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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by XXJefferson#51, Mar 10, 2023.

Tags:
  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This DOJ lies. They need to produce the shipping receipts.
     
    Ddyad and CharisRose like this.
  2. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,451
    Likes Received:
    32,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly...
    People straining so hard to downplay what actually happened the $1.5 Million is suddenly $5 Million...
     
  3. 3link

    3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,702
    Likes Received:
    4,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Use whatever past protests you want. But I don’t recall the SCOTUS protesters ever getting into the building.
     
  4. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems to me that the govt is bending over backwards to make life easier for the 1/6 defendants.... and naturally, they're going to abuse it...

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-defendant-attended-cpac-025407585.html
     
  5. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I am just not naming names. No matter what you do or how you entice your arguments, I am not naming names.
     
  6. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His testimony to January 6 is a matter of public record, which means the defense attorneys have easy access to it. It is more likely they can't use him at all because he can't get their client's off from the charges they face. But he is available. And if Congress wants to subpoena him again, they can do that, even a GOP-led Congress.

    Now you are in the corner of just making excuses to make excuses routine.
     
  7. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have seen no facts. Books that are opinions from authors are not facts. They are opinions.

    If you have facts, then post them. I am not interested in an opinion of someone from some FB post or Twitter or Rumble that made that claim. I am interested in cold hard facts.
     
  8. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that video was not provided to the defense, it is material, but not exculpatory because it does not exonerate him. It puts him there, in the Halls of Congress, when he wasn't supposed to be there. At that point, Congress was,quite literally, fleeing for their very lives, from the mob that was out to get them. That video really does not exonerate him at all, which is why it is not exculpatory based on all the other evidence the prosecution has. It has to be taken in with the totality of all the other evidence so far.
     
  9. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mr. Munn obviously did not see any spray on the artifacts. Hopefully all the chemical spray damage has been taken care of.
     
    Ddyad and CharisRose like this.
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The books are fully referenced and footnoted.
     
    Ddyad and CharisRose like this.
  11. CharisRose

    CharisRose Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2021
    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes you have posted your information numerous times. Those conservatives can make up their own minds all by themselves. Posters can ask other posters to provide whatever. Are the other posters obligated to provide the whatever? That was your choice to provide that hypothesis. That is no problem for me. I have no problem with the use of Jonathan Turley or other people who have written on the issue. Using multiple sources of information is a good thing in a debate forum. Those who think for themselves are quite capable of determining for themselves whether or not that information is worthwhile. Then the reader of that information who thinks for themself can make their own determination. I disagree, the debate was only about his rights being violated. Based on the following information…

    According to the first quote made by the author of this thread XXJefferson#51 “it seems that we are finding out new things about what really happened on Jan 6. The democrats used selective videos to make the whole event seem far worse and more threatening than it was, which some small number of people made bad enough. It seems we are finding that this shaman guy was never a real threat to anyone.”

    Yes, you have given your answer. Mocked? https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mock
    Mock ~ 1. verb treat with contempt Contempt ~ 1. noun lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike

    Yes I have done what was highlighted in bold. Do I have an obligation to do as you say? Thank You. You have not seen my hypothesis due to the fact there is very little hard evidence being made available. Speculation ~ 2. noun a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence) https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/speculation

    Interesting use of the word harping. When harp is used as a verb, it means to talk constantly and dully about one topic: "The harpist did nothing but harp on about the weather." Harp ~ 5. verb come back to “She is always harping on the same old things”
    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/harp

    I plead Not Guilty to being the one who is actually doing all the harping.
     
    Ddyad and AFM like this.
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only obvious corner here is why Epps who acted as an instigator on both Jan 5 and 6 was not prosecuted but others who were allowed into the Capital Building were prosecuted.


    Top FBI official dodges when Cruz asks if agents participated in Jan. 6 riot

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-official-ted-cruz-agents-participated-jan-6-riot

    Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2023
    Ddyad and CharisRose like this.
  13. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't care what social media said, the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the Oval again, except perhaps as a visitor, is to get reelected. Not even some hypothetical lawsuit can reinstate him, even if he 'wins'.
     
    CharisRose likes this.
  14. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you in a position that you can stay with absolute certainty that those tapes, which is my understanding his legal team asked for but was denied, would not put him in one place when the prosecution said otherwise? Unless you've watched all 44,000 hours the answer is no. He should have been given access to them, period. Whether it actually helps him I cannot say and do not care. That is not the relevant issue.
     
    CharisRose and AFM like this.
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All the videos
    By showing that he walked through an open door. Casually and calmly conversed with officers. Walked with officers accompanying him most all the time and obstructed nothing.
     
    CharisRose and AFM like this.
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I was disputing your assertions regarding the present.
     
    CharisRose likes this.
  17. Gdawg007

    Gdawg007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh huh. So right after this moment, what happened? Everyone went home? No one violently broke into the capital, shoved police officers in doors, broke into offices of members, wanted to find certain members and make claims of doing them harm? Hmm. I think the problem is you're cherry picking to show an alternate reality. And we're just being concise because there's so much we can't use it all...
     
  18. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And it’s worse than that. There are a number of persons who instigated the riot and entering the Capital Building including Epps who were identified, put on the “most wanted” list, were subsequently removed from that list, and never arrested. The excerpt below is from a book written by a Freshman Representative (Troy Nehls R - TX) who was in the House Chamber during the riot. He has an extensive military and law enforcement background.


    “Two things stand out immediately when we look at the timeline. To begin with, the first breach of the Capitol perimeter occurs at 12: 50 p.m., a full twenty minutes before President Trump has finished speaking. That’s odd because Trump supporters go to hear Trump; that’s what they’re there for. Why would a smaller group of them be at the Capitol Building area long before Trump finished?

    Second, in confirmation of what we’ve just gone over, there is a huge gap between the first breach (12: 50 p.m.) and Capitol Police chief’s first call for help from the National Guard (1: 04 p.m.), and the final authorization of the National Guard to deploy (5: 08 p.m.) and its actual deployment. What was going on during that long delay?

    Before Trump’s speech was done, an advance group of protestors breached the restricted Capitol Building area, took down fencing, removed signs that would have warned soon-to-be-arriving Trump supporters that they were entering a restricted area, and then spent the next hours shepherding Trump’s supporters into the restricted area and urging them to enter the Capitol Building.”

    — The Big Fraud: What Democrats Don’t Want You to Know about January 6, the 2020 Election, and a Whole Lot Else by Troy E. Nehls
    https://a.co/3L4URgk
     
    CharisRose and mngam like this.
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Four protestors died. Two were victims of homicide. They shouldn’t have been in the Capital Building but they didn’t deserve to be shot to death and beaten to death.

    How do you explain the following?


    “Two things stand out immediately when we look at the timeline. To begin with, the first breach of the Capitol perimeter occurs at 12: 50 p.m., a full twenty minutes before President Trump has finished speaking. That’s odd because Trump supporters go to hear Trump; that’s what they’re there for. Why would a smaller group of them be at the Capitol Building area long before Trump finished?

    Second, in confirmation of what we’ve just gone over, there is a huge gap between the first breach (12: 50 p.m.) and Capitol Police chief’s first call for help from the National Guard (1: 04 p.m.), and the final authorization of the National Guard to deploy (5: 08 p.m.) and its actual deployment. What was going on during that long delay?

    Before Trump’s speech was done, an advance group of protestors breached the restricted Capitol Building area, took down fencing, removed signs that would have warned soon-to-be-arriving Trump supporters that they were entering a restricted area, and then spent the next hours shepherding Trump’s supporters into the restricted area and urging them to enter the Capitol Building.”

    — The Big Fraud: What Democrats Don’t Want You to Know about January 6, the 2020 Election, and a Whole Lot Else by Troy E. Nehls
    https://a.co/3L4URgk
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2023
    CharisRose likes this.
  20. Gdawg007

    Gdawg007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought people should be shot when they don't do what police ask them to? Or is that only black people? You tell me.

    Oh and your wrong, only one died of "homicide" and that was Babbitt, a justifiable police shooting when she assaulted officers. Remember, assaulting officers allows them to use deadly violence, right? Two of the four were heart attacks, too much following Trump's health advice, and the third was an accidental overdose, too much partying during an insurrection.

    I can explain all of this easily, you deny reality. But I can be more specific quite easily.


    Because that smaller group didn't want to hear him talk? I hate speeches. Do you like them? It's not odd at all. In fact, it makes perfect sense if the plan was to assault the capital. Some people were just there for the assault. They didn't got the speech. See how easy logic is to use?

    Insurrection by Trump loyalists was going on. We have footage of it. Not just from sources you deny, but from the people involved in it too. Are you asking why it took so long to call for serious help? There's many reasons. Some range of making a mistake to perhaps not taking fellow conservatives (police tend to be conservative as a whole) seriously enough as a threat. Again, basic logic can replace conspiracy theories every time.

    So...this proves....?

    The only fraud is Trump and his ilk on this topic. It's that simple and it always will be. The mental gymnastics you're doing is just a waste of time and energy. Move on.
     
  21. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113

    “Lt. Byrd was too ready to shoot. Even more damning, if you look at several of the videos taken by others, there were several Capitol Police officers on the other side of the door, standing very near Babbitt, and officers in riot gear on the steps. The unarmed Babbitt was literally surrounded by armed Capitol Police, yet Lt. Byrd pulled the trigger at nearly point-blank range. Lt. Byrd was cleared of any wrongdoing by what some Capitol Police officers (whose identities I can’t reveal) have described to me as the “quickest investigation they’ve ever seen into a shooting, even as compared to situations where the Capitol Police officer shot an armed suspect.” I’m appalled. Anyone with two eyes and law enforcement experience can see his decision to shoot was highly questionable. I don’t make those comments lightly. I know exactly what Lt. Byrd was facing that day. As I recounted in the first chapter, I myself stood at the back doors in the House Chamber helping Capitol Police barricade it as rioters tried to break through. When the shattered glass started flying, I ducked, as did the Capitol Police officers nearby. One of the officers got on the radio and said, “Shots fired! Shots fired!” Although the police had their guns drawn, they did not shoot. That was the right decision—not Byrd’s. Byrd should have done exactly what I did: I helped fellow officers work on de-escalating the situation. That was the proper response. It was my duty to defuse the situation knowing, with Capitol Police guns drawn, just how dangerous it was for those on the other side of the door.”

    — The Big Fraud: What Democrats Don’t Want You to Know about January 6, the 2020 Election, and a Whole Lot Else by Troy E. Nehls
    https://a.co/cxw2WJs
     
    CharisRose, mngam and Overitall like this.
  22. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm pretty sure the definition of cherry picking doesn't involve releasing all information that exists on the subject.

    Fairly certain of that.

    And yeah, thousands were extremely peaceful. Did they burn any churches down on their way out and leave giant piles of trash?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2023
    CharisRose and AFM like this.
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Joyce Boyland was beaten to death for no reason. That’s a homicide.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2023
    CharisRose likes this.
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,780
    Likes Received:
    8,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are suggesting that the National Guard did not respond because they are all Republicans? Why was the Capital security so poor when intelligence indicated that there may be trouble.

    “According to Walker, he received a “series of frantic telephone calls” from Chief of the US Capitol Police Steven Sund “beginning at 1: 49 p.m. on 6 January 2021” informing him that “the security perimeter at the U.S. Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters.” The breach had occurred about an hour earlier at the walkway into the Capitol Hill area by the Peace Monument, 294 the most direct path for crowds to flow from where Trump was speaking. During the intervening time, Sund had been desperately working his way through the bureaucratic chain of command to get approval for National Guard deployment, finally contacting Walker directly. “Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many D.C. National Guard personnel as MG Walker could muster….” 295 The delays weren’t over. Assistance would finally come three and a half hours later. In a meeting soon after of those responsible for making the decision how and when to respond, Chief Sund repeated the need for urgent help from the DC National Guard but the Department of Defense was interested only in obstruction. In the established chain of command, the Department of Defense was in charge of granting the request, but according to the National Guard’s Walker and Matthews, its representative, “LTG Piatt stated that it would not be his best military advice to recommend to the Secretary of the Army that the D.C. National Guard be allowed to deploy to the Capitol at that time.” Furthermore, Piatt “stated that the presence of uniformed military personnel could inflame the situation and that the police were best suited to handle the situation,” and that “the optics of having uniformed military personnel deployed to the U.S. Capitol would not be good.” 296 The Army’s LTG Charles Flynn seconded Piatt. In short, the Army was the one dragging its feet, or more exactly, the feet of the National Guard.”

    — The Big Fraud: What Democrats Don’t Want You to Know about January 6, the 2020 Election, and a Whole Lot Else by Troy E. Nehls
    https://a.co/hSo38a2
     
    CharisRose likes this.
  25. Gdawg007

    Gdawg007 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, they just assaulted the workings of our government. That's not any better, but good job trying to deflect from what "your guys" did. Two wrongs do a make a right, I'm told...

    Thousands at protests are always extremely peaceful. Using that reasoning, you're "burning down churches and leaving trash" example wasn't done by thousands, therefore, you have nothing to gripe about. The rest at those protests were peaceful.

    As for cherry picking, no, you are skewing the definition to fit your argument. Cherry picking by nature is to select only what you want. That's what the phrase means. We all know it. Again, if I pick four photos and they show actually what happened, well that's just because your side did what I claim. If you pick one snippet of a video, leaving off how after that the crowd said they aren't going home, well, then that's called cherry picking to further a lie.
     

Share This Page