Jack Smith Team lied about providing all documents for review in Trump Documents case

So. Jack Smiths team, in court, stated that ALL documentation including surveillance footage had been provided to the Trump team regarding his documents case. They stated this on July 18th. Seems they were no telling the truth.

“The Government’s representation at the July 18 hearing that all surveillance footage the Government had obtained pre-indictment had been produced was therefore incorrect,” Julie Edelstein, a Smith assistant, told the court. In criminal trials, the defense is entitled to see all of the evidence that the government plans to introduce at trial. Under a rule called the Brady rule, the prosecution has a special duty to disclose anything to the defense that might prove to be exculpatory.

Link

Twitter Link

I mean, it is ironic that the people who are stating they were not provided what was asked for are the ones who are not providing what, by law, they should. They actually edited the footage and only provided what they wanted the defense to see. Key Excerpts they called it in the filing.

This is true corruption folks. True corruption.

a reply to: matafuchs

Discovery is still far from over. The defendants' counsel still doesn't even have their security clearance. They caught the error quickly and it was rectified. No harm done.

They didnt tell the judge about President Trumps declassification order either.

Thats how deceitful scum operate.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: matafuchs

Discovery is still far from over. The defendants' counsel still doesn't even have their security clearance. They caught the error quickly and it was rectified. No harm done.

Yeah… this is nothing like the tricks they pulled for Hunter… everything the DOJ does is way above the board when it comes to Trump… 🤣

a reply to: matafuchs

They did provide it; that's why Breitbart was able to write the article that they did. They provided it on July 27 when they decided to file the superseding indictment, which is what this evidence pertains to. Prior to filing the superseding indictment, this video would have been irrelevant.

The prosecution is required by law to provide to the defense the evidence that they plan to use in court. That's why they excerpted the video; they aren't planning to use the whole thing. They are also required to provide any exculpatory evidence they turn up. Apparently there isn't any.

Calling this corruption is true ignorance, folks. True ignorance.

a reply to: SwissMarked

The DOJ were the ones that discovered the videos weren't uploaded, rectified the situation, and then notified the court.

another "convenient" "error" caused on purpose and intended to create confusion and chaos

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: SwissMarked

The DOJ were the ones that discovered the videos weren't uploaded, rectified the situation, and then notified the court.

doj sure makes lots of mistakes at just the perfect times don't they

a reply to: WingDingLuey

The perfect time being over 9 months before the trial is scheduled to start?

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: SwissMarked

The DOJ were the ones that discovered the videos weren't uploaded, rectified the situation, and then notified the court.

doj sure makes lots of mistakes at just the perfect times don't they

And exclusively to the benefit of the same side everytime.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: SwissMarked

The DOJ were the ones that discovered the videos weren't uploaded, rectified the situation, and then notified the court.

We’re at a point when even the progressive shills know there are knives pressed against their backs… but they can’t keep living if they don’t keep lying… no one in their right mind trusts the DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA/CDC/FDA/etc… but sure… it was an honest mistake… don’t take a step backward… you can thank me later… 😉👍

a reply to: JinMI

Not including evidence that supports the DOJ's case would benefit Trump as it would not be admissible during trial.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Calling this corruption is true ignorance, folks. True ignorance.

Alleging that a historically corrupt beurocracy as corrupt is ignorant?

....k

Just curious, what do you call folks who applaud a historically corrupt agency?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: JinMI

Not including evidence that supports the DOJ's case would benefit Trump as it would not be admissible during trial.

Now youre making excuses for the DoJ?


See above....

Excuses....Excuses....Excuses....Please. They knew exactly what they were doing and it is becoming obvious some of you are not the 'Legal Eagles' you thought you were. How can you possibly defend this?

It is not about who broke the story either. They did not provide all of the evidence that was to be reviewed. You do not have the ability to pick and choose what is shown. Unless, you are the J6 committee.....

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: SwissMarked

The DOJ were the ones that discovered the videos weren't uploaded, rectified the situation, and then notified the court.

You must be an avid reader of an obscure book called “A Million and One Excuses For Any Occasion”
You own the only known copy in the world.

a reply to: JinMI

They caught a mistake and fixed it. If they hadn't they would have hurt their case.

Not sure what more needs to be said.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Ignorance? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. It is not nice to call people names. This is prosecutorial misconduct. If it was the defense team not providing something you would all be yelling GUILTY!

a reply to: Threadbare

How many times are you going to say that? This is a MAJOR part of the entire case that involves 3 other people and they happened to NOT upload the information? Would one not think that the DOJ would make sure to not make such a 'simple' mistake. Things like this will get a conviction overturned.

Sorry. This is some sketchy #....

a reply to: matafuchs

Actually they do have the ability to pick and choose. They're legally obligated to provide potentially exculpatory evidence, but outside of that they only need to provide the evidence they're going to use during the trial.

If this footage was not handed over during discovery, which is still ongoing, it would not be included in the case.