(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; . . .
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate >
> the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, . . . >
Look at Biden. Look at Harris. Then remember the Democratic presidential primaries.
To those who came in late, a little history.
In 1972 a nice, very liberal man named George McGovern won the Democratic nomination. He lost the election in a landslide. >
He didn't just lose in a landslide. He lost in a landslide to a man Democrats considered the very embodiment of evil - the un-rich but similarly un-clubbable Donald Trump of the middle 20th century: >
The Democrats determined never to let this happen again. So they turned back the clock and "reformed" the primary system so that it became a mere performance to cover up the reality that Democratic nominees would again be chosen in "smoke-filled rooms." >
Kyle Rittenhouse was unquestionably defamed, and by every indication (then and now) should never have been charged. With God's help he'll be acquitted, or the charges against him dismissed, soon.
But don't get your hopes up on his recovering affirmative relief from anyone.
The media are virtually bullet proof here. As much as they refused to look at any information or point of view that departed from a narrative they desperately wanted to be true, they can buck what they did to reliance on the prosecution.
As far as the prosecution itself, forget it. There is #noaccountability under the law for virtually anything a prosecutor does to anyone, unfortunately. There are exceptional cases, and Kyle's should be one of them, but likely won't be. (It's called immunity)