Yes, dodge the points if you can, but it's posted for all to see. The prosecution deliberately slow played the release of exculpatory evidence in their posession. What can be done about it in the face of a plea deal remains to be seen.
Dutch, follow the argument.
1. Watkins is a "TV lawyer" who rakes in big $$$, but does little for his clients. He's been fired by both Chansley and Rittenhouse.
2. The "withheld" tape is non-exculpatory. The fact that 2 cops followed Chansley down a corridor, but didn't arrest him simply means that they didn't have the manpower to arrest him with all else that was going on. So they simply watched him. It proves fuck all. No judge would find Chansley not guilty because of that.
3. Watkins will say pretty much anything to keep those big retainers rolling in. He cut a quick plea deal for Chansley. That was probably the correct decision because Chansley has no defence, but it makes Watkins look weak. He's supposed to be "rightie lawyer superman", right?.... So Watkins makes up a story to blame the DA's office for withholding evidence. If Watkins really gave a shit, he could have motioned for a pre trial dismissal. Why didn't he do that?.... Because the additional vid footage was useless and wouldn't help his client.
4. Watkins' successor is another hack grifter and so he blames Watkins and the DA and leaves Chansley's ass to rot in jail without scheduling an appeal hearing. Lawyer knows he would be laughed out of the Court of Appeal and look an idiot. So he's delaying that while he crowd funds a big, fat fucking wad of retainer money. He's just as slimy as Watkins. It's what these rightie TV lawyers do.
This is the game and how it's played in TV lawyer land, Dutchie. Try and keep up with the play-by-play.