The Tucker Carlson videos are dropping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

Not true. In propagating the myth that Trump won the election, there was an illegal use of the Fox platform. Everyone at Fox knew it, thus the entire network is liable.

Does this apply to Keith Olbermann reporting Greg Palast's statements about the 2004 election, alleging it was stolen by voting machines?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody - not even Tucker Carlson - is claiming that there weren't violent people who did bad things during the riot.
The point is that there are some people who have been prosecuted and given relatively lengthy sentences because their actions on that day have been misrepresented by the J6 committee and by prosecutors.
The QAnon Shamon is the very example of that. There is extensive footage of him being peaceful and respectful. And, it appears that Nancy Pelosi is at fault for withholding this evidence from his defense.

If there is one image from Jan. 6th that will remain indelible with the day, it is the “QAnon Shaman.” Bare chested and wearing an animal headdress, horns and red-white-and-blue face paint, Jake Angeli Chansley is to the Capitol riot what Rosie the Riveter was to World War II. Howling and “chanting an unintelligible mantra” on the Senate floor, he is the embodiment of the unhinged rage that led to one of the most disgraceful attacks on our constitutional process in history.

However, the newly released Fox footage from that day raises serious questions over the prosecution and punishment of Chansley. The videotapes aired on Tucker Carlson this week show Chansley being escorted by officers through the Capitol. Two officers appear to not only guide him to the floor but actually appear to be trying to open locked doors for him. At one point, Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.

It is otherworldly footage. While I admit that I approach these stories from the perspective of a long-standing criminal defense attorney, I would be outraged if I was unable to see such evidence before a plea or sentencing. At no point in the videotapes does Chansley appear violent or threatening. Indeed, he appears to thank the officers for their guidance and assistance. On the Senate floor, Chansley actually gave a prayer to thank the officers agreed “to allow us into the building.”

Before addressing the legal implications of this footage, one thing should be clear. The public should have been given access to this footage long ago and the Jan. 6th Committee withheld important evidence on what occurred inside the Capitol on that day.

While it is understandable that many would object to Carlson being given an exclusive in the initial release, many in the media are denouncing the release of the footage to the public at all. The press and pundits are now opposing greater transparency in resisting any contradiction of the narrative put forward by the Jan. 6th Committee. Indeed, MSNBC’s Jason Johnson angrily objected that this is “federal evidence” — ignoring that it is evidence that was denied to criminal defendants.

This is not just material that the public should be able to see, it was potential evidence in criminal cases like that of the QAnon Shaman.

When the footage aired, I wrote a column raising the question of whether this evidence was known to or shared with Chansley’s defense. After all, he was portrayed as a violent offender by the Justice Department at his sentencing.

It now appears that the answer is no. I spoke with Chansley’s new counsel, Bill Shipley, and confirmed that defense counsel did not have this material.

In the hearing, federal prosecutor Kimberly Paschall played videos showing Chansley yelling along with the crowd and insisted “that is not peaceful.”

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/08/did-the-qanon-shaman-get-the-shaft-new-evidence-raises-new-questions-on-the-chansley-case/

The Qanon Shaman was at the front of the group breaking in, which was (mostly-indisputably violent). If someone acts violently and then later acts peacefully, their defense attorney might think that's important evidence but no one else would.

So was John Sullivan

He was charged too.

Slap on wrist if that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

All the texts as a whole reveal that any sentient being who worked for FOX new the election wasn't "stolen" but they had to tow the party line. Murdoch admits this.

Doesn't matter how much anymore liked or did not like Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can be peaceful 99% of the time, but if I'm violent and destructive 1% of the time, then I will have to pay consequences for it.

There is no evidence of the Shaman himself being violent or destructive. Even Nancy Pelosi’s daughter said same.

What was he charged with and what did he plead guilty to?

What did he get four years for? That’s your answer. He has a new lawyer and exculpatory evidence was withheld. People are convinced to plead guilty every day. The real question is, would he have done so if this evidence was in the hands of the defense. Remember too, he is a diagnosed schizophrenic. You can have all the feels you want, but withholding evidence by prosecution is not something you want to see in America.

Lol. Don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time.

Juveniles who killed others have gotten less time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

Not true. In propagating the myth that Trump won the election, there was an illegal use of the Fox platform. Everyone at Fox knew it, thus the entire network is liable.

Does this apply to Keith Olbermann reporting Greg Palast's statements about the 2004 election, alleging it was stolen by voting machines?

Did Diebold sue Olbermann or Palast?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how anyone in their right mind would think it's somehow OK to participate with a large group to violently smash your way into a government building, attack police, trespass, ransack, vandalize and steal, and interrupt an official government proceeding?

The only way anyone could ever possibly think that would be OK is to be convinced that you are on the winning side, will succeed, and will be pardoned for your crimes. And that is only possible with an overthrow of the government.

That lays the full picture and intent out, and it's damning. There is no countering it.

BUT I SUPPORTED IT WHEN IT WAS KAV!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody - not even Tucker Carlson - is claiming that there weren't violent people who did bad things during the riot.
The point is that there are some people who have been prosecuted and given relatively lengthy sentences because their actions on that day have been misrepresented by the J6 committee and by prosecutors.
The QAnon Shamon is the very example of that. There is extensive footage of him being peaceful and respectful. And, it appears that Nancy Pelosi is at fault for withholding this evidence from his defense.

If there is one image from Jan. 6th that will remain indelible with the day, it is the “QAnon Shaman.” Bare chested and wearing an animal headdress, horns and red-white-and-blue face paint, Jake Angeli Chansley is to the Capitol riot what Rosie the Riveter was to World War II. Howling and “chanting an unintelligible mantra” on the Senate floor, he is the embodiment of the unhinged rage that led to one of the most disgraceful attacks on our constitutional process in history.

However, the newly released Fox footage from that day raises serious questions over the prosecution and punishment of Chansley. The videotapes aired on Tucker Carlson this week show Chansley being escorted by officers through the Capitol. Two officers appear to not only guide him to the floor but actually appear to be trying to open locked doors for him. At one point, Chansley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his four-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.

It is otherworldly footage. While I admit that I approach these stories from the perspective of a long-standing criminal defense attorney, I would be outraged if I was unable to see such evidence before a plea or sentencing. At no point in the videotapes does Chansley appear violent or threatening. Indeed, he appears to thank the officers for their guidance and assistance. On the Senate floor, Chansley actually gave a prayer to thank the officers agreed “to allow us into the building.”

Before addressing the legal implications of this footage, one thing should be clear. The public should have been given access to this footage long ago and the Jan. 6th Committee withheld important evidence on what occurred inside the Capitol on that day.

While it is understandable that many would object to Carlson being given an exclusive in the initial release, many in the media are denouncing the release of the footage to the public at all. The press and pundits are now opposing greater transparency in resisting any contradiction of the narrative put forward by the Jan. 6th Committee. Indeed, MSNBC’s Jason Johnson angrily objected that this is “federal evidence” — ignoring that it is evidence that was denied to criminal defendants.

This is not just material that the public should be able to see, it was potential evidence in criminal cases like that of the QAnon Shaman.

When the footage aired, I wrote a column raising the question of whether this evidence was known to or shared with Chansley’s defense. After all, he was portrayed as a violent offender by the Justice Department at his sentencing.

It now appears that the answer is no. I spoke with Chansley’s new counsel, Bill Shipley, and confirmed that defense counsel did not have this material.

In the hearing, federal prosecutor Kimberly Paschall played videos showing Chansley yelling along with the crowd and insisted “that is not peaceful.”

https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/08/did-the-qanon-shaman-get-the-shaft-new-evidence-raises-new-questions-on-the-chansley-case/

The Qanon Shaman was at the front of the group breaking in, which was (mostly-indisputably violent). If someone acts violently and then later acts peacefully, their defense attorney might think that's important evidence but no one else would.

So was John Sullivan

He was charged too.

Slap on wrist if that.

Oh yeah? What was his sentence?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

Not true. In propagating the myth that Trump won the election, there was an illegal use of the Fox platform. Everyone at Fox knew it, thus the entire network is liable.

Does this apply to Keith Olbermann reporting Greg Palast's statements about the 2004 election, alleging it was stolen by voting machines?

Maybe you can answer your own question? Was their an attempted coup and a storming of the Capitol by democrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

Not true. In propagating the myth that Trump won the election, there was an illegal use of the Fox platform. Everyone at Fox knew it, thus the entire network is liable.

Does this apply to Keith Olbermann reporting Greg Palast's statements about the 2004 election, alleging it was stolen by voting machines?

Did the information come from the losing candidate in 2004? Was it repeated a billion times on the left wing echo chamber? Did the left files lawsuits in every court in the US and lose all of them and persist on the information?

No?

Then no, it doesn't apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, he was required to report the whole thing was "a con."

Based on his personal feelings toward Trump? Or his perception that mystical black magic was propelling Trump? What exactly was he required to say--"Trump is a total prick, therefore his legal challenges to the election are a con." Would that make him a better journalist?

Based on the results of a democratic election, which Tucker saw unfolding. It's obvious from the texts that most at FOX new the election was legally won and that Trump wanted them to lie and say it wasn't.

Tucker should have said " the election was legally won by Biden and there is no viable challenge by Trump." Tuckers personal feelings for Trump should not make much of a difference one way or the other. The outcome of the election was not about feelings.

It's really funny to see the "f your feelings" crowd be so confused now.

Those texts dont reveal that Tucker thought that Trump was behaving illegally or that he didnt believe what he was reporting. They just reveal that he didnt like Trump. That isnt the same thing.

Not true. In propagating the myth that Trump won the election, there was an illegal use of the Fox platform. Everyone at Fox knew it, thus the entire network is liable.

Does this apply to Keith Olbermann reporting Greg Palast's statements about the 2004 election, alleging it was stolen by voting machines?

Did the information come from the losing candidate in 2004? Was it repeated a billion times on the left wing echo chamber? Did the left files lawsuits in every court in the US and lose all of them and persist on the information?
No?
Then no, it doesn't apply.

And did they then storm the Capitol with zip.ties to take hostages?
No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can be peaceful 99% of the time, but if I'm violent and destructive 1% of the time, then I will have to pay consequences for it.

There is no evidence of the Shaman himself being violent or destructive. Even Nancy Pelosi’s daughter said same.

What was he charged with and what did he plead guilty to?

What did he get four years for? That’s your answer. He has a new lawyer and exculpatory evidence was withheld. People are convinced to plead guilty every day. The real question is, would he have done so if this evidence was in the hands of the defense. Remember too, he is a diagnosed schizophrenic. You can have all the feels you want, but withholding evidence by prosecution is not something you want to see in America.

Lol. Don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time.

Juveniles who killed others have gotten less time

In federal court? Feel free to cite a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can be peaceful 99% of the time, but if I'm violent and destructive 1% of the time, then I will have to pay consequences for it.

There is no evidence of the Shaman himself being violent or destructive. Even Nancy Pelosi’s daughter said same.

What was he charged with and what did he plead guilty to?

What did he get four years for? That’s your answer. He has a new lawyer and exculpatory evidence was withheld. People are convinced to plead guilty every day. The real question is, would he have done so if this evidence was in the hands of the defense. Remember too, he is a diagnosed schizophrenic. You can have all the feels you want, but withholding evidence by prosecution is not something you want to see in America.

Lol. Don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time.

Juveniles who killed others have gotten less time

In federal court? Feel free to cite a case.

I think the topic is justice. Equal treatment. Not which court it is in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can be peaceful 99% of the time, but if I'm violent and destructive 1% of the time, then I will have to pay consequences for it.

There is no evidence of the Shaman himself being violent or destructive. Even Nancy Pelosi’s daughter said same.

What was he charged with and what did he plead guilty to?

What did he get four years for? That’s your answer. He has a new lawyer and exculpatory evidence was withheld. People are convinced to plead guilty every day. The real question is, would he have done so if this evidence was in the hands of the defense. Remember too, he is a diagnosed schizophrenic. You can have all the feels you want, but withholding evidence by prosecution is not something you want to see in America.

Lol. Don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time.

Juveniles who killed others have gotten less time

In federal court? Feel free to cite a case.

I think the topic is justice. Equal treatment. Not which court it is in.

Murder is bad but overturning an election is existentially bad for the country.

If you're interested in justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can be peaceful 99% of the time, but if I'm violent and destructive 1% of the time, then I will have to pay consequences for it.

There is no evidence of the Shaman himself being violent or destructive. Even Nancy Pelosi’s daughter said same.

What was he charged with and what did he plead guilty to?

What did he get four years for? That’s your answer. He has a new lawyer and exculpatory evidence was withheld. People are convinced to plead guilty every day. The real question is, would he have done so if this evidence was in the hands of the defense. Remember too, he is a diagnosed schizophrenic. You can have all the feels you want, but withholding evidence by prosecution is not something you want to see in America.

Lol. Don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time.

Juveniles who killed others have gotten less time

In federal court? Feel free to cite a case.

I think the topic is justice. Equal treatment. Not which court it is in.

Different courts apply different laws.