A day later, I saw a different attorney (Attorney B) on Tucker Carlson, and he described the situation differently--like you said, Attorney A did not have his client's best interests at heart. He should have insisted on seeing more evidence, especially if it helped to exonerate his client.
You’re right, “Attorney B” pointed out to Tucker on the following day that “Attorney A” did not do a good job for his client, and actually pushed Jacob Chansley to accept a plea deal with the government for the false charges, saying that was the best he could hope for. Tucker should have brought “Attorney A” back to discuss Attorney B’s malfeasance assertions.
Every defendant should have asserted their constitutional right to a speedy trial regardless of what a defense attorney may have told them.
If they had, they’d all have been released within three months.