@metal-brain saidDershowitz is pathetic.
Go after me, I go after you.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/04/dershowitz-jack-smith-could-be-indicted-for-fraud-for-omitting-trumps-peaceful-statement/
An indictment is a charging instrument; prosecutors are not obligated to put in every piece of information the defense thinks might be exculpatory.
That's Criminal Procedure 101; Dershowitz knows better. He's just pandering to his far right audience now.
05 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidLOL!
Dershowitz is pathetic.
An indictment is a charging instrument; prosecutors are not obligated to put in every piece of information the defense thinks might be exculpatory.
That's Criminal Procedure 101; Dershowitz knows better. He's just pandering to his far right audience now.
The indictment is full of unprovable opinions. It is obviously a partisan hack job. Very unprofessional. He should have stuck to the facts.
05 Aug 23
@metal-brain saidThis is why a college education should be free and required in this country.
LOL!
The indictment is full of unprovable opinions. It is obviously a partisan hack job. Very unprofessional. He should have stuck to the facts.
05 Aug 23
@Metal-Brain
Keep on telling us what your Russian bosses want you to say comrade.
You keep proving yourself a fool every time you type.
You refuse or are unable to actually read the indictment, maybe unable because you really are living in Russia but the indictment does not have opinions, it has FACTS JACK. The witnesses are Trump appointees, like his AG Barr, who saw up close and personal what Trump said.
You can puke out all your Russian propaganda points all you want but all it does is show just how much of a tool you really are.
05 Aug 23
@sonhouse saidYou once said I was an ultra right winger. I take it you are finally convinced I am a Marxist?
@Metal-Brain
Keep on telling us what your Russian bosses want you to say comrade.
You keep proving yourself a fool every time you type.
You refuse or are unable to actually read the indictment, maybe unable because you really are living in Russia but the indictment does not have opinions, it has FACTS JACK. The witnesses are Trump appointees, like his AG Barr, who saw up ...[text shortened]... ssian propaganda points all you want but all it does is show just how much of a tool you really are.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
@no1marauder saidI put my money on Dershowitz
Dershowitz is pathetic.
An indictment is a charging instrument; prosecutors are not obligated to put in every piece of information the defense thinks might be exculpatory.
That's Criminal Procedure 101; Dershowitz knows better. He's just pandering to his far right audience now.
USAM 9–11.233.
“In United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts' supervisory powers over the grand jury did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It is the policy of the Department of Justice, however, that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is personally aware of substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury before seeking an indictment against such a person. While a failure to follow the Department's policy should not result in dismissal of an indictment, appellate courts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.
@no1marauder saidMott proved you wrong.
Dershowitz is pathetic.
An indictment is a charging instrument; prosecutors are not obligated to put in every piece of information the defense thinks might be exculpatory.
That's Criminal Procedure 101; Dershowitz knows better. He's just pandering to his far right audience now.
06 Aug 23
@mott-the-hoople said"substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation"
I put my money on Dershowitz
USAM 9–11.233.
“In United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the Federal courts' supervisory powers over the grand jury did not include the power to make a rule allowing the dismissal of an otherwise valid indictment where the prosecutor failed to introduce substantial exculpatory evidence to a gra ...[text shortened]... urts may refer violations of the policy to the Office of Professional Responsibility for review.[/b]
There is no evidence of this sort concerning Trump. Are you high?
@metal-brain saidHe most certainly did not. It's virtually certain the prosecutors played Trump's whole speech before the GJ and anyway that one ambiguous sentence is certainly not "substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation".
Mott proved you wrong.
@averagejoe1 saidSettle down, man. I understand Smith has a degree, maybe more than one. This makes him far better at his job than ignorant bystanders like Metalhead.
Sue…….settle, your point is flat on its face, because Smith has a ‘college’ degree.
Don’t shoot me, I am just a bystander
For further clarification, I was speaking about Metalhead.
06 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidWell at least you did not falsely accuse me of lying while you were lying this time.
He most certainly did not. It's virtually certain the prosecutors played Trump's whole speech before the GJ and anyway that one ambiguous sentence is certainly not "substantial evidence that directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation".
You know you are wrong though. AD's assertion is true. He could. That doesn't mean he will, but he could and you know it.