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

Choices are sell, stay, or fight in a legal way. Those are the choices.

Take McDonald's for instance. They sold their franchises and assets in Russia because of the sanctions placed on Russia after Russia invaded Ukraine. It was not Russia who asked them to leave. In fact, no one asked them to leave. But their investors did, the owners of Mcdonald's, did, along with stakeholders who were their customers and so forth. But in the end, the sanctions on Russia, which they would have to abide by, made them leave and thus sold the franchises to another entity that was not sanctioned.

If you came into my house, even invited, and I ask you to leave, your choices are to leave voluntarily, or the police will make you leave involuntarily.

in both examples, who had sovereignty with Mcdonald's or my house? In the case of McDonald's, McDonald's did, not Russia. In the case of my house, I did, not you. But if police were used to make you leave involuntarily, does that change who has sovereignty?

 

It was a plea bargain and he agreed to plea bargain. There was other evidence in there that caused him to have that type of sentence, namely his statements about Pence that he was a child molester, his statement to a reporter stating that if they shut down, even for a day, it was a win, and the fact that he left a note on VP Pence place where he stood and presided over the Joint Session of Congress that "justice will be coming for him" which was perceived as a veiled threat. The maximum sentence was 20 years. He got 41 months, which includes the time being served while he was awaiting the conclusion of this case. He is eligible for release in July 2023 and is now a felon, which means, he cannot vote in the next election. In my view, it was not harsh since he could have gotten a much tougher sentence under the law.

 

It's painfully obvious that you have no rebuttal, other than erecting, yet another strawman argument.

In an earlier post, I agree with Turley, and you said he is mostly correct. In the above, your strawman is to now say Turley's legal opinion is "typical". Which is it? A good opinion or typical?

Let me tell you that there is nothing typical about what Turley wrote. IF Chansley's due process was violated during the discovery process, that's a huge win for Chansley should he go forward with his complaint.

 

NO...It WASN'T...

 

The sentence was too harsh for the plea. His other charges should have no bearing because they were subsequently dropped down to the final charge.. Surely, you must know this.

 

And based on this post alone, we can see why videos of Jacob Chansley standing outside the capital yelling for them to be "peaceful" and "go home" were not followed by the crowd. We also see him inside the capital building at a time where the Joint Session of Congress was supposed to be conducted but instead stopped because of the riots and because there was not enough law enforcement there to prevent them that day from entering the capital. With other rioters, they were breaking windows, climbing through them, etc. So, again, any evidence being discussed here on Jacob Chansley does not meet the rule or definition you are describing. PERIOD.

what the attorney for Jacob Chansley can do is a couple of things:
1. He can ask to vacate the plea deal, change the plea from guilty to not guilty, and prove that the missing videos exonerate his client on one or all charges. But Jacob runs the risk of being found guilty and facing even more jail time.
2. Do nothing and be out by July 2023.

 

Oh, but according to at least a one or two, most are done with his fakery. LOL

Maybe they're done with her word salads...

 

Evidently the meaning of "most" escapes you.

 

three sources that gave opinions, not facts. All are defense attorneys whose sole job is to get their client's off by the legal process therein. It should be taken with a grain of salt if they are using the court of public opinion to try to get their way instead of a courtroom.

 

Overtail was claiming that the South never fired on Fort Sumter and that the invaders were the union soldiers from the North.

For the Jacob Chansley case, I stand by my statements and analysis. So far, not a single person, not even overitall, could cite which video, if any exonerates him from 18 USC 1512.

 

November 2024 is a long way away and a lot of things can happen in between that time that may not be favorable to Trump or the GOP. The point is don't trust polls, even if they are in your favor, because we are not voting today who is President. That happens in November 2024.

 

Wrong! I know quite well who fired on the Fort. Never said what you're claiming I said. I even quoted the requests (that the Union ignored) asking for the Union to evacuate the fort.

 

I’ll trust your wife and real friends that you’re out of your mind in good ways. Based on your personal examples, I’m thinking we may be called “kindred spirits” based on my walking to the beat of a different drum and bucking the trend on a lot of things has been a theme throughout my life.
I tried coke did not like the taste. I drank milk not to be different but because I liked the taste.

You’re Welcome.

 

It should be obvious what side I'm on. It's the side that respects that everyone is deserving of a fair trial.

 

All information the prosecution has has to be turned over during discovery in order for a defendant's lawyers to prepare a defense. Part of that involves deciding how to plea. Withholding that information may have led to a plea not in the defendant's best interest.

 

I'm not even sure it's worth trying to unpack your argument. It's a mess. Your McDonalds example is far removed from what I'm speaking of. Yea. I'm not bothering with the mess.

 

I agree that Chansley's Lawyers would be remiss if they don't press that issue...
Nothing to lose (at this point)...

 

So done with that divisive duo of his fakery and her word salads!

 

Which due process do you believe was violated in this dipshit shamans case exactly? If you say the Tucker video, than you have no clue about what you are talking about because video of the Police walking with that dipshit shaman has been available for over a year. HBO even aired a document called "4 hours at the Capitol" that showed this same video along with the Police members talking about why they walked with that ****stick.

 

They will lose yet again because nothing that Tucker showed is new. LOL

 

Even "most" is WRONG!
IF THIS (Below) is your claim:
"Obama and most all passed presidents serving as President DECREASED his vote count"...
Of Elected Incumbent Presidents Running for Re-Election Since WW2, other than Obama:
The Only Ones who Didn't INCREASE Their Vote Count were Carter in 1980 and HW Bush in 1992, but both of those Elections involved significant 3rd Party Candidates...
So?
WHO (Exactly) is the following statement referring to?
"...most all passed presidents serving as President DECREASED his vote count"

 

I question the total stupidity of not having enough law enforcement to be ready and prepared just in case an unruly crowd showed up that day.
Is it actually possible that every single Governmental Official and/or Governmental Organization stupidly thinking is was a great idea to not have enough law enforcement ready and quickly available on that day?

I question was the decision of having an inadequate law enforcement presence on that important day based on incompetence or deliberation.

As I stated in the beginning of my post. I’m not a lawyer.
So, I do question the fairness of the Jacob Chansley case based on what I read via the legal information I sourced with that link.
I have made up my own mind not to trust the fairness of that case. I have no problem with you making up your own mind concerning that case.
I do have a question for you… are you a lawyer or are you like me… not a lawyer.

If you are not a lawyer with legal knowledge of the American Justice System then I will decide for myself to disregard for now the last sentence in this post to me…. Period.

 

Good post Charisrose! Your last question reminded me of the certificates/degrees you see on the walls of professionals. I always find myself wondering if the person listed on that piece of paper was a A student or merely a C student. Titles aren't that impressive to me. I still insist on reviews.

 

That's up to the jury, not you. You may be correct, I am not at all saying it is exculpatory, only that it might be! And that is the standard for what evidence must be, by law, made available to the defense in any criminal proceeding.

This is not my idea! This has been the law of the land since many years before I first drew breath, and has been applicable ever since.

 

For some odd reason the word "potentially" is seldom thought of when the opponents to this issue mention "exculpatory". A defendant and his lawyers have a right to present all evidence which may go towards the defendant's case. A jury can decide if the evidence is exculpatory.