Well, this will leave a mark. And thanks to EW for sourcing it, in the first instance.

Here’s a long serving, hard boiled but completely fair USDC Judge re-affirming the QAnon Shaman’s sentence, and felonies conviction — and rejecting the outright lies Tucker told on-air, in the process:

…Finally, the Court would be remiss if it did not address the ill-advised television program of March 6, 2023. Not only was the broadcast replete with misstatements and misrepresentations regarding the events of January 6, 2021 too numerous to count, the host explicitly questioned the integrity of this Court — not to mention the legitimacy of the entire U.S. criminal justice system with inflammatory characterizations of cherry-picked videos stripped of their proper context….

In so doing, he called on his followers to “reject the evidence of [their] eyes and ears,” language resembling the destructive, misguided rhetoric that fueled the events of January 6 in the first place. The Court finds it alarming that the host’s viewers throughout the nation so readily heeded his command. But this Court cannot and will not reject the evidence before it. Nor should the public. Members of the public who are concerned about the evidence presented in Mr. Chansley’s case and others like may view the public docket and even attend court proceedings in these cases.

Those of us who have presided over dozens of cases arising from, listened to hundreds of hours of testimony describing, and reviewed thousands of pages of briefing about the attack on our democracy of January 6 know all too well that neither the events of that day nor any particular defendant’s involvement can be fully captured in a seconds-long video carelessly, or perhaps even cynically, aired in a television segment or attached to a tweet….

Mr. Chansley has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court will therefore decline to issue a certificate of appealability for Mr. Chansley’s claims….

V. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Mr. Chansley’s motion and the record in his case do not show his entitlement to relief. No evidentiary hearing is warranted, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), and the Court will DENY Mr. Chansley’s motion….

Smoke that, Bitsy, Johnnie and Tucker… Wet-End.

Out.