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

That was funny. What is shown on the videos actually happened. He analyzed what actually happened. You didn't like his analysis. Double LOL. The justice department has gone over the partisan cliff. Screw them.

 

Ahh, because the prosecution refused to turn over exculpatory evidence as they are required to do?

Duh.

 

Yes, and many who were identified were charged with it, while some others who were not identified go away with it.

Correct. The violence, vandalism and theft as seen on tapes actually happened. Did it also happen that many others were standing outside the Capitol taking selfies? Of course, but its irrelevant and does not cancel out the violence and other crimes which also happened.

 

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

"What?"

"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

Ford shrugged again.

"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

"But that's terrible," said Arthur.

"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin."

- So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish by Douglas Adams

 

Every person who entered was. charged with a crime? Source??

 

Lee, as you know, every person that went into that Capitol could have been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding

 

Exaggerate much? 'Almost all cops' go their entire career without firing a shot in the line of duty except at the range, much less doing so when it is not justified. Despite the rhetoric and riots that occurred during the summer of 2020 after the Floyd incident, the reality is that the number of bad shoots of civilians in the US can be counted with two hands, and on bad years, maybe an extra toe or two. I was literally shocked when I actually took the time to look up the facts, because based on said rhetoric I was hearing virtually everywhere, I fully expected to see that it was something that was not just a daily occurrence, but multiple times a day. Instead, it's not even once a month, and that's factoring in 800,000 sworn officers covering a territory of 3,797,000 sq. miles and 330,000,000 people.

If you take into account that when in situations with combative suspects, nerves get frayed and trigger fingers might get a bit jumpy, I'm actually shocked is doesn't happen more than it does.

While 'just "resisting"' can easily be categorized as a violent act in and of itself, when someone acts in such a manner, it puts officers into a defensive fight of flight emotional condition. Even though I am white, I was taught by my father that when (not if) I got pulled over, I was to remain in the car, with my hands in clear sight, and be respectful even if I thought the officer was wrong about whatever I might think he was wrong about.

As the expression goes, you may be able to beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride, and converting that into more plain language, if an officer has, or thinks they have probable cause to take you into custody, turn around, put your hands behind your back and shut your mouth! You are not going to talk your way out of being arrested in that situation, but depending on the circumstances, you may be able to beat whatever charges that may come as a result.

If you run, either physically, or just by running off at the mouth, you give the officers even more concrete reasons for taking your dumb ass into custody, and you have made the situation worse because running is itself a crime, even if prior to that you have not committed one.

No matter what you do, do not make any sudden unexpected moves, and for your own safety, don't lunge for something in your pocket or waistband. Even if it's just your wallet, if you just reach back and yank it out, you can cause an already nervous officer to become even more nervous, which makes his trigger finger that much twitchier. Plus, it's just plain dumb and disrespectful.

I don't think you understand what most of us have been trying to convey. I don't give a single f what happens to horned dude, so long as his rights are not violated in the process, because if his rights can be violated with no consequences, sooner or later it's going to be my rights that are being violated with no consequences. It is the guiding principal that every defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense, and entitled to see any and every piece of evidence the prosecution is aware of or has that is even maybe possibly in your dreams potentially exculpatory.

It doesn't have to be actually exculpatory for them to be entitled to examine it with enough time to prepare for a trial that, depending on the charges against you, may end up with you spending the rest of this life behind bars in the Greybar Hotel.

That is a binding precedent set by the Supreme Court before most of us here were even born, and it's good precedent that follows both the letter and spirit of 'innocent until proven guilty'. 'Tis better that 10 guilty men (or women) go free than even a single innocent one end up in prison, even for a day.

The fate of horny guy is irrelevant, at least to me, it's the principal involved that matters.

 

My bad. Point being is that they weren’t.

 

Your right, they went after him because of the way he was dressed. He was probable one of the most behaved people going into the Capitol.

 

Actually, he passed tax cuts for everyone who pays even a dime of income taxes, which is virtually every adult with a job, even if they don't make much money.

However, more importantly than that is that he nominated a slate of originalist (or textualist, if you prefer) Justices on the Supreme Court for what is probably the first time in my own lifetime, if not for a lot longer than that. The best kind of Justice is one who can set their own personal opinions aside, and vote to uphold the Constitution, even if it means someone who thinks guns should be completely banned for all civilians begrudgingly admitting that the Constitution says otherwise.

That's merely one example, there are an innumerable amount of other potential ones. Point being a good Judge and especially a good Justice is one that calls balls and strikes as they see them, without favor to either party, despite being a lifelong fan of one of the teams in the game and geeking out just being that close to some of his heros.

 

Do you know if this is something that happens on a regular basis, or was it special measures for a special occasion? I understand the need for our representatives to be protected from harm just for doing their jobs, but at the same time, it's for the people, by the people, and of the people, meaning it's really our building, and as such, we have a right to be there both to be a tourist geeking out, or to actually sit in the gallery and watch the 'action', which in my experience there is very little of.

But oh, what I would have given to have been in that gallery during the debate over the Speakership a few months ago. That is a historical event that will be in history books for at least as long as the United States remains a going concern.

 

Was he? You saw all the footage?

 

he passed a huge permanent tax cut for the corps and a temporary carrot of a tax cut for the middle class

how much you want to bet to extend that carrot, the right wants more goodies for the rich

as for SC picks, that was not really Trump's doing, that was the senate changing the votes to 50 from 60.... any republican or democrat could now do that with the new rules as long as they have 50 votes in the Senate

 

That's why those insurrectionists are crying their way into jail.

 

We are all paying too much in taxes as it is, but even with that in mind, the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, and the top 50% pay 97%. How much more blood would you like to steal from those people???

Any across the board cuts are going to 'disproportionately benefit the wealthy', because they pay a disproportionate amount of the totals, so it's impossible to have cuts for all without benefiting them. That's just math.

So what? DT is the one who nominated them, and I think he got all his picks through. Once upon a time, if someone was qualified for the job in terms of having the right resume, they weren't all that controversial. Even the notorious RGB, one of the most left-wing partisans to ever sit on that hallowed Bench passed with something like 97 votes. Today, it all comes down to party lines, which is a problem. That said, considering the age and makeup of who is there now, us textualists are in pretty good shape for at least the next 2-3 decades, because of who he nominated. I'm not completely thrilled with Barret's wearing her religion on her sleeve, but so far she hasn't gotten out of her lane, at least to my knowledge.

As long as they call balls and strikes instead of trying to act as an unelected Congress with robes, I'm good, even when they go against what I would like. But, on this topic, as evidenced by the Bruen decision, they are down with 'shall not be infringed', which is proper.

 

Gee, if you have EVIDENCE of this you should get in touch with Jacob's lawyer. Since you don't, you're just making stuff up. As usual.

 

If you have EVIDENCE of that, you really need to get in touch with Jacob's attorney. If not, you're just speculating.

 

I saw a clip the other day, I believe on MSN (which is an insufferable website, but it's where my browser defaults to, and I've been to lazy to fix it) where a man claiming to be his actual attorney was saying essentially precisely what I did in the post you quoted. He tried and was stonewalled at every turn, and he now thinks based on what little he's seen, that the video(s) may have given his client some leverage to either get a better plea, or go to trial.

We're all just gonna have to sit on the sidelines and wait to see how this plays out. Regardless of how it ends up, the idea of a prosecutor withholding evidence is a serious problem, that probably happens more often than we are aware of, unfortunately. Time may tell.

 

His lawyer already knows. You didn't do your research, as usual.

 

Where did you get that word "weaponized" from? The FBI, CIA , Media?? You on the left just can't be original.

 

LOL no. the right to a speedy trial is usually waived voluntarily by the defense because the defense is not prepared by the trial. The guilty pleas that are done is also voluntarily and is argued that you will show remorse and hope for leniency by the judge.

 

No, they are not. None are. The few trials that are coming up are also not in jeopardy. Maybe delayed for a two-week continuance, but none are in jeopardy whatsoever. One of the reasons is that under federal rules of procedure, political arguments cannot be entered into evidence, either as an affirmative defense or by use of the prosecution. That is it.

I can guarantee you a few things of who knows what is on all those tapes. First, the investigators probably poured tens of thousands of hours into reviewing those tapes. Second, the prosecutors. Third the January 6th committee. What is being shown and how it is being presented is and of itself propaganda to get you to focus on something else other than the actual crimes. Most of the video that has been shown by Tucker does not absolve anyone of their wrongdoing. That fact is incontrovertible. But the true reason why Tucker is showing you the tapes have nothing to do with trials, it has to do with the argument that the government is out to get you and that conservatives are being persecuted for their beliefs. And we all know that is a bunch of BS but some people I guess will take it quite literally.

Sorry, you were in a coma, and I feel for you and shall pray for you and your healing.

 

It is about Tucker trying to change the narrative of January 6th. As far as evidence is concerned, not one tape shown on the Tucker show absolves anyone that day of their crime. Not a single one. Sorry.

 

Since I don't know you or interacted with you, I don't know if you are serious or being sarcastic.

If you are being serious, I would say that is the worst excuse I have read on this thread or on this topic. But then again, quoting a holocaust denier is not something I would use as a rebuttal.

 

Which begs the question on what? None of the tapes absolve the person of doing what they were supposed they did or the crime they allegedly committed. That is one of the requirements of the infamous The Brady Rule. It has to be both material AND favorable. If the video is not favorable, then it is not exculpatory.