Tucker Carlson confronts the defense attorney for alledged rapist

In one of the most powerful moments in television, Tucker Carlson confronted the defense attorney representing two young men accused of raping a 14 year old high school student in her Montgomery County, Maryland high school bathroom.

The national mainstream media, including ABC, NBC and CBS have ignored the story, presumably because the two young men, alleged rapists, are illegal immigrants.

Here is the dramatic moment on television.

Advertisements

One Response to Tucker Carlson confronts the defense attorney for alledged rapist

  1. Neville says:

    If the young men did, in fact, rape this girl then then they should certainly be tried in court and, if justice is served, found guilty and punished accordingly. If evidence is identified and presented indicating that they did not commit forcible rape, then if a sex act did occur, then presumably there will be a charge of statutory rape which will be prosecuted instead.

    Tucker Carlson can be a pretty good interviewer, but in this case he is way, way, off base. He knows nothing of any verified evidence. He knows that the character and truthfulness of everybody involved will be questioned, as is appropriate. And he knows that every answer the defense attorney gave was completely reasonable.

    The very specific question Tucker didn’t ask (or, at least, I didn’t hear) is: “Do you think that this young man should have been released by immigration/border officials and allowed to stay in our country illegally?” (Tucker did say that “I’m sure you would concede” that the young man should, legally, have been deported) Another would be: “If he had been kept in detention and deported, then we wouldn’t be talking about this crime because it wouldn’t have taken place, would we?” The first question is of interest to pretty much everybody and might invite an accusation that immigration officials didn’t properly do their jobs, but as that is not a defense, then it has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused defendant(s) in the case. The point of the question would be to discover the attorney’s view of the law and the rule of law in general. The second question would have to be answered “Of course, we wouldn’t be talking about this particular situation, whatever details turn up, because one of the parties would not be involved.” The point of the question would be to establish (or disprove) the logical honesty of the attorney. Again, however, the question and answer would be irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

    We who call ourselves “conservatives” need to be careful to apply the law properly, see that everyone accused of a crime is tried fairly, and not prejudge cases based on media reports (in this case, at this stage, that would be “media reports alone” because so far there has been no evidence presented in court.

    Tucker blew this one as did you, Doug, by your implicit support of his tactics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: