Nicole Wallace is on fire today. She's asking each guest...

[bigtree]

106. you can't leave evidence on the floor in prosecutions

...you can't put part of the case behind a wall and hope the defense doesn't pull it out of context in discovery.

You can't piecemeal a documents investigation, for instance, that has elements of national security involved, as the evidentiary material DOJ posesses when they go into court can and will be demanded by the defense in Discovery, and the prosecution is obligated, by law, to produce ALL of the evidence they have, not just what they intend to present.

it's not hard to imagine that DOJ, DoD, and other intelligence agencies would object to Trump lawyers getting their hands on evidence that they would certainly use in other cases they're involved in defendiong other Trump perps.

Once you arrive in court, all of it is fair game for the defense, so it makes sense to present a cohesive prosecution which brings out every element of criminality, or is prepared to present that in the trial if necessary.

You can't piecemeal out something that reveals all to the defense regardless of the consequences. They just can't, and won't.

It's like we saw in the Proud Boys trial a few weeks ago, where prosecutors declined to attribute Trump's public remarks in charging documents. I can't say for certain, but that would preserve their ability to present that evidence in a more comprehensive prosecution, say, against Trump, without revealing the details of that indictment in court right now.

What I'm mostly trying to explain is that there are consequences in paring charges down to a minimum, especially in that the defense can walk all over that minimalism with whatever DOJ is trying to keep separate.

That's not to mention the fact that the risk of aquittal goes up with a myopic focus on less. Jurors might decide it's all an ado about nothing.