Cooler heads must now prevail

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

What you're suggesting doesn't apply in any state, according to your own link.

A prosecutor has no legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.

Actually, that isn't what it says, or even what the part you quoted says, but by all means, keep on yucking it up, you're doing great! Really awesome! I'm so impressed! Seriously!

a reply to: tanstaafl

Actually, that isn't what it says

This says it all. Unless you think New York is a "half truth" state.

From your link

In most states, prosecutors can't present half-truths to grand juries. If prosecutors have strong, credible evidence that points to innocence, they must divulge it. That doesn't mean, however, that they have to offer every piece of evidence that's helpful to the accused or that might be used at trial by the defense.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

This says it all.

Yes, doesn't it... it says what I said it says, and not what you want it to mean.

Does it hurt? Seriously... it must really really hurt, like, bigly...

a reply to: tanstaafl

You're trying to prove this assertion made in a previous post.

A lie by omission is a lie.

Your NOLO source says you're wrong. Omission, in and of itself, does not equal lies, according to laws regarding grand juries. Omission isn't even a half truth.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
You, arguing in support of liars, is delish.
Justice for juicy!!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

You're trying to prove this assertion made in a previous post.

"A lie by omission is a lie."

No, I'm not, that's just the phrase you chose to focus on. I was pointing out that your blanket assertion that "The DA isn't obligated to show the Grand Jury anything they don't want to." was, in many States, a "lie", and the NOLO link proved my case, as you freely admit.

I was also pointing out the hilarious fact that you apparently are fully supportive of such fascist tactics, and at the same time totally ignorant of the nature and origins of our Grand Jury system, and that it was never intended to be run by persecutors.

Your NOLO source says you're wrong.

No, it doesn't, but I understand your desire for everyone to read it from the false lens you are presenting. Your problem is no one here falls for your #.

Omission, in and of itself, does not equal lies, according to laws regarding grand juries.

That is not what the NOLO source says either.

The fact that you are constantly having to twist words in order to even attempt to prove some false narrative you're peddling should be a huge red flag that you are, well, a liar and a fraud.

Omission isn't even a half truth.

Omission in and of itself is just omission. Too bad for you that isn't the point being discussed.