Is Ka$h Patel purposing tanking the case against Tyler Robinson, or is he simply a moron?

[Airyaman]

It could be both of course...

So Kash Patel has been revealing some of the evidence they have gathered in the case against Tyler Robinson. He recently shared that there was a DNA match with the alleged perpetrator and the towel the rifle was wrapped in.

Jill Winebanks is suggesting that what Kash is doing could get the case thrown out.



I'm no legal expert, so I asked Grok "if the fbi publicly discloses evidence of a criminal investigation prior to charging a crime or going to trial, can this adversely affect the case against the perpetrator?"

Grok says:

Yes, the FBI's public disclosure of evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation—prior to formal charges or trial—can adversely affect the prosecution's case against the perpetrator in several ways, based on established legal policies, judicial precedents, and practical considerations. Below, I'll outline the key potential impacts, drawing from Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines and research on pretrial publicity.

1. Compromising Investigative Integrity and Operational Security​

Disclosing evidence prematurely can alert suspects or accomplices to the investigation's details, allowing them to destroy or tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, coordinate false alibis, or flee the jurisdiction. This directly weakens the prosecution's ability to build a strong case, as key proof may be lost or contaminated before charges are filed.

• For instance, DOJ policies explicitly restrict such disclosures during active investigations to avoid serving "no law enforcement function" while risking prejudice or operational harm. This is why federal guidelines generally prohibit confirming or detailing ongoing probes unless exceptional circumstances (e.g., public safety needs) justify it, and even then, only with high-level approval.

2. Prejudicing the Right to a Fair Trial, Leading to Legal Challenges​

• While pretrial publicity often biases potential jurors against the defendant (potentially benefiting the prosecution in the short term), excessive or improper disclosure by law enforcement can violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, resulting in court interventions that hinder or derail the case.
• Possible outcomes include:
  
  • Motions for change of venue or jury sequestration: If publicity is deemed too inflammatory, the trial may be moved to another location or jurors isolated, increasing costs, delays, and logistical burdens for prosecutors.
  • Mistrials or dismissals: In extreme cases of pervasive bias, courts may declare a mistrial or dismiss charges altogether if an impartial jury cannot be seated, effectively ending the prosecution's efforts.
  • Appellate reversals: Even if a conviction is secured, appeals based on prejudicial publicity can overturn it, forcing a retrial or release of the perpetrator. Research shows that media coverage of confessions, prior records, or character observations—prohibited under DOJ rules—heightens this risk by creating "bias in the eye of the beholder" among jurors.
• DOJ guidelines (codified in 28 CFR § 50.2) strictly limit what can be shared publicly, such as banning statements on evidence, witness credibility, or the accused's guilt, precisely to mitigate these risks and prevent "material prejudice" to proceedings. Violations can lead to sanctions against prosecutors or agents, further complicating the case.

3. Eroding Public Trust and Prosecutorial Credibility​

• If disclosed evidence later proves weak, inaccurate, or inadmissible, it can generate public backlash or skepticism, making it harder to secure witness cooperation or maintain jury confidence during trial. In high-profile cases, this "backfire effect" can undermine the overall prosecution strategy.
• Additionally, improper disclosures may invite ethical complaints or investigations into law enforcement conduct, diverting resources from the case.

In summary, while the FBI and DOJ aim to balance transparency with justice, their policies reflect a recognition that premature public disclosure often does more harm than good to the prosecution's goals. Courts have tools like voir dire (jury questioning) to mitigate bias, but prevention through restraint is emphasized to avoid these pitfalls. If a specific case is in mind, outcomes can vary based on factors like the publicity's intensity and jurisdiction.

Grok

Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and more.

grok.com

Continued...

 

[Airyaman]

I asked the same thing of ChatGPT:

ChatGPT - Impact of evidence disclosure

A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges

chatgpt.com

Yes — if the FBI (or any law enforcement agency) discloses too much evidence before charges are filed or before a trial begins, it can create significant problems for the case. Some of the main risks include:

• Prejudicing a jury pool: Publicly releasing evidence can shape public opinion. If jurors are exposed to that information before trial, it may be hard to find an impartial jury. Defense attorneys can argue that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was compromised.
• Violating due process rights: Courts take very seriously the idea that defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Pretrial publicity that paints someone as guilty can open the door for appeals or even dismissal if a judge finds it impossible to ensure a fair trial.
• Revealing investigative methods: Early disclosure might compromise ongoing investigations, alert co-conspirators, or expose sources and techniques. That can weaken the overall case.
• Evidentiary issues at trial: If evidence is disclosed prematurely and in the wrong way (e.g., through a press release instead of a proper evidentiary process), the defense may argue it is tainted or inadmissible.
• Risk of “taint” in witness testimony: Witnesses who learn about disclosed evidence through the media may change their accounts (intentionally or not), which undermines credibility and complicates cross-examination.

This is why the FBI usually refrains from public comment until charges are filed, and even then often says very little beyond what’s in the indictment. Prosecutors are bound by rules of professional conduct (like ABA Rule 3.6 on trial publicity) that limit what they can disclose before trial.

It's obvious Mr. Patel is way over his head in his current role and should resign or be fired. There is even reporting that no one likes Patel in the admin, including Pam Bondi.

 

[hooligan]

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. --Robert J Hanlon

 

[iliveonramen]

This shooter seems to really enjoy trolling, that would be the ultimate troll. MAGA is so incompetent that this killer gets off.

 

[VySky]

This shooter seems to really enjoy trolling, that would be the ultimate troll. MAGA is so incompetent that this killer gets off.

Wont change his destiny I bet.

 

[Callen]

He really needs to shut up. Convicting this guy, if guilty, is way more important than the political points with the base. At this point it is a State case and he is acting in a support role only. Then again the political value of this seems to be paramount.

 

[TangoNoCash]

We are forced to wonder if the FBI wants a narrative or a conviction.

 

[Phys251]

It could be both of course...

So Kash Patel has been revealing some of the evidence they have gathered in the case against Tyler Robinson. He recently shared that there was a DNA match with the alleged perpetrator and the towel the rifle was wrapped in.

Jill Winebanks is suggesting that what Kash is doing could get the case thrown out.



I'm no legal expert, so I asked Grok "if the fbi publicly discloses evidence of a criminal investigation prior to charging a crime or going to trial, can this adversely affect the case against the perpetrator?"

Grok says:

Yes, the FBI's public disclosure of evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation—prior to formal charges or trial—can adversely affect the prosecution's case against the perpetrator in several ways, based on established legal policies, judicial precedents, and practical considerations. Below, I'll outline the key potential impacts, drawing from Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines and research on pretrial publicity.

1. Compromising Investigative Integrity and Operational Security​

Disclosing evidence prematurely can alert suspects or accomplices to the investigation's details, allowing them to destroy or tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, coordinate false alibis, or flee the jurisdiction. This directly weakens the prosecution's ability to build a strong case, as key proof may be lost or contaminated before charges are filed.

• For instance, DOJ policies explicitly restrict such disclosures during active investigations to avoid serving "no law enforcement function" while risking prejudice or operational harm. This is why federal guidelines generally prohibit confirming or detailing ongoing probes unless exceptional circumstances (e.g., public safety needs) justify it, and even then, only with high-level approval.

2. Prejudicing the Right to a Fair Trial, Leading to Legal Challenges​

• While pretrial publicity often biases potential jurors against the defendant (potentially benefiting the prosecution in the short term), excessive or improper disclosure by law enforcement can violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, resulting in court interventions that hinder or derail the case.
  • Motions for change of venue or jury sequestration: If publicity is deemed too inflammatory, the trial may be moved to another location or jurors isolated, increasing costs, delays, and logistical burdens for prosecutors.
  • Mistrials or dismissals: In extreme cases of pervasive bias, courts may declare a mistrial or dismiss charges altogether if an impartial jury cannot be seated, effectively ending the prosecution's efforts.
  • Appellate reversals: Even if a conviction is secured, appeals based on prejudicial publicity can overturn it, forcing a retrial or release of the perpetrator. Research shows that media coverage of confessions, prior records, or character observations—prohibited under DOJ rules—heightens this risk by creating "bias in the eye of the beholder" among jurors.
• DOJ guidelines (codified in 28 CFR § 50.2) strictly limit what can be shared publicly, such as banning statements on evidence, witness credibility, or the accused's guilt, precisely to mitigate these risks and prevent "material prejudice" to proceedings. Violations can lead to sanctions against prosecutors or agents, further complicating the case.

3. Eroding Public Trust and Prosecutorial Credibility​

• If disclosed evidence later proves weak, inaccurate, or inadmissible, it can generate public backlash or skepticism, making it harder to secure witness cooperation or maintain jury confidence during trial. In high-profile cases, this "backfire effect" can undermine the overall prosecution strategy.
• Additionally, improper disclosures may invite ethical complaints or investigations into law enforcement conduct, diverting resources from the case.

In summary, while the FBI and DOJ aim to balance transparency with justice, their policies reflect a recognition that premature public disclosure often does more harm than good to the prosecution's goals. Courts have tools like voir dire (jury questioning) to mitigate bias, but prevention through restraint is emphasized to avoid these pitfalls. If a specific case is in mind, outcomes can vary based on factors like the publicity's intensity and jurisdiction.

Grok

Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and more.

grok.com

Continued...

Holy shit. It's going to be a dark day if Patel's ineptitude causes Kirk's killer to get off the hook.

 

[Gaius46]

No one will ever mistake Ka$h for the sharpest tool in the shed.

Three recently fired FBI officials are suing the FBI over their terminations and Patel allegedly told one that he had to fire him because of pressure from above even though he - Patel - believed the firing was likely illegal

 

[Airyaman]

We are forced to wonder if the FBI wants a narrative or a conviction.

This does seem more important than an actual conviction.

Kash also talks about some supposed manifesto that was destroyed but they have "forensic evidence" it did exist? He is definitely trying to create a narrative.



Then yesterday, this:

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Righties, of which Patel is one of, are monumentally stupid.

 

[Callen]

Righties, of which Patel is one of, are monumentally stupid.

It's more than that , they are seriously unqualified. These are critically important positions. Patel needs to shut up or the defense will have a field day.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

It's more that they are seriously unqualified.

Fine line.

 

[Visbek]

You don't need AI to know that Patel is an incompetent goon who cares more about getting likes on social media than in doing his job properly.

That said, it kinda seems like they have Robinson dead to rights. I'm not sure he can screw up the case enough for it to get thrown out.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Kash has no business being in the position he is in.

 

[Airyaman]

You don't need AI to know that Patel is an incompetent goon who cares more about getting likes on social media than in doing his job properly.

That said, it kinda seems like they have Robinson dead to rights. I'm not sure he can screw up the case enough for it to get thrown out.

They better hope so because Kash is not the only bungler here:

 

[roberthughey]

It could be both of course...

So Kash Patel has been revealing some of the evidence they have gathered in the case against Tyler Robinson. He recently shared that there was a DNA match with the alleged perpetrator and the towel the rifle was wrapped in.

Jill Winebanks is suggesting that what Kash is doing could get the case thrown out.



I'm no legal expert, so I asked Grok "if the fbi publicly discloses evidence of a criminal investigation prior to charging a crime or going to trial, can this adversely affect the case against the perpetrator?"

Grok says:

Yes, the FBI's public disclosure of evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation—prior to formal charges or trial—can adversely affect the prosecution's case against the perpetrator in several ways, based on established legal policies, judicial precedents, and practical considerations. Below, I'll outline the key potential impacts, drawing from Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines and research on pretrial publicity.

1. Compromising Investigative Integrity and Operational Security​

Disclosing evidence prematurely can alert suspects or accomplices to the investigation's details, allowing them to destroy or tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, coordinate false alibis, or flee the jurisdiction. This directly weakens the prosecution's ability to build a strong case, as key proof may be lost or contaminated before charges are filed.

• For instance, DOJ policies explicitly restrict such disclosures during active investigations to avoid serving "no law enforcement function" while risking prejudice or operational harm. This is why federal guidelines generally prohibit confirming or detailing ongoing probes unless exceptional circumstances (e.g., public safety needs) justify it, and even then, only with high-level approval.

2. Prejudicing the Right to a Fair Trial, Leading to Legal Challenges​

• While pretrial publicity often biases potential jurors against the defendant (potentially benefiting the prosecution in the short term), excessive or improper disclosure by law enforcement can violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, resulting in court interventions that hinder or derail the case.
  • Motions for change of venue or jury sequestration: If publicity is deemed too inflammatory, the trial may be moved to another location or jurors isolated, increasing costs, delays, and logistical burdens for prosecutors.
  • Mistrials or dismissals: In extreme cases of pervasive bias, courts may declare a mistrial or dismiss charges altogether if an impartial jury cannot be seated, effectively ending the prosecution's efforts.
  • Appellate reversals: Even if a conviction is secured, appeals based on prejudicial publicity can overturn it, forcing a retrial or release of the perpetrator. Research shows that media coverage of confessions, prior records, or character observations—prohibited under DOJ rules—heightens this risk by creating "bias in the eye of the beholder" among jurors.
• DOJ guidelines (codified in 28 CFR § 50.2) strictly limit what can be shared publicly, such as banning statements on evidence, witness credibility, or the accused's guilt, precisely to mitigate these risks and prevent "material prejudice" to proceedings. Violations can lead to sanctions against prosecutors or agents, further complicating the case.

3. Eroding Public Trust and Prosecutorial Credibility​

• If disclosed evidence later proves weak, inaccurate, or inadmissible, it can generate public backlash or skepticism, making it harder to secure witness cooperation or maintain jury confidence during trial. In high-profile cases, this "backfire effect" can undermine the overall prosecution strategy.
• Additionally, improper disclosures may invite ethical complaints or investigations into law enforcement conduct, diverting resources from the case.

In summary, while the FBI and DOJ aim to balance transparency with justice, their policies reflect a recognition that premature public disclosure often does more harm than good to the prosecution's goals. Courts have tools like voir dire (jury questioning) to mitigate bias, but prevention through restraint is emphasized to avoid these pitfalls. If a specific case is in mind, outcomes can vary based on factors like the publicity's intensity and jurisdiction.

Grok

Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and more.

grok.com

Continued...

 

[CaughtInThe]

Running an entire governmental department is way harder than just being on Fox News. Or making a speech at a rally.

 

[Airyaman]

View attachment 67589385

Confess to what, being in the photos?

Woah!

 

[HumblePi]

It could be both of course...

So Kash Patel has been revealing some of the evidence they have gathered in the case against Tyler Robinson. He recently shared that there was a DNA match with the alleged perpetrator and the towel the rifle was wrapped in.

Jill Winebanks is suggesting that what Kash is doing could get the case thrown out.



I'm no legal expert, so I asked Grok "if the fbi publicly discloses evidence of a criminal investigation prior to charging a crime or going to trial, can this adversely affect the case against the perpetrator?"

Grok says:

Yes, the FBI's public disclosure of evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation—prior to formal charges or trial—can adversely affect the prosecution's case against the perpetrator in several ways, based on established legal policies, judicial precedents, and practical considerations. Below, I'll outline the key potential impacts, drawing from Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines and research on pretrial publicity.

1. Compromising Investigative Integrity and Operational Security​

Disclosing evidence prematurely can alert suspects or accomplices to the investigation's details, allowing them to destroy or tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, coordinate false alibis, or flee the jurisdiction. This directly weakens the prosecution's ability to build a strong case, as key proof may be lost or contaminated before charges are filed.

• For instance, DOJ policies explicitly restrict such disclosures during active investigations to avoid serving "no law enforcement function" while risking prejudice or operational harm. This is why federal guidelines generally prohibit confirming or detailing ongoing probes unless exceptional circumstances (e.g., public safety needs) justify it, and even then, only with high-level approval.

2. Prejudicing the Right to a Fair Trial, Leading to Legal Challenges​

• While pretrial publicity often biases potential jurors against the defendant (potentially benefiting the prosecution in the short term), excessive or improper disclosure by law enforcement can violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, resulting in court interventions that hinder or derail the case.
  • Motions for change of venue or jury sequestration: If publicity is deemed too inflammatory, the trial may be moved to another location or jurors isolated, increasing costs, delays, and logistical burdens for prosecutors.
  • Mistrials or dismissals: In extreme cases of pervasive bias, courts may declare a mistrial or dismiss charges altogether if an impartial jury cannot be seated, effectively ending the prosecution's efforts.
  • Appellate reversals: Even if a conviction is secured, appeals based on prejudicial publicity can overturn it, forcing a retrial or release of the perpetrator. Research shows that media coverage of confessions, prior records, or character observations—prohibited under DOJ rules—heightens this risk by creating "bias in the eye of the beholder" among jurors.
• DOJ guidelines (codified in 28 CFR § 50.2) strictly limit what can be shared publicly, such as banning statements on evidence, witness credibility, or the accused's guilt, precisely to mitigate these risks and prevent "material prejudice" to proceedings. Violations can lead to sanctions against prosecutors or agents, further complicating the case.

3. Eroding Public Trust and Prosecutorial Credibility​

• If disclosed evidence later proves weak, inaccurate, or inadmissible, it can generate public backlash or skepticism, making it harder to secure witness cooperation or maintain jury confidence during trial. In high-profile cases, this "backfire effect" can undermine the overall prosecution strategy.
• Additionally, improper disclosures may invite ethical complaints or investigations into law enforcement conduct, diverting resources from the case.

In summary, while the FBI and DOJ aim to balance transparency with justice, their policies reflect a recognition that premature public disclosure often does more harm than good to the prosecution's goals. Courts have tools like voir dire (jury questioning) to mitigate bias, but prevention through restraint is emphasized to avoid these pitfalls. If a specific case is in mind, outcomes can vary based on factors like the publicity's intensity and jurisdiction.

Grok

Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and more.

grok.com

Continued...

If he goes free due to Kash Patel's incompetence, he won't live for long, he'll be Magameat the minute he steps foot out the prison door.

 

[Allan]

This does seem more important than an actual conviction.

Kash also talks about some supposed manifesto that was destroyed but they have "forensic evidence" it did exist? He is definitely trying to create a narrative.



Then yesterday, this:

The manifesto was destroyed? Wtf???

 

[CaughtInThe]

Wont change his destiny I bet.

Speaking of destiny, you need to bring back your Confederate avatar.

 

[Airyaman]

If he goes free due to Kash Patel's incompetence, he won't live for long, he'll be Magameat the minute he steps foot out the prison door.

This is true. He'd have to leave the country if he gets off.

 

[Airyaman]

The manifesto was destroyed? Wtf???

But they have "forensic evidence" of the manifesto!

Kash: "Trust me, bro!"

 

[roberthughey]

It could be both of course...

So Kash Patel has been revealing some of the evidence they have gathered in the case against Tyler Robinson. He recently shared that there was a DNA match with the alleged perpetrator and the towel the rifle was wrapped in.

Jill Winebanks is suggesting that what Kash is doing could get the case thrown out.



I'm no legal expert, so I asked Grok "if the fbi publicly discloses evidence of a criminal investigation prior to charging a crime or going to trial, can this adversely affect the case against the perpetrator?"

Grok says:

Yes, the FBI's public disclosure of evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation—prior to formal charges or trial—can adversely affect the prosecution's case against the perpetrator in several ways, based on established legal policies, judicial precedents, and practical considerations. Below, I'll outline the key potential impacts, drawing from Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines and research on pretrial publicity.

1. Compromising Investigative Integrity and Operational Security​

Disclosing evidence prematurely can alert suspects or accomplices to the investigation's details, allowing them to destroy or tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, coordinate false alibis, or flee the jurisdiction. This directly weakens the prosecution's ability to build a strong case, as key proof may be lost or contaminated before charges are filed.

• For instance, DOJ policies explicitly restrict such disclosures during active investigations to avoid serving "no law enforcement function" while risking prejudice or operational harm. This is why federal guidelines generally prohibit confirming or detailing ongoing probes unless exceptional circumstances (e.g., public safety needs) justify it, and even then, only with high-level approval.

2. Prejudicing the Right to a Fair Trial, Leading to Legal Challenges​

• While pretrial publicity often biases potential jurors against the defendant (potentially benefiting the prosecution in the short term), excessive or improper disclosure by law enforcement can violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, resulting in court interventions that hinder or derail the case.
  • Motions for change of venue or jury sequestration: If publicity is deemed too inflammatory, the trial may be moved to another location or jurors isolated, increasing costs, delays, and logistical burdens for prosecutors.
  • Mistrials or dismissals: In extreme cases of pervasive bias, courts may declare a mistrial or dismiss charges altogether if an impartial jury cannot be seated, effectively ending the prosecution's efforts.
  • Appellate reversals: Even if a conviction is secured, appeals based on prejudicial publicity can overturn it, forcing a retrial or release of the perpetrator. Research shows that media coverage of confessions, prior records, or character observations—prohibited under DOJ rules—heightens this risk by creating "bias in the eye of the beholder" among jurors.
• DOJ guidelines (codified in 28 CFR § 50.2) strictly limit what can be shared publicly, such as banning statements on evidence, witness credibility, or the accused's guilt, precisely to mitigate these risks and prevent "material prejudice" to proceedings. Violations can lead to sanctions against prosecutors or agents, further complicating the case.

3. Eroding Public Trust and Prosecutorial Credibility​

• If disclosed evidence later proves weak, inaccurate, or inadmissible, it can generate public backlash or skepticism, making it harder to secure witness cooperation or maintain jury confidence during trial. In high-profile cases, this "backfire effect" can undermine the overall prosecution strategy.
• Additionally, improper disclosures may invite ethical complaints or investigations into law enforcement conduct, diverting resources from the case.

In summary, while the FBI and DOJ aim to balance transparency with justice, their policies reflect a recognition that premature public disclosure often does more harm than good to the prosecution's goals. Courts have tools like voir dire (jury questioning) to mitigate bias, but prevention through restraint is emphasized to avoid these pitfalls. If a specific case is in mind, outcomes can vary based on factors like the publicity's intensity and jurisdiction.

Grok

Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and more.

grok.com

Continued...

A Trump hating lawyer.