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

Tell that to his sentencing judge, Royce Lambreth, appointed by Reagan.

 

The DOJ probably shouldn't have withheld evidence form the defense.
The Democrats shouldn't have withheld evidence from the American People.

 

Yes, new here joined Feb. 9 2021. Respect is not done here. Got it. People here will vouch for me in mass if I fall into their political paradigm. Got it.
That is it. Got it. You are not going to tell me what you do for a living. Got it. I have no problem with you not telling me whether or not you are a lawyer. I have no problem with anonymity. That is actually a good thing for me. Now I know for sure when you post any information concerning a legal matter I can question that information based on several factors. Such as a political bias that is not based on legal matters alone.

Thank You for saying that I’m capable of making up my own mind.
Here’s the problem I have with being asked about all of those sentences you typed in bold to catch my eye.
Since, Prior to posting I already did everything you asked of me in bold type.
There was no need to ask me to do the same as you did.
I did it prior to posting.
I was game when I posted that information.

 

The Judge from whom the DOJ withheld evidence that destroyed the DOJ's lies that Navy Vet Jacob Chansley was a dangerous violent man?

 

So WHAT?
What do all of the people raging over these Tucker Videos expect to happen?

 

And you know this because, what, you have personally viewed all 4,000+ hours of video surveillance footage that is rumored to be available? Or know someone who has?

Yes, he pled guilty, and no, I'm not an attorney, but I have found in many cases I actually know more about the law than some who are (which is frankly sad) but it is my understanding that if a Court finds his civil rights were violated during the discovery phase, they can and have invalidated pleas for similar circumstances in the past, and could (keyword, could does not mean will) do so here. Further, I think the horned dude may be putting himself in more jeopardy of an even harsher sentence and/or conviction of a more serious crime if he opts to ask for that, and roll the dice at a 'new' trial at some future date, a risk that it will likely rest in his hands, and only his hands, based on what he asks his defense team to do.

He may opt to challenge it, win, and then lose at trial if, as many here have asserted without foundation just as you did here. there is no exculpatory evidence in the vids, and the prosecution decides to try him for everything they can think of to see what might stick. Alternatively, it's possible that a Court may find the decision to withhold that evidence from his defense team is so grevious that they toss the charges with prejudice, which would free him from any further jeopardy. I doubt a Court would go that far, but I think it's not impossible.

If I know that, and if his current defense team is competent, I'm sure he'll be advised of the potential downsides of challenging and 'winning', knowing that win may ultimately result in a net loss, but nobody but him would be empowered to make that decision if it even comes to that. Us peanut stand viewers will just have to wait and see what ends up happening, claims that there is no exculpatory evidence on unseen videos notwithstanding.

My interest in this case is that his rights as a criminal defendant are not violated, whether he challenges and ends up a free man, or challenges and gets more time than he already has is of no interest to me. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the road not taken, and once his rights are respected, my interest in this case will come to an end.

But yous guys (sic) proclaiming there is no there there are making bold statements considering the fact that you haven't reviewed the videos for yourself, nor is there anyone who has that has spoken publicly about them, at least to the best of my knowledge.

 

Did you miss the quotation marks?

 

Truly laughable claim.. especially the first one..

EDIT - After further thought, they're both equally laughable...

 

Very good breakdown of the what is at stake. I would add only that currently he is felon. As such he is subject to certain restrictions of rights non-felons have -- like gun ownership. He will have to ask himself if it's worth the risk in an attempt to get back some lost rights. I'm not even sure he can vote for the first two years after his release; is that a big deal? That's up to him to decide.

 

So you think prosecutors should withhold evidence?

 

You think dipsticks should make false claims they can't back up on political forums?

 

Let's actually read what he said.

"The DOJ probably shouldn't have withheld evidence form the defense."

Most people can easily recognize when an opinion is being expressed. An opinion isn't a false claim, otherwise your opinion of what he said would be false. It's neither true, nor false. It's just an opinion.

 

With other posters, and not you specifically, I have posted that information too numerous times. Yet, a lot of conservatives on this forum believe that the videos shown by Tucker exonerate Jacob Chansley, that the riot was not really a riot, justify a lot of the prior conspiracy theories that come from the internet, or that his rights were violated somehow. Some posters have asked to show which video it was that proves his rights were violated and how it applies to the Brady Rule or as exculpatory evidence. I even gave an example of 1000 hours with one hour being the video of where Person X committed a crime in that hypothesis. And still, the same diatribe circular arguments continue or deflect into another tangent, or something else. A couple of conservative posters has used Jonathan Turley or other people who have written on the issue, to think for them while stating in the same breadth they are thinking for themselves. But the whole debate is was his rights being violated. I have given my answer and have been mocked by it by conservatives, a few in particular whose names I will not repeat.

If you have done what I highlighted in bold, then post your thoughts. You did a good job giving the information on the Brady Rule and exculpatory evidence. But I have not seen your opinion or analysis on whether or not you made an opinion other than the fact I think you are still undecided when you wrote that first post of yours on this thread. At least that was my take, from the last paragraph you gave in your first post in this thread. And that is why I asked you to go further, dive deeper, etc. That too is asking exactly what I have done. And it is why I said if you come up with something different, explain it. That is all. If you wish to remain undecided, that too is fine, but don't come harping on me if I have made my argument known through my own analysis though.

 

And four years of trump as President increased the vote count for the Democratic candidate even more …
Like WAY more.

 

Tucker videos???

Talk about shooting the messenger!! These are not "Tucker videos". Unless I am grossly misinformed, these are snippets of thousands of hours of video taken by capital security cameras, which no doubt number in the hundreds and cover every square inch of the interior and exterior of the buildings, except the crappers, possibly private offices (though as public officials being paid for by us, as their employer we have a right to supervise our employees on the job, meaning their offices should not be off limits), and any room where classified material is being discussed and/or displayed, at least at such times when those events are happening.

Tucker is just the first guy that I know of to broadcast snippets from them, but that doesn't make them his in any way you would like to interpret what it means to be 'his'.

But knowing just how much the left hates Tucker, though having never watched his show, I have no personal knowledge about why that may be, I can completely understand why you would like to create a false impression that his broadcasting them somehow taints them from an evidentiary point of view. Because Tucker man bad means videos bad, amirite?

 

Let's take this point by point shall we.

First, there are 44000 hours of video. That fact is incontrovertible. We also know that Tucker has shown videos in which he has made certain claims including, but not limited to, that the rights were violated. And that is why all the conservatives are hopping on that bandwagon based on what Tucker has said in his programming. From those videos specifically that Tucker has shown, not one shows his rights were violated or that they meet the exculpatory evidence. In the legal world, you really can't do a fishing expedition hoping that somewhere, somehow. We saw this very type of argument play out with the Mar A Lago Subpeona where conservatives questioned the government if they had cause and there was a whole bunch of speculation on this forum where they thought Trump's rights were violated. It turned out that when the affidavit from the search warrant was released to the public, none of the conservatives arguments were remotely true. And conservatives then began to shift their arguments to the classic, "If Mikey did it, why can't I" routine.

Second, Jacob Chansley and his attorney can attempt to vacate the plea deal. That does come with risk. And no, he won't win and he might get a much toucher sentence if convicted the all five of the original charges. The videos won't help him in sentencing either. But he can do that if he chooses to do so. But timing is everything. It varies and I am not sure what the time frame is for Federal courts. I do know that in Texas, it is 15 days. That is it. After that, it is a lawsuit towards the state to get the judge to vacate the guilty plea based on overwhelming evidence that the person did not commit the crime. That is how high the bar is set. And that bar is very high.

The rights is based whether or not excuplatory evidence was withheld. If there is no additional exculpatory evidence, even the videos that were made public are not exculpatory, then his rights were not violated. End of story. Simply not having this video does not mean the video is exculpatory. There is a precise definition and the Brady rule, none to my analysis apply.

Finally, it is not the fact that one has to review all the video to make that claim. Yes, there is 44000 hours of video. But video that does not show Jacob Chansley, and there is a lot of that, is neither material or favorable to Jacob Chansley specifically. I can estimate that the amount of video that does not have on there is about 99% of the 44000 hours in question. And that is being conservative. Video of him walking in the hall of Congress when he shouldn't have is not exculpatory because it does not negate his crime. Video of him standing outside the capital and making statements is not exculpatory because it does not abolve him of the crime.

 

Evidence of WHAT?

 

Surely you're not referring to me. If so, I'll have to call you out for making another strawman statement. Careful reading of my posts reveal that I'm not saying the evidence "exonerates" Chansley. I'm saying it should not have been withheld from him. Please stop making false statements about me, if you're referring to me.

 

I am not naming names of anyone on what I said. And leave it at that.

 

Then your claim is just hyperbole.

 

There are facts that Antifa and BLM were there. There are facts that the FBI and Capitol Police had infiltrated the protestors and instigated the riot.

 

Epps is protected and unavailable.

 

Yep! It proves President Trump is a genius, but his faithful are poorly educated morons.
Trump's order was simple - "don't trust judges, don't trust AG William Barr, don't trust Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (both Republicans) whom I begged for 1/2 to find the winning votes - trust only me, go to Capitol and convince vice President Pence that I won 2020 election".
Trump's faithful broke to Capitol but were unable to find vice President Pence. For 3 hours Trump watched how his army looked for Pence, at the end he gave up and call his faithful to retreat. His disciplined crowd immediately obeyed to the order of the beloved leader.

 

Chansley's lawyer did get a copy of the video except for 10 secs after Chansley pled guilty but before his sentencing. .

His lawyer then either didn't watch the video or did and didn't think anything of it.

He had yet to be sentenced so his lawyer definitely could have made a motion to delay sentencing and present the 4 mins to the judge and argue whatever.

These 4 mins of video are certainly not enough to negate Chanseley's behavior and speech which got him indicted in the first place.

Snip:

"Chansley’s allies say the footage aired by Carlson might have changed the case against him. In Sunday’s filing, however, the Justice Department contended that it had shipped all but 10 seconds of the footage to Chansley’s attorney by Sept. 24, 2021 — about three weeks after Chansley pleaded guilty but more than a month before his sentencing."


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/p...ing-portrait-of-his-jan-6-conduct/ar-AA18xhrm

 

Golly.. you don't seem to have understood what that post actually said, but nice virtue signal... Do you get paid for that?