https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xin0OC5e66A

She set this guy up and used Cassidy to do so. Listen before you just call Tucker nuts. Tucker says very little in this interview.

I'm curios as to how the Lawyers here feel about to rule of law and her actions.

I don't watch YouTube, but it will be fun to watch you Trumpies scurry around trying to prosecute anyone who bad-mouthed your idol.

I wil never listen to a proven political lier.

Your witness has no weight to his testimony.

What Law is she accused of violating? What is the evidence that she did so?

Or is her crime not toadying to Trump?

quote:

Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
Last time I checked speech was still a freedom, besides if Donal Duck wants to see the real dark state her daddy wouldn't take that lightly !!

Did you listen to his interview?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I wil never listen to a proven political lier.

Your witness has no weight to his testimony.

The interview isn't about Tucker. How can a lawyer, who is all about the rule of law, completely discount a guys peril with LC and the J6? You just don't want to listen, do you?

Tucker speaks very little in this. It's all about what happened to him.

FFIW, I think Tucker is a nut. His wild speech pattern make him seem unhinged.

I'm curious if you care what the BAR has to say about it?

No one, and I mean no one who gives a shit about truth would ever listen to anything Carlson says or hosts again. He is one of the most unreliable sources on the planet, still looking for relevancy.

It's telling that you still find him relevant.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
No one, and I mean no one who gives a shit about truth would ever listen to anything Carlson says or hosts again.

Then listen to the interviewee. You have nothing to base your statements on without his experiences.

I told you, I won't listen to anything Carlson is involved in.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I told you, I won't listen to anything Carlson is involved in.

Ok, your prerogative. But how can you comment on it?

I commented on Carlson's credibility.

When it becomes newsworthy, it will be in the credible news.

I'll just wait. It's a waste of time to speculate now, especially on something channeled through Carlson.

Well Steve,
You were successful in pulling in all the nuts.

I guess Tucker was holding a gun on Cassidy under the table.

Lots of far-right radicals have what they consider unfinished business with Liz Chaney for exposing the truth about their cult hero leader.

Given the magnitude of their lies and spin already demonstrated, there are no surprises.

The OP title says enough. It leans towards guilty until proven innocent. That's not the way the rule of law prosecutions are supposed to work.

But with our current situation, the inverted alt-reality taken hold, I can see your point. That's the new normal now. Expect a lot more.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Lots of far-right radicals have what they consider unfinished business with Liz Chaney for exposing the truth about their cult hero leader.

Given the magnitude of their lies and spin already demonstrated, there are no surprises.

The OP title says enough. It leans towards guilty until proven innocent. That's not the way the rule of law prosecutions are supposed to work.

But with our current situation, the inverted alt-reality taken hold, I can see your point. That's the new normal now. Expect a lot more.

The "way it's suppose to work" is by both sides beholding the rule of law, not just one.

If a prosecutor talking to a witness, WITHOUT her lawyer present is OK, among other improprieties, that may be the legal system you desire, but not me.

quote:

The "way it's suppose to work" is by both sides beholding the rule of law, not just one.

Exactly.

And, abiding the rule of law is unilaterally beholding.

It's not okay for one side to make up a bunch of lies, make claims thereon, and decide retribution is justified by doing worse than the other side is believed to have transgressed.

If the Right is so fucking righteous and law abiding and respecting, then let the evidence show it.

Instead, the evidence shows the exact opposite. Plus, the boobie prize is electing a leader who is the center of it all, constantly fomenting.

Guess who was in political control during prohibition in the big cities like Chicago and Atlantic City, Congress, and President with all the corruption?

Republicans.

President-GOP
Chicago Mayor-GOP
Mayor of Atlantic City-GOP
Mayor of New York City-GOP
Mayor of St. Louis-GOP
Congress-GOP

Hardlns’s administration was the most corrupt since the Gilded Age.

The Dems administration of this offices have not been more corrupt. It is a dirty business. One that requires checks and balances and judicial oversight w consequences.

Those checks and balances, judicial oversight sight, and consequences to date has been largely outflanked by Trump and his allocates.

I expect Bannon to get a third pardon.

When Trump takes the oath of office, to uphold the constitution etc., he is lying.

All the GOPer co-conspirators in congress are lying too.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...06b73f36925f3b&ei=38

Joyce Vance: Trump's possible revenge plan for Jack Smith is ‘utterly unacceptable'

Donald Trump has openly discussed prosecuting his adversaries. MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance joins The Weekend to discuss why this is “unacceptable” and the future of all of Trump’s legal battles.

Now here's a related surprise:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...06b73f36925f3b&ei=62

Or - it could be read two ways. The unsurprising way to read it is that Johnson is supporting the idea that the senate abdicate its responsibility to vet and approve Trump's appointment, especially cabinet.

=============================================

(excerpt)

Johnson says ‘bias would be to vote for the people that President Trump wants’ for upcoming administration

“My bias would be to vote for the people that President Trump wants to serve [by in his] administration,”

“Again, as a U.S. senator, I’m probably the minority view here; I don’t particularly like being the human resource department of administration.”

“Again, the top picks, lifetime appointments, I have no problem with that, but you start getting down to … the lesser agencies here, or positions, it’s really ridiculous what we do,” Johnson continued, adding that he’d “much rather spend time on oversight and investigations.”

Gaetz will most likely have to earn votes in the upper chamber to claim the role of attorney general, which Republicans will have control of next year, but GOP senators have expressed reservations about casting their votes for him.

The Florida Republican, who resigned from the House immediately after the announcement, has recently been the subject of a probe by the House Ethics Committee looking into whether he had taken part in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, alongside other allegations. He has denied allegations of wrongdoing, but Gaetz’s resignation essentially kills the probe by taking himself out of the panel’s jurisdiction.

Johnson said Sunday that he had not “seen the efforts report on Matt Gaetz,” but he also said that Trump’s pick for attorney general is “an incredibly effective advocate for the president.”

Well that is a chunk of my life that I will never get back. Let me cut to the chase, in a credibility race between Stefan Passantino (former deputy counsel to Trump and the lawyer that sued seeking to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia), Tucker Carlson (fired from Fox for lying about election fraud, lies that cost Fox almost $800 million) and Liz Cheney (who sacrificed her political career to stand up to and expose a member of her own party as a seditionist), it ain’t even close.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Guess who was in political control during prohibition in the big cities like Chicago and Atlantic City, Congress, and President with all the corruption?

Republicans.

President-GOP
Chicago Mayor-GOP
Mayor of Atlantic City-GOP
Mayor of New York City-GOP
Mayor of St. Louis-GOP
Congress-GOP

Hardlns’s administration was the most corrupt since the Gilded Age.

The Dems administration of this offices have not been more corrupt. It is a dirty business. One that requires checks and balances and judicial oversight w consequences.

Those checks and balances, judicial oversight sight, and consequences to date has been largely outflanked by Trump and his allocates.

I expect Bannon to get a third pardon.

strange flex -
chicago's LAST republication mayor was indeed during prohibition, and haven't elected another republican since
you are WRONG on NYC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ors_of_New_York_City not for even one second of prohibition was a rep the mayor
a couple of your other examples are mixed/clouded


and, of course, since this was at the time when republicans ruled the country, and most democrat votes(1920-1930) were in the KKK-lead democrats, as the civil war was still within living memory
for example, 1925, dead in the middle of prohibition, saw clan membership in the MILLIONS as opposed to the modern day co-play of the same idiots being in the couple thousands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

so, my dear friend, what's your point in this?

Un fucking believable. Your orange god won the election and you’re still whining. Boo hoo hoo. Poor whiny little bitch.

Well, was any of this brought before a U.S. Attorney, or is the first it comes out on Tucker Carlson?

Frankly, with what has happened since Trump’s first term, I’m not sure if anything that would not play in to the democrats agenda would get much air time in the press, so it coming out on Carlson isn’t a positive or a negative.

If a DOJ investigation was done and found this not credible, fine. If it was investigated and is currently being slow walked but not rejected, I’d buy that.

I doubt the low level DOJ folks are that politically motivated.

Now that it’s out, see if it develops legs.

I get that Carlson is not viewed as being reliable (ditto MSNBC) and is viewed as being partisan.

Let the system work. It may pull a Hillary-esque “we can’t prove intent” but they will find the facts. It will come out, and we all can view them as we see it.



Prosecuting Liz Cheney is another one of these quixotic things from a national level. It isn’t going to do the conservatives any real good, and isn’t going to hurt the progressives.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Well that is a chunk of my life that I will never get back. Let me cut to the chase, in a credibility race between Stefan Passantino (former deputy counsel to Trump and the lawyer that sued seeking to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia), Tucker Carlson (fired from Fox for lying about election fraud, lies that cost Fox almost $800 million) and Liz Cheney (who sacrificed her political career to stand up to and expose a member of her own party as a seditionist), it ain’t even close.

Knowingly in possession of exculpatory evidence. (and hiding it)

Meeting with opposing client witness secretly, without counsel.

And isn't it interesting that the BAR says he didn't lie.

Being an attorney or even ex-attorney, I'm surprised you aren't even a bit more interested.

Tucker is simply the parchment this event was explained on. Passintino did 99% of the talking on that podcast.

Passantino has filed a Bar complaint against Cheney. Let’s see what the evidence is and what happens. In the mean time, I’ll be skeptical of a fellow who has worked for and defended a number of people with outstanding records for lying . . . and has been the subject of his own ethics investigations as well.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Passantino has filed a Bar complaint against Cheney. Let’s see what the evidence is and what happens. In the mean time, I’ll be skeptical of a fellow who has worked for and defended a number of people with outstanding records for lying . . . and has been the subject of his own ethics investigations as well.

Yes, let's see what happens. The part you interestingly left out about BAR complaints is that Passantino was cleared by the BAR of any wrong-doing.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Passantino has filed a Bar complaint against Cheney. Let’s see what the evidence is and what happens. In the mean time, I’ll be skeptical of a fellow who has worked for and defended a number of people with outstanding records for lying . . . and has been the subject of his own ethics investigations as well.

Yes, let's see what happens. The part you interestingly left out about BAR complaints is that Passantino was cleared by the BAR of any wrong-doing.

. . . Cheney may as well.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
Un fucking believable. Your orange god won the election and you’re still whining. Boo hoo hoo. Poor whiny little bitch.

Boo hoo hoo - Is the rule of law important? "IF" what went down is proven true, Cheney broke the law, violated her oath, all to jail political opponents. again "IF" true, are you OK with it?

That's all the interview is about, LC and her weaponization of the J6 committee.

Can someone post exactly what she is accused of? I am not listening to a lying sack of shit who went to Russia and made a propaganda crockumentary about what a utopia that shithole country is.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
Can someone post exactly what she is accused of? I am not listening to a lying sack of shit who went to Russia and made a propaganda crockumentary about what a utopia that shithole country is.

Oh come on now, just drink the Kool-Aid and join the cult like the others.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
Can someone post exactly what she is accused of? I am not listening to a lying sack of shit who went to Russia and made a propaganda crockumentary about what a utopia that shithole country is.

Witness tampering, meeting with a opposition witness without counsel present.

Knowingly withholding of exculpatory evidence.

The BAR investigation into Passintino yielded he did nothing wrong.

Passintino has filed a BAR complaint against Cheneny.

I get it that this puts many of the AR lawyers in a bad spot. Their own organization said he did nothing wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

The BAR investigation into Passintino yielded he did nothing wrong.

Perhaps a distinction without a difference in your mind, but the Bar investigations into Passantino did not exonerate him, they simply determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter, primarily because Cassidy refused to cooperate.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

The BAR investigation into Passintino yielded he did nothing wrong.

Perhaps a distinction without a difference in your mind, but the Bar investigations into Passantino did not exonerate him, they simply determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter, primarily because Cassidy refused to cooperate.

In the eyes of the law, yes a distinction without a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

The BAR investigation into Passintino yielded he did nothing wrong.

Perhaps a distinction without a difference in your mind, but the Bar investigations into Passantino did not exonerate him, they simply determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter, primarily because Cassidy refused to cooperate.

In the eyes of the law, yes a distinction without a difference.

Actually in the eyes of the law, it is a distinction with a difference. Perhaps you can appreciate a sports analog. When they do replay reviews, the replay official can confirm the call, overturn the call or let the call stand. They are three different things with three different meanings. A finding of exoneration and a finding of insufficient evidence are likewise two different things.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

The BAR investigation into Passintino yielded he did nothing wrong.

Perhaps a distinction without a difference in your mind, but the Bar investigations into Passantino did not exonerate him, they simply determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter, primarily because Cassidy refused to cooperate.

In the eyes of the law, yes a distinction without a difference.

Actually in the eyes of the law, it is a distinction with a difference. Perhaps you can appreciate a sports analog. When they do replay reviews, the replay official can confirm the call, overturn the call or let the call stand. They are three different things with three different meanings. A finding of exoneration and a finding of insufficient evidence are likewise two different things.

So if they arrive at the same conclusion with Liz, you'll make the same statement? She wasn't exonerated?

Why wouldn’t I make the same statement?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Why wouldn’t I make the same statement?

Mr. Jines....don't be so Coy.