What should happen to this prosecutor that used falsified evidence to prosecute anti-trump protesters?

It’s difficult when judges have to balance their patriotic duty to protect the nation from far-left America hating politically correct cancel culture Cultural Marxist NPC feminazi soyboy beta snowflakes.

You just have to give her some leeway and benefit of doubt.

Those protestors probably deserved to be prosecuted anyway just for the unpatriotic thoughts in their heads.

If true, hiding exculpatory evidence should be cause for disbarment and charges should be filed against the prosecutor.

There were a couple things I found odd on this one. The first was that they were looking to jail people protesting without a permit. That seems odd. Seems like it should have been tickets at most. I would think police breaking them up and sending them away would have done it. Reading the report of the ethics department and what the crimes were, it wasn’t just protesting. It was rioting, destruction of property, etc. Sort of a J6 thing.

What I find interesting is that in many ways the case is J6 before J6 happened.
Protesters rioting to disrupt an official proceeding – check
Violent and non-violent protesters being charged the same – check
Evidence being doctored and suppressed – check.

As for what should happen to this prosecutor, that is a separate question with a bit of depth to it. The prosecutor was an ASSISTANT US Attorney. By definition, she worked directly for an actual US Attorney. So I’m curious why the actual attorney is not named as a defendant. Yes, they said this woman was the only “attorney” that was on the case from start to finish which is why they singled her out, but why not the attorney who was overseeing her?

Another consideration is any statute of limitations that may apply. This spells out many federal statute of limitations. As far as I can tell anything that happened that long ago has already gone past a statute of limitations. So from that aspect, nothing should happen to her or anyone else on the prosecution side for this.

If they had caught this at the time or shortly thereafter, I’d think an investigation to see if it was intentional or not, if she knew of it or not, etc. If she was fully culpable, she’d be facing something along the lines of criminal contempt charges or fraud charges. Also all the cases against the protesters would likely have been thrown out or tossed back to the DOJ to see if they wanted to re-try the cases.

Does this qualify as lawfare? Which part? Falsifying evidence to convict someone? Probably. How about trying to bring up a case against someone well after the statute of limitations has run out? Again, probably.

Wow wulf is admitting J6 was a riot.

As for what should happen to this prosecutor, that is a separate question with a bit of depth to it. The prosecutor was an ASSISTANT US Attorney. By definition, she worked directly for an actual US Attorney

I can shed some light on this. I worked at the US Attorney’s office for Northern Illinois in Chicago. (Illinois has three US Attorneys – Northern, Central and Southern). There are 97 US Attorneys, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The US Attorneys have little hands-on involvement in the vast majority of federal court cases

The lawyers working under the US Attorney are Assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs). In almost all federal cases, AUSAs are the ones who do the lawyering. They are in the courtroom, the ones negotiating plea bargains, the ones defending the government in civil cases, etc. We had 160 AUSAs in Chicago.

The US Attorney is a high-level position. Kind of like a state Attorney General, or local District Attorney, they are not usually on the ground doing grunt work.

The AUSAs do the research, build the cases, depose witnesses, make court filings and argue before the court.

I hope that helps. If I wasn’t clear about anything, feel free to ask for clarification.

@Call_Me_Jay What kinds of charges could an AUSA face for knowingly hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense?

@SQUEEKY2 I have never argued that J6 was not a riot. I have said it was not an insurrection. I have also said that not everyone who was there to protest was rioting. And I have said that not everyone that was arrested was rioting. There are many left-wing talking points about J6 that I take exception with, but saying there was no riot was not one of them. In fact, if we dig back I believe you will find I have said that those that actually were rioting should be arrested and charged. I have also said the same thing about those that rioted for BLM/Antifa riots. Funny how you folks on the left can’t actually find it in you to admit those were riots or to say the rioters should have been arrested and punished.

@Call_Me_Jay Thank you for that clarification.

What kinds of charges could an AUSA face for knowingly hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense?

I do not have any special knowledge of that. But as a reader of the news, I don’t recall any instance of prosecutors being prosecuted for wrongful prosecution.

Also, a friend of mine (RIP Jane) was a law professor who exonerated many people on death row – she literally saved their lives from wrongful prosecution. The prosecutors never faced consequences. They apparently have immunity.

I’m tempted to say that the transparency that modern technology can show, may change the way the system “works.”
These aren’t the old days, when you could just prosecute someone, with little oversight.

US citizens have rights, and a big part of ANY case brought against someone, is that everyone involved and the legal team, have to be 100% in line with the law. No Mark Fuhrmans. No questionable evidence. And it is the DA’s responsibility (ultimately,) that everything is waterproof, before the charges are even brought.

Investigations into all that goes on, in the legal process, are thorough AF. And with cameras EVERYWHERE, and people’s online activities and phones, everything is available for scrutiny.

This, to me, is a double edge sword. Likely helping a LOT of people not be wrongfully prosecuted. But also letting people out of serious trouble, because of small details.

America’s justice system, is better than in many other nations. But. I overall am not a fan of it.