-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why did McCarthy Give Tucker Carlson Exclusive Access to J6 Footage?
- Thread starter DaisyDay
- Start date
TheBear
NON-WOKED
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Oh..... NOW they want the footage. Where were they for the last 2 years. Why didn't Nancy Pelosi release all the footage from the start?
Exculpatory evidence was withheld!
The American Bar Association levies serious consequences and penalties for any prosecutor or law enforcement who withholds exculpatory evidence. In California it is a FELONY.Yeah. I know that the show trial wasn't an actual court proceeding, and those rules may not apply. But what they did was about as unethical, unprofessional and slime ball as they could get.
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 23,129
- 14,264
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The relevant people had access to these videos, the government set up a site to coordinate the videos for defense attorneys. The videos don’t help people who were charged with being in the Capitol to halt official proceedings, since the only thing it proves is that they were largely non-violent, (which they’re not being accused/charged of/with).
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 24,047
- 16,490
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, you are intentionally being deceived. They have told you that they are deceiving you. They admit it. Nobody is going to claim that any news outlet is completely free from bias. But in all my years I have never heard one where the head honcho swears on oath they they only tell you what you want to hear. And then, astoundedly, you use footage that they have edited themselves which shows nothing of interest and say that it counters some supposed left wing narrative.
Even IF they were the epitome of journalistic excellence that argument would be utter nonsense in the first instance. Since it's Fox that's proposing it and you are going along with it is beyond my understanding.
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 24,047
- 16,490
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
The guy was charged and convicted. He said himself he was guilty. He said he did some stupid things. He aplogised for doing it. There is enough footage already seen that would be sufficient to convict. There is nothing that could be presented that would change that. From rescuing puppies to helping little old ladies across the road. Nothing changes the fact that he was guilty of the charges.
But hey, maybe you can think of something, anything, that we might not have seen which would cast doubt on his conviction. You could make something up if you like. But you won't, because it it literally impossible. But give it your best shot.
Upvote
0
This is why the Chucks and Mitches and other fake republicans are freaking out. They never wanted this footage to reach the eyes of the public. They had this fake "insurection" narative all tied up with a bow..... until the full story was presented....
Nothing they hate more than being allowed to see the truth.
Nothing they hate more than being allowed to see the truth.
Upvote
0
Pretty sure that this would be a hard "no". He, IMO, was one of the many FBI operatives at the site.....
Upvote
0
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 16,566
- 7,761
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
All I have been talking about is that a Capital Police Officer was not killed by being hit with a fire extinguisher and that it was falsely reported by the media. Those two things have been proven. It has nothing to do with Fox News or their CEO or Tucker Carlson. You are just spewing left wing talking points because you have no answer to my argument. No one was killed by a fire extinguisher on January 6th and it was falsely reported by the media. Can you dispute that? No. You just regurgitate left wing spin and try to poison the well. Please explain how I’m lessening the culpability of January 6th offenders and what videos from Fox I used.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2012
- 30,150
- 29,911
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What argument? There is no argument on that point. Everybody agrees that it was incorrect- we’ve all known about it for 2 years. Nobody’s addressing it because it’s not relevant - you just keep bringing it up to muddy the waters.
Upvote
0
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 16,566
- 7,761
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Then what is @Bradskii talking about? You should know since you are responding to a post addressed to him. Do you speak for him now? Is he not capable of speaking for himself or do you just feel he needs your help?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 43,726
- 46,794
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I want to leave you with just one question to ponder. Why did the prosecution only show closed circuit tv footage of the jewelry store on the day my client allegedly robbed the store? I have reviewed all 365 daily recordings in the past year, and my client only appears on that one day. The prosecution did not show you hundreds of pieces of evidence demonstrating that my client committed no crime. At best, the amount of evidence pointing to my clients guilt is less than 1% of all the evidence available. With such a tiny fraction of possibility, and a huge mountain of exculpatory evidence, I submit that any reasonable person assessing the preponderance of evidence will have some doubts about whether any crime actually occurred. But with the prosecution's withholding of evidence, you were kept in the dark as to the true nature of things. Why was that, do you suppose?
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2012
- 30,150
- 29,911
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Where? In which post? I went as far back as page 17, and the only post of his I saw that directly addressed the issue of the media’s claim that Sicknick had been hit with a fire extinguisher said this:
“ That can be put down to sloppy journalism. Or a simple mistake by someone passing on information that wasn't correct. ”
Upvote
0
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 16,566
- 7,761
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
@Bradskii said “
I've read all the posts. All of yours. You are continually trying to lessen the culpability of those involved in Jan 6 and you have been using the Fox videos to do so.
- Bradskii
- Post #357
- Yesterday at 8:04 PM”. How does telling the truth about something that was reported (in error or intentionally) that isn’t true lessen the culpability of those involved in January 6th and what Fox videos did I use?
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2012
- 30,150
- 29,911
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 24,047
- 16,490
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't set the sentences. But the 4 years he got seemed suitable for the overall seriousness of the event. Put it this way, I was neither surprised or dissapointed. And bear in mind that one of the reasons we punish people is to act as a deterrent. I don't think that anyone today thinks they could do something similar and just get a slap on the wrist.
The guy seems genuinely contrite and I'd like to think he'd get out early on good behaviour.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
I march with Sherman
- Mar 11, 2017
- 22,813
- 17,042
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Nope, they've wanted it for two years.
Here is the "Press coalition" requesting the video exhibits in the Chansley case:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225845/gov.uscourts.dcd.225845.113.0_2.pdf
The motion and access was granted a month later.
Every time an edit from a particular source is released (as in the case with the short clips of Chansley in the Senate wing), they sue again, now with specifics about what and when and knowing that part of the footage is already available. In this case, I would suspect that they would have a really good case for the release of the raw footage for those cameras that show Chansley's "escort" from about 2:15 to about 3:15. Another bit of footage they can't claim to need to protect would be that high camera in the Dome showing the high view of the Rotunda.
None of the footage Tucker showed was exculpatory for Chansley or anyone else. Your claim is made without evidence.
If you want to complain about penalties, it would help if you bothered to find the associated penalties in Federal court (where this is taking place. California state court is irrelevant.)
Since I don't know which "show trial" you are talking about, I will go to the only defendant covered by Tucker's "report", Jacob Chansley.
Here is the transcript of his trial (or rather his plea hearing as he plead guilty:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.225845/gov.uscourts.dcd.225845.110.0_1.pdf
Upvote
0
Similar threads
