "See you in the crypt tonight."
Why does Jack Smith remind me of the Underwood Deviled ham logo ?
https://seeklogo.com/vector-logo/144825/underwood-deviled-ham
Suspect they have leverage over all these puppets.