“TRUMP ASKED US TO GO HOME”; Video Re-Surfaces Of Jacob Chansley Urging Peace

Plus, his harsh sentence was overkill. They made an example out of him because he looks so so scary.

 

Yes. And?

He also plead guilty to obstruction of duties. And was cleared of 4 or 5 other charges in his plea deal.

 

Who cares? It wasn't my point.

 

You've been given links and statements several time already why his bail was denied.
Why do you keep asking over and over and over.

...
A federal district judge in Arizona denied bail to Jacob Chansley on Friday, saying she had "no confidence" that he would follow court orders to voluntarily appear for trial.

"This is not a protest, this is a riot, this is an insurrection," the judge said of the events at the Capitol on January 6, saying that the context surrounding Chansley's alleged conduct was an important backdrop to her decision not to release Chansley ahead of his trial because he was a "symbol of what occurred."

She said Chansley appeared to have "righteously believed" that he had done nothing wrong and that he had plans to return to the US Capitol for President-elect Joseph Biden's inauguration.

Chansley was arrested in Arizona on Monday and indicted on six federal charges, including two felony charges of civil disorder and obstruction of an official proceeding, and could face 25 years or more in prison if convicted.
https://www.businessinsider.com/pro...eant-to-capture-assassinate-pence-2021-1?op=1

In case, this one link is not enough to show you the reasons, here's a google link to many different sources.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=why+was+chansley+denied+bail&atb=v344-1&ia=web

 

Apples to oranges, as the above was never my point to begin with.

 

How exactly do these videos show that he didn’t commit the crime for which he was convicted?

He’ll win on an appeal if this evidence is exculpatory. But it is not exculpatory.

 

Hilarious...
How does that go??
"Keep up"?
FACT: 30 Million MORE People Voted in 2020 compared to 2012....
^Considering that FACT:
Trump actually Underperformed in 2020...

And, So What?
That has ZERO to do with the thread topic...
MY "Point" is that the "Pacific Ocean Contains Water"...
^Another "point" which...
just like:
"Trump broke an Obama most popular vote record"
...Has ZERO to do with the thread topic...
***Can anybody "diminish" my point?

 

How else will some win their arguments?

 

Review.
Here you go in case you missed my point the first round, at least nine rounds ago.
Don't acknowledge the point, ignore it completely, build a strawman, deflect to something totally irrelevant but know, it doesn't matter because it doesn't change my original point in the least. So enjoy yourself reviewing my point or don't.

Donald Trump's 73.6 Million Popular Votes Is Over 7 Million More Than Any Sitting President in History (newsweek.com)

"President Donald Trump has so far received 73.6 million popular votes in the 2020 election, surpassing the previous record set by President Barack Obama by more than 7 million, giving him the most votes of any sitting president in U.S. history.

As of Thursday morning, Trump has received a total of 73,559,030 votes and counting, according to The New York Times.

That number has set the record for the most votes ever received by a sitting president, surpassing Obama's 65,915,795 popular votes in his 2012 incumbent victory against Republican challenger Mitt Romney."

 

That's not my point but you're right we won't know unless it is determined by the courts that Chansley's constitutional right to due process was violated and he is given a new trial.

This will be determined if Chansey wins on appeal. He had a right to all videos during discovery. His attorneys didn't get it all. However, he is slated for release this July so they might not even go that route.

 

The problem with that is that your "point" (whatever it was) was in response to MY post saying that the majority of people were no longer buying Trump's BS.
So pointing out that Trump got the more votes as a President running for re-election than any President before him doesn't mean a damn thing. MORE people voted for Biden, LESS than half the people voting voted for Trump. The MAJORITY no longer buys the BS he is selling.

 

I’m not a lawyer & I don’t play one on a forum. However, as an American citizen I do have questions concerning the treatment of fellow Americans. Thanks to the internet I can find legal information online concerning the meaning of exculpatory.

Is it permissible for the Prosecution to decide what video evidence that they have in their possession as being exculpatory evidence for an American Citizen’s Defense Lawyer to present at trial? Based on the Brady Rule information provided in the following link. My answer would be No, it is not permissible for the Prosecution to make that decision for the Defense. That would deny every American Citizen on trail for their Defense Lawyer to make the decision what is exculpatory evidence that is favorable evidence for their client at trial.

Exculpatory Evidence ~ In criminal law, exculpatory evidence is evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant. In other words, the evidence is favorable to the defendant. In contrast to it, inculpatory evidence tends to stress guilt.

See also: Brady Rule.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Brady_Rule
“The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense. Brady material, or the evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule, includes any information favorable to the accused which may reduce a defendant's potential sentence, go against the credibility of an unfavorable witness, or otherwise allow a jury to infer against the defendant’s guilt.”

“Initially, the Brady rule was only applicable if the defendant made a pretrial request for specific information which the prosecution denied. In United States v. Bagley, however, the Supreme Courteliminated this request requirement and stated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of whether it is requested. This duty is breached regardless of whether that information is withheld intentionally or unintentionally.”

 

"And" to which part? the part where the defense claimed he was stalking the halls, riling up the mob with screaming obscenities, which was a lie, or the part where another guy received a much lighter sentence for the same criminal plea?

As was the other guy per your link.

also, Thomas Adams Jr. had the same charges, pled not guilty and was granted release without posting bail.

Capitol Breach Cases | USAO-DC | Department of Justice

They made this guy the scapegoat only because of his outfit.

 

Ohhhhh, too sad. He has no appeal. He withdrew it.

Could it be that his lawyers told him it was not going to win?

 

**prosecutors claimed

 

That's interesting. I see no evidence that he withdrew it.

 

Could it be the prosecutors made it a condition of the plea deal to waive his right of appeal? Now that it is known that they withheld evidence from his team, and with the knowledge that similar other cases were treated much differently, he might be walking soon.

 

LOL, well, my wife and most of my real friends would disagree. But in their case, it's out of my mind in good ways. I do walk to the beat of a different drum, and always have. Even when I was a kid, and all the other kids were drinking Coke, I drank Sprite just to be different. That's a petty example of something I did as a child, but my bucking the trend on a lot of things has been a theme throughout my life.

But thank you for the courtesy!

 

Generally speaking, when you plead guilty to whatever, in exchange for whatever you're getting in return for that plea, usually a much less harsh sentence than would otherwise be possible, you waive your right to appeal. EXCEPT in the case of new evidence that points to your actual innocence. Whether or not this new evidence actually rises to that standard I am not in a position to know, but I would say it's at the very least possible.

Time will tell.

What amazes me is the resistance I'm getting to the idea that a defendant is entitled to see all evidence, even and especially something that may be exculpatory. This is not new, it's not my idea, it's been the SOP for criminal prosecutions since well before I was even born, and it is how it should be. Our entire legal system is designed to make it damn hard to send someone to prison, under the theory that it's better 10 guilty persons get off than 1 innocent one ends up behind bars. And I damn well agree with that concept, and the line of thought behind it.

 

They did limit the appeals he could pursue (as is normal for plea agreements) but one of the ones left open to him was "ineffective assistance of counsel" which is the one he filed under in November 2021
In July 2022 Chansley requested that his appeal be dropped.

Once again, the "new" video does nothing to exonerate him of the charges he pleaded guilty to so could not be the basis for a new appeal.

 

Except that the "new" video is not exculpatory.

He pleaded guilty to 18 USC Section 1512(c)(2). There is nothing in that statute requiring violence to be a part of the crime. He could have been led in on a red carpet and treated like the Queen of England and he would STILL be guilty under that law.

In order for evidence to be exculpatory the evidence must "exonerate or tend to exonerate" the individual of the crime they have been charged with. Please explain to us how this "new" video does that.

 

That's simply not true. (bolded part of your post)
My counter to your wishful thinking below:

From Newsweek:
Donald Trump Proved Fox News' Rupert Murdoch Wrong (msn.com)

From The Hill

To topple Trump, GOP challengers lean on personality over policy (msn.com)

From CBS:

Trump leads GOP 2024 primary field narrowly in poll of conservatives - CBS News

 

From what I understand Chansley's (new) lawyers aren't appealing his conviction, but filing a motion that his plea deal be voided based upon shoddy representation from his previous lawyer. That would allow him to plea not guilty opening the door for a misdemeanor charge (like other defendants were offered).

 

The "ineffective assistance of counsel" appeal was filed in November 2021 and then dropped at Chansley's request in July 2022.

 

You have blinders on. He may have majority support by Republicans but Republicans don't elect a President. EVERYONE elects the President and, as shown by his overwhelming defeat in 2020, the MAJORITY of Americans (not just Republicans) aren't buying his BS.