Ri-chard Loc: 23322

Mr. Smith and his assistants convinced a federal judge in Washington to not only approve a search warrant for President Trump’s X account, formerly known as Twitter, but to block President Trump from learning about the warrant, according to a ruling unsealed on Aug. 9.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/special-counsel-jack-smith-admits-another-error-in-a-trump-case-5454993?utm_source=News&src_src=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2023-08-10-2&src_cmp=breaking-2023-08-10-2&utm_medium=email&est=qUrOoTFVnJ8QxFM81PEgOZtLhhHVy9sXiuUITccIeez5djnChRwqudT1a%2FY4WMmY

Kevyn

This is completely above board. Keep in mind the investigation was for among other things racketeering. He has absolutely no reason or obligation to inform Trump of any aspect of the investigation. To do so would give Trump and his lieutenants the opportunity to pay off or threaten witnesses.

Carol Kelly

Jack Smith is a thug trying to destroy a decent, productive human being. Biden is the leader of a crime family and his son is a rich druggie flying by his lying fathers coattails. Money talks loudly, doesn’t it?

Liberty Tree

You are a pathetic excuse for a citizen and a person. Do you have any honor?

BIRDMAN

He should spend his time investigating more important things

Byrd

Are you saying you can charge someone and not tell them why? How are they supposed to defend themselves if they don't have the information on why the charge is being brought. You better hope no one ever decides to charge you if what you say is true.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Please show where Smith or the FBI was investigating racketeering. Or are you admitting that they were just fishing for anything they could find. An investigation looking for a crime.

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

🤨

Kevyn

No, he was informed after the investigation once charged a criminal defendant has the access to discovery. Before that not at all.

Kevyn

His felonious call to Georgia fishing to “find votes” was plenty to start an investigation.

steve66613

Would you be so kind as to site the law regarding this matter? (As you stated it.)

BIRDMAN

I suggest you listen to the call

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Not by Smith.

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

That call is not a federal investigation. It is a state investigation with no charges filed as of yet. As far as we know there is no federal racketeering investigation which is what you claimed.

Byrd

Here is what the law says:The Admissibility of Evidence and the Exclusionary Rule
Prosecutors and defendants in criminal proceedings may present evidence in support of their cases. The state has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant may present evidence to challenge the state’s case. Each side should have the opportunity to review the other side’s evidence before trial and object to the introduction of certain evidence before or during trial. In criminal cases, defendants may move the court to exclude evidence that the state obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admission of evidence in the federal court system. Each state has its own evidence rules, which are often similar to the federal rules
It says " the state has the burden of proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt" In other words, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, without a shadow of a doubt. Trump has never been proved guilty of any of the charges. It also says" each side should have the opportunity to review the other sides evidence BEFORE THE TRIAL and object to the introduction of certain evidence before or during the trial". Which means legally they must inform Trump and his attorneys what the evidence is or isn't before the trial.
In other words, if you are going to try someone he must be made aware of all the charges and evidence against him.