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

If the DOJ ignores the prosecutorial misconduct, it will look very bad.

 

OK. So what? All that demonstrates is nothing. It doesn't implicate those who have been charged, nor does it exonerate them.

While I appreciate your concern for the government of a country literally half a world away from you, not only is it none of your business, if it was that big of a concern, they would be classified. They are not. Which means that any person in the USA can file a FOIA and get a copy of the videos for themselves. Or, if it was classified, then Speaker McCarthy should be impeached and charged with leaking classified material. Since I haven't heard even the most virulent lefty Trump hater suggest such a thing, I'm gonna conclude they are not classified.

If he was aware of the existence of these tapes, then he's screwed, because a guilty plea precludes an appeal except in the event of new evidence, and this would only be new if his defense team did not know about them. On the flip side, if they did not know about them, the government's case may be in trouble because it would have been under the category of mandatory discovery for his attorney(s).

You are correct. However, if the available footage shows him outside the building having a smoke at the time of the robbery, that is totally different, is it not?

 

Nothing before the crime? Just what crime did he commit besides going into the Capitol? As far as I can see he committed no crime other than trespassing. If he did more, why wasn't it shown?

 

Perhaps. That would depend on the defense attorney's communication with his defendant. Work product is a tricky issue and I'm not qualified to comment on how attorney-client communication would fit into an appeal based on inadequate counsel.

As for the existence of a video record, I have to believe that the whole world knew about it on 1/7 after still shots were released to the media and aired for days and days afterward. I suppose the video record might help someone get their charge reduced but that's a real crapshoot. Suppose, for instance, a defendant verified their identity on a video record in an attempt to get their charge reduced and then showed up on another part of the video in the proximity of a more serious criminal act.

 

You do not seem to understand how the American justice system works. Which, considering that you do not have the same rights that we do is not at all surprising.

In a criminal case, the prosecutor has a legal duty to disclose at least the existence of all evidence, even if it may tend to exonerate whomever they are trying to convict. As to whether or not the tapes actually do that, it's a question of fact for the jury, not something to be assumed by some Trump hating foreigner.

Sorry. No, not really.

 

I think the blood they were talking about must have been from Ashli Babbitt

 

What prosecutorial misconduct ?

 

No, but the bias news and Democrats kept saying they did kill him. It wasn't till the coroner said he wasn't hit that caused his death. Much like the bias news and Democrats kept saying Trump conspired with the Russians to tilt the election to him, until the Mueller Report said NO AMERICANS conspired with Russia. Still the Democrats keep saying it. Much like they keep saying Trump was kissing Puttin's ass. Even when it's shown none of it's true, they keep repeating the same lies over and over and you guys keep eating it up.

 

None of us are.

I can't comment on what the whole world knew because I was in a coma. But according to the article someone linked earlier in the thread, it appears that that horned dude's lawyer tried to get the tapes, and was stonewalled by the prosecution, which is not only grounds for an appeal, but potentially a ground for an outright dismissal of the case. Prosecutors are not allowed to behave that way, and all evidence must be disclosed to the defense.

I don't know what the tapes show, nor how it fits with what the prosecution said to obtain a plea. He would not be the first person to plead guilty to something he didn't do when felt trapped, and that they were sure to be found guilty and potentially face a whole lot more time than what he got.

I want to be clear... I do not have enough knowledge to form a personal opinion on the innocence or guilt of anyone involved that day, so I am not commenting on that. I'm merely commenting on the proper conduct of the government in criminal cases, and they don't get to stack the deck and withhold anything, even if it is classified, which these tapes are not.

They should have been disclosed, and if they exonerate anyone, that's how it should be. Better 10 guilty men (or women) go free on a charge they're actually guilty of than one innocent person be jailed for something they did not do.

 

When Jacob Chansley's prosecutor concealed evidence that Chansley had a constitutional right to see

 

When a person is charged with a crime, the prosecution is bound by law to provide all the evidence supporting the charge or charges, including evidence that might exonerate the defendant. Evidence that is favorable to the defendant is called “exculpatory evidence” and back in 1963, the United States Supreme Court held that the prosecution must give all this exculpatory evidence to the defense.

They never showed the videos of the defendant's actions inside the Capito other than walking around.l. Didn't show anything except him walking around the inside of the Capitol. No proof was shown then he trespassed.

 

Failing to disclose the existence of potentially exculpatory evidence is itself a crime. And can and has led to charges against guilty people being dismissed with prejudice. That's how our system works.

At the very least they're looking at being disbarred. ASSUMING they intentionally withheld either the existence of these tapes, or refused to disclose them if they were known of. I have no relevant information about that question. And, thus far, no opinion, unlike some on here who are ready to tar and feather the horned dude and apparently some others, including people who are nosing around in matters that do not concern them.

 

Why wasn’t it shown by tucker? Lol
You have to ask?

 

So the footage exonerates an imaginary person who wasn’t charged lol

 

Does footage of the aurora movie shooter, eating popcorn before the movie, exonerate him?

 

Let's not get too far in front of the facts here. At first glance, it appears that potentially exculpatory evidence may have been intentionally withheld, but from what I understand there are hundreds if not thousands of hours of video and only a few minutes of it has been released publicly. While the defense had and has an absolute right to use the tapes to defend their clients, the government has a right to use them to tell a potentially different story.

That's one beautiful part about video, it doesn't care, and it doesn't have a bias. It simply shows what it saw, nothing more, and nothing less.

 

Irrelevant. It wasn't shown to Chansley's lawyer and that is illegal.

 

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that at all. It's still quite possible that he is guilty as charged, despite what the tapes show. However, if the tapes show him already inside the building when he was allegedly outside it leading the charge, so to speak, that's a whole different thing, is it not?

Not really, no. All I see from the resident Trump haters of this forum is anger at Tucker for releasing the tapes, when if there is any anger that is justified here, at first glance it appears it should be directed at the prosecutors for blatantly breaking the law and their obligations. If, keyword, they either refused to disclose the fact they existed, or refused to actually hand them over to the defense. If it was disclosed, that's different. But that does not seem like it's accurate.

No single case, no matter how much you want someone to go to jail because he likes a politician you hate, is worth sacrificing the principals of our judicial system. None. Even if it means a guilty man (or woman) goes free.

 

Is that your expert legal opinion lol
Mine is that the footage isn’t relevant.

 

What exactly was he doing that he should have arrested for?We never saw how he got in. We didn’t see him leading a mob around. Is he shown being violent or destroying property?

 

Videos don’t lie, people do. There is a reason why police are required to wear body cams in most states.

 

daily kos is a Democrat opinion site

 

Doesn't matter. The fact is: the prosecutor broke the law by concealing the evidence.

 

Were they? That's a serious question, not a smart ass rhetorical one. I ask because I have been in that building, and when I was, we just walked up to the door and went in. I don't even remember any security being present, but it was a long time ago and I was a lot younger, so I may have forgotten, I don't know.

So, I'm wondering why I was able to walk in, and they were not.

 

Times change and permissions change.