Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 15,718
- 27,676
- 2,430
The Indictment of Former President Trump Is An
Abuse of Prosecutorial Power For Political Purposes
–
The Motive Is Clear on Its Face
The Indictment of Former President Trump Is An Abuse of Prosecutorial Power For Political Purposes - The Motive Is Clear on Its Face
Taking 49 Pages To Unnecessarily Describe Details Exposes The Real Purpose of The Indictment -- To Serve As A Press Release
shipwreckedcrew.substack.com
The purpose of an indictment is to provide notice to the defendant of the nature and circumstances of the charges. The content of an indictment is 100% the result of decisions made by the prosecutor. The document is drafted by the prosecutor and presented to the grand jury. The grand jury does not itself make changes to the language or allegations in the indictment.
The legal requirement with regard to the content of an indictment is that there be sufficient specificity that the defendant is advised of the time, place, and details of the charges so as to allow a defendant to claim “double jeopardy” in circumstances where the subject of the prosecution has been previously adjudicated against him.
Beyond that, federal courts at all levels have held that the charging language in an indictment combined with the detailed information and evidence provided to he defendant and his counsel in discovery, satisfies the “notice” required by due process.
What is absolutely certain is that the content of any indictment is not a reflection of any “right” of the public to see a litany of detailed ALLEGATIONS that form the basis for the charges, especially where those allegations are not presented in the context of the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that may — or may not — support the claims alleged.
~Snip~
What is absolutely certain is that the content of any indictment is not a reflection of any “right” of the public to see a litany of detailed ALLEGATIONS that form the basis of the charges, especially where those allegations are not presented in the context of the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that may — or may not — support the claims alleged.
What the Department of Justice has done more and more often in the past 20 years — particularly since the dawn of internet era — is to use what are called “speaking indictments” to manufacture a public narrative concerning the alleged crimes of the defendant. The more high profile the case, the more effort DOJ puts into crafting an extensive narrative for public consumption. With the allegations set forth in a public record, Department of Justice officials can discuss them in the press without violating DOJ policy.
Because the allegations will be published far and wide long before they are subject to the crucible of the adversarial system of justice, the narrative takes hold in the public consciousness as “fact” and often becomes impervious to contrary evidence.
Before turning to the Trump indictment, let me provide you a real world example that I was just involved in over the past few months.
Commentary:
The FSB and Stasi story keeps continues to change.
FLASHBACK:
WaPo interviewed the same witnesses as Jack Smith and originally reported the Mar-a-Lago storage room was secured by lock and key. The indictment omits this fact. No where does it say the storage room had a lock, leaving court to believe it was unsecured.
Never was it documented boxes were taken from anywhere but the storage room or Trumps office. Now a ballroom and bathroom, deep faked or staged photos? Yet all the boxes were more secure than where Bidens stolen documents at the University office. the China Town Office and strewn a garage with a crack heads access.
Meanwhile, the Stasi/FBI has covered up and buried the fact that Joey Xi Bai Dung took a $5 million dollar bribe while Vice President.
DOJ Covers Up $5M Biden Bribe From Burisma While Indicting Trump | Frontpage Mag
"$5 million for one Biden, $5 million for the other Biden"
www.frontpagemag.com
