- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Jack Smith has done it again. He did not consider exculpatory evidence at all.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:13 pm
Jack Smith did not even look at exculpatory documents provided by Trump associates. Looks like the SCOTUS is going to have to spank him down again. Trump suilts will follow the SCOTUS beat down.
Trump Exculpatory Docs Not Reviewed
Trump Exculpatory Docs Not Reviewed
16
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:21 pm to Timeoday
Everything they've tried has been filled with a comedy of errors. It's why I don't understand either side getting worked up over any of this. It's all for show. Nothing more.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:22 pm to Timeoday
He doesn’t have to, Trump will have the opportunity to present that at the trial, not that it will make any difference. He will be convicted and have to appeal to the USSC.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:24 pm to FriscoTiger1973
A special council doesn't?
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:28 pm to Timeoday
The SCOTUS is licking their chops to smack that idiot again. He already took a 9-0 beating there. Setting up nicely to have round two.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:29 pm to Warboo
This is how you make a ham sandwich
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:29 pm to Timeoday
Jack Smith is a fricking clown with a long track record of getting pimp slapped
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:31 pm to Timeoday
quote:
He did not consider exculpatory evidence at all.
He doesn't have to give it any sort of weight.
If he knows of it and doesn't turn it over to Trump, THAT would be an issue.
This post was edited on 8/4/23 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:31 pm to FriscoTiger1973
quote:
He doesn’t have to, Trump will have the opportunity to present that at the trial, not that it will make any difference.
Have to by law? Probably not. Have to due to professional conduct and not wasting the tax payer’s money and harassing a private citizen? Absolutely should.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:32 pm to Timeoday
quote:
Parlatore said he was "stunned" when, after the indictment came down, the prosecutor contacted him asking for the records he said he had already provided.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:40 pm to Timeoday
quote:
Jack Smith has done it again. He did not consider exculpatory evidence at all.
That's not what the article you linked says
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:43 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Parlatore said he was "stunned" when, after the indictment came down, the prosecutor contacted him asking for the records he said he had already provided.
Obviously they were in a rush due to the news cycle. Biden had to be removed from the headlines.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:47 pm to FriscoTiger1973
quote:
He doesn’t have to
He absolutely does. Attorneys have ethical rules they have to abide by. Prosecutors too. DOJ manual covers it as well. Ignoring exculpatory evidence would violate the duty under JM 9-27.220
This post was edited on 8/4/23 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:52 pm to Timeoday
I can’t believe smith didn’t consider that trump et al would claim they were in good faith in their cockamamie beliefs or provide affidavits or present witnesses saying same. He’s totally fricked.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:53 pm to MightyYat
quote:
It's all for show. Nothing more.
From the legal standpoint, yeah. This is for the election.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:53 pm to cwill
quote:
cwill
Supports weaponizing government against political opponents.
And not believing a defendants theory is VERY different than ignoring exculpatory evidence. Not that you care. You would have done well in the 40s.
This post was edited on 8/4/23 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:53 pm to FriscoTiger1973
quote:
He doesn’t have to,
Prosecutors are required to consider exculpatory evidence.
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:53 pm to FriscoTiger1973
quote:Seems like the grand jury should have been made privy to that evidence.
He doesn’t have to,
Posted on 8/4/23 at 2:56 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
That's not what the article you linked says
quote:
Parlatore said the "records are absolutely exculpatory."
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News