[usnavy_cop_retired]

Let’s assume that the below statement is true, (which it is not and could not be true;

“Erik Kenerson, an assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the case, said in court Wednesday that even if there were missing messages, the defense could have asked the government to produce them. He said that prosecutors decide which messages to provide to the defense, so it was not appropriate to imply the agent hid them.”

The prosecution has a absolute obligation to provide the defense with ALL exculpatory evidence. The defense, whom does not know that the prosecution knows that these emails existed, were required to let the defense know of their existence.

Knowing that the emails reflected alleged destruction of evidence and a conspiracy to destroy evidence by having CI statements re-written is, without a doubt, criminal activity and a violation of Brady.

Whether the agent was ordered to destroy evidence, or not, she had a legal obligation to refuse to do it and to report it to the Director of the FBI/IG/AG, and if necessary, to the defense attorney/s

[PeterPrinciple]

Would there be plausible deniability? They did give all the information. But oops, forgot about them being hidden.

At least in their minds..........................

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Oops!

What do you mean an “oops”?

DOJ/FBI: We are so screwed!!