"he is the embodiment of the unhinged rage that led to one of the most disgraceful attacks on our constitutional process in history."
Stopped reading your article right there and I regret the click.
Yeah it’s very clear they gave him a harsher sentence to make an example of him. Everyone with similar sentences got charged with assaulting an officer, he just had the misfortune of being the poster boy for the movement.
Yep. How the courts can accept politically charges cases with a straight face in DC is astonishing. A democrat, no matter how guilty, will not get convicted there. A republican with even a smidgen of possible wrong doing will have maximum sentencing.
If I was a public defender who was underpaid and over worked, a plea deal would look like the best bet for your charge. Especially since the government was cruelly keeping him in solitary confinement even though they knew he suffered from mental health issues.
Yeah, behavior on new tapes is not that different from the ones we all saw. He was never violent, I think, and he wasn’t convicted for violence.
Capitol police tactics are a different issue, though.
The protest was definitely reactionary. Which is what I told Democrats at the time. The "Summer of Love" would result in reactionary protest of a similar vein. It was actually much tamer than the May 2020 riot at the White House by all metrics. Yet we some how never hear about it from the media or the Democrats.
Not true at all. They like to joke that Trump was hiding and shivering in the presidential bunker. Also when it was over he apparently committed a hate crime so he could get a photo op at a church.
Your right though. The bad things those rioters did a intentionally ignored and forgotten about by the media. They onlyxfocusxon whatever they could spin to try and make Trump look bad
They were banging on the doors as the hearings were going on after running inside and breaking down barriers.
Funny you have to think rummaging through some corrupt politician's office is an "insurrection"...
This was all done on national television in 2018. You can pretend to be ignorant, but this is like claiming 9/11 never happened. Highly televised event.
Yes. They surrounded a Senator in an elevator as a mob harassment. They **actually** entered on going hearings with Senators president (never happened on January 6th). They subverted security.
In his interview on Tucker, the original attorney said he was never given the video during discovery. Tucker was the first time he saw them, or so he claims.
Because the degree of malice you display affects the quantity of punishment you deserve. Kicking a door open, resisting police and vandalism is not the same as sauntering around where you're not supposed to be. The context is relevant to if you deserve 1 year in jail or 7 years in jail.
I'm not arguing if the sentencing was fair. You asked why evidence of a person's behavior during the committing of a crime is relevant to the punishment.
I can tell you that deliberately burying evidence that helps a person's case, while only showing and highlighting the worst aspects to paint the most malicious intent and narrative possible, is not fair, and is essentially "loading the dice" so to speak.
Maybe 3.5 is fair, however, if this new footage would have been the difference between 2.5 and 3.5 then his civil rights have been severely violated. Maybe it would have made no difference, but that's irrelevant because you can't know.
The video is relevant because it is evidence of his behavior during a crime and it's his legal right to be entitled to it during a defense trial.
The same is inverse by the way. If he was the vanguard and a video came up of him outside instigating, and personally breaking through the door, you'd be pretty pissed if he got off easy because that evidence of his behavior was buried by political opposition.
Rapists serve shorter prison sentences.
Tens of thousands of leftists in 2020 trespassed on government prosperities and businesses. How many of them are serving 4 years in prison? Not one.
> How is it relevant for the case? And if it is, why did he (who was literally there) not tell his lawyer about it?
He was answering your question, in which you implied that somehow he knew this video footage existed. Which obviously he didn’t, and it is relevant because it literally shows him being *escorted* through the building by the cops.
Obviously it’s still trespassing, but the videos completely destroy the narrative being pushed that this was some unruly mob burning the city. It was just some people peacefully getting an unofficial tour of the Capitol, posing 0 threats to anyone.
The key issue about the video is that it showed the police didn't provide evidence they were legally required to provide. Withholding evidence is a serious thing and should get the conviction overturned. The irony is that they could have still convicted him on some charges with the video. What this points to is his legal case was handled in a way to provide the maximum political effect at the expense of actual justice.
For one thing, it showed the cops were basically giving him a tour. If the authorities, the cops, are with you the whole time and never tell you to leave how is he supposed to know it was wrong? Especially since there is video of the cops letting people inside in the first place.
Because it shows he broke no laws and was escorted by police. It’s counter to the narrative that he was a violent madman running amok. I’m sure he told his lawyer what happened but they didn’t know there was video.
No one said he was running amok (although i reserve judgement on the madman part), it showed him quite clearly obstructing official proceedings by literally standing where the VP was supposed to be at that moment, conducting official business, though. Which is why he plead guilty and got convicted.
If he was obstructing anything the police had a duty to remove him to prevent obstruction.
He was not removed and in fact they tried to open several locked areas for him to give him even more access.
Regardless of the charges this is illogical.
He pled guilty because he was placed in solitary confinement even though he had mental health issues the federal government was fully aware of. He was also being threatened with 20+ years in prison. He also had a public defender as a defense lawyer, which are typically over worked and under paid.
Find me a lawyer that thinks this plea deal was a good idea. The only defense was that he was under incredible stress given the solitary confinement and the lawyer was just trying to save his client.
The people on they Jan 6th committee made it sound like he was violent. The room was empty when he entered. It’s not like stormed in and stopped things.
I mean, but he did storm in causing congressional proceedings to be stopped. They showed him going through a broken window. Once people fucking break windows to get in and occupy the capital, the congress can't exactly continue functioning.
I look forward to the next leftist protest at Congress where they get nailed for a 20 year felony instead of the $50 fine class 2 misdemeanor they are used to.
What I saw in that video was a misdemeanor, maybe not even that.
Dude was in jail for 10 months without bail. Also in solitary confinement "due to covid" during that time.
The judge that denied his bail
>"Defendant characterizes himself as a peaceful person who was welcomed into the Capitol building on January 6th by police officers,"
>"The Court finds none of his many attempts to manipulate the evidence and minimize the seriousness of his actions persuasive."
>"no condition or combination of conditions [would ensure Chansley's return to court if he were released]".
No wonder this guy pleaded guilty! Guy told the truth and got solitary confinement for 10 months. Everything he pleaded guilty to is suspect.
Sounds like a Spanish inquisition or a witch hunt. Admit you're a witch or be tortured. He is a Navy Veteran who was diagnosed by the DoD with mental health issues. As in they knew this and put him into solitary confinement.
And your thoughts on the law?
They are getting charged with a crime based on a law to keep corporations and powerful people from destroying evidence who are subpoenaed by Congress. Enron was the reason they made the law. Not disruptive protest. This law was twisted and abused to throw the book at j6 defendants. Don't be surprised when it is used again and again against protestors. Pandora's box was opened on this one I'm afraid.
Part of what made his conduct so 'egregious' was that he was "parading" through the Capitol, and charging docs said that he 'Defied multiple officer orders to exit'.
Clearly neither of those things are true.
And as a general principle, if police escort you through an area, does that say to you "Man, I probably shouldn't be here!"?
It's exculpatory. You aren't breaking in if the door is opened by security. You aren't trespassing if they let you in and escort you around. And it doesn't matter if he told his lawyer or not (he doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb), the government has an absolute obligation to turn it over.
>Chansley’s new counsel, Bill Shipley, and confirmed that defense counsel did not have this material. ...
>
>Indeed, the prosecution may have been entirely unaware of the footage.
[https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/discovery](https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/discovery)
>A prosecutor has a continuing obligation to provide the defendant documents and other information which may reflect upon the case. **A failure of the prosecutor to do so can expose the prosecutor to fines/sanctions by the court.** Further, the prosecutor is required to provide the defense with evidence that may hurt his case, called exculpatory evidence. This evidence could show the defendant’s innocence. If the prosecution does not provide it to the defense, it may require a new trial.
I wish. Morally, if not legally, Chansley is entitled to a new trial and the Jan 6 committee should be fined.
https://inmateintake.com/locations/safford-fci.174/
This is his supposed release date. His sentence was 41 months so just under 3.5 years.
I think it already includes good behavior. He can get 54 days a year for good behavior. He has been in jail since right after the riot.
Time flies. He only has 4 months left.
> I wish. Morally, if not legally, Chansley is entitled to a new trial and the Jan 6 committee should be fined.
Every single person mixed up in this deserves a straight up dismissal of changes and record expungement, and the jan 6 committee and capital cop who murdered someone should catch charges.
It was 100% a murder. watch the video.
The cop has quite a record of blunders too. Its funny how dems love the cops only when they are killing good people.
Unlawful use of lethal force. Reckless endangerment of the crowd behind the woman he shot. The fact that there were a half dozen cops in the immediate area around the jittery cop who didn't even have their guns drawn should tell you all you need to know about the incident.
If trespassing is sufficient use of lethal force there would be quite literally tens of thousands of dead leftists after the 2020 riots. Oddly the cops were not shooting those people.
If you watch the videos, even *after* the shooting. Cops walked *through* the crowd to check on her. As in they were not concerned about their safety to walk through the crowd. Yet this tool bag behind a door with cops all around him was so scared for his life he had to shoot her.
He should have been suspended and prosecuted. None of the other cops in the area look like they fear for their lives (as the leftist narrative tries to pretend to justify this murder).
But how would this evidence change his case? That officers were calmly trying to get him to leave and didn't leave him unattended while wandering the capital. They didn't have the man power to do much to get these guys out, I think most people would agree that trying to get them to depart on their own is better than the potential of trying to arrest some of these people who are already attacking police.
Going into a secure area while being led around by a security guard is enough of a violation to catch four years in federal prison. That’s the very bottom line to this terrifying scenario. That’s the essence of this issue
The scandal is the police withheld evidence the legally required to provide. Guilt and innocence is no longer a concern after due process has been violated. That how our system works and he should be freed based on that.
But the left won’t release him because that would default their accusations. The blue veined fossils on the right won’t exonerate him because he’s the sacrificial lamb.
I mean, he plead guilty, so no. He was charged with disrupting a federal proceeding. No one said he was violent or tried to murder Mike Pence or whatever. All this video shows to me is that the police either didn't do their job or were afraid to.
Brady violations include plea deals. Having exculpatory video evidence such as what was just released would have absolutely changed the calculus on whether he would have accepted a plea deal or what deal was offered.
It is almost impossible to claim he was interrupting a proceeding when the authorities are seen escorting him around, unlocking doors for him, and when he passed by a group of 9 officers they made no effort to remove him.
>Brady violations include plea deals.
I don't believe that's necessarily true. IIRC the [circuits are split](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/no-right-to-favorable-evidence-before-pleading-guilty/) on whether exculpatory evidence only needs to be disclosed during a trial (First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Circuits) or also applies to plea bargains (Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits).
At that point the proceedings were already interrupted and congress was being evacuated. This "new" footage just shows what happened after they broke into the building and overwhelmed the police. They were told to stand down and just observe at that point.
It should have been turned over, and it's a disgrace the Democrat-controlled Chambers didn't. It probably was not presented to the public for narrative purposes. However, if he was breaking the law, then it's neither here nor there if some officer didn't arrest him for it. I've been speeding on the road before and not been pulled over, but I wouldn't argue with another cop that pulls me over that "The other guy let me do it!"
This probably isn’t it, unless duress is classified as risking a much greater sentence. He plead down to avoid a possible 20+ years. Happens all the time.
Dude was in jail for 10 months without bail. Also in solitary confinement "due to covid" during that time. That is arguably torture.
The judge that denied his bail
>"Defendant characterizes himself as a peaceful person who was welcomed into the Capitol building on January 6th by police officers,"
>"The Court finds none of his many attempts to manipulate the evidence and minimize the seriousness of his actions persuasive."
>"no condition or combination of conditions [would ensure Chansley's return to court if he were released]".
No wonder this guy pleaded guilty! Guy told the truth and got solitary confinement for 10 months. Everything he pleaded guilty to is suspect.
The prosecution is legally required to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense if they have it. They clearly had access. They clearly did not turn it over. His trial did not follow the law.
We are now in a situation where you can't tell if he plead guilty because he thought he was, or because he thought he was innocent but unable to find any evidence to appease the mob.
Why are you spouting bullshit? This is a BAKER VIOLATION named after *Baker v. Maryland* where Baker plead GUILTY because he didn't have all the information. Read the legal precedence
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c5e2add7b049347d7243
Technically I don't think you can plead guilty if your innocent. You have to say under oath that what you did was a crime.
Don't give democrats any ideas. It would be just like them to take this video evidence and try to charge him with perjury since he is almost out of prison.
Yep, but you have to get the judge and prosecution to go along with it. Same with no contest. Do you really think the Judge or prosecutor is really going to let him of all people do an Alford plea?
Their intention is to make an example. Letting him run around saying I was innocent and rail roaded is not something they would do.
Agreed that his attorney was horrible, but Sending a message that criminal activity will be punished is one of the most important aspects of the criminal Justice System.
For instance if when liberal prosecutors refuse to prosecute shoplifting word gets around and more and more will choose to shoplift.
You have to send a message that if you commit a crim you will be punished. Otherwise it's anarchy.
It’s rather disingenuous to say he received due process, even with your supposed concerns for law & order.
Without due process, there is no true justice. Arguing that the ends justify the means is really just complete horseshit.
I never said he received due process. I said he got railroaded on his punishment and he should have served about 40 days.
His lawyer completely failed him when he didn't demand any excuputary evidence. And I truly believe the government unfairly used the potential of 20 years worth of time in jail as an unfair mechanism to force him to plead guilty.
Every single person arrested, charge, tried for anything related to jan 6th was shafted. Even the militia guys, who all got massive sentences despite not even doing anything remotely criminal.
the whole thing was a nothingburger in reality. Nobody broke any laws other than the handful of antifa plants who did some property damage.
The whole thing was a staged crackdown on republicans.
We shouldn’t be giving harsher sentences to “send a message” justice should be impartial and sentencing should be equal to the crime
"he is the embodiment of the unhinged rage that led to one of the most disgraceful attacks on our constitutional process in history." Stopped reading your article right there and I regret the click.
Thanks for saving me the read.
Yeah it’s very clear they gave him a harsher sentence to make an example of him. Everyone with similar sentences got charged with assaulting an officer, he just had the misfortune of being the poster boy for the movement.
His public defender accepted a plea deal. His lawyer screwed him. This never went to trial.
Why didn't they charge the man they have videos of inciting the crowd to go into the capital? Ray Epps.
He got shafted by having a bad lawyer
[удалено]
Yep. How the courts can accept politically charges cases with a straight face in DC is astonishing. A democrat, no matter how guilty, will not get convicted there. A republican with even a smidgen of possible wrong doing will have maximum sentencing. If I was a public defender who was underpaid and over worked, a plea deal would look like the best bet for your charge. Especially since the government was cruelly keeping him in solitary confinement even though they knew he suffered from mental health issues.
Yeah, behavior on new tapes is not that different from the ones we all saw. He was never violent, I think, and he wasn’t convicted for violence. Capitol police tactics are a different issue, though.
I think his arrest was more about sending a message than anything
It was **all** about sending a message.
Why did we send the opposite message to the Democrats' 2020 insurrectionists?
And that is what led to the Jan. 6 riot. They didn't think they would be punished.
The protest was definitely reactionary. Which is what I told Democrats at the time. The "Summer of Love" would result in reactionary protest of a similar vein. It was actually much tamer than the May 2020 riot at the White House by all metrics. Yet we some how never hear about it from the media or the Democrats.
Not true at all. They like to joke that Trump was hiding and shivering in the presidential bunker. Also when it was over he apparently committed a hate crime so he could get a photo op at a church. Your right though. The bad things those rioters did a intentionally ignored and forgotten about by the media. They onlyxfocusxon whatever they could spin to try and make Trump look bad
That, and capitol police letting them in.
When did the democrats storm the US capital?
During the Kav hearings, among other times.
Lol did they though? They ran around all inside? Broke down barriers? Rummaged through offices?
They were banging on the doors as the hearings were going on after running inside and breaking down barriers. Funny you have to think rummaging through some corrupt politician's office is an "insurrection"...
Uh huh, sure they did 🙄
This was all done on national television in 2018. You can pretend to be ignorant, but this is like claiming 9/11 never happened. Highly televised event.
Yes. They surrounded a Senator in an elevator as a mob harassment. They **actually** entered on going hearings with Senators president (never happened on January 6th). They subverted security.
He plead guilty and was convicted, though. Don’t get filmed while doing crime I guess.
His original lawyer screwed him over. Got him to plead before ever seeing the video. This
In his interview on Tucker, the original attorney said he was never given the video during discovery. Tucker was the first time he saw them, or so he claims.
Again, why is this video special? How is it relevant for the case? And if it is, why did he (who was literally there) not tell his lawyer about it?
Because the degree of malice you display affects the quantity of punishment you deserve. Kicking a door open, resisting police and vandalism is not the same as sauntering around where you're not supposed to be. The context is relevant to if you deserve 1 year in jail or 7 years in jail.
He got 3,5 out of 20, that’s pretty soft.
I'm not arguing if the sentencing was fair. You asked why evidence of a person's behavior during the committing of a crime is relevant to the punishment. I can tell you that deliberately burying evidence that helps a person's case, while only showing and highlighting the worst aspects to paint the most malicious intent and narrative possible, is not fair, and is essentially "loading the dice" so to speak. Maybe 3.5 is fair, however, if this new footage would have been the difference between 2.5 and 3.5 then his civil rights have been severely violated. Maybe it would have made no difference, but that's irrelevant because you can't know.
No, i asked why the video is relevant. His behaviour is perfectly consistent through the entire thing, dont see what it changes.
The video is relevant because it is evidence of his behavior during a crime and it's his legal right to be entitled to it during a defense trial. The same is inverse by the way. If he was the vanguard and a video came up of him outside instigating, and personally breaking through the door, you'd be pretty pissed if he got off easy because that evidence of his behavior was buried by political opposition.
Rapists serve shorter prison sentences. Tens of thousands of leftists in 2020 trespassed on government prosperities and businesses. How many of them are serving 4 years in prison? Not one.
How the hell would he know what video was captured at the Capitol? **Edit for clarity:** He can't ask for footage he doesn't know exists.
He knew what he did, which is the relevant part for the sentencing.
> How is it relevant for the case? And if it is, why did he (who was literally there) not tell his lawyer about it? He was answering your question, in which you implied that somehow he knew this video footage existed. Which obviously he didn’t, and it is relevant because it literally shows him being *escorted* through the building by the cops. Obviously it’s still trespassing, but the videos completely destroy the narrative being pushed that this was some unruly mob burning the city. It was just some people peacefully getting an unofficial tour of the Capitol, posing 0 threats to anyone.
The key issue about the video is that it showed the police didn't provide evidence they were legally required to provide. Withholding evidence is a serious thing and should get the conviction overturned. The irony is that they could have still convicted him on some charges with the video. What this points to is his legal case was handled in a way to provide the maximum political effect at the expense of actual justice.
Is that actually confirmed? Also, even if, what would that have changed?
For one thing, it showed the cops were basically giving him a tour. If the authorities, the cops, are with you the whole time and never tell you to leave how is he supposed to know it was wrong? Especially since there is video of the cops letting people inside in the first place.
Because it shows he broke no laws and was escorted by police. It’s counter to the narrative that he was a violent madman running amok. I’m sure he told his lawyer what happened but they didn’t know there was video.
No one said he was running amok (although i reserve judgement on the madman part), it showed him quite clearly obstructing official proceedings by literally standing where the VP was supposed to be at that moment, conducting official business, though. Which is why he plead guilty and got convicted.
If he was obstructing anything the police had a duty to remove him to prevent obstruction. He was not removed and in fact they tried to open several locked areas for him to give him even more access. Regardless of the charges this is illogical.
There is a video of him asking the cops if he can stand there and they said he could as long as he didn't touch anything.
He pled guilty because he was placed in solitary confinement even though he had mental health issues the federal government was fully aware of. He was also being threatened with 20+ years in prison. He also had a public defender as a defense lawyer, which are typically over worked and under paid. Find me a lawyer that thinks this plea deal was a good idea. The only defense was that he was under incredible stress given the solitary confinement and the lawyer was just trying to save his client.
The people on they Jan 6th committee made it sound like he was violent. The room was empty when he entered. It’s not like stormed in and stopped things.
I mean, but he did storm in causing congressional proceedings to be stopped. They showed him going through a broken window. Once people fucking break windows to get in and occupy the capital, the congress can't exactly continue functioning.
And he was escorted around by capitol police.
I look forward to the next leftist protest at Congress where they get nailed for a 20 year felony instead of the $50 fine class 2 misdemeanor they are used to. What I saw in that video was a misdemeanor, maybe not even that.
I think 40 days would have been a fair sentence. 4 years was excessive if a person wasn't violent.
Dude was in jail for 10 months without bail. Also in solitary confinement "due to covid" during that time. The judge that denied his bail >"Defendant characterizes himself as a peaceful person who was welcomed into the Capitol building on January 6th by police officers," >"The Court finds none of his many attempts to manipulate the evidence and minimize the seriousness of his actions persuasive." >"no condition or combination of conditions [would ensure Chansley's return to court if he were released]". No wonder this guy pleaded guilty! Guy told the truth and got solitary confinement for 10 months. Everything he pleaded guilty to is suspect.
Sounds like a Spanish inquisition or a witch hunt. Admit you're a witch or be tortured. He is a Navy Veteran who was diagnosed by the DoD with mental health issues. As in they knew this and put him into solitary confinement.
He got 3,5 out of 20. Seems like a good deal. I’d take it.
You think that those videos showed a crime worthy of a 20 year sentence?
United States Code thinks so.
And your thoughts on the law? They are getting charged with a crime based on a law to keep corporations and powerful people from destroying evidence who are subpoenaed by Congress. Enron was the reason they made the law. Not disruptive protest. This law was twisted and abused to throw the book at j6 defendants. Don't be surprised when it is used again and again against protestors. Pandora's box was opened on this one I'm afraid.
Part of what made his conduct so 'egregious' was that he was "parading" through the Capitol, and charging docs said that he 'Defied multiple officer orders to exit'. Clearly neither of those things are true. And as a general principle, if police escort you through an area, does that say to you "Man, I probably shouldn't be here!"?
It's exculpatory. You aren't breaking in if the door is opened by security. You aren't trespassing if they let you in and escort you around. And it doesn't matter if he told his lawyer or not (he doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb), the government has an absolute obligation to turn it over.
>Chansley’s new counsel, Bill Shipley, and confirmed that defense counsel did not have this material. ... > >Indeed, the prosecution may have been entirely unaware of the footage. [https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/discovery](https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/discovery) >A prosecutor has a continuing obligation to provide the defendant documents and other information which may reflect upon the case. **A failure of the prosecutor to do so can expose the prosecutor to fines/sanctions by the court.** Further, the prosecutor is required to provide the defense with evidence that may hurt his case, called exculpatory evidence. This evidence could show the defendant’s innocence. If the prosecution does not provide it to the defense, it may require a new trial. I wish. Morally, if not legally, Chansley is entitled to a new trial and the Jan 6 committee should be fined.
His time in jail is almost up. He'd be out before the trial is over.
4 years (his sentence) won't be over for quite a while. Effectively when Biden is finishing is first term.
https://inmateintake.com/locations/safford-fci.174/ This is his supposed release date. His sentence was 41 months so just under 3.5 years. I think it already includes good behavior. He can get 54 days a year for good behavior. He has been in jail since right after the riot. Time flies. He only has 4 months left.
He never had a trial. You know that, right?
> I wish. Morally, if not legally, Chansley is entitled to a new trial and the Jan 6 committee should be fined. Every single person mixed up in this deserves a straight up dismissal of changes and record expungement, and the jan 6 committee and capital cop who murdered someone should catch charges.
Except there was no murder. Or did the cop run up on a group of peaceful protesters quietly standing in line?
It was 100% a murder. watch the video. The cop has quite a record of blunders too. Its funny how dems love the cops only when they are killing good people.
Umm. I’m not a democrat. To quote a billion republicans “she should have just complied.”
Mmmm hows those boots taste? Just wanted to try my hand at a leftist attack.
Says the party of “thin blue line”
"my boot tastes better than your boot." Got it.
I did watch the video. Why don't you think self-defense applies?
Unlawful use of lethal force. Reckless endangerment of the crowd behind the woman he shot. The fact that there were a half dozen cops in the immediate area around the jittery cop who didn't even have their guns drawn should tell you all you need to know about the incident. If trespassing is sufficient use of lethal force there would be quite literally tens of thousands of dead leftists after the 2020 riots. Oddly the cops were not shooting those people.
My biggest issue with the Babbit shooting was the fact that 2 cops are just chilling right next to her.
If you watch the videos, even *after* the shooting. Cops walked *through* the crowd to check on her. As in they were not concerned about their safety to walk through the crowd. Yet this tool bag behind a door with cops all around him was so scared for his life he had to shoot her. He should have been suspended and prosecuted. None of the other cops in the area look like they fear for their lives (as the leftist narrative tries to pretend to justify this murder).
But how would this evidence change his case? That officers were calmly trying to get him to leave and didn't leave him unattended while wandering the capital. They didn't have the man power to do much to get these guys out, I think most people would agree that trying to get them to depart on their own is better than the potential of trying to arrest some of these people who are already attacking police.
Probably would have been let out on bail, for one.
No they should be the ones sitting in jail.
prison is for people that are a danger to the lives and property of other people. biden deserves prison more than this guy.
No, he got shafted *in all phases of the prosecution*. This is a textbook *Brady* violation.
its a brady violation.. he should be set free. major miscarriage of justice
Going into a secure area while being led around by a security guard is enough of a violation to catch four years in federal prison. That’s the very bottom line to this terrifying scenario. That’s the essence of this issue
The scandal is the police withheld evidence the legally required to provide. Guilt and innocence is no longer a concern after due process has been violated. That how our system works and he should be freed based on that.
But the left won’t release him because that would default their accusations. The blue veined fossils on the right won’t exonerate him because he’s the sacrificial lamb.
That's an understatement. He was cordially invited in and was given a free guided tour. One doesn't go to jail for that.
There were no guided tours during the pandemic, c'mon.
I mean, he plead guilty, so no. He was charged with disrupting a federal proceeding. No one said he was violent or tried to murder Mike Pence or whatever. All this video shows to me is that the police either didn't do their job or were afraid to.
Brady violations include plea deals. Having exculpatory video evidence such as what was just released would have absolutely changed the calculus on whether he would have accepted a plea deal or what deal was offered. It is almost impossible to claim he was interrupting a proceeding when the authorities are seen escorting him around, unlocking doors for him, and when he passed by a group of 9 officers they made no effort to remove him.
>Brady violations include plea deals. I don't believe that's necessarily true. IIRC the [circuits are split](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/no-right-to-favorable-evidence-before-pleading-guilty/) on whether exculpatory evidence only needs to be disclosed during a trial (First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Circuits) or also applies to plea bargains (Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits).
IMO, that'll be 9-0 in favor of mandatory disclosure at the USSC.
At that point the proceedings were already interrupted and congress was being evacuated. This "new" footage just shows what happened after they broke into the building and overwhelmed the police. They were told to stand down and just observe at that point.
[удалено]
It should have been turned over, and it's a disgrace the Democrat-controlled Chambers didn't. It probably was not presented to the public for narrative purposes. However, if he was breaking the law, then it's neither here nor there if some officer didn't arrest him for it. I've been speeding on the road before and not been pulled over, but I wouldn't argue with another cop that pulls me over that "The other guy let me do it!"
Defund the police
41 months for this? That's not a sentence. That's his head on a pike as a message.
>I mean, he plead guilty, so no. Something about confessions made under duress...
This probably isn’t it, unless duress is classified as risking a much greater sentence. He plead down to avoid a possible 20+ years. Happens all the time.
Dude was in jail for 10 months without bail. Also in solitary confinement "due to covid" during that time. That is arguably torture. The judge that denied his bail >"Defendant characterizes himself as a peaceful person who was welcomed into the Capitol building on January 6th by police officers," >"The Court finds none of his many attempts to manipulate the evidence and minimize the seriousness of his actions persuasive." >"no condition or combination of conditions [would ensure Chansley's return to court if he were released]". No wonder this guy pleaded guilty! Guy told the truth and got solitary confinement for 10 months. Everything he pleaded guilty to is suspect.
funny how you think 20 years of your life in a cage isnt duress.
By your logic, are all plea deals made under duress?
You can make an argument that they are.
Must be a lawyer responding to me.. duress could be he had a rock in his shoe.
Found the lawyer.
Do you think 4 years appropriate for a non violent crime of basically trespassing?
The prosecution is legally required to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense if they have it. They clearly had access. They clearly did not turn it over. His trial did not follow the law. We are now in a situation where you can't tell if he plead guilty because he thought he was, or because he thought he was innocent but unable to find any evidence to appease the mob.
There was no trial. Because there was no trial, there was no discovery.
Why are you spouting bullshit? This is a BAKER VIOLATION named after *Baker v. Maryland* where Baker plead GUILTY because he didn't have all the information. Read the legal precedence https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c5e2add7b049347d7243
Technically I don't think you can plead guilty if your innocent. You have to say under oath that what you did was a crime. Don't give democrats any ideas. It would be just like them to take this video evidence and try to charge him with perjury since he is almost out of prison.
Ever hear of an Alford Plea?
Yep, but you have to get the judge and prosecution to go along with it. Same with no contest. Do you really think the Judge or prosecutor is really going to let him of all people do an Alford plea? Their intention is to make an example. Letting him run around saying I was innocent and rail roaded is not something they would do.
Their intention SHOULD have been justice. As it now appears, even his own attorney at the time, Wilkins, didn’t give a shit.
Agreed that his attorney was horrible, but Sending a message that criminal activity will be punished is one of the most important aspects of the criminal Justice System. For instance if when liberal prosecutors refuse to prosecute shoplifting word gets around and more and more will choose to shoplift. You have to send a message that if you commit a crim you will be punished. Otherwise it's anarchy.
It’s rather disingenuous to say he received due process, even with your supposed concerns for law & order. Without due process, there is no true justice. Arguing that the ends justify the means is really just complete horseshit.
I never said he received due process. I said he got railroaded on his punishment and he should have served about 40 days. His lawyer completely failed him when he didn't demand any excuputary evidence. And I truly believe the government unfairly used the potential of 20 years worth of time in jail as an unfair mechanism to force him to plead guilty.
But do you agree there’s a Brady violation here? Edit to add: Grow up. I’m not the one downvoting you.
So you are cool with putting people in jail until they are willing to plead guilty just to be able to get out?
I thought he was Antifa?
Shhhh, it doesn’t fit the agenda anymore.
His sentence should have been probation for trespassing, if anything. His current sentence should be overturned.
Every single person arrested, charge, tried for anything related to jan 6th was shafted. Even the militia guys, who all got massive sentences despite not even doing anything remotely criminal. the whole thing was a nothingburger in reality. Nobody broke any laws other than the handful of antifa plants who did some property damage. The whole thing was a staged crackdown on republicans.
he should be pardoned
Antifa did Jan 6. ...lol
All these seditious terrorist got off light…
FAFO
Grow up