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

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

. . . 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 )

It was explicitly requested and denied. Which is fraud and malicious prosecution, just for starters. Under federal law, all involved are criminals.