Jack Smith Admits He Did Not Tell The Truth In Court - Game Changer For Trial

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America

And Jackie Jack Smith, you know the special counsel who's prosecuting Trump in Washington DC

Well he just got caught in a big fat lie in court and now he had to admit it

Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe

Big special shout out to our Facebook and YouTube users who continue to do that and

that really helps our channel continue to grow. We thank you very much for that

Jack Smith and his team insisted that they had given all the evidence needed to the Trump team

All the evidence they had, they gave to the Trump team. This is called disclosure

You have to do it. It goes under the Brady rule from a 1960s, I believe it was 1967 case in the Supreme

Court and the Brady rule states that you have to give full disclosure to all the evidence

you have to the defense, especially evidence that can be exonerating or exculpatory for

the defendant. Well, as it turns out, Jack Smith and his team go to court and they say, we gave him everything

We gave him the videotapes from Mar-a-Lago, the surveillance tapes. Well, they didn't

They didn't and Smith had to admit it in court. Basically, a lie or an omission or a mistake

I don't want to go as far as to say he lied, but, you know, it's kind of fishy

What happened was they were supposed to upload the videos to a server, like a cloud server

where the defense could actually look at it and then, you know, wadir what they wanted

to do with that information and, you know, they can get witnesses to testify this or that

They can get their own experts. They can look at it and see if there's anything exculpatory in that video footage

Trump claims there is. Trump claims that that footage will be exculpatory for him

Now, this is on the heels of Bernard Kerrick saying that he already gave Jack Smith evidence

that was exculpatory before Trump was indicted and arraigned and still Trump was indicted

and arraigned after that. After the arraignment, they went back to Kerrick and asked for those documents and Kerrick

is like, I already gave them to you and they are exculpatory towards the former president

Now it looks like, well, if he had those papers to begin with, maybe there wouldn't have been an indictment, but I disagree

I think Jack Smith came to this case knowing full well he was going to indict former President Trump

He just needed his reasons and his legal ducks in a row so he can pull off the indictment

He was hired for one job and he did that job. Now you can decide what job it was he was hired for

I have something I'm thinking, but I'm not going to say it because I don't want to get

fact checked, but I have something I'm thinking what he was hired for

What do you think he was hired for though? And do you think he accomplished his goal so far

Let me know that in the comments because I really want to read you guys' comments on this

Also, please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe because once again, that

really does help us out. I'm Carmine Sabia. This is Explain America

We love you guys. God bless you. Take care everybody