Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

119

. . . Many are now saying the Justice Department withheld Brady material by not disclosing the January 6 footage.

However, it appears Justice Department prosecutors can put their hands up and claim they didn’t withhold exculpatory evidence because the footage was in possession of the legislative branch.

The January 6 Committee was in possession of the footage which means the DOJ can make the claim it was not required to produce it, says Jonathan Turley. . . .

>. . . Many are now saying the Justice Department withheld Brady material by not disclosing the January 6 footage. >However, it appears Justice Department prosecutors can put their hands up and claim they didn’t withhold exculpatory evidence because the footage was in possession of the legislative branch. >The January 6 Committee was in possession of the footage which means the DOJ can make the claim it was not required to produce it, says Jonathan Turley. . . . [Source Article](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/03/jonathan-turley-reveals-how-the-justice-department-can-claim-it-was-not-required-to-produce-jan-6-footage-in-qanon-shaman-jacob-chansley-case/)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (2).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

His entire premise of "sperate branches, so lol no video" is a lie. The executive branch has the power to retain evidence from the legislative when the executive is representing the whole government in proceeding. Especially items that do no impact the function of Congress.

The truth is the executive never sought the footage because it was convenient for the prosecution. Therefore, it is withholding evidence.