Tucker Carlson may be able to fool gullible Fox viewers, but not federal courts

I don't know anything about Tucker, except that he seems to make liberals cry and whine, so he can't be all that bad. Still, I have never watched even a single episode of his show, and don't get my ideas from him or anyone else. Whatever comes out of my mouth, or by extension through my fingers, was formed in my own brain by nobody but me.

I have no interest in whitewashing anything, my only interest is that people, even criminals, have their rights protected throughout any prosecutorial processes. Whether that helps, harms them, or neither if of no concern to me. Something I've had to repeatedly repeat (sic) over and over and over again, so if you missed it, it's because you're not paying attention.

 

That may be, but it's not relevant to the issue at hand. A video is not a political argument. It's an unbiased eyewitness that remembers everything it sees with absolute perfection, it cannot be intimidated or silenced, if it's copied to a few places, it cannot be made to disappear, and it only shows what happened, or what did not, within its line of sight. If it records audio as well, then it can be an earwitness that never gets it wrong.

Whether or not it is relevant in a criminal trial is not for you to determine. It's up to the defendant and his or her counsel to decide if they want to use it, and it's up to the jury whether or not it is meaningful. That is not the role of a prosecutor, who is supposed to be seeking the truth, but all too often is just looking for a win.

 

Sorry, most of us weren’t burying our heads on Jan 6 or the weeks leading up to it.

 

Ok so, being in a coma for the months before and after the event (my third, btw, thanks for asking, none of which I should have survived, and one of which I didn't even if only briefly) is sticking my head in the sand. Kiss my ass, and when you're done, follow it up by trapsing yours off to hell.

 

That describes the 2016 riots perfectly. The Kavanaugh hearing unrest. The BLM riots.

No angry mob was summoned. That's the real big lie...lol

 

Federal courts, all the way to SCOTUS, are as corrupt as the other branches, and that's pretty darn corrupt.

 

So you admit now you got no clue what the topic is about.
lol

 

Actually, it is if you think you can get charges dismissed or dropped because of the political doctrine.

For the video, it has to be material and favorable to the defendant, aka show the reasonableness that the person did not commit the crime for which they are charged or pled guilty. Have any of the videos shown by Tucker exonerated Jacob Chansley of his crime 18 USC 1512, obstruction of an official proceeding? Yes or no? If yes, then you are going to need to explain that. If not then your argument is moot.

A lot of this is fluff and puff to get you to react emotionally by political design by Tucker. Most of the defendants awaiting trial may ask for a continuance for their counsel to obtain all the footage out there, but it still won't help them win the case and will only cause more work for the defense counsel to sift all through that video. Anb that may mean the defense counsel may not ask for it, which means no violation occured, which means the evidence they did get through discovery is complete. It will delay the inevitable, but not overcome the evidence central to the crime or crimes they are being charged with. And it won't certainly be the side of dismissing the case either. For those with the most serious of charges, it won't even make a dent for the recommendations of sentencing.

Jacob Chansely have three options for him and his counsel:
1. Keep the deal in place and be happy with it
2. File a petition to vacate the plea deal and plead not guilty and allow to go to trial.
3. File an appeal stating that the Brady Rule was violated and that there is video, which the defense must show, that exonerates him of the crime he pled guilty to.

 

Did the world laugh about the exposure of the pipeline destruction? Maybe, being American, you haven't even heard about that event yet?

Read this link; you might identify with Naomi Wolf...
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/dear-conservatives-i-am-sorry

 

Why are you making stuff up ? Oh wait, I forgot, that's standard operating procedure with the right. When circumstance don't align with your opinion or wishes, you just make stuff up and your ilk just keep repeating it as if it were a fact.

On the topic of making stuff up, did Trump win the election ?

 

Please stop posting misinformation.... the prosecutor DID withhold evidence during the discovery phase.
Here is Jacob Chansley’s attorney was denied access to crucial January 6th video that shows his client wasn’t violent that day... on Tucker
https://rumble.com/v2ceiig-jacob-chansleys-attorney-was-denied-access-to-crucial.html


and again
https://rumble.com/v2cjjvu-the-capi...prisoners-deserve-better-from-their-govt.html

 

Let me get this straight: You're citing posts from rumble.com, a right wing misinformation website to boost your false claim.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight !

LMAO

 

Was he charged with violence?

 

I haven't made anything up.

 

Sure you did.
Prove that the prosecutor withheld evidence during the discovery phase.
A ruling from a judge or a finding by a court will do.
Your unsupported opinion doesn't count.
(Provide a case number)

 

How much more violent did it have to be .......to meet YOUR criteria for an"insurrection".............when the goal was to over turn the election results. because Trump could not handle having lost. Anyone that actually believes Trump can be described as being gullible. He is a pathological liar of clinical proportions. Don't think many of his supporters fully appreciate how psychopathic ally dangerous he is. Unless this type of person with authoritarian leanings.....is what they want in place of the democracy they seem to be tired of. This chap will remain in the forefront of politics/ media until and after he dies.......He and his lawyers will make sure of it.The man has such grandiose delusions..........that he believes he and he alone can prevent a third world war.

He SAID that in one of his rallies.........as if he is suffering from a self hero worship...... to the extreme.(bordering on a "god" complex.

 

Hitler can't be guilty of atrocities because his people voted him into office ...?
Sorry dude - not going to buy it. It's a snowflake excuse - trying to blame others for a person's own actions.

 

Why does the Eagles "Your Lyin' Eyes" keep running through my brain every time I read this thread?

 

Could you name one person arrested for Jan 6th that has been charged with insurrection? Anyone who attacked police should be convicted of a crime. But most are guilty of illegal entry into the Capital and preventing the change of power from taking place. The judges hearing the case are not even on board of which one they will use there.

I would say most people listing to the other bias news are gullible too. Most believe that Trump didn't do anything good while President. That's because the bias news keep over 90% of what he did from them and they swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker. Not bothering to find out the truth.

 

He did go into the Capital get Congress to hold up the transfer of power till a complete investigation was held into voter fraud and he was charged for that. From what I am hearing many people were hurt and none of them were politicians. So obviously that's not the reason he wasn't charge for that. He didn't go in there to hurt anyone He was even calling for no violence. Certainly not partaking in a coup. No one has been charged with that. That's the Democratic term.

 

If you have seen enough to make that statement, then obviously,
At some point you were part of the audience. I love unsubstantiated statements of fact; says loa bit about the source.

.

 

Hitler? Godwin much?

And no one is excusing what happened. What IS being contested is whether this was an "insurrection". Many believe it was no different than all the riots that happened during the "summer of love".

 

Maybe you should look into what he got charged for and to what crime he admitted to do first.

And I wouldn't know why this can't be seen as a coup attempt. You think they would have had a normal conversation with Pence or Pelosi... after the horde beat up over a 100 cops into the hospital to get to them?

 

He wasn't voted into office. Even when he still didn't get a majority when he banned and rounded up the competition in concentration camps.

 

Your inability to derive when something becomes an insurrection is not worth my time explaining as it should be obvious as there are both definitions and reasonable interpretations. Neither for what happened on J6