re: Joe Kent just potentially derailed prosecutor case against Kirk assassin

quote:

---

I always thought you dominated this board.

---

There are 30 topics on page 1 of this board alone.

I've posted in 3 of them, I think

Just go go back to square one, you said:

quote:

---

Instead he should be silenced at any cost.

---

And couldn't defend this, and then pivoted to a question of admissibility, failing to understand that only relevant testimony would be admissible.

Then you pivoted to strawmanning his arguments by ignoring the presupposition of his commentary (which logically limits what's relevant to respond with) while dishonestly turning it into claiming he assumed all testimony would not be irrelevant.

Even with all this misunderstanding, use of fallacies, pivoting, and general dishonesty, you still haven't shown anywhere close to people arguing Joe Kent should be "silenced at all costs".

quote:

---

this Clown

---

"this clown" that served 11 deployments?

How very patriotic of him.

How would his statement do anything when they wouldn’t even allow him to investigate. What’s really crazy is Andrew Kolvet thought the text exchange was worth investigating and now acts like everyone else is crazy for wanting to investigate it.

The kid did not kill Charlie. Nothing around him adds up or makes any logical sense that he killed Charlie.

What the media gave us on him was absolutely not strong enough evidence to prove a thing.

There was a cover up. This was a scripted event from top to bottom.

Tyler Robinsons lawyers would be inept of their retainer fees if they didnt use this Kent a-hole Vindman wannabe as a witness to throw the case.

Kent is well aware of what he did. He was counter Intel not an investigative unit at all.

His wife's boss Blumenthal probably contacted Robinsons lawyers already. It is their in to throw the case...

POS is much too kind regarding Kent.

You may want to slide this video to the middle and listen to exactly what Kent did. He is a POS.

LINK

Slide it to Shellenberger who interviewed Kent.

It doesn't matter what he says, no matter how dumb it may be. The evidence against Robinson is pretty solid.

Now was Robinson acting alone? Up for debate but irrelevant to the current charges and prosecution.

quote:

---

In your own words, explain how his (stupid) comments would do this?

---

You can't see how the defense presenting a government official with access to the investigation records saying or implying that someone else is responsible might give the jury a reasonable doubt that the gay fury is guilty?

People have been saying since the beginning that he was just a patsy, so it's not that much of a stretch to think providing evidence that supports that claim would make it more difficult for prosecutors to secure a conviction.