The Rebel News Thread

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,479
113
In fact, Watkins was fired by Chansley and replaced for allegedly fucking up the case. Watkins has fucked up cases and been fired before. Rittenhouse fired Watkins because Watkins was fucking up HIS case.

Watkins is talentless, but appears on Fox to whore for clients and money.


 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,479
113
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 "story time", then in helping homeless people get some food, and other supplies, like blankets etc
Fake Pastor Derek trespassed on private property, refused police directions to leave and created a nuisance. So he got charged like any other grifting asshole who breaks the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,267
7,159
113
The Rebel Hits a New Low
The very least that could be said of Ezra Levant is that he defended Jews from hate. But that's now in the past:

THE APRIL EDITION of The Walrus features a cover story by Peter Norman detailing his close encounters with Ezra Levant, self-appointed “commander” of the surging online right-wing media outlet known as The Rebel—a site that specializes in Islamophobia, climate-change “skepticism,” and polemics against feminism and LGBTQ rights. So influential has The Rebel become among hardcore Canadian conservatives that most Conservative Party leadership candidates have felt compelled to attend Levant’s rallies, or otherwise tipped their hat to The Rebel fan base.

The site’s more prominent contributors include Faith Goldy, Sheila Gunn Reid, Brian Lilley, John Robson, and, most infamously, the former co-founder of Vice, Gavin McInnes. Once described as the “godfather of hipsterdom,” McInnes first made it big on the conservative circuit as a regular on Fox News. Among Rebel fans, he’s become a hero thanks to his flippant video rants about environmentalists, social-justice activists, and Islam. Salon described him as having a “sordid history of racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments.” And a gay publication condemned him for writing “a transphobic screed” on Thought Catalog. He also has described Muslims as “inbred” and inherently violent, and dismisses the very concept of Islamophobia as a politically correct myth.

Like pretty much everyone at The Rebel, McInnes generally has branded himself a Zionist and a friend of the Jews. Levant himself has staked much of his career on his pro-Israeli bona fides, and aims much of his fundraising and editorial offerings at Canadians who feel that the mainstream media is anti-Semitic. In recent weeks, the Rebel even raised money to send a group—including Goldy, Gunn Reid, Levant, and McInnes—to the Holy Land, so they could report in person from the front lines of the war against militant Islam. It all seemed to be going rather smoothly, with Goldy and McInnes even going so far as to stand in the middle of Bethlehem and call for a new Crusade against local Muslims.

But then it all went off the rails when McInnes riffed on Israel in one of his solo video segments. Seen sitting in an armchair with mic in hand, McInnes described the tour as “basically a brainwashing trip. I mean, I think the Jewish—the Israeli government paid for this and we had donors, too, but I think they were mostly Israelis who assumed we are gonna listen to all this shit we get fed. And that is having the reverse effect on me, I’m becoming anti-Semitic.”

“Like at the Holocaust museum,” he continued, apparently referring to Yad Vashem, Israel’s official memorial to the victims of Nazi genocide. “Or as I called it the”—here, he uses air quotes—“Holocaust museum.” He then adopts an accent that I assume is supposed to sound Israeli, but is more typical of crudely caricatured ghetto Jewish, and says: “At one point the tour guide goes ‘You know and there are some people who think this didn’t happen.’ And I felt like—I felt [like] defending the super far-right Nazis, just because of so much brainwashing, and I felt like saying ‘Well, they never said it didn’t happen’—what they are saying is that it was much less than six million and that they starved to death. They weren’t gassed. That they didn’t have supplies. And they starved to death. They were horrible, and there were mass graves, and all the pictures are real and everything but um, uh, it wasn’t gassing. I’m not saying it wasn’t gassing, please don’t take that clip out of context, but that’s what the far-right nuts are saying.”


It could have ended there. But alas, it didn’t. “There’s been a lot of genocides,” McInnes informs us. “Mao killed seventy million. This guy—I read about this guy that the Tsarnaev brothers [the Boston Marathon bombers] are named after, [who] killed 5 percent—he’s a Muslim [who] killed something like 5 percent of the Muslim population—Tsarnaev—anyway, uh, Stalin, you know with the Bolsheviks killed 30 million. But, the Russians don’t talk about that, they don’t even necessarily see it as a horrible thing.”

And then this: “[The] Holodomor was Ukrainians, I think it was 10 million Ukrainians that were killed . . . That was by Jews, that was by Marxist, Stalinist, Left-wing, commie, socialist Jews. See what this fucking place is doing to me?”

This refers to an old blood libel—the anti-Semitic canard that it was primarily Jews who killed Ukrainians during the forced starvations of 1932 and 1933. It’s not true, of course. Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin’s leaders in Ukraine, was indeed Jewish. But most leading Jewish Communists had been exiled or murdered by 1930, and a mere 5 percent of the party’s membership was Jewish at the time. The killers in Ukraine were overwhelmingly ethnic Russians.

McInnes then moves on to the treaty that ended the First World War—always promising terrain for anyone seeking to “contextualize” the crimes of the Nazis: “Even with the Nazis, though, wasn’t the Treaty of Versailles, wasn’t that disproportionately influenced by Jewish intellectuals? And the Treaty of Versailles was the deal Germany got after World War One. It sucked, and Germans hated it, and they were basically told that they had to give all their money back to the Allies, you know, to pay this undue penance for World War One.” (It seems silly to have to mention this, but I suppose I must: Most of the world leaders who conceived and created the Treaty of Versailles were certainly not Jewish.)

As for the Jewish attitude toward the Holocaust: “And you have the Holocaust Museum and you have this guy who won’t stop—god, they’re so obsessed with the Holocaust. And yes, I know it was bad, don’t get me wrong. I’m not pro-Holocaust. That’d be funny in your Twitter bio if it was just ‘pro-Holocaust,’” and he laughs. “But, it’s a strange thing. It’s like a liberal thing, it’s arguably a white thing, but it’s a Jewish thing to sort of dwell on the past. And this whole nation-state is talking about ‘Seventy-five years ago, my people were killed.’ Always the Jews, always killing us, we are the scapegoats.” (Once again, he adopts a mock Jewish accent.) He then informs us that other peoples have suffered, other genocides and massacres have taken place, but that those victims have, well, moved on. But not those Jews.


By the time McInnes arrived back in Canada, he had become something of a hero on various Nazi web sites—with assorted fascists, Jew-haters and even Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke praising his “courage.” Needless to say, this was an embarrassment to all concerned. McInnes hastily recorded an official Rebel apology, which seemed to me about as convincing as an NHL enforcer performing the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. He said he actually loved Jews and hated Nazis, and assured everyone that he had emphasized in the video that what he had said must be taken “in context.” (In fact he only used that phrase once in the original tape—and it’s specific to the subject of Holocaust denial. At no time does the infamous video seem to be overarchingly ironic or satirical.)

All this is quite repulsive and disturbing. And yet Levant has defended McInnes, and even put the man’s cosmetic apology as the pinned tweet on The Rebel’s official account. Which invites the question: Why would a loud-and-proud Zionist such as Levant do this? Given that one of the Right’s main critiques of Islam is the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Muslim communities, why would The Rebel stick by a commentator who uses the Rebel web site to casually tick off long-discredited Jew-baiting talking points?

The most charitable answer would be that Levant is a well-known defender of free speech. Then again, he can be quite selective on this score: He fired me after four days at The Rebel a few years back (before it had become apparent how hateful the site would become) when I dared to defend Ontario’s liberal sex-education curriculum. Levant and his people have also repeatedly called for the defunding and vilification of anyone who seeks to isolate Israel.

No, there is something more fundamental going on here. This is about more than just the ideological pathologies of one weird Canadian media company. It is about a warped new ideological arena where Zionists and creepy Nazi apologists are willing to overlook their differences in service to a common hateful cause.

The entire Trump-Brexit-Le Pen phenomenon has shifted the conversation from informed discussion to wild gestures and hysteria, especially on any issue connected to Islam. Whether it’s Alex Jones and his conspiracy theories, or the US President and his fake-news fetish, anything goes. Outrage is the currency of the new right, and McInnes is a master of the genre. While he makes it look easy, few media commentators have either the hate, or the lack of scruples, to perform this shtick convincingly. And Levant apparently isn’t prepared to give up the clicks that this star generates.

It may well be that McInnes has apologized privately to his Rebel confederates, and promised that he won’t go off-message again. We know he’s been tweeting that he’s not a Nazi, and has even blocked various high-profile racists who applauded his flurry of anti-Semitic memes. But in the meantime, the traffic at The Rebel likely has multiplied.

Questioning the historical narrative of the Holocaust, once the ultimate taboo, is now just fodder for right-wing sensationalism, in other words. A monster has been set free, and I am not sure how it’s going to be pushed back into its soiled cage.

 

mitchell76

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2010
22,168
8,754
113
The Rebel Hits a New Low
The very least that could be said of Ezra Levant is that he defended Jews from hate. But that's now in the past:

THE APRIL EDITION of The Walrus features a cover story by Peter Norman detailing his close encounters with Ezra Levant, self-appointed “commander” of the surging online right-wing media outlet known as The Rebel—a site that specializes in Islamophobia, climate-change “skepticism,” and polemics against feminism and LGBTQ rights. So influential has The Rebel become among hardcore Canadian conservatives that most Conservative Party leadership candidates have felt compelled to attend Levant’s rallies, or otherwise tipped their hat to The Rebel fan base.

The site’s more prominent contributors include Faith Goldy, Sheila Gunn Reid, Brian Lilley, John Robson, and, most infamously, the former co-founder of Vice, Gavin McInnes. Once described as the “godfather of hipsterdom,” McInnes first made it big on the conservative circuit as a regular on Fox News. Among Rebel fans, he’s become a hero thanks to his flippant video rants about environmentalists, social-justice activists, and Islam. Salon described him as having a “sordid history of racist, misogynistic and homophobic comments.” And a gay publication condemned him for writing “a transphobic screed” on Thought Catalog. He also has described Muslims as “inbred” and inherently violent, and dismisses the very concept of Islamophobia as a politically correct myth.

Like pretty much everyone at The Rebel, McInnes generally has branded himself a Zionist and a friend of the Jews. Levant himself has staked much of his career on his pro-Israeli bona fides, and aims much of his fundraising and editorial offerings at Canadians who feel that the mainstream media is anti-Semitic. In recent weeks, the Rebel even raised money to send a group—including Goldy, Gunn Reid, Levant, and McInnes—to the Holy Land, so they could report in person from the front lines of the war against militant Islam. It all seemed to be going rather smoothly, with Goldy and McInnes even going so far as to stand in the middle of Bethlehem and call for a new Crusade against local Muslims.

But then it all went off the rails when McInnes riffed on Israel in one of his solo video segments. Seen sitting in an armchair with mic in hand, McInnes described the tour as “basically a brainwashing trip. I mean, I think the Jewish—the Israeli government paid for this and we had donors, too, but I think they were mostly Israelis who assumed we are gonna listen to all this shit we get fed. And that is having the reverse effect on me, I’m becoming anti-Semitic.”

“Like at the Holocaust museum,” he continued, apparently referring to Yad Vashem, Israel’s official memorial to the victims of Nazi genocide. “Or as I called it the”—here, he uses air quotes—“Holocaust museum.” He then adopts an accent that I assume is supposed to sound Israeli, but is more typical of crudely caricatured ghetto Jewish, and says: “At one point the tour guide goes ‘You know and there are some people who think this didn’t happen.’ And I felt like—I felt [like] defending the super far-right Nazis, just because of so much brainwashing, and I felt like saying ‘Well, they never said it didn’t happen’—what they are saying is that it was much less than six million and that they starved to death. They weren’t gassed. That they didn’t have supplies. And they starved to death. They were horrible, and there were mass graves, and all the pictures are real and everything but um, uh, it wasn’t gassing. I’m not saying it wasn’t gassing, please don’t take that clip out of context, but that’s what the far-right nuts are saying.”


It could have ended there. But alas, it didn’t. “There’s been a lot of genocides,” McInnes informs us. “Mao killed seventy million. This guy—I read about this guy that the Tsarnaev brothers [the Boston Marathon bombers] are named after, [who] killed 5 percent—he’s a Muslim [who] killed something like 5 percent of the Muslim population—Tsarnaev—anyway, uh, Stalin, you know with the Bolsheviks killed 30 million. But, the Russians don’t talk about that, they don’t even necessarily see it as a horrible thing.”

And then this: “[The] Holodomor was Ukrainians, I think it was 10 million Ukrainians that were killed . . . That was by Jews, that was by Marxist, Stalinist, Left-wing, commie, socialist Jews. See what this fucking place is doing to me?”

This refers to an old blood libel—the anti-Semitic canard that it was primarily Jews who killed Ukrainians during the forced starvations of 1932 and 1933. It’s not true, of course. Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin’s leaders in Ukraine, was indeed Jewish. But most leading Jewish Communists had been exiled or murdered by 1930, and a mere 5 percent of the party’s membership was Jewish at the time. The killers in Ukraine were overwhelmingly ethnic Russians.

McInnes then moves on to the treaty that ended the First World War—always promising terrain for anyone seeking to “contextualize” the crimes of the Nazis: “Even with the Nazis, though, wasn’t the Treaty of Versailles, wasn’t that disproportionately influenced by Jewish intellectuals? And the Treaty of Versailles was the deal Germany got after World War One. It sucked, and Germans hated it, and they were basically told that they had to give all their money back to the Allies, you know, to pay this undue penance for World War One.” (It seems silly to have to mention this, but I suppose I must: Most of the world leaders who conceived and created the Treaty of Versailles were certainly not Jewish.)

As for the Jewish attitude toward the Holocaust: “And you have the Holocaust Museum and you have this guy who won’t stop—god, they’re so obsessed with the Holocaust. And yes, I know it was bad, don’t get me wrong. I’m not pro-Holocaust. That’d be funny in your Twitter bio if it was just ‘pro-Holocaust,’” and he laughs. “But, it’s a strange thing. It’s like a liberal thing, it’s arguably a white thing, but it’s a Jewish thing to sort of dwell on the past. And this whole nation-state is talking about ‘Seventy-five years ago, my people were killed.’ Always the Jews, always killing us, we are the scapegoats.” (Once again, he adopts a mock Jewish accent.) He then informs us that other peoples have suffered, other genocides and massacres have taken place, but that those victims have, well, moved on. But not those Jews.


By the time McInnes arrived back in Canada, he had become something of a hero on various Nazi web sites—with assorted fascists, Jew-haters and even Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke praising his “courage.” Needless to say, this was an embarrassment to all concerned. McInnes hastily recorded an official Rebel apology, which seemed to me about as convincing as an NHL enforcer performing the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. He said he actually loved Jews and hated Nazis, and assured everyone that he had emphasized in the video that what he had said must be taken “in context.” (In fact he only used that phrase once in the original tape—and it’s specific to the subject of Holocaust denial. At no time does the infamous video seem to be overarchingly ironic or satirical.)

All this is quite repulsive and disturbing. And yet Levant has defended McInnes, and even put the man’s cosmetic apology as the pinned tweet on The Rebel’s official account. Which invites the question: Why would a loud-and-proud Zionist such as Levant do this? Given that one of the Right’s main critiques of Islam is the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Muslim communities, why would The Rebel stick by a commentator who uses the Rebel web site to casually tick off long-discredited Jew-baiting talking points?

The most charitable answer would be that Levant is a well-known defender of free speech. Then again, he can be quite selective on this score: He fired me after four days at The Rebel a few years back (before it had become apparent how hateful the site would become) when I dared to defend Ontario’s liberal sex-education curriculum. Levant and his people have also repeatedly called for the defunding and vilification of anyone who seeks to isolate Israel.

No, there is something more fundamental going on here. This is about more than just the ideological pathologies of one weird Canadian media company. It is about a warped new ideological arena where Zionists and creepy Nazi apologists are willing to overlook their differences in service to a common hateful cause.

The entire Trump-Brexit-Le Pen phenomenon has shifted the conversation from informed discussion to wild gestures and hysteria, especially on any issue connected to Islam. Whether it’s Alex Jones and his conspiracy theories, or the US President and his fake-news fetish, anything goes. Outrage is the currency of the new right, and McInnes is a master of the genre. While he makes it look easy, few media commentators have either the hate, or the lack of scruples, to perform this shtick convincingly. And Levant apparently isn’t prepared to give up the clicks that this star generates.

It may well be that McInnes has apologized privately to his Rebel confederates, and promised that he won’t go off-message again. We know he’s been tweeting that he’s not a Nazi, and has even blocked various high-profile racists who applauded his flurry of anti-Semitic memes. But in the meantime, the traffic at The Rebel likely has multiplied.

Questioning the historical narrative of the Holocaust, once the ultimate taboo, is now just fodder for right-wing sensationalism, in other words. A monster has been set free, and I am not sure how it’s going to be pushed back into its soiled cage.

This article is from April 2017. Rebel has changed a lot, since then. Rebel is one of my favorite you tube platforms. David (the Menzoid) Menzies, is my favorite Rebel commentator!!
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
113
Everything you said is actually nonsense, to be honest. It doesn't surprise me though, you believed the big lie. You believe Biden stole the election. You believe the nonsensical so it doesn't surprise me that you believe everything nutty Ezra and his twat reporters feed you.
You, and and least 2 other of your TERB brethren, believe things that are PROVABLY false, and you know it. That makes you all either insane, or trolls. Which is it? Maybe you're a mixed bag of nuts?

The factual points I made about Rebel stand. Whether they are required viewing is a matter of opinion. But you may have bigger problems to attend to than just getting the facts about news stories.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
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!
Inaccurate, according to both the Shaman defence lawyer at the time, and even his new counsel (who is critical of former counsel). It's more accurate to say that his former defence counsel recommended a plea deal to his client knowing that the prosecution was still dragging their feet in disclosing all relevant video. Defence counsel DEFINITELY had not received ALL the footage asked for, and the prosecution DEFINITELY failed to provide the footage most meaningful to the defence, because it was potentially exculpatory. either: first, or in a timely way, or at all. Now his existing counsel has to wrestle with whether the chicanery of the prosecution, mixed with the incompetence of the former defence lawyer, casts such disrepute on the justice system that it rises to a constitutional breach. Otherwise, it's just a legal malpractice suit.
 
Last edited:

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
113
They get exposure in the rightie echo chamber in the US because they scratch each other's ass and pat each other's back.

They're all liars. Just like Fox lied about the "stolen election".
You mean like you and the Liberal cadre are lying about what Fox's role actually was in relation to the election challenges?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mitchell76

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,479
113
Inaccurate, according to both the Shaman defence lawyer at the time, and even his new counsel (who is critical of former counsel). It's more accurate to say that his former defence counsel recommended a plea deal to his client knowing that the prosecution was still dragging their feet in disclosing all relevant video. Defence counsel DEFINITELY had not received ALL the footage asked for, and the prosecution DEFINITELY failed to provide the footage most meaningful to the defence, because it was potentially exculpatory. either: first, or in a timely way, or at all. Now his existing counsel has to wrestle with whether the chicanery of the prosecution, mixed with the incompetence of the former defence lawyer, casts such disrepute on the justice system that it rises to a constitutional breach. Otherwise, it's just a legal malpractice suit.
Surely the appeal should already have been heard, Dutch. And "insufficient assistance of defence counsel at trial" is a recognized ground of appeal.

But you already have my notes on this. Watkins is a strutting, grifting incompetent. Appeal counsel is probably the same. Most rightie lawyers are shit, in fact. Powell. Ellis. Giuliani. Wood. What a bunch of losers they all are!! Most of the rightie lawyers who appear on Fox have Bar Society reprimands and judicial sanctions on their records. Total chunks of shit.

The footage is non exculpatory. If Watkins felt that the DA's office was really with holding evidence, he should have motioned for a dismissal - instead of going on Fox and lying his incompetent, hack lawyer ass off about "how hard he fought for his client".

Whether Watkins is actually competent enough to draft a motion for dismissal is questionable. Maybe he could watch reruns of Law & Order to kinda get the general idea though. But that would take away from his work trying to get on Fox and lying about how good he is.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,479
113
You mean like you and the Liberal cadre are lying about what Fox's role actually was in relation to the election challenges?
How are we lying, Dutch?

Let's get specific here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
76,619
88,479
113
Inaccurate, according to both the Shaman defence lawyer at the time, and even his new counsel (who is critical of former counsel). It's more accurate to say that his former defence counsel recommended a plea deal to his client knowing that the prosecution was still dragging their feet in disclosing all relevant video. Defence counsel DEFINITELY had not received ALL the footage asked for, and the prosecution DEFINITELY failed to provide the footage most meaningful to the defence, because it was potentially exculpatory. either: first, or in a timely way, or at all. Now his existing counsel has to wrestle with whether the chicanery of the prosecution, mixed with the incompetence of the former defence lawyer, casts such disrepute on the justice system that it rises to a constitutional breach. Otherwise, it's just a legal malpractice suit.
So let me understand this, Dutch.

Appeal counsel hasn't scheduled and argued the appeal in over a year while his client rots his ass off in jail?!?!?!?!

That's beyond incompetent! That's like Watkins leaving Rittenhouse in jail for 6 months, so Watkins could make appearances on Fox and weep to Tucker and Hannity about his client being "oppressed" when the State was willing to agree to bail.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
113
So let me understand this, Dutch.

Appeal counsel hasn't scheduled and argued the appeal in over a year while his client rots his ass off in jail?!?!?!?!

That's beyond incompetent! That's like Watkins leaving Rittenhouse in jail for 6 months, so Watkins could make appearances on Fox and weep to Tucker and Hannity about his client being "oppressed" when the State was willing to agree to bail.
Yes, dodge the points if you can, but it's posted for all to see. The prosecution deliberately slow played the release of exculpatory evidence in their posession. What can be done about it in the face of a plea deal remains to be seen.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
113
How are we lying, Dutch?

Let's get specific here.
You are claiming that Fox is the source of the allegation that the election was unreliable. Wrong. Fox gave air time to people who were advancing that claim either as claimants or counsel. You know, covering the news! It wasn't Fox's claim that irregular events happened. That came from their guests. It wasn't Fox's claim that Trump would have won if certain irregular events or practices had never taken place. That was their guests. Whether Fox WANTED the election overturned is just an editorial position. Whether individual hosts BELIEVED the claims being made by litigants/candidates about what had happened, or as to the vulnerability of Dominion machines, or as to claims that these vulnerabilities had been exploited by anyone, is a matter of personal opinion, but doesn't make Fox the originator of the claim. News organizations are entitled to voice political opinions, and they ALL do!

You are also claiming that the electoral legal challenges themselves were "lies". Misleading, at best. In order for the courts to pay any attention to the claims of electoral misconduct/unreliable electoral procedures the litigants had to at least claim that these defects could mathematically alter the outcome of the election. That's how the claims were structured. That structure is not the same is claiming that you are sure your candidate would have won if the defects were corrected, or really won and that the ballot count is mathematically a lie.

The claims of irregular conduct or irregular events (ballots batches 100% in favour of one candidate, significant differences between presidential voting and down ballot voting participation, the timing of batch delivery, ballot harvesting practices) were never proven to be "lies". They were simply not accepted as "sufficient" claims to justify the very significant pre-trial relief of decertifying an election. As a lawyer, you ought to be able to use your words more accurately (if you are trying to). You know that the concepts of "unproven claim", or "insufficient claim" are not the same as the concept of a "lie".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Valcazar

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
20,777
15,364
113
Yes, dodge the points if you can, but it's posted for all to see. The prosecution deliberately slow played the release of exculpatory evidence in their posession. What can be done about it in the face of a plea deal remains to be seen.
Can someone please keep this thread handy so when the Shaman doesn't win the appeal and all of this is a proven shame by a Lawyer representing a goat we can once again say, "Dutchie, we told you so" just like when Dutchie believed Butterball would prevail in proving the election was stolen.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
113
Surely the appeal should already have been heard, Dutch. And "insufficient assistance of defence counsel at trial" is a recognized ground of appeal.

But you already have my notes on this. Watkins is a strutting, grifting incompetent. Appeal counsel is probably the same. Most rightie lawyers are shit, in fact. Powell. Ellis. Giuliani. Wood. What a bunch of losers they all are!! Most of the rightie lawyers who appear on Fox have Bar Society reprimands and judicial sanctions on their records. Total chunks of shit.

The footage is non exculpatory. If Watkins felt that the DA's office was really with holding evidence, he should have motioned for a dismissal - instead of going on Fox and lying his incompetent, hack lawyer ass off about "how hard he fought for his client".

Whether Watkins is actually competent enough to draft a motion for dismissal is questionable. Maybe he could watch reruns of Law & Order to kinda get the general idea though. But that would take away from his work trying to get on Fox and lying about how good he is.
You take a long time sometimes to pretend to disagree with my post, but really never address the points I make. That's not effective lawyering.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
113
Can someone please keep this thread handy so when the Shaman doesn't win the appeal and all of this is a proven shame by a Lawyer representing a goat we can once again say, "Dutchie, we told you so" just like when Dutchie believed Butterball would prevail in proving the election was stolen.
You probably will say such a thing, since your reading comprehension level is so low.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
6,995
2,481
113
As low as it might me, at least I know the difference between reality vs fiction. LMAO
No, you don't. In fact, I don't think you understand the definitions of either, so you don't even have the tools to apply to the facts.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,806
22,230
113
You, and and least 2 other of your TERB brethren, believe things that are PROVABLY false, and you know it. That makes you all either insane, or trolls. Which is it? Maybe you're a mixed bag of nuts?

The factual points I made about Rebel stand. Whether they are required viewing is a matter of opinion. But you may have bigger problems to attend to than just getting the facts about news stories.
From the guy that still thinks the election was stolen!
 
Toronto Escorts