Tucker Carlson accuses media of ‘lynching’ Derek Chauvin

A) This was not an execution. Even the prosecution admitted that. It's why Chauvin was on trial (and convicted) of Murder 2, not Murder 1.

B) The media *is* to blame when they rush to judgment and publish a narrative without all of the facts.

C) The media *is* to blame when they fan the flames of riots.

D) The media *is* to blame when evidence comes out of POSSIBLE mitigating facts, such as Floyd's extraordinarily high tox screen, or the extended video that shows him consistently fighting the cops, or the fact that he was complaining of respiratory distress long before the knee to the neck, yet the media (for the most part) completely ignores that evidence and continues to push ONLY the "killer cop" mantra and GLORIFY the riots as being "justified."

Chauvin was conicted. I am NOT arguing that he is blameless. But neither is the media.

SFC Casey O'Mally which media do you hold accountable? Foxnews? OANN? CNN? All of them? A select few of them? The facts proved chauvin is guilty of the charges. The majority of fair-minded adults can see that.

I hold all legitimate media accountable when they rush to publish without first verifying, or push a false or misleading narrative. I also hold them accountable when they downplay or refuse to publish updates to stories that may hurt their own narrative or provide conflicting evidence (such as Floyd's tox screen results, to include the high levels of Fentanyls and how that affects the respiratory system, or the extended video showing the extent of Floyd's non-cooperation or the fact that Floyd was on the ground BY HIS OWN REQUEST).

CNN and WaPo are JUST as guilty of this as FOX. (And I don' even classify OANN as legitimate).

Again... Chauvin was convicted and I do NOT argue that he is blameless.

But I do see a valid argument that Chauvin *was* effectively lynched in the MSM and that there was absolutely no shot at him getting a fair and unbiased trial. THe MSM had effectively established many "facts" prior to the opening statements of the trial, and any potential juror had already been inundated with the "facts." Rgeardless of the truth in these "facts" if you repeat a lie often enough, people believe it is the truth.

"Facts" of the Chauvin case prior to opening argument:

Riots had happened in Floyd's name
Riots would happen again if a not-guilty verdict was returned, regardless of how justifiable that verdict was
Chauvin was a racist
Chauvin was a "bad cop" with a history of violence
Floyd's death was purely and solely a result of police violence

While the case was going on, the jury was NOT sequestered, and they had access to further media and world news, to include the shooting of Daunte Wright, and the widely published statements by Rep. Waters inciting further violence if they returned a not-guilty verdict. Even if Chauvin was a completely blameless angel who wasn't even present (and I am not saying this is the case), it would have been exceptionally difficult to return a not-guilty verdict.

I am NOT arguing that Chauvin was not guilty. He was convicted. That is a undeniable fact. Regardless of whether the media did or did not effectively lynch Chauvin prior to (and during) his trial, he still stands convicted. He is guilty, as a statement of fact, now that the verdict has been rendered.