The Rebel News Thread

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
20,777
15,363
113
ROTFLMFAO!! That's why they hid the footage for two years, eh,? That's why they withheld it from the defense teams of the J6 protesters rotting in DC jails for TWO years without trials? Go sell crazy somewhere else.
JC, go to the 24-second mark to listen to what McCarthy really thought about Jan. 6th

 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,134
1,952
113
kingston
Except they didn't withhold that footage, did they?

The defence lawyers had all the footage they asked for. Problem was - so did the DA and the judge. And the videos proved each of those rightie motherfuckers was guilty as hell and they all went to jail!
Yes, if the defense lawyer didn't have all the video, he never requested it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,670
6,839
113
Except they didn't withhold that footage, did they?

The defence lawyers had all the footage they asked for. Problem was - so did the DA and the judge. And the videos proved each of those rightie motherfuckers was guilty as hell and they all went to jail!
The lawyers are on RECORD that they did not have access to the footage. Stop lying and inventing shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,134
1,952
113
kingston
The lawyers are on RECORD that they did not have access to the footage. Stop lying and inventing shit.
They have had access to all of it since Sept 21 when a judge ordered it released to the lawyers.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/capitol-footage-lawsuit-release-insurrection
Howell sided with the media coalition, writing in a Sept. 15 opinion that the national security concerns weren’t specific enough. The government might have a stronger case for keeping videos secret that revealed “sensitive” parts of the building, but that wasn’t at issue, she wrote — anyone taking a public tour could see the areas shown in these videos.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,470
113
The lawyers are on RECORD that they did not have access to the footage. Stop lying and inventing shit.
Defence is entitled absolutely to all relevant state evidence. Absolutely. All.

If the state held anything back, that's an automatic retrial.

ANY competent defence counsel AUTOMATICALLY asks for all relevant evidence that the State has. And the state has to give it. Period.

So who's inventing shit????

Time for you to say "rotflmao" and bail out of this thread, JC. Just like all the other times.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,470
113
They have had access to all of it since Sept 21 when a judge ordered it released to the lawyers.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/capitol-footage-lawsuit-release-insurrection
Howell sided with the media coalition, writing in a Sept. 15 opinion that the national security concerns weren’t specific enough. The government might have a stronger case for keeping videos secret that revealed “sensitive” parts of the building, but that wasn’t at issue, she wrote — anyone taking a public tour could see the areas shown in these videos.
That's an order unsealing the files for media consumption. Defence counsel would have had access to all of that stuff automatically and by constitutional right from the very start of the case for the purposes of preparing a defence. They just couldn't broadcast it or share it with the media or third parties.

I'm guessing that many defence counsel didn't bother asking though. The insurrection was so clearly violent that it wouldn't have helped any getting access to and reviewing 100's of hours of riot footage.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,470
113
Mitchy, you're your own worst enemy. We've been joking through this thread that "Pastor Derek" - who's not really an ordained clergyman in any recognized faith - was a grifter and moneygrubber.

And fuck me! - you posted the very same shit for us to laugh at. 😼 :D :p :sneaky: 🐸 😯 😹 :LOL: :geek: :unsure: 🙀
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
22,168
8,754
113
Except they didn't withhold that footage, did they?

The defence lawyers had all the footage they asked for. Problem was - so did the DA and the judge. And the videos proved each of those rightie motherfuckers was guilty as hell and they all went to jail!
Why didn't the Dems show Watkins that video??

 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,470
113
Why didn't the Dems show Watkins that video??

First of all, it's not the "Dems". It's the DC DA's office. Just like you always blame "Justin" for the crap that Peterson got himself into, even though it's clearly Ford's jurisdiction.

Second, Watkins is a notorious bullshitter. Just like virtually every other rightie lawyer who appears on Fox.

Third, that's not an exculpatory video. The officers are wary and avoiding an open altercation with Chansley while surveilling him. So the video would only he helpful to Chansley in Foxy-woxy Bullshit Land, not real life. And as well, there was ample video evidence of Chansley doing the shit he was convicted of. So the fact that there was other video evidence of Chansley being surveilled but not openly assaulting cops would be useless to the defence.

Fourth, let's see if bullshitter Watkins files an appeal to re open Chansley's case. He won't btw. Because all this shit is pathetic and bogus.

And fifth, if Watkins didn't see this video, that's on Watkins. He has a legal right to demand it and view it. He didn't bother doing that because there was no point. So now he can claim that he never saw it. Because he never asked for it.
 

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
22,168
8,754
113
First of all, it's not the "Dems". It's the DC DA's office.

Second, Watkins is a notorious bullshitter. Just like virtually every other rightie lawyer who appears on Fox.

Third, that's not an exculpatory video. The officers are wary and avoiding an open altercation with Chansley while surveilling him. So the video would only he helpful to Chansley in Foxy-worxy bullshit land, not real life. And as well, there was ample video evidence of Chansley doing the shit he was convicted of. So the fact that there was other video evidence of Chansley being surveilled but not openly assaulting cops would be useless to the defence.

Fourth. let's see if bullshitter Watkins files an appeal to re open Chansley's case. He won't btw. Because all this shit is pathetic and bogus.
Hi Mandrill, Look I respect you. I know you're a lawyer IRL, but as someone who's not a lawyer, I'm not afraid to admit, that I find this Tucker Carlson video stuff, quite confusing. It's tough to know, who to believe??
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,470
113
Hi Mandrill, Look I respect you. I know you're a lawyer IRL, but as someone who's not a lawyer, I'm not afraid to admit, that I find this Tucker Carlson video stuff, quite confusing. It's tough to know, who to believe??
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,470
113
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
22,168
8,754
113
Mitchy, you're your own worst enemy. We've been joking through this thread that "Pastor Derek" - who's not really an ordained clergyman in any recognized faith - was a grifter and moneygrubber.

And fuck me! - you posted the very same shit for us to laugh at. 😼 :D :p :sneaky: 🐸 😯 😹 :LOL: :geek: :unsure: 🙀
It seems weird that Pastor Derek, was charged in the first place?? Pastor Derek, like Pastor Arthur Pavloski, helped the homeless people in Calgary, get some food, when these homeless people were quite desperate. This new Calgary Mayor seems more interested in preserving "story time", then in helping homeless people get some food, and other supplies, like blankets etc
 
Toronto Escorts