I’m shocked this circus even allowed Robert Costello’s testimony
What are they required to present to the grand jury as opposed to an actual trial?
I heard an extended interview with Costello on John Solomon last night. Cohen’s lawyer, and that idiot signed an attorney-client confidentiality waiver, so Costello is free to repeat everything Cohen said to him. You only need one juror who isn’t corrupt, and the case will go down in flames.
This is actually quite dangerous for Bragg. He’s got the flimsiest of cases, with a time-barred misdemeanor AT BEST that he’s trying to gin up into a felony. You have a witness in Costello who will burn the star witness, Cohen, righ to the ground. Now there’s the prospect of a bar complaint becuasencostello makes out a compelling case that exculpatory evidence was withheld from the grand jury.
We’ll see if Bragg’s TDS is strong enough to get him to go for it in what will be a very troubled case
Just as an aside—where are those woke college kids and paid protesters demanding that ‘Bragg’ change his last name?
Here’s a theory: Bragg knows that this case is likely to get tossed because of his office’s withholding of evidence.
But his hatred of President Trump is so entrenched that he does not care, for two reasons. One, Bragg will have his scalp (sorry Wokesters) in that history will record Trump during the perpwalk and maybe in handcuffs. Two: the corrupt NY legal system will not disbar one of their fellow travelers because they agree with his tactics.
So Bragg gets a win-win.
The grand jury is an accusatory body not an adjudicatory body.
The headline is baseless clickbait.
United States v. Williams 504 U.S. 36 (1992)
“Respondent Williams was indicted by a federal grand jury for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. 1014. On his motion, the District Court ordered the indictment dismissed without prejudice because the Government had failed to fulfill its obligation under Circuit precedent to present “substantial exculpatory evidence” to the grand jury. Following that precedent, the Court of Appeals affirmed.”
Affirmative action promotions sometimes have their benefits.
Our enemies are too stupid to prevail.
i think this is like every other Dem move: grab the headlines with the brazen accusation, then drag out the proof phase. by the time people figure out there is no ‘there’ there the damage has been done. people believe the accusation and never check back to see if it was ever proven. this ‘hoax’ approach is a proven strategy for them and it always drags many down the road of disinformation.
Much of the reason the phrase “a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich” exists is because the exculpatory rules only apply AFTER the defendant is indicted during the trial phase. Under the law, prosecutors need only present witnesses and evidence favorable to their case before the grand jury and need not share anything with the subject of the investigation. It is what it is and that is why these Dem urban prosecutors are able to have their media political show trials where they can unfairly ruin the reputation of the subject. Even when they lose the case, the damage had already been done.
Nations hostile to The United States control Soros/Clintons/Obama/Bidens who control the Democrat party which controls Democrats.
This isn’t a crosstown high school basketball rivalry.
This is foreign dictators trying to weaken and destroy The United States.
It’s the grand jury. Usually defense isn’t even there, exculpatory evidence doesn’t matter. That’s for the real trial. The grand jury is just for prosecution to convince them they “have a case”. That’s it.
If it’s still in front of a grand jury, it isn’t time for discovery yet. Plenty of time to deliver the exculpatory material.
Why does this headline say MISTRIAL?
“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.