About Those J6 “People”

[Political-Junkie]

So you are actually satisfied with what they released.
In my many years on forums, including this forum, I have encountered many strange people. This forum is not as bad. Since you do not know me, given your less than stellar way of talking, I have had to study law for my license. Our professor was fond of saying to us all, the courts will decide.

Defense lawyers seek all holes in all cases. You are asking for all cases conceived by victims to be declared invalid thanks to all data exposed on your say so.

View attachment 1269332

I've actually not said all data should be exposed. I actually supported appropriate redactions.

 

[Robert W]

You've proven no such thing. Regarding the Epstein files, the law should be upheld and all should have been released last December.

Like
Dislike

Do Courts Approve All Evidence to Be Made Public Before Trials?​

Courts do not automatically make all evidence public before trials. While U.S. law generally favors transparency, many pieces of evidence remain private until certain conditions are met.

Default presumption of openness
American courts operate under a strong presumption that proceedings and filings are open to the public. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to attend criminal trials, and most federal appellate courts extend a similar presumption to civil cases and court filings legalclarity.org. This means that when evidence is introduced in open court or formally filed with the court, it generally becomes part of the public record.

When evidence stays private
Not all evidence becomes public simply because it exists in a case. Many items are part of the pre‑trial discovery process and are shared only between the prosecution and defense. Discovery materials — such as police reports, witness statements, surveillance footage, and forensic reports — are not automatically public record unless they are admitted in court or filed with the court for a specific purpose David G. Moore Attorney at Law. Even after trial, much of this information remains sealed.

Judicial discretion to restrict access
A court can order that certain evidence be sealed or restricted if it finds that closure serves a compelling interest (e.g., witness safety, national security) and that less restrictive alternatives won’t work. The party seeking closure must prove this on the record, and courts that fail to meet the required standards risk reversal on appeal legalclarity.org.

Mandatory disclosure requirements
For fairness, U.S. law requires prosecutors to disclose certain types of evidence — such as exculpatory or impeachment material — to the defense before trial, regardless of whether the defense requests it U.S. Department of Justice+1. This is rooted in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. However, mandatory disclosure does not mean all evidence must be made public; sensitive or protected information can still be withheld.

In summary:

• Evidence introduced in open court or formally filed generally becomes public record.
• Much pre‑trial discovery remains private until admitted or filed.
• Courts can restrict access to sensitive evidence if they find a compelling reason.
• Prosecutors must disclose certain material evidence to ensure a fair trial, but not all evidence is automatically public.

 

[Robert W]

Blanche said they had to go through 6 million pages. The released about 3½ million.

Like
Dislike

Do Courts Approve All Evidence to Be Made Public Before Trials?​

Courts do not automatically make all evidence public before trials. While U.S. law generally favors transparency, many pieces of evidence remain private until certain conditions are met.

Default presumption of openness
American courts operate under a strong presumption that proceedings and filings are open to the public. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to attend criminal trials, and most federal appellate courts extend a similar presumption to civil cases and court filings legalclarity.org. This means that when evidence is introduced in open court or formally filed with the court, it generally becomes part of the public record.

When evidence stays private
Not all evidence becomes public simply because it exists in a case. Many items are part of the pre‑trial discovery process and are shared only between the prosecution and defense. Discovery materials — such as police reports, witness statements, surveillance footage, and forensic reports — are not automatically public record unless they are admitted in court or filed with the court for a specific purpose David G. Moore Attorney at Law. Even after trial, much of this information remains sealed.

Judicial discretion to restrict access
A court can order that certain evidence be sealed or restricted if it finds that closure serves a compelling interest (e.g., witness safety, national security) and that less restrictive alternatives won’t work. The party seeking closure must prove this on the record, and courts that fail to meet the required standards risk reversal on appeal legalclarity.org.

Mandatory disclosure requirements
For fairness, U.S. law requires prosecutors to disclose certain types of evidence — such as exculpatory or impeachment material — to the defense before trial, regardless of whether the defense requests it U.S. Department of Justice+1. This is rooted in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. However, mandatory disclosure does not mean all evidence must be made public; sensitive or protected information can still be withheld.

In summary:

• Evidence introduced in open court or formally filed generally becomes public record.
• Much pre‑trial discovery remains private until admitted or filed.
• Courts can restrict access to sensitive evidence if they find a compelling reason.
• Prosecutors must disclose certain material evidence to ensure a fair trial, but not all evidence is automatically public.

 

[Robert W]

I've actually not said all data should be exposed. I actually supported appropriate redactions.

Now you are cooking.

 

[Alweysrite!]

So you are actually satisfied with what they released.
In my many years on forums, including this forum, I have encountered many strange people. This forum is not as bad. Since you do not know me, given your less than stellar way of talking, I have had to study law for my license. Our professor was fond of saying to us all, the courts will decide.

Defense lawyers seek all holes in all cases. You are asking for all cases conceived by victims to be declared invalid thanks to all data exposed on your say so.

View attachment 1269332

He also wants all hearsay evidence, he said she said, rumors, finger pointing and scandalous lies released. He doesn't care if anybody gets hurt including himself.
That is some serious TDS there. Truly a mental illness

 

[Robert W]

Blanche said they had to go through 6 million pages. The released about 3½ million.

Now you are honest.



Like
Dislike

Do Courts Approve All Evidence to Be Made Public Before Trials?​

Courts do not automatically make all evidence public before trials. While U.S. law generally favors transparency, many pieces of evidence remain private until certain conditions are met.

Default presumption of openness
American courts operate under a strong presumption that proceedings and filings are open to the public. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to attend criminal trials, and most federal appellate courts extend a similar presumption to civil cases and court filings legalclarity.org. This means that when evidence is introduced in open court or formally filed with the court, it generally becomes part of the public record.

When evidence stays private
Not all evidence becomes public simply because it exists in a case. Many items are part of the pre‑trial discovery process and are shared only between the prosecution and defense. Discovery materials — such as police reports, witness statements, surveillance footage, and forensic reports — are not automatically public record unless they are admitted in court or filed with the court for a specific purpose David G. Moore Attorney at Law. Even after trial, much of this information remains sealed.

Judicial discretion to restrict access
A court can order that certain evidence be sealed or restricted if it finds that closure serves a compelling interest (e.g., witness safety, national security) and that less restrictive alternatives won’t work. The party seeking closure must prove this on the record, and courts that fail to meet the required standards risk reversal on appeal legalclarity.org.

Mandatory disclosure requirements
For fairness, U.S. law requires prosecutors to disclose certain types of evidence — such as exculpatory or impeachment material — to the defense before trial, regardless of whether the defense requests it U.S. Department of Justice+1. This is rooted in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. However, mandatory disclosure does not mean all evidence must be made public; sensitive or protected information can still be withheld.

In summary:

• Evidence introduced in open court or formally filed generally becomes public record.
• Much pre‑trial discovery remains private until admitted or filed.
• Courts can restrict access to sensitive evidence if they find a compelling reason.
• Prosecutors must disclose certain material evidence to ensure a fair trial, but not all evidence is automatically public.

 

[Political-Junkie]

I told you Biden is the proof that there's nothing for you in the Epstein files. The proof is that he held on to the files and did not prosecute anyone even when he was going crazy with lawfare against Trump. That means there's nothing there. You know I just love shutting people like you up, it's truly a pleasure. Thank you

To prove that you would need to prove Biden's DOJ reviewed all ~7 million pages of Epstein related material.

 

[Alweysrite!]

Your wisdom as a 75-year-old sure tops the Democrats lack wisdom.

Well I'm not 75 yet but thanks LOL. I am getting close, I'll turn 70 this summer.

 

[Robert W]

He also wants all hearsay evidence, he said she said, rumors, finger pointing and scandalous lies released. He doesn't care if anybody gets hurt including himself.
That is some serious TDS there. Truly a mental illness

He does not understand the law. It is his serious problem as you and I try to inform him.

 

[Robert W]

To prove that you would need to prove Biden's DOJ reviewed all ~7 million pages of Epstein related material.

Like
Dislike

Do Courts Approve All Evidence to Be Made Public Before Trials?​

Courts do not automatically make all evidence public before trials. While U.S. law generally favors transparency, many pieces of evidence remain private until certain conditions are met.

Default presumption of openness
American courts operate under a strong presumption that proceedings and filings are open to the public. The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the public’s right to attend criminal trials, and most federal appellate courts extend a similar presumption to civil cases and court filings legalclarity.org. This means that when evidence is introduced in open court or formally filed with the court, it generally becomes part of the public record.

When evidence stays private
Not all evidence becomes public simply because it exists in a case. Many items are part of the pre‑trial discovery process and are shared only between the prosecution and defense. Discovery materials — such as police reports, witness statements, surveillance footage, and forensic reports — are not automatically public record unless they are admitted in court or filed with the court for a specific purpose David G. Moore Attorney at Law. Even after trial, much of this information remains sealed.

Judicial discretion to restrict access
A court can order that certain evidence be sealed or restricted if it finds that closure serves a compelling interest (e.g., witness safety, national security) and that less restrictive alternatives won’t work. The party seeking closure must prove this on the record, and courts that fail to meet the required standards risk reversal on appeal legalclarity.org.

Mandatory disclosure requirements
For fairness, U.S. law requires prosecutors to disclose certain types of evidence — such as exculpatory or impeachment material — to the defense before trial, regardless of whether the defense requests it U.S. Department of Justice+1. This is rooted in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. However, mandatory disclosure does not mean all evidence must be made public; sensitive or protected information can still be withheld.

In summary:

• Evidence introduced in open court or formally filed generally becomes public record.
• Much pre‑trial discovery remains private until admitted or filed.
• Courts can restrict access to sensitive evidence if they find a compelling reason.
• Prosecutors must disclose certain material evidence to ensure a fair trial, but not all evidence is automatically public.

 

[Robert W]

Well I'm not 75 yet but thanks LOL. I am getting close, I'll turn 70 this summer.

I will go back and fix my error.

 

[Alweysrite!]

To prove that you would need to prove Biden's DOJ reviewed all ~7 million pages of Epstein related material.

I don't need to prove that. You're right that Biden was a lazy Administration however. It's a good possibility they didn't review it and didn't care, but that's not any Trump's doj's fault. It also doesn't make you correct in this argument.
That was your opportunity to "get Trump" and you blew it LOL. Just move on, there's nothing there. You failed

 

[Robert W]

I've actually not said all data should be exposed. I actually supported appropriate redactions.

Now you inform us.

 

[Alweysrite!]

I will go back and fix my error.

You seem like a reasonable person. This is a good website for us.

 

[Alweysrite!]

Now you inform us.

I seriously doubt he would be satisfied with all the redactions. That's just not the TDS way.

 

[Robert W]

You seem like a reasonable person. This is a good website for us.

I spent time in college studying law to keep my license active.

He, you know who, does not understand law at all. We do.
I have posted for him several times the law as it exists. He is asking for a problem for courts they can't solve.

 

[Alweysrite!]

He does not understand the law. It is his serious problem as you and I try to inform him.

The situation I'm sure is a lot more complicated than he can understand. The "get Trump" mentality is very powerful for some, any means are appropriate to that end.

 

[Alweysrite!]

I spent time in college studying law to keep my license active.

He, you know who, does not understand law at all. We do.
I have posted for him several times the law as it exists. He is asking for a problem for courts they can't solve.

Well I'm certainly glad you are here as a voice of reason.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Democrats love to say Trump fell in polls, yet polls prove it is Democrats who dropped out of sight.

Vance is the perfect candidate to follow Trump. He is going after fraud. He is not boisterous. He commands a good following. He sure beats whoever plans to run as a democrat for president. By the way, who would that be? As the forum political junkie, who do you predict will be that democrat?

Vance's favorability is 7 points underwater currently. So we'll see about him. I'm not sure which Democrats have announced plans to run, making it kind of hard to make predictions.

 

[Alweysrite!]

Vance's favorability is 7 points underwater currently. So we'll see about him. I'm not sure which Democrats have announced plans to run, making it kind of hard to make predictions.

There is no Democrat available fit for the presidency of the United States.