Posted on 03/22/2023 7:18:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It has been reported that Trump could be indicted as early as Wednesday, but it’s anyone’s guess when and if it will actually happen. However, it is becoming more apparent that the case, which legal experts believe is very weak, has been rigged against Trump.
On Monday night, during an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Robert Costello, the surprise witness in the case, discussed his testimony before the Manhattan Grand Jury earlier in the day. Costello stated that he testified for two hours in front of Soros-funded DA Bragg’s grand jury and claimed that during that time, he came to the conclusion that the DA’s office was not interested in discovering the truth.
“I just spent two hours or so testifying before the grand jury in downtown Manhattan, and I got my point across,” Costello said. “Although it was clear to me that the Manhattan DA’s office did not want to get to the truth. I need to explain that a little bit. I called them up after I saw Michael Cohen on TV, stating things that he said he was going to tell the grand jury and had told the grand jury that were contrary to what he told us when we first represented him in April of 2018. So I’m sitting at home watching these lies, and I said I’ve got to do something about it. I don’t represent Donald Trump, but I do stand for justice. And I think I have a legal obligation to inform both sides. So that’s what I did.”
The situation is alarming but not entirely surprising, given what we already know about DA Alvin Bragg. However, things might actually be even worse than previously thought, because Bragg may have deliberately hidden exculpatory evidence from the grand jury.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Why does this headline say MISTRIAL?
Because IT SHOULD BE A MISTRIAL!
Not only that, if exculpatory evidence were deliberately withheld, Alvin Bragg should be charged with MISCONDUCT and his law license REVOKED.
There is a good chance it could be proved because Bragg actually campaigned on indicting President Trump. It was one of his main campaign points and from what I have read is totally illegal, but Democrats never get in trouble for doing truly illegal things.
If a trial ends with such evidence withheld, I agree, but there is no trial yet.
...lol, picture 2 kittens on your living room floor and they discover a ball of twine, then they pounce on it! Then you take it away and all of a sudden there is nothing to play with so they go back to their corners and wait for the next ball of twine.
Same goes for lawyers. In a Grand Jury proceeding, there are very few billable hours and the Grand Jury may dismiss so there is no case (ball of twine) to play with. But, let there be an indictment and there are potentially decades of billable hours. A rich client like Trump with billions is a defense lawyers dream and prosecutors (think Marcia Clark) get to write a book!
It’s all baked into the cake after CENTURIES of so called jurisprudence.
And they need 12 out of 23 to indict, but 12 out of 12 to convict. But Bragg will have done his job if a trial+appeal is still going on in Nov. 2024.
Do you know the difference between a grand jury proceeding and an actual criminal trial?
Biden "lost" 2020. Does anybody believe that Biden really got 81 million living American Citizens to vote for him?
RE: Do you know the difference between a grand jury proceeding and an actual criminal trial?
Answer this : if every grand jury trial is simply the prosecution’s presentation against a defendant to the exclusion of evidence that could exonerate the defendant, why is an experienced lawyer like Robert Costello telling the grand jury to read the FULL LIST of emails IN CONTEXT and not simply the selected filtered evidence Bragg wants to present?
Obviously it is to show them how bogus the charge is and to REJECT Bragg’s case. And if the charges care shown to be bogus based on Costello’s FULL evidence, then this trial is obviously a mistrial because it is based on half truths.
Otherwise, why didn’t Costello wait for the actual criminal trial to present the full evidence?
if one grand jury juror asked to see the documents Costello talked about (and suggested they ask the prosecutor for) the prosecutor has to give them to the jury.
There is a good chance it could be proved because Bragg actually campaigned on indicting President Trump. It was one of his main campaign points and from what I have read is totally illegal, but Democrats never get in trouble for doing truly illegal things.
I suggest someone put together all Braggs statements, video newspaper etc saying he was going after trump and make a political ad about it..and give it to the NY bar as a complaint
There is a good chance it could be proved because Bragg actually campaigned on indicting President Trump. It was one of his main campaign points and from what I have read is totally illegal, but Democrats never get in trouble for doing truly illegal things.
I suggest someone put together all Braggs statements, video newspaper etc saying he was going after trump and make a political ad about it..and give it to the NY bar as a complaint
“According to Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, it appears that the Bragg may have suppressed hundreds of pages of evidence that could potentially exonerate President Trump in this case.”
Jarrett must have flunked out of law school. Although the prosecutor has a constitutional obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense, the obligation does not arise until after the defendant is indicted and arraigned, and has entered a plea.
see my post 50
What I want to understand is this - if a grand jury is mainly to be a prosecutor’s case to convince them to indict a defendant, why then did Bragg allow a witness like Costello, who is known in advance to be an experienced lawyer who will discredit his own star witness, to the witness stand?
This is a grand jury. 12 out of 23 Grand jury members need to vote for an indictment in order for the case to proceed. If Bragg continues with the grand jury, I suspect Trump will be indicted.
As to an actual trial, we can hope that there is one sane person accidentally allowed on the jury.
“What I want to understand is this - if a grand jury is mainly to be a prosecutor’s case to convince them to indict a defendant, why then did Bragg allow a witness like Costello, who is known in advance to be an experienced lawyer who will discredit his own star witness, to the witness stand?”
Excellent question. First, under NY law, the grand jury has the authority to issue its own subpoena and initiate its own investigations independent of the prosecutor. Although unlikely, the grand jury could have issued the subpoena.
Second, the more likely explanation is that Bragg is being pressured from above to drop the investigation and by allowing Costello to testify he gives the jury a reason not to indict without losing face and looking like the corrupt political hack that he is.
he asked to be a witness was not called by prosecutor and he gave prosecutor stacks of paper with pertinent info.
RE: he asked to be a witness was not called by prosecutor and he gave prosecutor stacks of paper with pertinent info
So, the prosecutor did not know that he was going to be a witness with information that coulkd debunk their case?
my understanding is he(costello) had given the documents to the prosecuor but pros declined to call him..look at one of costellos tv interviews he explains much
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.