March 9, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Nice to see Zuke and lynched handling this all so well. Poor guys taking one L after another these days. Hate to see it. I was not the one on television losing my **** on the floor of Senate yesterday. That was Fing glorious.
March 9, 20232 yr Just now, lynched1 said: I was not the one on television losing my **** on the floor of Senate yesterday. That was Fing glorious. ^triggered
March 9, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: ^triggered Yes he was. There was spittle and everything. Get your latest booster? Can't be too safe right?
March 9, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, lynched1 said: Yes he was. There was spittle and everything. Get your latest booster? Can't be too safe right? Get your latest DUI? Can't be too brainless right?
March 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, lynched1 said: Dude you bought bat COVID stfu you gullible blood clot. You have no clue what I think about the origins of COVID. Nice try.
March 9, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, mr_hunt said: yep...the dominion lawsuit is proving what those of us with a brain have always known....that fox will push any ridiculous lie if it leads to ratings...and that their hosts are performance artists who tell their dimwitted viewers what they want to hear...facts, be damned. Exactly. They blend in some truths when they feel it benefits them just to further confuse the idiots. Just another grift.
March 9, 20232 yr On 3/8/2023 at 4:25 AM, lynched1 said: Wait until their lawyers start using unreleased and blocked information to file appeals. Imagine the funds paid out if any of them win on appeal. Certainly wouldn't be a bolstering of already questionable credibility. You sticking with this gem?
March 9, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, The_Omega said: Never heard of discovery? The videos showing the violence was discovered so yeah.
March 9, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, DrPhilly said: The videos showing the violence was discovered so yeah. And the other videos which might have helped certain defendants were withheld. I don’t know that they would have helped but there is that possibility.
March 9, 20232 yr 32 minutes ago, The_Omega said: And the other videos which might have helped certain defendants were withheld. I don’t know that they would have helped but there is that possibility. "But your honor, I made sure to enter the building in an orderly fashion after I beat that cop with a flag pole!"
March 9, 20232 yr 34 minutes ago, The_Omega said: And the other videos which might have helped certain defendants were withheld. I don’t know that they would have helped but there is that possibility. You seem to be confusing "video showing people not doing illegal things" with "exculpatory evidence showing innocence" They're not the same thing. The jury of a murder trial isn't going to declare the defendant not guilty after being shown video of him obeying traffic laws on the drive to the scene of the murder. Certainly not when they have video of the defendant actually commiting murder.
March 9, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: You seem to be confusing "video showing people not doing illegal things" with "exculpatory evidence showing innocence" They're not the same thing. The jury of a murder trial isn't going to declare the defendant not guilty after being shown video of him obeying traffic laws on the drive to the scene of the murder. Certainly not when they have video of the defendant actually commiting murder. Zuke can barely zip up his own pants without breaking into a sweat, you really think he knows the meaning of words like exculpatory?
March 9, 20232 yr 14 hours ago, lynched1 said: Not my thing. good, i asked that out of concern. this is a tough time for, just want you to know that i'm here for you. no, not like that, you perv.
March 9, 20232 yr 11 hours ago, Tnt4philly said: You bought all the BS. 😂😂😂😂 Fox News delivered the drugs to the drug addict who can't live without the BS.
March 9, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: "But your honor, I made sure to enter the building in an orderly fashion after I beat that cop with a flag pole!" "Right through the window we smashed in"
March 9, 20232 yr 18 minutes ago, Gannan said: "Right through the window we smashed in" "the window was smashed when we got there sir"
March 9, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, The_Omega said: And the other videos which might have helped certain defendants were withheld. I don’t know that they would have helped but there is that possibility. Sure, but let’s remember that anyone going to trial has access to all discovered evidence.
March 9, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, The_Omega said: And the other videos which might have helped certain defendants were withheld. I don’t know that they would have helped but there is that possibility. No. You're assuming the videos were withheld. Neither you nor I have any idea what was turned over. Furthermore, we don't have any idea if the defense asked for all videos of their clients or not -- a competent lawyer would, but there are a lot of incompetent lawyers. But it's very possible the videos were produced in discovery and not used in trial because they weren't useful. A video of someone walking into the Capitol before committing a crime simply confirms that they were there and limits the ability to argue that the person on video committing the crime is someone else. Why the hell would the defense help the prosecution. If this happened, defendants will demand re-trials based on prosecution withholding evidence. If none of them do it, or none of them are granted re-trials, then we know this is all BS.
March 9, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, vikas83 said: No. You're assuming the videos were withheld. Neither you nor I have any idea what was turned over. Furthermore, we don't have any idea if the defense asked for all videos of their clients or not -- a competent lawyer would, but there are a lot of incompetent lawyers. But it's very possible the videos were produced in discovery and not used in trial because they weren't useful. A video of someone walking into the Capitol before committing a crime simply confirms that they were there and limits the ability to argue that the person on video committing the crime is someone else. Why the hell would the defense help the prosecution. If this happened, defendants will demand re-trials based on prosecution withholding evidence. If none of them do it, or none of them are granted re-trials, then we know this is all BS. yeah but, but, but, but hunter biden !!!!!!!
March 9, 20232 yr Fox News and Republicans Lies. It's like saying a Wawa store was robbed. Wawa has 24 hrs. of video surveillance. 23 hrs and 55 minutes are peaceful, calm and uneventful. However, 5 minutes of the video shows a robber hold up the clerk and steal money from the register and then drive away. Dems. The store was robbed by a violent criminal who stole money at gunpoint and then drove away. Republicans. The store was peaceful, calm and uneventful. There was no robbery at all.
March 9, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, vikas83 said: No. You're assuming the videos were withheld. Neither you nor I have any idea what was turned over. Furthermore, we don't have any idea if the defense asked for all videos of their clients or not -- a competent lawyer would, but there are a lot of incompetent lawyers. But it's very possible the videos were produced in discovery and not used in trial because they weren't useful. A video of someone walking into the Capitol before committing a crime simply confirms that they were there and limits the ability to argue that the person on video committing the crime is someone else. Why the hell would the defense help the prosecution. If this happened, defendants will demand re-trials based on prosecution withholding evidence. If none of them do it, or none of them are granted re-trials, then we know this is all BS. Of course. The so-called ‘’Shamans’ ‘’ lawyer is already making waves about though, so it’s coming.
March 9, 20232 yr 43 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Sure, but let’s remember that anyone going to trial has access to all discovered evidence. Only if it’s actually turned over.
March 9, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Of course. The so-called ‘’Shamans’ ‘’ lawyer is already making waves about though, so it’s coming. Making statements is meaningless. If he files a motion and shows evidence that the prosecution knowingly withheld evidence, then I'll agree that he deserves a new trial. Until then, this is all a bunch of BS based on assuming that prosecutors knowingly withheld evidence that likely wouldn't be exculpatory.
Create an account or sign in to comment