There have been several threads over the last few days saying GOP or Trump or MTG had bad days

[usaf-vet]

I'm not an attorney, BUT this posting translated into a bad day for me. I had to walk away and do other things.

It got only eight recs, and it got lost, possibly being seen as less important than "cats."

Michael Popok for the Midas Touch suggests the real reason McCarthy turned over the tapes is because
of the legal issue of "Brady Evidence"

If he is correct, then we are a long way off from indictments turning into trials turning into prison sentences.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017809070 or the direct URL

Somebody tell me I'm wrong, but this WAS BAD NEWS FOR OUR SIDE, is the way I saw it.

[Biophilic]

1. Sorry I'm very hard of hearing. I can't get what most videos are saying.

What’s “Brady evidence “?

[Ocelot II]

3. "Brady" evidence is any evidence in the hands of the prosecution

that might be exculpatory. Defendants are entitled to the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, per Brady v. Maryland.

[Effete Snob]

6. ...or which might impeach the credibility of a witness

So, yeah, umm...

"Here's a video of the defendant going at a Capitol window with a battering ram."

"Ah, yes, but this security video from an empty hallway on the other side of the complex shows there was nothing going on!!!!"

What horseshit.

[Biophilic]

9. Thank you.

[Ocelot II]

2. I doubt very much that's the reason. The defendants already got all their Brady evidence

from the materials disclosed to the J6 Committee and which the committee made public. All those materials were carefully vetted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The stuff McCarthy turned over to Fox was not. Lawyers for the defendants are expected to claim there is Brady evidence in these tapes, which of course will slow down some of those cases. But that's not why McCarthy gave it to Fox; it was so they can selectively try to show the J6 insurrection was just a normal tourist visit that got a little rowdy. There will be no Brady or other material in those tapes dorectly relevant to the prosecution of TFG and his minions; if there was, Jack Smith would have it.

[Effete Snob]

5. Once again your version is shorter and more to the point than mine below.

[Ocelot II]

7. Thank you, but you performed a valuable service by explaining

not only that any Brady material anywhere in those tapes would likely already be known to the prosecution and already provided to the defendants, but that the tendentious videos that pop up from time to time are often just clickbaity time-wasters. As you said, reading is always much more efficient than watching a video, especially where the maker of the video is selling a product - maybe just himself - and often doesn't know what he's talking about anyhow. I am not concerned about undisclosed Brady material in the videos (although some of the insurrectionist-defendants will surely claim there is some), because there's nothing on those tapes relevant to Jack Smith's prosecution of TFG et al. that he doesn't already have.

[usaf-vet]

10. Well you are making me feel a little better, BUT given the stacked courts I can believe they will...

... find a judge that will rule in their favor.

The way this NON-attorney heard it is defense attorneys will make the case that there MIGHT be evidence that was held back that would / could change the views of judges or juries that hear these cases.

Held back for security reasons. For example, the videos would show the locations of security cameras by was they were recording or locations of "secret safe rooms" or secret emergency exits. All this would be valuable to any further invasions of the Capital. BUT it could also disclose evidence of helping their clients, like helping a police officer who was being beaten. Or sitting down to have a cigarette and relax even though five minutes before, was spreading feces on the walls.

In any case, it could hold up dozens, if not 100's of cases going to trial. Or, in fact STOP those for the Proud Boys already in court.

Any of these delays could help Trump avoid negative repercussions before the 2024 elections.

Finally, I have no doubt YOU could be entirely right with your summary of the situation. Thanks for that!

[NowISeetheLight]

17. Slow Down

Slow down and delay any action against the ringleaders until AFTER the election.

[Effete Snob]

4. I'm not wasting a quarter of an hour to watch some guy rant

But the assumption that videotapes of places where no defendant was located is somehow either exculpatory or will impeach a government witness is far-fetched.

People don't run YouTube channels as a public service. The more eyeballs they can capture, the more money they make.

So, the challenge of being a YouTuber is to make sure that your videos have enough controversial material - or as this Popok character puts it in his tweets:

It got only eight recs, and it got lost, possibly being seen as less important than "cats."

I don't know how other folks read DU, but I glance at it in between doing other things while working to, you know, READ stuff. Reading is tremendously more efficient than watching videos, so posts of the "hey, here's a video that someone makes money to publish and will take 12 minutes to watch" variety aren't as interesting as simply saying "I believe the DoJ has failed to turn over Brady evidence in some J6 case, because a surveillance video of some place nowhere near the defendant is exculpatory somehow."

It's a stupid take, but, sure, it gets eyeballs.

And it's a stupid take because those videos exist whether McCarthy turns them over to Tucker or not. Those videos either have, or have not, been in the possession of the DoJ from the outset (which, again, I'm not watching 12 minutes of some guy bloviating in order to find out if he even bothers with that basic question), and the DoJ has either turned them over to the defense or has determined there is nothing exculpatory or impeachment-worthy in them.

The basic premise - that McCarthy giving them to Tucker creates a Brady problem - is fundamentally bullshit in the first place. The security videos from the Capitol either do or do not contain Brady material. But McCarthy's antics do not alter whether they do or do not contain Brady material.

So, another disincentive to waste my time watching yet another youtube video is the apparent and obvious fact that the videos have existed since Jan. 6, they either do or do not contain Brady material, they have or have not been turned over to the various defense teams in relevant part (which this guy would also not even know), and McCarthy's actions change NONE of that.

[Ocelot II]

8. Yup.

[Chakaconcarne]

11. It seems DU has been getting inundated with this kind of thing, picking up the last few months or so

This stuff only sully's DU and people will start to tune out or miss pertinent details.. I hope that is not the intent.

[Silent3]

13. I too almost always would rather read than watch

I hate it when I'm looking for technical info (I'm a software engineer) and the first hits that come up are videos explaining how to do something or how something works.

[usaf-vet]

14. Reading is a wonderful way to get information. Until you are in your seventies with the onset....

.... cataracts.

So rather than completely ignore incoming news and information, I sometimes view and listen.

And then, after knocking YouTube, you cite... Your(?) youtu.bee/MV1H1w..... So is it read or watch?

I'll wait and see how this plays out. I would bet that IT WILL DELAY justice.

[Effete Snob]

15. Absolutely, people have different information preferences

Your complaint seemed to be that the video you posted didn't get a lot of attention.

Speaking entirely for myself, I explained why I don't pay much attention to the growing proportion of DU posts that consist of "Hey, watch this video."

Then, I provided what I thought might be illuminating commentary on what "Brady material" is, and why nothing Kevin McCarthy does or does not do has any bearing on the existence or non-existence of such material.

And then, after knocking YouTube, you cite... Your(?) youtu.bee/MV1H1w..... So is it read or watch?

That's Popok's tweet advertising the video you posted. It's an image, so it's not even clickable. But the URL goes to the video you posted in the OP. The point is that he calls it a "hot take". The signal words being "as this Popok character puts it in his tweets:" preceding that image.

I'm not "knocking YouTube". YouTube is great. I watch a lot of stuff on YouTube. But "Hey watch this video" postings to DU? Not so much.

[Ocelot II]

18. You have a point, of course; but it would be nice if more of these videos

were actually informative rather than some youtuber's self-promotion consisting of more gas than information. Video replays of news broadcasts and analyses are useful because they contain actual information. I just don't want to waste time listening to some self-produced "commentary" by Joe Blow from his parents' basement.

[usaf-vet]

21. Totally agree.

[Silent3]

12. "We are a long way off from indictments turning into trials turning into prison sentences"

I don't need to watch this video to know that. Our "system" is endlessly exploitable by people who can hire expensive teams of lawyers looking to grind that system to a halt. And that doesn't even include the roadblocks and delays from MAGAts embedded within the system.

[FoxNewsSucks]

16. I agree, but have a couple points.

I watched this video, and listen to most Meidas Touch podcasts. Despite the shitting-on being done in other posts, they are generally reliable. I think of their group as being like the Lincoln Project, but always been Democrats/liberals instead of "not-tRumpers".

The problem I have with this, and other similar posts, is that there was no summary of the video. I don't usually have time to watch a 5 minute video, much less 12, 20 or hour-long videos that some post. And am often in a place where it's not practical to stop and watch a video. I'm sure others have similar circumstances. So good posts get overlooked because there isn't even a paragraph or two summarizing the point of the video. I realize that this is my problem, but still, I wish that those who post video would also take a minute to write a summary of why the video is important.

I've seen other mention of the ubiquitous cat posts, along with suggestions of how to minimize seeing that kind of thing. I do get a guilty pleasure from the dog and other rescue type posts; it is a little bit of a break. The minute-by-minute diary thing got tedious a long time ago. For the life of me I don't see why a post about sleeping position followed by a burst of kitty flatulence upon awakening gets in the "Trending" section while good political posts sink. Using the ignore function will keep you from seeing those posts, but that poster puts up good political things as well which I do want to read. So I don't know what the answer is.

Anyway, I hope the posts above are correct that this will not be the effective stall that blows every conviction up. But I can never forget that republicons will use every dirty trick, sink unimaginably low, and do anything to get their way. Including trying something like this.

[Ocelot II]

19. Cat videos are normally posted in the Lounge, where they belong, and can be ignored

if you so choose. I watch as many cat videos as possible because I prefer cats to most people. Tendentious videos with more hot air than information wind up in GD even though they really belong in Videos, and if they are posted in GD they should at least come with a short written summary. I just don't bother with unexplained videos unless they are about cats.

[FoxNewsSucks]

20. I'm not knocking any animal videos, including cats.

I watch more of them than any other videos here. They're short, and I do like them.

I agree about the summary, that was my point. I treat this kinda like a newspaper - read, skim, skip around. I do wish videos stayed in the video section, and wouldn't object to animal posts not getting on the trending/front page parts. As with a newspaper, I'd like to read the news w/o other things, then go look for the "entertainment" separately.

I think the point the original post was making in part is that news/politics related posts, whether you agree with their arguable worth or not, are getting obscured by entertainment.

[Effete Snob]

24. So says the ocelot, lol

[Ocelot II]

25. Well, yeah. My people.

[usaf-vet]

22. Agreed, agreed, agreed! I would also love a summary. I have pets but would never post there.....

..... activities on DU. Especially where it trends other stories off the front page. Mainly with the same handful of folks that love pet pictures.

I have years of vacation pictures; who wants to see them? I promised 50, 55 minutes max.

[Effete Snob]

23. I have a squirrel that visits every day for walnuts

She knocks on my patio door and waits for me to give her some walnuts.

I have a bunch of pictures and videos of her.

I’ll trade for your travel pictures.