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

No, he was sent and acting on behalf of Quanon.

 

Two days after the 2020 election Bannon said that Fauci and Wray should be beheaded and their heads put on spikes outside the White House.

Just what Trump and his little soldiers wanted to hear..bigly!

 

Michael Popok is a human rights lawyer and he seems to know what he is talking about here

 

I have no words

 

Escorting or being shadowed by?
He has pled guilty to all charges

 

[

And Trump is a fan of Qanon and has been known to retweet and repeat their blithering idiocy.

 

Trespassing. He was there illegally.
He even admitted to breaking the law.
The officer escorting him also broke the law.

 

Some don't seem to understand that.
He admitted to breaking the law. He was trespassing on gov't property and was part of the group that sent congress into hiding.

 

Christopher Titus explains this well

 

Many Dems irrationally think Trump led an insurrection lol. But the reality is he urged for peace, despite the fiery but mostly peaceful protest

 

Bunkum! If he was so “peaceful” why did he wait so long to ask the insurrection it’s to stand down

 

He didn’t you set an arbitrary standard, that never would have mattered how long he took or didn’t take.

 

Quanon thought they were acting on behalf of Trump, the guys lawyer already addressed this

 

According to a former SOH she did.

 

He signed a statement saying that he was asked MULTIPLE times to leave and he refused. Trespassing

But even more importantly 8 USC 1512(c)(2)

(c)Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

THERE IS NO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE!

I don't care if they laid down a red carpet and treated him like the Queen of England, AT BEST that means the officers who did so are also guilty.

He entered the Capitol when he was not supposed to. He stayed after being asked MULTIPLE times to leave. The result of him (and others) occupying the Capitol impeded the official proceeding of counting the electoral votes before a joint session of Congress as mandated by the US Constitution

8 USC Section 1512
(c)Whoever corruptly—

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Nothing in there about exceptions for being escorted by the police.

 

The statue you cite describes what the prosecutors did in the Chanley case. They concealed a record from the defense. A record that may have influenced the jury's decision.

 

No, it would not have influenced a jury's decision because the "evidence" would not have been allowed. It in no way "defends" what he did that day. It has nothing to do with the charges filed against him.

A bank robber can't use the fact that the guard at the bank opened the door for him as a defense that he didn't rob the bank.

 

Maybe you overlooked the word “may” in my statement in your rush to respond. I didn’t say it would influence a jury. And maybe you don’t understand that you can’t control the defense a defendant puts forth. The narrative was presented that the defendant was one of the violent protesters. If evidence existed that contradicts that narrative the jury deserves to see it even it the defendant trespassed into the Capitol. It goes to intent.

 

I can't control what the defense puts forth, but the judge sure as hell can. No judge would allow that video into evidence because it lacks relevance. There is NOTHING in that video that defends against 8 USC 1512(c)(2).
The "narrative" was that he was in the Capitol illegally (it doesn't matter if he pushed through the doors himself or someone else opened the doors for him). His presence (along with the other insurrectionists) impeded an official proceeding.

That's it, case closed. It's why he pled guilty and there was no trial. They had him dead to rights. There was no defense. He got 41 months. He could have faced 20 YEARS. He got off easy.

 

Only this video does not prove him innocent

 

More importantly- where are all the other “smoking guns”that will prove the rest innocent. Is this the BEST Tucker could find?

 

Had the defense had access to the video it may have changed his plea.

 

No, but simple trespass doesn’t merit the sentence he received. This video may have influenced that.

 

No, it would not. IF his lawyers told him that, with this video, he should reject the plea deal and gone to trial, he would have been found guilty and probably faced a longer term. He might have been able to sue them for malpractice for that advice and they might have faced sanctions and/or disbarment.

The one thing I can GUARANTEE is that no jury would have seen that video if this had gone to trial. The video is in NO WAY "exculpatory" and lacks any relevance to the charges.