|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 7, 2023 15:57:12 GMT -5
To be precise, his sentence is 41 months (3 years, 5 months) in prison and 36 of supervised release--and according to a footnote in his Wikipedia article, he currently has a release date of July 9, 2023. If his sentence included time served (starting in January 2021), he would be out in June of 2024. So, for whatever reason, he's getting out 11 months early.
Of course, if one's position is that he was railroaded, that his guilty plea was somehow coerced, then of course even the 2.5 years in prison is wrong. But if he did what he pled guilty to, then he had it coming.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 7, 2023 16:00:23 GMT -5
< Ashli> (Quite an interesting wiki page.)
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 7, 2023 16:54:38 GMT -5
To be precise, his sentence is 41 months (3 years, 5 months) in prison and 36 of supervised release--and according to a footnote in his Wikipedia article, he currently has a release date of July 9, 2023. If his sentence included time served (starting in January 2021), he would be out in June of 2024. So, for whatever reason, he's getting out 11 months early. Of course, if one's position is that he was railroaded, that his guilty plea was somehow coerced, then of course even the 2.5 years in prison is wrong. But if he did what he pled guilty to, then he had it coming. And you probably won't bother, as many here won't, to see any of the other side. But that's okay, since nobody's really listening to your side at this point either.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 7, 2023 16:55:56 GMT -5
< Ashli> (Quite an interesting wiki page.)Well at least spelling is something you can get right.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 7, 2023 19:46:54 GMT -5
My side consists of a series of questions: "What happened?" "How do I get the information?" "How do I sort through the evidence?" "What do I make of it?" and "What do I do about it?"
I don't think of that as a side--though the answers to #s 1-4 can lead me to take one, assuming there are sides to take and that one of them matches my understanding of the answers to #s 1-4. And if I'm not in a position to do anything, side-taking is a bit of a parlor game, at least until it's time to vote or donate time or money or call out lies and errors and bad epistemology.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 7, 2023 22:20:31 GMT -5
My side consists of a series of questions: "What happened?" "How do I get the information?" "How do I sort through the evidence?" "What do I make of it?" and "What do I do about it?" I don't think of that as a side--though the answers to #s 1-4 can lead me to take one, assuming there are sides to take and that one of them matches my understanding of the answers to #s 1-4. And if I'm not in a position to do anything, side-taking is a bit of a parlor game, at least until it's time to vote or donate time or money or call out lies and errors and bad epistemology. Well, you could always try sorting through the same evidence I see without simply dismissing it as somehow beneath you.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 7, 2023 23:15:31 GMT -5
Point me to some evidence (as distinct from assertions) and I'll sort through it, as I did with the video of Chansley (who will be released after about 2.5, not 4 years of incarceration) entering the Capitol with his flagpole. You have evidence that Ray Epps is an FBI operative? Bring it. You have evidence of "some 900+ J6 defendants that have been largely rotting in a DC prison at the Justice Department's behest for 2 years now"? Post it.
I don't dismiss actual evidence, but I do vet and examine it. And bare assertion is not evidence.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 8, 2023 0:52:54 GMT -5
The cases of those charged in Capital riot were heard by juries that were presented evidence, real evidence, not Facebook evidence.
The juries in these cases heard arguments, serious legal arguments, not YouTube arguments, presented by both prosecution and defense that were based on this evidence, this real courtroom vetted evidence, not YouTube evidence.
There is a difference between the evidence presented in a court of law and the hand picked, filtered, distorted and flatly made up stuff spun freely without regard for truth or consequence on Facebook, YouTube, and internet rag.
There is a difference between the judgment rendered in a court of law based upon the courtroom evidence it is presented and the belief in a something other based only upon a belief in this something other... and the fingerpickings plucked from Facebook, Youtube, and internet rag.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 8, 2023 0:58:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 8, 2023 6:27:14 GMT -5
The cases of those charged in Capital riot were heard by juries that were presented evidence, real evidence, not Facebook evidence. The juries in these cases heard arguments, serious legal arguments, not YouTube arguments, presented by both prosecution and defense that were based on this evidence, this real courtroom vetted evidence, not YouTube evidence. There is a difference between the evidence presented in a court of law and the hand picked, filtered, distorted and flatly made up stuff spun freely without regard for truth or consequence on Facebook, YouTube, and internet rag. There is a difference between the judgment rendered in a court of law based upon the courtroom evidence it is presented and the belief in a something other based only upon a belief in this something other... and the fingerpickings plucked from Facebook, Youtube, and internet rag. You do know that none of the Capitol riot defendants and their lawyers had any access to these videos by Justice Department decree, right? You do know that the vaunted Jan. 6 committee did and saw much of it simply declining to include any of it in their curated kangaroo court, right? Kind of puts a whole different spin on "judgment rendered in a court of law based upon the courtroom evidence it is presented", right? And Kinzinger is now on CNN and Cheney's a UVA professor. And yet according to experts here, I'm the dumb one. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 8, 2023 10:04:40 GMT -5
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean McCauley responded to a Carlson programme related stalling attempt in the high profile J6 case of Ryan Nichols. There’s a .pdf file embedded in the article at Politico from which this is extracted "The Justice Department also rejected as “premature” the notion that Carlson’s decision to air some of the security footage Monday should lead to the Justice Department making the full cache of security film public. Prosecutors noted that “limited” clips aired by Carlson were nearly all included in the initial troves of footage provided to defense attorneys, which includes nearly all of the footage inside and outside the Capitol from 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Jan. 6.
“Nearly all the footage displayed on the program has long been in the government’s production to defense counsel and, in some cases, has also been admitted in public hearings and/or trials and has been available to, released to, and/or published by news media,” the department noted."
More at - www.politico.com/amp/news/2023/03/07/justice-department-tucker-carlson-tapes-00086031
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Mar 8, 2023 10:35:45 GMT -5
“It’s not about red or blue it’s about green”
Fox needs to store up some nuts for the impending winter of Dominion.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 8, 2023 11:34:03 GMT -5
You do know that none of the Capitol riot defendants and their lawyers had any access to these videos by Justice Department decree, right? You do know that the vaunted Jan. 6 committee did and saw much of it simply declining to include any of it in their curated kangaroo court, right? Kind of puts a whole different spin on "judgment rendered in a court of law based upon the courtroom evidence it is presented", right? And Kinzinger is now on CNN and Cheney's a UVA professor. And yet according to experts here, I'm the dumb one. Go figure. ? Know? Aqua, I don't know that a single thing you say about the election or Jan. 6 is "true". I do know where your "facts" come from, however. And, yep, I'm discounting them. And I'm putting my bet on the courtrooms of this country, not Facebook groups, Youtube clips, or internet rags Jan. 6 trials. The lawyers for those charged for their actions in the Capital breakin had access to and time to prepare for all the information, all the evidence, that was duly presented to the jury, all of it. They had the right to present all evidence that pertained to their defendants as allowed by the judgement of the court. If in the judge's opinion, evidence the defense had a right to had been denied, the case would have been tossed. That's the law. These cases, cases, plural, all of them, were held in public courtrooms subject to public scrutiny and were presided over by a judge appointed to his or her office by this country and its constitution. And the courtrooms, our legal system, ruled. The stuff you are talking about, "hidden evidence denied?"... I don't know what you are talking about, but I do know from where the talk springs: Facebook groups, Youtube clips, and internet rags. "Unseen tapes"?... A long street is loaded with cameras. The cameras pick up a person walking slowly down this long street. He stops, looks at a dandelion, then walks a little more, then stops and scratches himself, then slowly keeps walking, an hour of slow walking down this long street. Then, suddenly, he turns, rushes up to a house and smashes the door in and spends five minutes violently trashing the place... then he leaves and slowly resumes his long leisurely walk, walking and stopping, stopping and walking, for another hour or so as he slowly meanders down the long, long street filled with cameras. Does a courtroom make its decision on the entire two plus hours of tape of this guy walking or the tape of the five minutes the guy spends breaking into the house and trashing the place? (a courtroom, that is, not Tucker Carlson, Tucker's into the walking part). If the jury does not, for instance, see the five seconds of tape showing the guy scratching his privates, has justice been denied? In the case of the Capital breakin, there was 14,000 hours of tape. 14,000 hours. Was all 14,000 entered into every Capital break-in case? No. Was it possible to enter all 14,000 hours? No. Was there any reason to enter all 14,000 hours? No. The pertinent tape was available and entered. The defense had access to all the tape pertinent to their defendant and his or her case. If, in any instance, a judge believed that a defense lawyer's claim that a denied minute of tape amongst the 14,000 hours of tape was genuine and germaine and not specious courtroom shenanigans, that judge would have ruled in the defense's favor and the missing minute of tape would have become available or the case would have been tossed. All this talk of "tapes denied" and "truths hidden" is conspiratorial nonsense, mountains built out of an inconsequential, misunderstood or tricked-up molehile. A molehill turned into a mountain by Facebook, YouTube, and internet rags that will publish, unvetted, anything by anyone.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 8, 2023 12:35:03 GMT -5
You do know that none of the Capitol riot defendants and their lawyers had any access to these videos by Justice Department decree, right? You do know that the vaunted Jan. 6 committee did and saw much of it simply declining to include any of it in their curated kangaroo court, right? Kind of puts a whole different spin on "judgment rendered in a court of law based upon the courtroom evidence it is presented", right? And Kinzinger is now on CNN and Cheney's a UVA professor. And yet according to experts here, I'm the dumb one. Go figure. ? Know? Aqua, I don't know that a single thing you say about the election or Jan. 6 is "true". I do know where your "facts" come from, however. And, yep, I'm discounting them. And I'm putting my bet on the courtrooms of this country, not Facebook groups, Youtube clips, or internet rags Jan. 6 trials. The lawyers for those charged for their actions in the Capital breakin had access to and time to prepare for all the information, all the evidence, that was duly presented to the jury, all of it. They had the right to present all evidence that pertained to their defendants as allowed by the judgement of the court. If in the judge's opinion, evidence the defense had a right to had been denied, the case would have been tosses. That's the law. Theses cases, cases, plural, all of them, were held in public courtrooms subject to public scrutiny and were presided over by a judge appointed to his or her office by this country and its constitution. And the courtrooms, our legal system, ruled. The stuff you are talking about, "hidden evidence denied?"... I don't what you are talking about, but I do know from where the talk springs: Facebook groups, Youtube clips, and internet rags. "Unseen tapes"?... A long street is loaded with cameras. The cameras pick up a person walking slowly down this long street. He stops, looks at a dandelion, then walks a little more, then stops and scratches himself, then slowly keeps walking, an hour of slow walking down this long street. Then, suddenly, he turns, rushes up to a house and smashes the door in and spends five minutes violently trashing the place... then he leaves and slowly resumes his long leisurely walk, walking and stopping, stopping and walking, for another hour or so as he slowly meanders down the long, long street filled with cameras. Does a courtroom make its decision on the entire two plus hours of tape of this guy walking or the tape of the five minutes the guy spends breaking into the house and trashing the place? (a courtroom, that is, not Tucker Carlson, Tucker's into the walking). If the jury does not, for instance, see the five seconds of tape showing the guy scratching his privates, has justice been denied? In the case of the Capital breakin, there was 14,000 hours of tape. 14,000 hours. Was all 14,000 entered into every Capital breaking case? No. Was it possible to enter all 14,000 hours? No. Was there any reason to enter all 14,000 hours? No. The pertinent tape was available and entered. The defense had access to all the tape pertinent to their defendant and his or her case. If, in any instance, a judge believed that a defense lawyer's claim of a denied minute of tape amongst the 14,000 hours of tape was genuine and not specious courtroom shenanigans, that judge would have ruled in the defense's favor and the missing minute of tape would have become available or the case would have been tossed. All this talk of "tapes denied" and "truths hidden" is conspiratorial nonsense, mountains built out of an inconsequential, misunderstood or tricked-up molehile. A molehill turned into a mountain by Facebook, YouTube, and internet rags that will publish, unvetted, anything by anyone. Yep. And now Tucker's been given access to an additional 40,000 some odd hours of security footage that's never made it out of the hands of the official curators on the Jan 6 committee. You can gauge how useful that is to offset the lies about the "insurrection" by how freaked out the Deep State has been over the release of it. Seriously, the DC establishment is melting down. Over some videotape that people have finally been allowed to see. That supposedly doesn't show anything. No, you simply can't buy better political entertainment. And it ain't Facebook, Youtube, or obscure internet rags that seem to be fine when you guys reference them. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 8, 2023 13:46:16 GMT -5
And it ain't Facebook, Youtube, or obscure internet rags that seem to be fine when you guys reference them. Go figure. No, not Facebook or internet rag, it's a talk show guy from Fox. Not a news guy, a talk show guy. A talk show guy who makes piles of money on book sales. A talk show guy who has been building his ratings and lining his pocketbook by working the inflammatory edges for years. And Tucker has placed his bet, wagered his fortune, on pumping the steal and re-casting the Jan. 6 Capital break-in as a group of sightseers touring their nation's Capital... And this is the guy McCarthy gave the tapes to? Tucker and Tucker only? No one, repeat no one, with an ounce or iota of personal integrity would claim that giving access of these tapes to Tucker and Tucker only was fair, right, just, or remotely honest. No one with more than an ounce of brain would expect Tucker to disseminate and portray the content of this fiefdom of tapes McCarthy gifted him with fairly and without Tucker-puffing bias. If the tapes are to be given out, give them out openly to whoever requests them. Make them a matter of public record. Not Tucker Record. Public record. At this point, there is no other democratic and just option.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 8, 2023 14:43:58 GMT -5
And it ain't Facebook, Youtube, or obscure internet rags that seem to be fine when you guys reference them. Go figure. No, not Facebook or internet rag, it's a talk show guy from Fox. Not a news guy, a talk show guy. A talk show guy who makes piles of money on book sales. A talk show guy who has been building his ratings and lining his pocketbook by working the inflammatory edges for years. And Tucker has placed his bet, wagered his fortune, on pumping the steal and re-casting the Jan. 6 Capital break-in as a group of sightseers touring their nation's Capital... And this is the guy McCarthy gave the tapes to? Tucker and Tucker only? No one, repeat no one, with an ounce or iota of personal integrity would claim that giving access of these tapes to Tucker and Tucker only was fair, right, just, or remotely honest. No one with more than an ounce of brain would expect Tucker to disseminate and portray the content of this fiefdom of tapes McCarthy gifted him with fairly and without Tucker-puffing bias. If the tapes are to be given out, give them out openly to whoever requests them. Make them a matter of public record. Not Tucker Record. Public record. At this point, there is no other democratic and just option. Makes you wonder why the democrats didn't do just that for 26 months.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 8, 2023 15:24:33 GMT -5
True. Restricting tape access to the House, the Senate, the Attorney General, The Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Capital Police was a ridiculus and suspicious limitation.
McCarthy had a chance to do it right. But, a couple fellows had too strong a grip on his nutsack ambitions, so he chose instead to anoint their boy Tucker as the dispenser of truth and justice. What a man!
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 8, 2023 16:30:06 GMT -5
True. Restricting tape access to the House, the Senate, the Attorney General, The Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Capital Police was a ridiculus and suspicious limitation. McCarthy had a chance to do it right. But, a couple fellows had too strong a grip on his nutsack ambitions, so he chose instead to anoint their boy Tucker as the dispenser of truth and justice. What a man! Yes he is. Imagine, doing what your constituents wanted and what your colleagues negotiated. Keeping your word. Such a novel idea in DC.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 8, 2023 16:48:50 GMT -5
The Justice Department has apparently endeavoured, as is required, to make any relevant, potentially exculpatory material available to lawyers acting in defendants' trials. Obviously it's for the best if security sensitive footage is kept secret. Film of people being directed to underground escape routes as they fled from the mob etc.
I wonder how Trump feels about Carlson saying in the Dominion filings that he hates him passionately. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 8, 2023 17:11:01 GMT -5
The Justice Department has apparently endeavoured, as is required, to make any relevant, potentially exculpatory material available to lawyers acting in defendants' trials. Obviously it's for the best if security sensitive footage is kept secret. Film of people being directed to underground escape routes as they fled from the mob etc. I wonder how Trump feels about Carlson saying in the Dominion filings that he hates him passionately. Heh. Well now they've got even more footage to make available. I worked in DC. Been in the tunnels a bunch. There's nothing really secret there. The security reasoning is just bull. Public access is virtually unfettered any work day. And I prefer to wait and see if anything actually sticks in the Dominion thing. So far they got nothing.
|
|