Tucker Carlson Is Completing the Work That Trump Began

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Tucker Carlson Is Completing the Work That Trump Began

 

There was a time when someone like Alex Jones would have been too toxic to embrace.

By Peter Wehner

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/why-tucker-carlson-defending-alex-jones/620906/

[jg121783 3,908]

22 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Tucker Carlson Is Completing the Work That Trump Began

 

There was a time when someone like Alex Jones would have been too toxic to embrace.

By Peter Wehner

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/why-tucker-carlson-defending-alex-jones/620906/

From the article:

 

"Last month Jones, the host of Infowars, was found liable for damages in a defamation lawsuit brought by parents of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, whose victims included 20 young children. Jones claimed that the shooting was a “false flag” operation carried out by “crisis actors.” He mocked grieving parents, saying, “I’ve looked at it, and undoubtedly there’s a cover-up, there’s actors, they’re manipulating, they’ve been caught lying, and they were preplanning before it and rolled out with it.”"

 

Funny how they only tell part of the story here. I'm not a huge fan of Jones and don't agree with his viewpoint on Sandy Hook but the fact of the matter is he was railroaded in this trial. He gave the judge and plaintiffs everything they asked for and the judge issued a default judgement in a jury trial where the jury was supposed to render a verdict. This is almost unheard of and essentially denies Jones his right to a jury trial. If this article can't get that part right I have very little faith the rest of it is factual. Notice they say he was found "liable" and not found "guilty" because he was never in fact found guilty.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

31 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

From the article:

 

"Last month Jones, the host of Infowars, was found liable for damages in a defamation lawsuit brought by parents of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, whose victims included 20 young children. Jones claimed that the shooting was a “false flag” operation carried out by “crisis actors.” He mocked grieving parents, saying, “I’ve looked at it, and undoubtedly there’s a cover-up, there’s actors, they’re manipulating, they’ve been caught lying, and they were preplanning before it and rolled out with it.”"

 

Funny how they only tell part of the story here. I'm not a huge fan of Jones and don't agree with his viewpoint on Sandy Hook but the fact of the matter is he was railroaded in this trial. He gave the judge and plaintiffs everything they asked for and the judge issued a default judgement in a jury trial where the jury was supposed to render a verdict. This is almost unheard of and essentially denies Jones his right to a jury trial. If this article can't get that part right I have very little faith the rest of it is factual. Notice they say he was found "liable" and not found "guilty" because he was never in fact found guilty.

Alex Jones also lost his Texas case  with  default judgment , where he chose not to participate in his defense. The part about not putting up a defense is missing in your description. I see nothing wrong with the description and Jones's displayed disgusting behavior in attacking the families of these kids. The Civil cases just punctuated what most adults already knew about this pompous scumbag. 

 

Of course the term liable versus guilty is used, it's a civil trial.

 

Back to the original question why is Tucker Carlson embracing Alex Jones and his disturbing statements? Because, just like Jones' behavior itself, it gets eyeballs and sells ads. 

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Crtcl Rice Theory

[jg121783 3,908]

12 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

The part about not putting up a defense is missing in your description.

It's missing because it didn't happen. He literally sat for hours of depositions and turned over thousands of documents and records that weren't even relevant to the case and shouldn't have even been asked for. Even if he turned over nothing which is not at all the case the jury should have been allowed to render a verdict. The only time a default judgement is appropriate is if a defendant simply chooses not to respond to a lawsuit which was not at all the case in the two cases we are talking about here. Like I said I don't agree with Jones's views on this subject but everyone has a first amendment right and everyone has a right to a jury trial (with a few exceptions). This is left wing lawfare plain and simple.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

45 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It's missing because it didn't happen. He literally sat for hours of depositions and turned over thousands of documents and records that weren't even relevant to the case and shouldn't have even been asked for. Even if he turned over nothing which is not at all the case the jury should have been allowed to render a verdict. The only time a default judgement is appropriate is if a defendant simply chooses not to respond to a lawsuit which was not at all the case in the two cases we are talking about here. Like I said I don't agree with Jones's views on this subject but everyone has a first amendment right and everyone has a right to a jury trial (with a few exceptions). This is left wing lawfare plain and simple.

Are you an attorney or paralegal?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Hi! Hello friends. Time again for another episode of Maven Teaches You About the Law: Chardonnay Edition. (Wine is the only way you will get me to write about the law pro bono on a Sunday night.)

 

So! First things first, conflict of interest disclosure: Alex Jones' attorney in this case is a family friend of mine, and my former employer. Shock! Connecticut is a very small world, and the legal community even smaller. Norm was a mentor and an inspiration, and I respect that he has represented some of the most difficult clients to defend in the state. I also know that his representation of problematic clients has changed him in ways many people have not been able to go along with. I pass no value judgment on that; it has been at least a decade since I saw him last.

 

Anyway, onto procedure, which is where the legal issue lies in this particular matter. Yes, this was a civil matter, so "liable" as opposed to "guilty" is appropriate. As I'm sure most of us (should) know, the burden of proof in a civil proceeding is on the preponderance of the evidence, i.e., ~50.01% that the defendant's conduct was such that the plaintiff could prove his case. Very different from the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden in criminal law. But, we all know that.

 

This was, as has been pointed out, a case that did not proceed to trial. Yes, the merits of the case were not heard before the judge entered default for flagrant abuse of the discovery process. But -- and I really, really stress this -- entering default for such abuse is extremely rare. Extremely. Terminating sanctions are the death penalty and courts are very hesitant to hand them out. Believe it or not, courts usually give the benefit of the doubt before killing a case.

 

Now, I have never practiced in CT, but I have worked in a law firm in CT (run by Alex Jones' lawyer, no less!) and have been working out here in CA in civil litigation for over a decade. I can tell you I have never once seen a default judgment entered for abuse of the discovery process. Why? Because the defendant's conduct must be in flagrant and willful violation of the jurisdiction's discovery act. It takes a LOT to push a judge to that limit. Judges hate-hate-hate discovery motions -- the mantra is: c'mon, man. Figure it out yourselves. Just hand it over unless there's a privilege, and if there is one, produce your privilege log. (Been there, done that.) 

 

I know Jones' attorney. He's an absolutely brilliant, talented, knock your socks off lawyer. I've known him since I was 16, so basically from when Moses was but a lad. My guess is that he tried to get all the relevant docs from Jones but his client sucked. (This is a legal term. I use it all the time.) I don't put this at his feet -- well, not completely. I don't really know what happened.

 

May I stress: it does not matter if you turn over thirteen shipping containers of document production, and appear for your deposition, if what you produce and what you say at deposition is not only irrelevant but also obstructive. If you do not do what you are supposed to, you can get sanctioned. We had a client get sanctioned monetarily the other month for refusing to turn over documents. It happens. Monetary sanctions are the usual outcome. Thousands of dollars for being an obstructive jerk tends to focus the mind. 

 

If you get to terminating sanctions, hooooooooooo boy. That judge is deeply perturbed. (I would have used a vulgar word starting in "p" and ending in "issed" but I believe that is in violation of the TOS and I am trying to make a point about the importance of procedure, so I shall not.) If terminating sanctions are imposed for abuse of the discovery process, man, you deserved it. Wear it like a goddamn crown because you're not likely to know anyone else who got them.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, failure to respond to a complaint is not the only way to get to a default judgment, despite what has been set forth above. It's just the more common route. Far more common route. If you get to default on some other road, man, that's all you, boo.

 

tl:dr -- Jones deserved it, I know his lawyer, this is way outside the realm of normal practice, and I like wine. 

 

Peace be with you all this holiday season; I shall return to my chardonnay.

[TBoneTX 44,439]

Sounds like some major tortfeasin' goin' on.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

11 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Sounds like some major tortfeasin' goin' on.

Quite. If you have reached terminating sanctions for abuse of the discovery process, you have reached the apex of tortfeasin'.

[TBoneTX 44,439]

15 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Quite. If you have reached terminating sanctions for abuse of the discovery process, you have reached the apex of tortfeasin'.

Got it, first try, si Maven ma'am.

"You have reached the apex of tortfeasin'" sounds like a good line for a Closing Argument, brilliant ma'am.

[Dashinka 24,019]

This OP article/opinion piece was certainly expected.  Fredo gets canned from his gig at lowly CNN, so time to have a Leftist activist write an opinion piece of Carlson.  Typical, and expected and I do not even like nor watch Carlson.

[jg121783 3,908]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

This OP article/opinion piece was certainly expected.  Fredo gets canned from his gig at lowly CNN, so time to have a Leftist activist write an opinion piece of Carlson.  Typical, and expected and I do not even like nor watch Carlson.

Jones is the bad Sandy Hook guy so Carlson even mentioning his name makes him a bad guy too. Such simplistic thinking.

[jg121783 3,908]

13 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

I know Jones' attorney. He's an absolutely brilliant, talented, knock your socks off lawyer. I've known him since I was 16, so basically from when Moses was but a lad. My guess is that he tried to get all the relevant docs from Jones but his client sucked. (This is a legal term. I use it all the time.) I don't put this at his feet -- well, not completely. I don't really know what happened

I have actually heard Norm in interviews about Jones' cases. He seemed pretty adamant that the judges in the two cases we are talking about acted inappropriately and that he was shocked that they acted in such a manner. He noted as you did that a default judgement under thess circumstances is almost unheard of. He also stated that everything that Jones was asked for (and then some) was turned over and never once said or implied that Jones was a "difficult" client or was in any way uncooperative. He also noted that the plaintiffs refused to sit for depositions when Jones sat for every deposition they asked for. Perhaps your assessment of the situation isn't correct. Perhaps Jones' attorney mischaracterized the situation or perhaps I am missing something here.

 

13 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

If terminating sanctions are imposed for abuse of the discovery process, man, you deserved it. Wear it like a goddamn crown because you're not likely to know anyone else who got them.

Now it couldn't be possible that the judge has a bias against the defendant right? That never happens. It's always the fault of the defendant.

[jg121783 3,908]

23 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Are you an attorney or paralegal?

Are you? No? Then why are you a member on a forum that discusses immigration laws and procedures? You obviously aren't qualified to even talk about such legal matters. Much less handle your own immigration case or advise others on how to do so. Guess visa journey should be shut down because 99% of people on this website are not attorneys and as such are not qualified to discuss the topics discussed here.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Are you? No? Then why are you a member on a forum that discusses immigration laws and procedures? You obviously aren't qualified to even talk about such legal matters. Much less handle your own immigration case or advise others on how to do so. Guess visa journey should be shut down because 99% of people on this website are not attorneys and as such are not qualified to discuss the topics discussed here.

 

So I am guessing by this response, you are not a lawyer and I should probably look above to Maven's piece on the default judgement for a more accurate assessment . 

[jg121783 3,908]

7 minutes ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

 

So I am guessing by this response, you are not a lawyer and I should probably look above to Maven's piece on the default judgement for a more accurate assessment . 

Might be better to listen to what the defense attorney who Maven referenced has to say. Perhaps Maven should do the same. Then if Maven believes Mr. Pattis is incorrect in his assessment of the case we can have a discussion about that.