The New 1/6 Video of Chansely Should Not Have Been Shared with Defense Counsel.

[MrNiceGuy]

The New 1/6 video footage of Chansley should not have been shared with Defense Counsel.

 

[ASHES]

CLAIM: Footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol shows that Jacob Chansley, who participated in the riot sporting face paint, no shirt and a fur hat with horns, was “led through the Capitol by police the entire time he was in the building.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Court documents and video footage from the attack on the Capitol make clear that Chansley, who is widely known as the “QAnon Shaman” and is one of the most recognizable Jan. 6 rioters, entered the Capitol without permission, was repeatedly asked to leave the building and was not accompanied at all times.

Posts misrepresent rioter’s actions in Jan. 6 Capitol attack

False. Court documents and video footage from the attack on the Capitol make clear that Chansley, who is widely known as the “QAnon Shaman” and is one of the most recognizable Jan. 6 rioters, entered the Capitol without permission, was repeatedly asked to leave the building and was not accompanied a

apnews.com

 

[CaughtInThe]

this isn't a thread about video.

it's a thread about who is still being suckered by tucker.

 

[samiam5211]

Defense counsel for all of the J6 defendants should have had access to all of the video.

I don't think it would have changed any of the outcomes. His guilt is about what he did, not what he didn't do.

100 hours of video that shows a murderer not committing murder doesn't mean he didn't commit murder.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

CLAIM: Footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol shows that Jacob Chansley, who participated in the riot sporting face paint, no shirt and a fur hat with horns, was “led through the Capitol by police the entire time he was in the building.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Court documents and video footage from the attack on the Capitol make clear that Chansley, who is widely known as the “QAnon Shaman” and is one of the most recognizable Jan. 6 rioters, entered the Capitol without permission, was repeatedly asked to leave the building and was not accompanied at all times.

Posts misrepresent rioter’s actions in Jan. 6 Capitol attack

False. Court documents and video footage from the attack on the Capitol make clear that Chansley, who is widely known as the “QAnon Shaman” and is one of the most recognizable Jan. 6 rioters, entered the Capitol without permission, was repeatedly asked to leave the building and was not accompanied a

apnews.com

That just goes to show that the AP's assessment is completely biased, and it demonstrates that the writer either doesn't know the difference between proving a fact false and stating an opinion on what conclusions to draw from facts.

The footage from the 1/6 attack does, in fact, show Chansley, was "led through the capitol by police..."Tucker Carlson didn't claim it was "the entire time."

And, even if it wasn't "the entire time" - the evidence is still very relevant, and the poll is about whether the evidence should have been disclosed to the defense.

 

[SCrider]

That just goes to show that the AP's assessment is completely biased, and it demonstrates that the writer either doesn't know the difference between proving a fact false and stating an opinion on what conclusions to draw from facts.

The footage from the 1/6 attack does, in fact, show Chansley, was "led through the capitol by police..."Tucker Carlson didn't claim it was "the entire time."

And, even if it wasn't "the entire time" - the evidence is still very relevant, and the poll is about whether the evidence should have been disclosed to the defense.

So carefully selected minutes of tape are supposed to change everything else that happened the day?
The guy was guilty and plead that way no if's and's or but's. All this white washing you Tucker believing suckers want to do does not change what really happened.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Defense counsel for all of the J6 defendants should have had access to all of the video.

I don't think it would have changed any of the outcomes. His guilt is about what he did, not what he didn't do.

100 hours of video that shows a murderer not committing murder doesn't mean he didn't commit murder.

Sure, but he wasn't convicted of murder. The guy got years in prison for "obstruction of an official proceeding" which it looks like he did not actually obstruct. And, in the sentencing phase of this, where the prosecutors characterized him as disobeying officers, carrying a weapon (his stick with a flag on it), and the like, could very well have been impacted by video showing him talking nonchalantly with police officers, having them opening doors for him and trying to open locked doors for him, NOT ARRESTING HIM, and then having him THANK THEM afterwards. LOL.

I mean - come on - no liberal worthy of the name can say that's not relevant to AT LEAST the sentencing phase, and a proper discussion with counsel as to whether to accept the plea bargain he accepted.

Anyone who cares about due process of law, and the rights of criminal defendants should at a bare minimum be able to say - - uhhh... yeah, that video does seem a bit relevant.

If you can't do that, you're not a liberal. You're not worthy of the name, and under no circumstances can you call yourself anything close to objectiive.

It's relevant. You know it's relevant. Everyone knows it's relevant. The only reason to deny it is political

 

[ASHES]

That just goes to show that the AP's assessment is completely biased, and it demonstrates that the writer either doesn't know the difference between proving a fact false and stating an opinion on what conclusions to draw from facts.

The footage from the 1/6 attack does, in fact, show Chansley, was "led through the capitol by police..."Tucker Carlson didn't claim it was "the entire time."

And, even if it wasn't "the entire time" - the evidence is still very relevant, and the poll is about whether the evidence should have been disclosed to the defense.

"Virtually every moment of his time in the Capitol was caught on tape, the tapes show that Capitol police never stopped Chansley, they helped him, they acted as his tour guides"

Then he shows a video of a police officer walking in front of him checking to make sure a door is locked so the crazy horn guy can't wander in. If it was open, I very much doubt they would have said "go on in sir." That is a ridiculous characterization of what all the video and evidence that led to his conviction says.

2:55-3:55

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So carefully selected minutes of tape are supposed to change everything else that happened the day?

Those minutes - and the rest of the tape - are RELEVANT and should have been made known to the defense. They are relevant to both guilt of the crimes charged, and severity/sentencing, AND whether Chansley would have accepted the plea bargain offered. If you can't at least admit that, you're not a liberal. Not at all. Never suggest you are, ever.

The guy was guilty and plead that way no if's and's or but's. All this white washing you Tucker believing suckers want to do does not change what really happened.

LOL - sounds like a law and order conservative to me. He was guilty of SOMETHING, so who gives a ****, right? Throw the book at him! He's not entitled to due process and disclosure of Brady evidence, if he's guilty of something, right?

 

[Mycroft]

The New 1/6 video footage of Chansley should not have been shared with Defense Counsel.

Was the "New 1/6 video footage" shared with Chansley's defense counsel before his conviction?

If not, the the DOJ broke the law in order to get a conviction.

 

[samiam5211]

Sure, but he wasn't convicted of murder. The guy got years in prison for "obstruction of an official proceeding" which it looks like he did not actually obstruct. And, in the sentencing phase of this, where the prosecutors characterized him as disobeying officers, carrying a weapon (his stick with a flag on it), and the like, could very well have been impacted by video showing him talking nonchalantly with police officers, having them opening doors for him and trying to open locked doors for him, NOT ARRESTING HIM, and then having him THANK THEM afterwards. LOL.

I mean - come on - no liberal worthy of the name can say that's not relevant to AT LEAST the sentencing phase, and a proper discussion with counsel as to whether to accept the plea bargain he accepted.

Anyone who cares about due process of law, and the rights of criminal defendants should at a bare minimum be able to say - - uhhh... yeah, that video does seem a bit relevant.

If you can't do that, you're not a liberal. You're not worthy of the name, and under no circumstances can you call yourself anything close to objectiive.

It's relevant. You know it's relevant. Everyone knows it's relevant. The only reason to deny it is political

Yea, video of him not obstructing, doesn't overcome the video of him obstructing.

I'm not concerned what you or any insurrection apologist thinks about anything. As far as I am concerned, people who are making excuses for them are not Americans.

 

[SCrider]

Those minutes - and the rest of the tape - are RELEVANT and should have been made known to the defense. They are relevant to both guilt of the crimes charged, and severity/sentencing, AND whether Chansley would have accepted the plea bargain offered. If you can't at least admit that, you're not a liberal. Not at all. Never suggest you are, ever.

LOL - sounds like a law and order conservative to me. He was guilty of SOMETHING, so who gives a ****, right? Throw the book at him! He's not entitled to due process and disclosure of Brady evidence, if he's guilty of something, right?

Well if he were rich enough he could have paid his lawyers to fight to get those tapes. just another example of the two tiered justice system. or he could have been a good citizen and not done it.

 

[The AntiDonald]

"Virtually every moment of his time in the Capitol was caught on tape, the tapes show that Capitol police never stopped Chansley, they helped him, they acted as his tour guides"

Then he shows a video of a police officer walking in front of him checking to make sure a door is locked so the crazy horn guy can't wander in. If it was open, I very much doubt they would have said "go on in sir." That is a ridiculous characterization of what all the video and evidence that led to his conviction says.

2:55-3:55

Just think for a second how stupid it makes Tucker look to be defending Chansley. A guy who clearly has more than just a loose screw. Tucker could have at least picked a more reasonable guy to defend.

If this is all Fox can muster from the video give-away, then they are clearly losing the battle.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

"Virtually every moment of his time in the Capitol was caught on tape, the tapes show that Capitol police never stopped Chansley, they helped him, they acted as his tour guides"

Right, and the tapes do show that they never stopped Chansley and they helped him. That's correct. Tucker is editorializing when he says they "acted as his tour guides." That's not a fact, or an assertion of fact, that is Tucker's interpretation. One is free to have another interpretation. But what is clear is that "the police never stopped Chansley," and "they helped him." They did. It's on the fargin video, ffs.

Then he shows a video of a police officer walking in front of him checking to make sure a door is locked so the crazy horn guy can't wander in. If it was open, I very much doubt they would have said "go on in sir." That is a ridiculous characterization of what all the video and evidence that led to his conviction says.

2:55-3:55

They opened doors for him. They walked with him and talked with him. He thanked them.

At one point, the officers are seen walking Chansley past seven other police officers milling around outside the Senate chamber, who barely give him a second look. Then they escort him to various entrances of the chamber that appear to be locked. Eventually, they help him open a door, and he enters the chamber. In a jailhouse interview played by Carlson, he says: “The one very serious regret that I have [is] believing that when we were waved in by police officers, that it was acceptable."

You don't think that is relevant to the crime of "obstruction of an official proceeding" and the severity of a sentence for that? Four years in prison, for walking around the capitol, being led by police, having them open a door for him, not arresting him as he walked around peaceably?

You don't have to agree that the sentence is too harsh - but what no liberal worthy of the name can say is that the evidence in these videos is not relevant - no liberal worthy of the name can say that the defense should not have been given this and permitted to argue for a lighter sentence than four years in prison. How any of you can say otherwise is mindboggling. Take the political blinders off and think about it from the persepective of a criminal defendant, and remember - he gets Brady evidence even if he's "guilty of something" -- if it's relevant to the severity of the crime, then it has to be disclosed to the defense. The fact that this was withheld is a travesty of justice

 

[Port & Starboard]

America deserves the right to see every single minute of video out there.........unedited!

I don't want to see biased edited versions of the video from the left or right.

 

[Callen]

That just goes to show that the AP's assessment is completely biased, and it demonstrates that the writer either doesn't know the difference between proving a fact false and stating an opinion on what conclusions to draw from facts.

The footage from the 1/6 attack does, in fact, show Chansley, was "led through the capitol by police..."Tucker Carlson didn't claim it was "the entire time."

And, even if it wasn't "the entire time" - the evidence is still very relevant, and the poll is about whether the evidence should have been disclosed to the defense.

Whether they saw it or not would change the outcome. All it would take was one interview with the Capitol police to have the full context. As stated by the Capitol Police, they were greatly outnumbered that day and engaging with their weapons would have led to a disastrous outcome. The officer involved said they decided to calmly engage with him and "escort" him so he could ensure he didn't do any damage.

The guy confessed, and he pled guilty if he had a viable story to explain himself he would have shared that with his lawyer.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Well if he were rich enough he could have paid his lawyers to fight to get those tapes. just another example of the two tiered justice system. or he could have been a good citizen and not done it.

The law says he doesn't have to fight for them. Under Brady v Maryland, the prosecution is supposed to give them to him.

And, yes, of course, if his lawyers were more aggressive, they could have fought harder. There's an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in there, as well as a Brady claim, for postconviction relief.

This flapjack - who's a total asshole in my opinion -and should not have entered the capitol, and all those ****ing 1/6 rioters and even most of the demonstrators should have stayed the **** away from the capitol and their stupidity is monumental - despite my loathing and contempt for them - they deserve proper treatment as criminal defendants.

 

[Credence]

The officer did what he had to do in an attempt to de-escalate the situation.
There was no way at that time the number of police were able to defend themselves against this unruly mob.

I also want to know what "new" video was shown that proved the Shaman that would have changed the outcome.
There is video of him entering the Capitol on his own and he did plead guilty and said he regretted what he did.

Such a shame that Carlson would stoop so low and cherry pick info from the videos that attempt to show these insurrectionists innocent.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Just think for a second how stupid it makes Tucker look to be defending Chansley. A guy who clearly has more than just a loose screw. Tucker could have at least picked a more reasonable guy to defend.

If this is all Fox can muster from the video give-away, then they are clearly losing the battle.

LOL - even the guilty have a right to a defense attorney and the right to have Brady evidence disclosed to them. This isn't hard. If you're a liberal,. you should be on the side of "shit, they really should have made that evidence available to the defense..." The position you just espoused is the conservative position. Go for it, if that's what you believe. Sounds horrid, to me, like something out of a totalitarian regime.

 

[samiam5211]

The officer did what he had to do in an attempt to de-escalate the situation.
There was no way at that time the number of police were able to defend themselves against this unruly mob.

It's almost like Tucker and his crew wanted there to be several dozen more Ashli Babbits. Maybe then they would accept that it was really an attack on the peaceful transfer of power.

 

[The AntiDonald]

America deserves the right to see every single minute of video out there.........unedited!

I don't want to see biased edited versions of the video from the left or right.

I agree with that. But no new video is going to change what happened that day. Anyone who watched the insurrection unfold on live TV saw all they need to see. I watched every minute of it starting with Trump's idiotic 'Stop the Steal' rally.

Seeing a few minutes of a retard with horns walking around inside of the capital does not change a thing. It actually bolsters the fact that Trumpers are ignorant fools who believed the Big Lie.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The officer did what he had to do in an attempt to de-escalate the situation.

Maybe so, maybe not. The defense never got the chance to test that theory, did they? Because they were deprived of the evidence.

There was no way at that time the number of police were able to defend themselves against this unruly mob.

Again, maybe so, maybe not. The defense never got to know who those cops were, to interview them, to get their evidence. To call them as witnesses, if necessary.

And, the evidence is not just relevant to guilt and innocense, it's relevant to severity and determination of the appropriate punishment, so the defense never got to argue before the judge that nearly 4 years in prison was excessive given Chansley's conduct in toto. Maybe the judge and you and others would have said "makes no difference, throw the book at him." The point remains, the defense was denied relevant evidence which MIGHT have made a difference. It might have made a difference as to whether they even accepted the plea bargain to begin with.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It's almost like Tucker and his crew wanted there to be several dozen more Ashli Babbits. Maybe then they would accept that it was really an attack on the peaceful transfer of power.

What does that have to do with whether the defense got to see relevant evidence, and interview witnesses (officers) who were there on the scene, in order to test the prosecution's caser.

Does anyone here really think the defense should not have gotten that info?

 

[Credence]

Maybe so, maybe not. The defense never got the chance to test that theory, did they? Because they were deprived of the evidence.

Again, maybe so, maybe not. The defense never got to know who those cops were, to interview them, to get their evidence. To call them as witnesses, if necessary.

And, the evidence is not just relevant to guilt and innocense, it's relevant to severity and determination of the appropriate punishment, so the defense never got to argue before the judge that nearly 4 years in prison was excessive given Chansley's conduct in toto. Maybe the judge and you and others would have said "makes no difference, throw the book at him." The point remains, the defense was denied relevant evidence which MIGHT have made a difference. It might have made a difference as to whether they even accepted the plea bargain to begin with.

Chansley plead guilty and said he regretted what he did. Even he knows there is no video that would cause a different outcome

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So far, 4 votes for the conservative position on this issue. **** 'em, right? If he's guilty, due process doesn't apply.