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

[SkyFox76]

Almost 4 years in federal prison.

For walking around the Capitol building, interacting with police - heck even thanking them in the end for their help.

But, anyway - none of that matters - even guilty people get due process and the benefit of Brady evidence. The conduct of the government in hiding this video evidence is unacceptable, no matter how guilty you think this crackpot is.

Here's the problem. You were dishonest by describing the spear as being "his stick with a flag on it" and you've been shown you're wrong on what was (or wasn't) offered to the defense. This isn't really going in your favor.

Since he was so adamant about getting his organic food served in jail, I'll bet he could have been just as adamant in refusing a plea deal.

To anyone who thinks these Tucker tapes clear anyone from what they've been charged with (and some already convicted) I do find amusing.

 

[Lutherf]

He could have had golden ticket to enter the capitol and it would not have changed whether he obstructed an official proceeding.

It kind of does. If nobody stopped him, even when he was on his own, he wasn't a proximate cause of the obstruction and requires the definition of "corruptly" (as given in 18 USC 1515) to be stretched to an extreme.

 

[BlueTex]

It kind of does. If nobody stopped him, even when he was on his own, he wasn't a proximate cause of the obstruction and requires the definition of "corruptly" (as given in 18 USC 1515) to be stretched to an extreme.

Are you trying to claim he did not know that he was obstructing an official proceeding?

 

[Nickyjo]

My post was badly written. I meant to posit it as a question as to whether this was intended to be exhibit A for why we should view the insurrection differently. I didn't mean to imply that that was my position.

Thanks.

 

[Jason Warfield]

He entered the building illegally.

The police were outnumbered, and to avoid escalation, chose not to fight, and wisely so.

The decision to escort him to make sure he didn’t do more damage does not take away the fact that he entered illegally with the intent to disrupt processing in the hope Tom overthrow an illegals election. You can scream to the heavens that he was escorted and it wild not change things; he still broke the law and what the police did or did not do has no mitigating effects on his illegal acts.

He plead guilty. He admitted his guilt and what he did. He says he regrets it. That the police walked around. With him doesn’t take that away from the case.

Since he admitted guilt and regret…the additional video footage means nothing to his case. Sure, it could’ve been shown at his trial, but…so what? He plead guilty. The video isn’t going to exonerate him from the crimes he committed and honestly…I think he knew that so he didn’t bother and neither did his defense team.

Side note: noticed that some are trying to use the argument that if a liberal doesn’t accept the position of the right on this matter then they shouldn’t call themselves liberal. Should we call ourselves conservatives as that seems more appropriate…is that folks are getting at? Seriously though, right or left doesn’t matter. This tactic is just another failed attempt to “win”…

 

[Eriech]

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

The 1/6 video is not new. It should have been shared immediately to all of America. That would have put the narrative and the embeds at risk though.

 

[Grandpappy]

Viking man needs to walk

 

[Grandpappy]

Viking man needs to walk. Which he would with a decent lawyer.

 

[Lutherf]

Are you trying to claim he did not know that he was obstructing an official proceeding?

The definition of "corruptly" that I linked to is -

(b)
As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.

That definition implies that the individual must KNOWINGLY commit a specific act intended to obstruct an official proceeding. If that proceeding was already obstructed then any subsequent act wouldn't obstruct it more. If Chansley was merely going along with the rest of the crowd and stood out merely because of his attire then he wasn't obstructing anything. If Chansley had a hand in organizing the riot WITH THE INTENT of stopping the certification process then he would have been acting corruptly (within the meaning of the statute) but if he was just going along with the crowd then proving corrupt intent would be quite a process and the video would indicate that his intent was substantially less than to obstruct anything.

 

[BlueTex]

Viking man needs to walk. Which he would with a decent lawyer.

He's not going to walk... He's enjoying the sun for the next few years here:

 

[Visbek]

He didn't, though. The senate chamber was empty when the police opened the door for him.

Hello? It was empty because the insurrectionists chased them out.

Sure, but if you sit down with me afterward and have that beer, chatting normally, it sure as shit is relevant to the seriousness of the assault....

Nope, wrong. Do you think domestic abusers should get reduced sentences, because they treat the victim pleasantly after an assault?

They don't have an obligation to "present" it -but they do have an obligation to "disclose" it. Brady v Maryland.

Uh huh. Can you prove that the prosecution deliberately hid that footage? Just because it was only given to Tucker Carlson a few weeks ago doesn't mean the prosecution hid it from the defense.

 

[BlueTex]

The definition of "corruptly" that I linked to is -

That definition implies that the individual must KNOWINGLY commit a specific act intended to obstruct an official proceeding. If that proceeding was already obstructed then any subsequent act wouldn't obstruct it more. If Chansley was merely going along with the rest of the crowd and stood out merely because of his attire then he wasn't obstructing anything. If Chansley had a hand in organizing the riot WITH THE INTENT of stopping the certification process then he would have been acting corruptly (within the meaning of the statute) but if he was just going along with the crowd then proving corrupt intent would be quite a process and the video would indicate that his intent was substantially less than to obstruct anything.

 

[Grandpappy]

Surely there is a high dollar conservative that will get him a decent lawyer. Hope so.

 

[Rexedgar]

Viking man needs to walk. Which he would with a decent lawyer.

Great legal minds, right?

 

[BlueTex]

Surely there is a high dollar conservative that will get him a decent lawyer. Hope so.

Are you suggesting that John Pierce and/or Bill Shepley are not decent lawyers? If so, I agree...

 

[Lutherf]

View attachment 67440005
View attachment 67440006

If others were already on the Senate floor then Chansley didn't obstruct anything and, apparently, didn't organize anything either as the "others" didn't include him in whatever they were doing. He was, at most, a trespasser and to charge him with a crime that could have got him 20 years is obscene. That is especially the case when compared to, for example, "Code Pink" protesters and others that also "obstructed official proceedings" including acts of assault.

 

[Grandpappy]

Are you suggesting that John Pierce and/or Bill Shepley are not decent lawyers? If so, I agree...

Or hell, a complete high dollar legal team. Elon, how about it, buddy?

 

[BlueTex]

If others were already on the Senate floor then Chansley didn't obstruct anything and, apparently, didn't organize anything either as the "others" didn't include him in whatever they were doing. He was, at most, a trespasser and to charge him with a crime that could have got him 20 years is obscene. That is especially the case when compared to, for example, "Code Pink" protesters and others that also "obstructed official proceedings" including acts of assault.

LMAO... That's a...... I'll be nice..... creative argument... Congress created laws specifically for crimes committed on capitol grounds... Pro tip... Don't do stupid shit without knowing the consequences...

 

[BlueTex]

Or hell, a complete high dollar legal team. Elon, how about it, buddy?

Know who John Pierce is?

 

[rahl]

Viking man needs to walk

why? He broke the law. It's on video lol. He also plead guilty and waived appeal.

 

[Grandpappy]

Know who John Pierce is?

I'd prefer an Elon level team.

 

[rahl]

Surely there is a high dollar conservative that will get him a decent lawyer. Hope so.

why would any lawyer touch this? He waived his appeal. He is on video breaking the law. It's not in any way disputable lol.

 

[Grandpappy]

why? He broke the law. It's on video lol. He also plead guilty and waived appeal.

Evidence was withheld from the defense. Not that hard to understand, really.

 

[countryboy]

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

Exculpatory evidence must be shared with defense counsel.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Hello? It was empty because the insurrectionists chased them out.

Perhaps so, but they were not "chased out" by Chansley. He just sauntered in, door held open for him by the capitol police, and hung out for a bit, and then he thanked the police for helping.

Nope, wrong. Do you think domestic abusers should get reduced sentences, because they treat the victim pleasantly after an assault?

I think the facts matter, and that not all domestic abuse is the same. It certainly is relevant for the purposes of sentencing if someone, say, beats another person to a pulp without justification and the other person cowers in fear, as compared to small scuffle wherein the parties to the scuffle thereafter laugh about it.

Uh huh. Can you prove that the prosecution deliberately hid that footage? Just because it was only given to Tucker Carlson a few weeks ago doesn't mean the prosecution hid it from the defense.

The attorney for Chansley just said yesterday or the day before that the defense was not provided with that material. So, unless the defense attorney is just lying about that, I suspect it's pretty solid. If it turns out the prosecution gave it to them already, and Chansley chose not to use it, which seems decidedly unlikely, then I'll certainly change my view on it.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the prosecution knew about the footage, but did not disclose it, does that assume fact (not admitting it, just assuming it for the sake of argument), cause you to have a concern about the rights of the accused and the conduct of the government?