Reply With QuoteHow safe are the other convictions, can we answer that?Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
You said it was because the "method of entry" was a national security risk.
Where did you read that the method of entry was a national security risk?
How safe are the other convictions, can we answer that?
The censorship restrictions were declared when the video was released.
Probably quite safe considering the majority have pleaded guilty to their charges.
Quite difficult to argue with the charges when they've taken selfies incriminating themselves.
All I could find online is that they asked for it to be blurred (this is from Fox News themselves) but you were pretty sure a few posts ago that it was because the "method of entry" was a national security risk.
It looks like you have made that bit up, to be honest with you.
Unless you can show us where you found that information then that's what it'll look like to everyone.
Most took plea bargain deals as they didn't have money for lengthy and costly legal cases, but an unsafe conviction is still an unsafe conviction if there were any shenanigans going on. No wonder Shumer & McConnell are trying to keep the lid on everything.
Wow. You know the ins and outs of the personal circumstances of these criminals now.
Your stoic defence of them is a worthy effort that may have been more beneficial to them than their own defence attorneys had you represented them in court
Can we go back to this magic door too, please?
I really want to know what sorcery they used to open it.
No
Q Shamen: I know I pleaded guilty but I would like to appeal.
Judge: On What grounds?
Q Shamen: Tucker Carlson has produced a video showing me in a more favourable light.
Judge: The same Tucker Carlson that Fox News successfully defended itself from litigation on the basis that clearly no one should take what he says seriously?
Q Shamen: Yes
Prosecution: No further questions your honour.
I'm not defending anybody but what if they also had discovery material withheld?Wow. You know the ins and outs of the personal circumstances of these criminals now.
Your stoic defence of them is a worthy effort that may have been more beneficial to them than their own defence attorneys had you represented them in court
Is there confusion over how he entered the Capitol Building?
Hopefully this vid can clear things up, around the 20 second mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbxng-nIMu0
Or this one, 60 seconds in.
https://ia902307.us.archive.org/10/i...dritN4Ds.mpeg4
You are defending them now.
Unless the discovery material was that they had proof that it was a twin who was at the insurrection, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Was this the "secret method of entry"?
I pointed out that there could be more potentially unsafe convictions if they were manipulating the discovery process on a wider scale.
"Most took plea bargain deals as they didn't have money for lengthy and costly legal cases"
That doesn't stop them being stitched up.
1. What's that got to do with criminals facing justice? Are you suggesting that the rule of law shouldn't be enforced?
That's what you said about Russia collusion until it turned into a hoax
"The defence rests, your honour"
3. My position has always been about the rule of law, and the Trump stuff only exists inside your headThat's what you said about Russia collusion until it turned into a hoax
We shall see
Give it two weeks?
Innocent until proven innocent isn't a thing.
If that's how you want to approach the 'rule of law' when it comes to these scumbags, let's bookmark this for future reference.
I'm sure that this outlook won't be used to make you look hypocritical
Anyway. About this door...
Posting Permissions
