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

The Feds are hiding Epps who is most probably an FBI asset. They do not want him testifying in a court of law.

“The moment was captured on film by John Sullivan, an independent journalist from Utah, also known as “Jayden X.” Sullivan’s background and role are ambiguous. In 2020, Sullivan was involved in the George Floyd protests; he founded a group called Insurgence USA to fight police brutality. During a June 2020 protest in Utah, Sullivan told the crowd that “racism is still real in America and that needs to change. It’s not enough to voice your words, put those words into action… make change happen.” Sullivan was arrested in July for violence related to an altercation with pro-police protesters in Provo, Utah.

He traveled to Portland several times during the summer of 2020 as a journalist-activist. The Washington Examiner reported Sullivan also ran “an antifa Discord server that featured other left-wing activists discussing tactics and strategy at protests.” In August 2020, according to a report by Fox News, Sullivan participated in a protest near the White House. “We… about to burn this s—down,” Sullivan said. “We gotta… rip Trump right out of that office right there. We ain’t about… waiting until the next election.”

In sum, Sullivan has a proven pedigree as a left-wing activist. Yet on January 6, he showed up at the Capitol and recorded about ninety minutes of the protest. After he followed a crowd into the building, Sullivan is heard yelling, “There are so many people. Let’s go. This **** is ours! **** yeah. We are all a part of this history.” At another point in his video, Sullivan says, “We gotta get this **** burned,” sounding every bit the pro-Trump firebrand. 84

Trump supporters, after seeing Sullivan’s video, smelled a rat. Why was a known BLM activist infiltrating a huge crowd of Trump supporters? Sullivan’s presence and attempt to provoke the crowd, to many, seemed to prove that leftwing agitators played a more significant role in the riot than the media wanted to admit.”

— January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right by Julie Kelly
https://a.co/e7Qpyj1

 

Maybe we can hold a bonfire for them in years to come?

 

Why would you suggest that?

 

Free the gentle navy vet, Jacob Chansley, the Left's Political Prisoner.

 

I debated if I needed to better define that, and hoped I could go with no....

Oh well... I also lived in a Commonwealth country for years....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night

 

Okay. I have no idea???

 

This guy's lawyers probably should have gone with a 730 exam.....

 

I guess you are new here. Respect is not done here. People here will vouch for you in mass if you fall into their political paradigm. That is it. I am not going to tell you what I do for a living. Neither will you. That is why we have anonymity here and in most places online for debate.

My post that you responded to sums up everything that is known. I know you are capable of making up your own mind. That is why I asked you specifically, to look at what you wrote, to look at the definition of exculpatory evidence, to look at the link you posted for the Brady Rule, and to look at all the videos that Tucker has released to see if it meets any of those definitions. I told you mine based on what I just did that I asked you to do the same. Are you game? Yes or no.

 

The FEDS are not hiding him. He is living in Arizona. He has received death threats. But he has retracted from all social media for the time being. Ray Epps runs a Wedding and event Venue in Arizona. And his privacy is tantamount for obvious reasons.

 

Respect is done here.

 

That does not mean a hill of beans. yes, he wrote a book. So did someone named Chris Kyle in which in his book he described a fight. The book had no name, but he definitely stated in an interview that it was Jesse Ventura. Turned out, that was not true, at least that part of the book. The point is just because one wrote a book and was an ex-marine does not mean everything in that book is complete and accurate.

 

He is not subject to the same standard of prosecution as those who were denied their legal rights for doing walking into an open door often at the implicit invitation of the Capital Police and walking around the Capital Building doing absolutely no damage.

Why does the federal government not want him to testify in court?

 

It is his honest recollection of his experience in the local vicinity of where he was for thise two days. There are many other similar recollections.

 

Which means it is his opinion, not fact. It was his and other accounts from what I read on a few sights that described the book. Catchy title, but not worth my time.

 

First, do not confuse me with someone who cares about what happens to horned dude, or anyone else that participated on 1/6, except I don't want to see an innocent found guilty of anything, and I don't want anyone's rights violated in the process. You keep saying that the videos are not exculpatory, but I maintain that there is no way for you to know that, unless you have access to them and have viewed every minute, two things that I very much doubt.

Now, I myself have not seen the videos either, so I'm not in a position to say with any certainty whatsoever that they are exculpatory, only that it is at least hypothetically possible. As one pluck it out of my ass example, if it shows him present already inside the building at the same time he was allegedly breaking down the door on the exterior (or whatever he supposedly did, I don't know), and while I will concede that seems unlikely, 'seems unlikely' is not the same as 'definitely not exculpatory'.

You mentioned several things about his position, and what might happen if his plea is overturned and it goes to trial, but those are items that are irrelevant to me, as long as his rights are respected from A to Z.

That is the only horse I have in this race, the very Constitution that I swore to support and defend against all enemies. If the DA in his case is withholding pertinent evidence, he becomes a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and while I'm not at all suggesting the use of force to get him to comply, a good tongue lashing by the Judge, or even an investigation by the State Bar might be in order.

The same goes for any and all potential 1/6/20 defendants, and all defendants in any Court charged with any crime for that matter. Things might be different if potentially evidence is classified, but that's not the case here, so there's no point in even going there.

I am troubled by the fact that these recordings have been withheld from the attorneys of all defendants, and the general public for that matter, as if it's unclassified, we're entitled to see it.

What they should do is put every second of every recording online on some server somewhere so people can download and view it and let them as individuals decide what is and is not relevant. This will no doubt give birth to some conspiracy theories, but it's not like we don't have those flying around as it is, and it will insulate the government from guys like me, who only care about the process being done properly, with the appropriate attention given to the rights of anyone charged with so much as jaywalking within line of sight of any camera at the Capital building. E each defense attorney should be provided a copy on a thumb drive, or from a secure server without even needing to ask, to prevent even the hint of impropriety as this continues.

If respecting their rights ends up in an acquittal, or forcing the ZDA to take a lesser charge in a plea than they otherwise would have, let it be so. It's more important than we respect our mutual rights than we win at all costs. I know you wanna get as many orange man bad supporters in prison as possible, but if you can't respect their rights in the process, then we're gonna have problems. That is the very sort of thing that leads to violence, and small violence sometimes leads to large violence.

Never forget the USA itself was started by a bunch of traitors and insurrectionists whose main beef was that their rights were not being protected, and it can happen again. Frankly, I sometimes wonder if we're already in what history will ultimately record as either the Second American Revolution, or the Second American Civil War, and just don't realize it yet. I'm even starting to see more and more people openly endorsing that, though I myself am not there, or even close... Yet.

But those rebel genes still coarse through American blood. And I am not referring to the CSA kind of rebel.

 

I agree he probably shouldn't still be in prison.

But as for those that threatened, smashed stuff and hurt people - throw the book at them.

 

Here in the country, there is something called prosecutorial discretion. Part of that is if using a person who had help participated in the crime, but knew more info than what he would be charged with, it is possible that he can turn state's evidence and not be prosecuted. For Epps, for him to testify, that can happen either with Defense or Proseuction. But the more important question is, what will he offer to the person in their guilt or innocense if he does testify? He gave testimony to the January 6th Joint Select Committee. That is already a matter of public record. So, it will be up to them to determine that, but I don't see him testifying in court no matter who it is who will be tried by jury.

The video of Jacob Chansley has to be looked in context, and the important questions of who, what, when, and to what extent, along with the officer's testimony to boot. Too risky from a defense perspective IMO.

 

Is that what happened here? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is no. For all we know (we meaning the general public) the Judge(s) in these cases were themselves unaware of the existence of the video evidence. Now, I do not disagree that a Judge has the authority to decide what is and is not probative, but that is certainly not the decision of the prosecutors, as they have a conflict of interests, and it's not the decision of whomever kept these under 'seal' before McCarthy released them, as is his prerogative as Speaker.

 

But the circular argument is was his rights were respected. For that question to be answered, the first step is to determine if the video is exculpatory. I say it is not. Does it meet the Brady Rule, I say it was not. If the additional videos are not exculpatory and do not meet the brady rule, then were his rights violated? No, they were not.

He had representation. He was miranderized. He had pretrial motions to get on bail and those were denied. Not favorable to him, but his rights were respected. He voluntarily pled guilty to one crime, 18 USC 1512, and got 41 months plus additional time for supervision, aka parole, once he is released from prison. He has already served some time, so that is counted toward the 41 months. So, from a legal perspective, his rights were respected. All of them.

 

It is his observation. If you are not interested in challenging your narrative I have no control over that.

 

It’s very obvious here that prosecutorial discretion is being used to hide the truth.

 

On it's face, that's a true statement, but there are far more restrictions on prosecutors than there are on defense attorneys. As just one simple example, a defense attorney is not only allowed to, but is required to put on a vigorous defense for their client(s), even if they have personal knowledge that said clients are guilty as charged. If a prosecutor comes into information that eliminates their target as an actual suspect (let's just say they were provably on the other side of the planet when the event they are charged with happened), they are not allowed to continue prosecuting just to put a W on the board.

In fact, the entire process of prosecuting someone is intentionally designed to give defendants an unfair advantage over the State. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If evidence is improperly obtained, say a search with no warrant or probable cause, it's thrown out, even if it means a literal murderer goes free. And so forth.

Which is how it should be when you are talking about taking away someone's freedom to even wake and sleep when they choose to. One of those rules is that if the prosecutor becomes aware of evidence that might help the defense, even slightly, they are obligated to hand it over to the defense, whereas it is not true the other way around.

These are some of the most important principals of our Constitutional Republic, and for damn good reasons.

 

Why should I challenge my narrative? Facts are facts. If no facts exist from anywhere that there was no antifa or BLM there, then there is nothing to challenge except empty air. The question you have is what evidence do you have. Observations from a book with political motivation is not evidence. It is his opinion, but no disposition by any attorney whatsoever to get him to make those statements. And under court rules, only facts are stated, generally not opinion unless it meets certain exceptions, like medical examiners for instance.

 

No, I don't think so. But again, can you convince any defense attorney to use him? Yes or no?

 

I well understand that. And a vigorous defense is on his time, no one elses. The question is did the prosecution give all exculpatory evidence to the defense. I say yes and the additional evidence that Tucker has provided does not change that fact because they don't meet the brady rule and they don't meet the definition of prosecutorial defense. If the defense attorney did not due their due dilligence or believed that the evidence was overwhelming to begin with and advised their client to take the plea deal, then that is on the Defense and no one else.

I also don't think evidence was improperly obtained. Most of the evidence was capital security cameras. There was some, such as Sullivan's video and those who posted online on Facebook, IG, and other social media sites that were obtained via search warrants. And no attorney for any defendant is making that claim that evidence was improperly obtained.

A lot of these people made their own choices. Now they have to face the consequences of those choices mean. Most got very little jail time, some got more. And all have their rights observed.