Aug. 4, 2023 - Epoch Times
10:11
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Good evening, and right before we dive in, I wanted to quickly mention that on the back end of this particular YouTube channel, I was recently informed that the system had decided to delete an episode of mine in which we exposed how the CDC had collected the cell phone tracking data of about 44 million Americans in order to see whether compliance with the mandates was effective at quote-unquote curbing COVID. Now obviously, | |
| I thought it was a mistake, because the reason they gave for taking that episode down was that I was encouraging people to give out their private information publicly. | |
| That's of course not true, but whatever, systems make mistakes. | |
| And so I appealed that decision. | |
| And wouldn't you know it, after an alleged manual review by a real person, they still decided to delete that episode completely off of this platform. | |
| Think about that. | |
| Some 20-year-old with probably blue hair and a nose ring over in Silicon Valley decided that the people across this country should not have access to that report about how the CDC was tracking American citizens in order to see whether they were compliant with the mandates. | |
| Very cool. | |
| And so listen, if you are as sick and tired of this censorship as I am, you're in luck. | |
| Because the Epoch Times is extending our awesome sale on subscriptions. | |
| Just 25 cents a week for the whole year. | |
| which, if you do the math, works itself out to just be $8 a month. | |
| And so if you've been on the fence, you've been thinking about it, you're not sure whether to subscribe or not, but you're 100% sure that you're completely fed up with the unbridled censorship on this platform and others, and you want to try an honest source of news, well, perhaps take this sale as an opportunity to try the Epoch Times for yourself. | |
| I'll throw a link down into the description box below. | |
| You can just click on that link and head on over to the page where you can try the Epic Times for yourself for, again, just a single dollar a month. | |
| Now, jumping into today's main topic, this right here is Mr. | |
| Jack Smith. | |
| He's the special counsel over at the Department of Justice, who is currently pushing forward several of the indictments against President Trump at the federal level. | |
| And while most of the country's attention has been laser-focused on Mr. | |
| Jack Smith's most recent January 6-related indictment, well, there was actually some shocking development in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. | |
| That's because three days ago, Jack Smith's team had to admit to a federal judge that they had actually made false statements in court during their case against President Trump. | |
| Specifically, their admission came in the form of this court filing right here. | |
| And within the pages of this document, these Justice Department prosecutors, they acknowledged that despite what they had told the court previously, they had actually failed to turn over all of the evidence to Trump's legal team as is required by federal law. | |
| Here's specifically what the relevant part of this court filing says. | |
| Quote, | |
| over all of the surveillance footage to Trump's legal team that wasn't true. | |
| And they had to admit as such. | |
| Now, the reason that this matters is several-fold. | |
| First of all, under what's known as the Brady Rule, prosecutors in a criminal case, they have a constitutional responsibility to hand over all evidence to the defendant's legal team, which undoubtedly includes information that's favorable to the accused. | |
| Second of all, it's not exactly clear why they did not hand over all the footage in the first place. | |
| but said they did. | |
| In fact, if you look at a timeline of events, it becomes even more suspect. | |
| On July 18th, during a court hearing, the prosecutors told the judge that all surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago had already been handed over to Trump's legal team. | |
| Then, one week later, on July 27th, Jack Smith and his federal prosecutors issued another indictment, this one being against the Mar-a-Lago property manager, Mr. Carlos De La Vera. | |
| In that case, the prosecutors alleged that Mr. De La Vera De La Vera sought to delete the surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago that was being subpoenaed in the classified documents case. | |
| And apparently, in the process of issuing this new indictment to the property manager, the prosecutors included in it new surveillance footage that they had possession of but never handed over to the Trump legal team. | |
| And then it took these federal prosecutors another full week, all the way up until July 31st, to submit this court filing right here, admit to the judge that they had withheld evidence previously, and also misled the court. | |
| But here's the big question. | |
| After looking at that particular timeline, would the prosecutors have actually handed over this footage if they didn't need to make it public as a part of this other indictment against the Mar-a-Lago manager? | |
| Or would they have just kept it quiet? | |
| Because this appears to be somewhat of a tactic that's being used by federal prosecutors in recent memory. | |
| For instance, you might remember how, just a few months ago, when Tucker Carlson was still over at Fox News, he released surveillance footage from January 6th, previously unseen surveillance footage. | |
| And among this release footage, it showed Mr. | |
| Jacob Chansley, the so-called shaman, being essentially escorted through the hallways by the Capitol Police themselves, who then opened the doors to the Senate chamber so that he can go in and take those famous photos that were, of course, then plastered all over every single news outlet across the entire country. | |
| However, that footage, before being aired by Tucker on national TV, was never seen by Jake's legal team. | |
| The government never gave that footage to Jake's lawyers prior to him receiving an almost four-year-long prison sentence. | |
| And so really take that in for a moment. | |
| The prosecutors in that case, they went to a jury trial, and they never handed over this exculpatory evidence. | |
| The lawyers for Jacob, they might have told the jury verbally that the police officers were just letting him walk around, but since the government refused to hand over the actual surveillance footage, what jury would believe them? | |
| And this isn't the exact situation that almost all the January 6th defendants find themselves in. | |
| The government has spent almost two years refusing to hand over the surveillance footage to their legal defense team from that day. | |
| It has, unfortunately, become somewhat of a common practice for federal prosecutors. | |
| Which brings us right back to this case against President Trump. | |
| Here, with this admission from Jack Smith's team about not handing over all the surveillance footage, even though they said that they did, it raises the question of whether they were attempting to play sort of a similar game in this new case. | |
| And this is all compounded even further by the fact that just earlier today, President Trump was indicted once again in Washington, D.C. for his alleged role in January 6th. | |
| And the prosecutor pushing that case forward, well, it's none other than Mr. | |
| Jack Smith. | |
| In fact, here was Jack Smith announcing the charges against President Trump just two short days ago. | |
| Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. | |
| The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes charged in detail. | |
| In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens. | |
| In the meantime, I must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. | |
| Alright, I'd like to pause here for a super quick moment and introduce the sponsor of today's episode, the one, the only, MyPatriotSupply, America's largest preparedness company. | |
| Now listen, if you live through the COVID pandemic of 2020 and the summer of love, then you know that things can change on a dime. | |
| You can go to your supermarket store shelves and all of a sudden they're empty And the things that you want are either too expensive to get or they're straight up not available. | |
| And so the time to prepare is right now. | |
| Just head on over to preparewithroman.com because they're offering major savings on their popular four-week emergency food kits, which quite literally give you the exact amount of calories that you need when you need them the most. | |
| Included are breakfasts, lunches, dinners, drinks, as well as snacks That'll keep you going strong. | |
| And best of all, the food is actually delicious. | |
| It's the kind of food your family will say, wow, I actually don't feel like there's a giant crisis because I'm eating well and it's tasting good. | |
| And so the time to prepare is right now, not when the proverbial stuff hits the fan. | |
| So again, head on over to preparewithroman.com and save big on their four-week emergency food kits. | |
| Perhaps buy one for each member of your family. | |
| Again, that's preparewithroman.com. | |
| And now let's head on back to the studio. | |
| And then, of course, as I mentioned earlier today, President Trump was in Washington, D.C., getting arraigned and processed for this new January 6th indictment. | |
| And just as a fun fact, having a jury trial against President Trump over in Washington, D.C. is what can only be described a wild move. | |
| In case you don't know, in terms of voting records, in the year 2020, 92.2% of Washington, D.C. residents voted for Joe Biden. | |
| With only 5.4% voting for Trump. | |
| And so with that being the jury pool, well, it's a real question mark whether President Trump will get a fair trial in that particular city. | |
| And by the way, just for reference, here's what the opening text of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says. | |
| And so the question... | |
| Even outside of any evidence, becomes whether or not a truly impartial jury, as it mentions here in the Sixth Amendment, can be selected for a former president in a place like Washington, D.C., where you had 92% of the people vote against him. | |
| We'll just have to wait and see how that plays out. | |
| Otherwise, if you'd like to go deeper into anything that we discussed in today's episode, including the support filing for Mr. | |
| Jack Smith's legal team, well, that will all be down in the description box below this video for you to check out, which I should mention is that description box right below those like and subscribe buttons, which I hope you take a moment to smash. | |
| And lastly, as I mentioned at the very top of today's episode... | |
| If you'd like to try the Epic Times and get unlimited access to everything, all of the articles, all the infographics, all the shows, documentaries, and movies on Epic TV, and everything that we publish, well, now's a great time with the awesome sale that we have just extended. | |
| I'll throw a link to that sale page. | |
| It'll be right there at the top of the description box below. | |
| You can use it to sign up for, again, just a single dollar a month and try the Epic Times for yourself. |
Export Selection