Why did McCarthy Give Tucker Carlson Exclusive Access to J6 Footage?

[Valletta]

None of his rights were denied. He pleaded guilty. And his request for a mental assessment was granted. If you think that his attorney asked for something and was denied it, then put up. Show us what it was. Otherwise please stop wasting my time.

False. Because someone pleads guilty does not mean their rights were not violated. Exculpatory evidence was withheld. Check out Brady vs. Maryland.

 

[BPPLEE]

Then you'll know where to find one of her saying that 'the Russians stole it'. I'll wait here while you dig it up.

Keep moving those goalposts

 

[Bradskii]

He had the right to access any information that showed he was not rioting, and was being cooperative with the police, and was even allowed to be there by the police. So yes, his rights were denied.
With this evidence being denied to be used by him in his defense, what choice did he have other than to plead guilty and hopefully get a lighter sentence when any real chance to defend himself in court was being withheld from him? All while a group of people on the Jan. 6th committee slanders him on national TV during primetime hours (and call it an "investigation")?

Hey, thanks for keeping that reasonably short as well.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you think if you keep pretending it didn’t happen it’ll go away?

Maybe you didn't notice. It already went away. The guy has served time and may soon be released on the basis of time served. I might point out again that the person most likely to know if he was guilty or not and is arguing against what you are saying is.. the guy himself. I'll see if I can find out where he's being held so you can argue with him directly.

 

[BPPLEE]

Maybe we should check with Chansley himself. You know, to see if he had reasons for complaints about his trial. Whether he was being used as a scapegoat. Whether he felt justified in his actions. Let's see.

'Before he was sentenced, Chansley told U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth it was wrong for him to enter the Capitol and that he accepts responsibility for his actions. He emphasized he wasn’t an insurrectionist and is troubled with the way he was portrayed in news stories in the aftermath of the riot.

“I have no excuse,” Chansley said. “No excuses whatsoever. My behavior is indefensible.”

Seems there are plenty of people who disagree with him. And will defend him even though he admits he was wrong. How actually does this work? I'm kinda curious. Logic and common sense seem to have deserted us. So how do you get to a point when a man says he did wrong, was sorry he did wrong, expressed regret states that he has changed his ways abandoned qanon and yet...yat tou say he did nothing.

What madness is this?

I don’t think anyone is saying he didn’t do anything wrong. What is being pointed out is that news coverage about him for the last two years has been grossly inaccurate

 

[Bradskii]

False. Because someone pleads guilty does not mean their rights were not violated. Exculpatory evidence was withheld. Check out Brady vs. Maryland.

Again, yet again...if you think his attorney requested something and was denied, put it forward.

 

[ralliann]

Quite right. And one heck of a non sequitor. Correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't plead guilty to arson either. Or DUI. Or indecent exposure...

Now, your getting it.
What evidence was he tampering with? That is what this new law was there for. Was exculpatory evidence tampered with. It probably depends on who they want to see as guilty.

 

[Bradskii]

Keep moving those goalposts

Hey, you specifically claimed that people said that the Russians stole the election. I said that was bull and you said you actually had a video of Clinton actually saying it.

Please post it.

 

[Bradskii]

Now, your getting it.
What evidence was he tampering with? That is what this new law was there for. Was exculpatory evidence tampered with. It probably depends on who they want to see as guilty.

Someone has to tell you that that post makes so sense at all.

 

[durangodawood]

Then you'll know where to find one of her saying that 'the Russians stole it'. I'll wait here while you dig it up.

She did say something to that effect on a video. She could be correct, but obviously theres no hard data on the effect of foreign efforts. I know anecdotally lots of people were swayed by the social media nonsense spread by Russian efforts.

But for 100% sure she is correct about the Russian effort itself which was corroborated across the board by US intel, with many congress R's concurring.

 

[BPPLEE]

Maybe you didn't notice. It already went away. The guy has served time and may soon be released on the basis of time served. I might point out again that the person most likely to know if he was guilty or not and is arguing against what you are saying is.. the guy himself. I'll see if I can find out where he's being held so you can argue with him directly.

It’s amazing what people will plead guilty to when the deck is stacked against them and they are looking at less time for taking a plea. I didn’t comment on his guilt or innocence just that the video that’s been released doesn’t match the narrative we’ve been fed for the last two years

 

[ralliann]

Someone has to tell you that that post makes so sense at all.

Oh I am sure it does not, the whole thing is senseless at this point. Let's just wait and see what comes of this. More information is a very good.

 

[ralliann]

It’s amazing what people will plead guilty to when the deck is stacked against them and they are looking at less time for taking a plea. I didn’t comment on his guilt or innocence just that the video that’s been released doesn’t match the narrative we’ve been fed for the last two years

Yep, it's all non sense. The law is so broad as well.

 

[durangodawood]

....the video that’s been released doesn’t match the narrative we’ve been fed for the last two years

Tucker should have released the parts we've seen that do match the narrative. But that would spoil his narrative.

 

[Bradskii]

She did say something to that effect on a video. She could be correct, but obviously theres no hard data on the effect of foreign efforts. I know anecdotally lots of people were swayed by the social media nonsense spread by Russian efforts.

But for 100% sure she is correct about the Russian effort itself which was corroborated across the board by US intel, with many congress R's concurring.

That there was Russian involvement...well, I'd need a very good argument indeed to convince me that there wasn't any. But saying that there was involvement and 'Russia stole the election' are two different things entirely. I'm trying to crank back the rhetoric and excess exageration that is flooding this thread. People are making statements that aren't true and if they are not challenged, accepting them as gospel and building on them. The truth keeps on being bent until it becomes a lie.

I've had enough of it. And I happen to have a couple of spare hours this a.m. to challenge any comments I think are just pulled out of...well. pulled out of fresh air shall we say.

 

[BPPLEE]

She did say something to that effect on a video. She could be correct, but obviously theres no hard data on the effect of foreign efforts. I know anecdotally lots of people were swayed by the social media nonsense spread by Russian efforts.

But for 100% sure she is correct about the Russian effort itself which was corroborated across the board by US intel, with many congress R's concurring.

There is no way to measure how much influence propaganda efforts had on the 2016 election no more than I could prove how much burying the Hunter Biden laptop story helped Biden. And I said Hillary said the election was stolen. She didn’t elaborate on who stole it

 

[BPPLEE]

Tucker should have released the parts we've seen that do match the narrative. But that would spoil his narrative.

We’ve seen those for two years . He did point out the violence and condemned it

 

[durangodawood]

We’ve seen those for two years

Yes. Other video bits of people just milling around dont negate the violence and criminality we did see. Those were real and sufficient for the narrative that Im aware of, unless theres some claim that everyone was violent - but I havent heard that.

 

[ralliann]

Tucker should have released the parts we've seen that do match the narrative. But that would spoil his narrative.

Really? Where can I find the video of his violence. Too dangerous to be released?

 

[Bradskii]

Exculpatory evidence. And no, I am not going to get involved in a trial here. Way, way to much of that has gone on in media. So let's just see how this turns out now that this information has become public. Just for once care enough about this to see what comes of this.

You said he was denied. You must know what it was otherwise you wouldn't have said it. So tell us all, and show your evidence, that he requested something and was denied it.