Imagine if your local prosecutor publicly accused you of crimes and leaked to the media lies and manufactured evidence that suggested your guilt, but when the time came to show his cards to the court he bailed?
Then he issues a report to the media and your enemies explaining how guilty you are, all without proving a thing, obeying the rules of evidence etc etc etc. But hey, in the process he used the taxpayer money to do all sorts of opposition research on you, some true some not true, about you and your friends, just to smear you.
This is why prosecutors and courts usually do not release this kind of thing and why the raw data from investigations and Grand Jury proceedings are kept secret (Rule 6E) as said information is full of one sided allegations and accusations that have not been properly vetted, challenged, or cross examined by the other side.
Democrats know this, heck all lawyers know this. Keep that in mind next time you see politicians yammering about transparency. It’s phony.
[Editor’s Note – I have seen that after reading this some people still do not understand, so let us paint a clearer picture:
The same reasons apply here as to why so much of the JFK Assassination evidence has been kept secret to this day – every piece of partial evidence, every coincidence, every false allegation and every piece of circumstantial evidence would be escalated to an accusation of murdering the President.
The result would be chaos, countless lives ruined with no chance of defending themselves. The presumption of innocence would be tossed out the window. This is why the Constitution guarantees a presumption of innocence, the right to face and cross examine your accuser, and a right to discovery.]
UPDATE – A prime example of the previously mentioned phoniness is provided by Democrat Jerrold Nadler who had a much different take on 6E covered evidence when President Clinton was impeached. Watch for yourself: