re: DOJ takes on the Jan. 6 Tucker Carlson tapes

quote:

---

Prosecutors also argued that there’s still good reason not to widely release all security footage; “Disclosure of all CCV footage could not only reveal the U.S. Capitol’s internal surveillance system to third parties but could also jeopardize the privacy and security of certain persons depicted on such CCV footage.” LINK

---

Everyone should assume that every square inch of the Capitol is covered with CCTV. If there is an area that has no coverage then they need to buy more cameras.

They can call it an insurrection all they want, but a true insurrection would have been an armed assault. The Capitol Police on the street would have been shot dead and overrun.

But muh "you cant fight the US government..." A bunch of Vietnamese and middle easterners fought the US government long enough for us to give up and leave.

And there are four times as many firearms in US civilian hands that all the combined militaries of the planet. And most of those firearms are owned by right leaning, red state living people.

Is there alot of cell phone footage? I would have thought people would have a ton of cell phone footage, even the people arrested.

We knew the DOJ was in the tank for the Dems when Hillary wasn't charged with 1 damn thing for her secret server and destroying top secret docs.

quote:

---

The DOJ

---

you better confirm wonderfully moderate garlic Merryman to the Supreme Court because after Hillary becomes president, you won't get this kind of deal again.

I member

quote:

---

in some cases, has also been admitted in public hearings and/or trials and has been available to, released to, and/or published by news media

---

Only in cases where the footage shows literally nothing.

This all sounds like grounds for appeal to me.

They really do believe and rightfully so, that Americans are retarded. There is no expectation of privacy in public places.

Even in places and in items where there is generally a reasonable expectation of privacy, exceptions exist. For example, even within one’s home or property, the “open-field” doctrine provides that if something on a person’s property is easily visible to the public without the need to be physically on the property (e.g., from the air from the street) then there is no expectation of privacy. For example, the police can use photos taken by police helicopters above one’s property of items that are visible from the air.

The expectation of privacy is reduced for people who are public employees. Employees who hold safety or security sensitive jobs such as bus drivers, train conductors, law enforcement officers or laboratory workers, have reduced expectations of privacy. Because of the trust society is putting in these individuals, that compelling state interest overrides the individual’s expectation of privacy. These people may, for example, be subjected to drug testing that the government could not subject an ordinary person to. [8]

Moreover, when people voluntarily enter space in which the government has an elevated security interest, the expectation of privacy is likewise reduced. The most obvious example occurs at airports. Transportation Security Administration agents may subject airline passengers and their luggage to virtually unlimited searching with virtually no cause, which would never be allowed in most other contexts.

quote:

---

I don’t know why we continue to pretend that the DOJ is not just weaponized by whoever is in office

---

The bigger problem is the DOJ isn’t controlled by anyone when a republican is in office. The DOJ clearly worked against Trump—not for Trump. They have become a defacto fourth branch of government. Without the oversight the other three have

quote:

---

All it takes is one principled judge to get one of these cases and the whole thing could collapse.

---

" is quite a challenge.

Judge is one of the most corrupt positions in history. One principled judge is a real challenge. You know they come from among lawyers, the lowest form of life on earth "

quote:

---

At this point it seems there is a 100% guarantee that defendants have not had access to this video.

---

Jacob Chansley’s (QAnon Shaman) lawyer said he had not seen the video of his client before Tucker showed it.