The Tucker Carlson videos are dropping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictably, the Shaman's defense counsel in fact had the video:

"Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

Everyone accusing the prosecution of Brady violations will surely now come apologize.

They can say anything they want. They have to prove it.

The prosecutors don't have to prove anything. Dude already pleaded guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

Tucker Carlson's old producer isn't conservative? LOL

Just imagine the epic frenzied tizzy Republicans would be in if somebody from the Post, Times, or CNN said this. Too bad Fox's viewers will never hear of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictably, the Shaman's defense counsel in fact had the video:

"Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

Everyone accusing the prosecution of Brady violations will surely now come apologize.

They can say anything they want. They have to prove it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictably, the Shaman's defense counsel in fact had the video:

"Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

Everyone accusing the prosecution of Brady violations will surely now come apologize.

They can say anything they want. They have to prove it.

The prosecutors don't have to prove anything. Dude already pleaded guilty.

Learn something please:

“ If the government possessed these tapes and did not share them with Chansley or similarly situated defendants, it risks running afoul of Brady. The Supreme Court found in 1963 that a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence in a murder case against John Brady — his co-defendant had confessed to the crime — amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

The 7-to-2 opinion penned by Justice William Douglas held that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”

Mr. Silverglate explains that it does not matter whether the prosecuting attorney who handled Chansley’s case was himself in possession of the footage. The very fact that the tapes were held by the government imposes a duty to bring “Brady evidence” to the court and the accused as soon as any member of the government became aware of its existence.

To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must convince the court of three things. First, the evidence in question must be exculpatory in some fashion. Second, it has to have been suppressed by the state. It does not matter whether that suppression was willful or inadvertent.

Finally, that suppression must, in the Supreme Court’s parlance, “affect the outcome of the trial” or “undermine confidence in the verdict.” Were a Brady violation found, it could lead to a new trial or dismissal of charges altogether. The burden of disclosure rests on the prosecutor to step forward, not the defendant to ask.

Mr. Silverglate contends that the video at issue in Chansley’s case is a particularly potent form of “primary evidence.” As he puts it, the “thing about film is that witnesses lie, but film doesn’t lie.” When asked if the suppression of this footage would warrant tossing Chansley’s conviction, he replied with one word: “Yes.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

Tucker Carlson's old producer isn't conservative? LOL

Just imagine the epic frenzied tizzy Republicans would be in if somebody from the Post, Times, or CNN said this. Too bad Fox's viewers will never hear of it.

Paul Ryan is on the board. Fox News has changed over the past few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

This guy isn't a conservative?

- In charge of opposition research at the Republican National Committee from 2016-2017
- White House Deputy Press Secretary and Deputy Assistant to President Trump from 2017 to 2019.
- Fox Corporation senior vice president starting in July 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Shah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictably, the Shaman's defense counsel in fact had the video:

"Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

Everyone accusing the prosecution of Brady violations will surely now come apologize.

They can say anything they want. They have to prove it.

The prosecutors don't have to prove anything. Dude already pleaded guilty.

Learn something please:

“ If the government possessed these tapes and did not share them with Chansley or similarly situated defendants, it risks running afoul of Brady. The Supreme Court found in 1963 that a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence in a murder case against John Brady — his co-defendant had confessed to the crime — amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

The 7-to-2 opinion penned by Justice William Douglas held that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”

Mr. Silverglate explains that it does not matter whether the prosecuting attorney who handled Chansley’s case was himself in possession of the footage. The very fact that the tapes were held by the government imposes a duty to bring “Brady evidence” to the court and the accused as soon as any member of the government became aware of its existence.

To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must convince the court of three things. First, the evidence in question must be exculpatory in some fashion. Second, it has to have been suppressed by the state. It does not matter whether that suppression was willful or inadvertent.

Finally, that suppression must, in the Supreme Court’s parlance, “affect the outcome of the trial” or “undermine confidence in the verdict.” Were a Brady violation found, it could lead to a new trial or dismissal of charges altogether. The burden of disclosure rests on the prosecutor to step forward, not the defendant to ask.

Mr. Silverglate contends that the video at issue in Chansley’s case is a particularly potent form of “primary evidence.” As he puts it, the “thing about film is that witnesses lie, but film doesn’t lie.” When asked if the suppression of this footage would warrant tossing Chansley’s conviction, he replied with one word: “Yes.”

Now you can learn something. Brady doesn't apply to guilty pleas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

Tucker Carlson's old producer isn't conservative? LOL

Just imagine the epic frenzied tizzy Republicans would be in if somebody from the Post, Times, or CNN said this. Too bad Fox's viewers will never hear of it.

Paul Ryan is on the board. Fox News has changed over the past few years.

Dude, Tucker feels the same way. Read his texts, he despises Trump!
Just admit that you have been conned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

Tucker Carlson's old producer isn't conservative? LOL

Just imagine the epic frenzied tizzy Republicans would be in if somebody from the Post, Times, or CNN said this. Too bad Fox's viewers will never hear of it.

Paul Ryan is on the board. Fox News has changed over the past few years.

You should probably boycott then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictably, the Shaman's defense counsel in fact had the video:

"Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

Everyone accusing the prosecution of Brady violations will surely now come apologize.

They can say anything they want. They have to prove it.

The prosecutors don't have to prove anything. Dude already pleaded guilty.

Learn something please:

“ If the government possessed these tapes and did not share them with Chansley or similarly situated defendants, it risks running afoul of Brady. The Supreme Court found in 1963 that a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence in a murder case against John Brady — his co-defendant had confessed to the crime — amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

The 7-to-2 opinion penned by Justice William Douglas held that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”

Mr. Silverglate explains that it does not matter whether the prosecuting attorney who handled Chansley’s case was himself in possession of the footage. The very fact that the tapes were held by the government imposes a duty to bring “Brady evidence” to the court and the accused as soon as any member of the government became aware of its existence.

To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must convince the court of three things. First, the evidence in question must be exculpatory in some fashion. Second, it has to have been suppressed by the state. It does not matter whether that suppression was willful or inadvertent.

Finally, that suppression must, in the Supreme Court’s parlance, “affect the outcome of the trial” or “undermine confidence in the verdict.” Were a Brady violation found, it could lead to a new trial or dismissal of charges altogether. The burden of disclosure rests on the prosecutor to step forward, not the defendant to ask.

Mr. Silverglate contends that the video at issue in Chansley’s case is a particularly potent form of “primary evidence.” As he puts it, the “thing about film is that witnesses lie, but film doesn’t lie.” When asked if the suppression of this footage would warrant tossing Chansley’s conviction, he replied with one word: “Yes.”

Lol like that matters. SCOTUS will free all these J6’ers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

a.) Stop calling yourselves conservatives. None of what you people do is about conservatism. It's all just kneejerk reactionary behavior spurred on by false outrage and lies peddled by snake oil salesmen like FOX News

b.) It should be a signal to you that if FOX news personnel are openly emailing each other referring to you, their audience as clueless gullible rubes and aren't being fired for it, it's not just "individual employees." It's core to their culture. They are knowingly and willfully selling you a bill of goods, and you are gullible enough to partake in it. And the same, I'm sure, goes for Newsmax, Daily Caller and other conservative outlets that do nothing but sell faux outrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictably, the Shaman's defense counsel in fact had the video:

"Prosecutors say that apart from 10 seconds that “implicated an evacuation route,” the rest of the video played by Carlson was released to Pezzola and Chansley by September 24, 2021, and the additional 10 seconds were released to all January 6 defendants on January 23, 2023."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/politics/jacob-chansley-footage-tucker-carlson/index.html

Everyone accusing the prosecution of Brady violations will surely now come apologize.

They can say anything they want. They have to prove it.

The prosecutors don't have to prove anything. Dude already pleaded guilty.

Learn something please:

“ If the government possessed these tapes and did not share them with Chansley or similarly situated defendants, it risks running afoul of Brady. The Supreme Court found in 1963 that a prosecutor’s suppression of evidence in a murder case against John Brady — his co-defendant had confessed to the crime — amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

The 7-to-2 opinion penned by Justice William Douglas held that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”

Mr. Silverglate explains that it does not matter whether the prosecuting attorney who handled Chansley’s case was himself in possession of the footage. The very fact that the tapes were held by the government imposes a duty to bring “Brady evidence” to the court and the accused as soon as any member of the government became aware of its existence.

To prove a Brady violation, a defendant must convince the court of three things. First, the evidence in question must be exculpatory in some fashion. Second, it has to have been suppressed by the state. It does not matter whether that suppression was willful or inadvertent.

Finally, that suppression must, in the Supreme Court’s parlance, “affect the outcome of the trial” or “undermine confidence in the verdict.” Were a Brady violation found, it could lead to a new trial or dismissal of charges altogether. The burden of disclosure rests on the prosecutor to step forward, not the defendant to ask.

Mr. Silverglate contends that the video at issue in Chansley’s case is a particularly potent form of “primary evidence.” As he puts it, the “thing about film is that witnesses lie, but film doesn’t lie.” When asked if the suppression of this footage would warrant tossing Chansley’s conviction, he replied with one word: “Yes.”

It's already been shown that the footage WAS available to Chansley and his legal team. It's also been shown that Tucker Carlson specifically excluded footage that captured Chansley refusing to be escorted out of the building by police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what FAX thinks of Tucker's viewers.

The Fox watchers hold themselves in such high esteem and are viewed with such contempt by Fox.

By individual Fox employees. They are not all conservatives

a.) Stop calling yourselves conservatives. None of what you people do is about conservatism. It's all just kneejerk reactionary behavior spurred on by false outrage and lies peddled by snake oil salesmen like FOX News

b.) It should be a signal to you that if FOX news personnel are openly emailing each other referring to you, their audience as clueless gullible rubes and aren't being fired for it, it's not just "individual employees." It's core to their culture. They are knowingly and willfully selling you a bill of goods, and you are gullible enough to partake in it. And the same, I'm sure, goes for Newsmax, Daily Caller and other conservative outlets that do nothing but sell faux outrage.

I think PP knows that. If they’re anything like the “conservatives” I know (conserving what? Patriotism? Honor? Dignity? Standards? Pffft. Flew out the window long ago…), they know but they really really like the outrage. And they think they’re in on the secret so they’re pretty sure they’re not the subject of the double double super triple secret cross.

[Anonymous]

Chansley got a plea deal. That’s why he only got 4 years. If I were his lawyer and saw these vids prior to the plea agreement, I wouldn’t have encouraged him to go to trial. It’s easy for the lawyer to go on TV now and say whatever he wants, but going to trial when he’s on video committing felonies is risky.