Below is my column in the New York Post on the recently disclosed videotapes from Jan. 6th. The tapes include images never seen before by the public of that day. However, my interest was drawn primarily to the images of “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley being escorted through the Capitol. That footage raises serious questions about Chansley’s case in my view.
I am continuing to pursue the implications of the video today, but here is the column:
Fox’s Tucker Carson aired the long-awaited release of previously undisclosed footage from the Jan. 6 riot this week.
The first tranche of videotapes elicits major concerns over Jan. 6 committee members’ past claims.
Yet the most serious disclosures, in my view, relate to the case of “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley.
I previously expressed reservations over the heavy sentence given to Chansley.
The new footage raises more questions about the Justice Department’s and the court’s handling of the case.
After the Republican Party boycotted the committee following the rejection of its proposed members, the committee could have strived to offer a balanced inquiry.
Instead, it hired a former ABC producer to put on a production for television, including tightly scripted statements and questions.
Witnesses were used as virtual props, and the committee consistently blocked any alternative views and evidence.
The members repeatedly used the hearing to make a pitch for the midterm and 2024 elections.
Even The New York Times admitted the narrative was meant to “recast the midterm message” and “give [Democrats] a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power.”
I supported the committee’s creation, and I was highly critical of President Donald Trump’s remarks before the riot.
Indeed, I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given, and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots.
I also found much of the testimony to be highly disturbing from respected public servants opposed to the violence and the election denial.
The committee sacrificed its legitimacy by putting on hearings that often sounded more like a show trial than an objective congressional inquiry. It could have been so much more.
But the footage of Chansley was most disturbing.
I have supported the prosecution of those who rioted on Jan. 6. As I said immediately after the riot, it was a desecration of our constitutional process.
Yet many of us were surprised Chansley was given a 41-month sentence for “obstructing a federal proceeding.”
The sentence exceeded those handed down for violent offenses. Indeed, an Antifa member who took an axe to a member’s office in Fargo, ND, was later given probation … and his axe back.
I also objected to the Justice Department’s draconian treatment in holding figures like Chansley in prolonged solitary confinement without any apparent justification.
We knew Chansley was not shown engaging in violence or property destruction. The footage, however, showed Chansley walking through one of the doors with hundreds of others but escorted through the Capitol by a couple of officers.
The officials appear to be assisting him in gaining access to internal areas.
He walks past a dozen armed officers who do not try to stop him. He even appears to thank the officers for their assistance.
It’s not clear if the defense had access to all of these videotapes. Regardless, these tapes are in sharp contrast to what was presented in court.
The Justice Department portrayed Chansley as a violent offender. Prosecutor Kimberly Paschall played videos to show Chansley yelling along with the crowd. “That is not peaceful,” she insisted.
In his sentence, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, “He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”
I have great respect for Lamberth, but the sentence was hard to justify, particularly when compared with other defendants.
A Navy veteran, Chansley had no prior criminal record and pleaded guilty. He stood before Lamberth and implored that there was “a lot of bad juju that I never meant to create.”
Yet none of those mitigating factors seemed to count for much.
I agree with Lamberth that Chansley and others warrant longer than average sentences due to this attack on our constitutional process. However, Chansley seems to have a unique “aggravating factor” in his sentencing for “iconic costuming.”
An out-of-work actor, Chansley instantly became a sensation by appearing in his animal headdress, horns and red-white-and-blue face paint.
Had he merely worn a MAGA hat and chinos, he would likely have been given a fraction of this sentence.
Chansley did not appear to be a leader of any group that day as he wandered about the Capitol. The only people with him were often two attending and remarkably attentive Capitol police officers.
On the Senate floor, he is described as “chanting an unintelligible mantra” before leaving.
Chansley reaffirms the old expression among defense attorneys: “One day on the cover of Time, next day doing time.” That is a price that comes from being a celebrity shaman.
Once again, Chansley and any rioters deserve jail time. What occurred on Jan. 6 was a disgrace that has caused a lasting wound for this nation.
But making Chansley an example because he was the most visible is dangerously detached from his underlying conduct.
I have no particular sympathy for Chansley, but I do have concerns for the system that sentenced him.
In the end, justice has to remain blind. In this case, that means focusing on the crime rather than the costume.
Our political system has been desecrated more by the judges who have made political prisoners of the protestors than iit was by the protestors themselves.
I wholeheartedly agree.
So, this is the video the J6th commission tried to suppress, keep from seeing the light of day?
I can see why.
It destroys their narrative.
But that is what the truth does to them.
One does have to wonder, had Chansley attorneys had full access to this video at his trial, would the judge of issued a 41 month sentence?
Upstate: “One does have to wonder, had Chansley attorneys had full access to this video at his trial, would the judge of issued a 41 month sentence?”
++
Mostly the J6 judges seem to have disgracefully sullied their robes in these cases.
He and his attorneys did have access to the video, and he chose to plead guilty, and he later said “I deeply regret and am very sorry I entered into the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. I should not have been there. Period. … I was wrong. Period.” “I am deeply disappointed in former President Trump. He was not honorable. He let a lot of peaceful people down. I have to leave judging him up to other people.”
https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/he-was-not-honorable-qanon-shaman-denounces-trump-in-statement-promised-by-his-lawyer-on-lawcrime-podcast/
He and his attorneys did have access to the video, and he chose to plead guilty,
Which is it? Congress had the video, and the DoJ could not access it? Or the DoJ did have all the video?
USCP had the video, and the video from 12-8pm was turned over. They created a huge video database for the J6 defendants.
You are a liar.
Watkins, attorney for Chansley:
“The footage was not received by us,” said Watkins, who added he maintained copious records. “It was a right taken away from Jake. How can I put what the options are if I don’t know what evidence the government has.”
“The court has to be upset,” Watkins said, referring to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who imposed the sentence. “The government tried to portray him as a leader, leading the charge, threatening, an imposing person with a flag and flagpole, inciting others, when clearly this [video) is demonstrative of quite to the contrary.
“I hope everyone, everyone, realizes this damages all of as Americans, not just Jake. This ruins it for everyone.”
“He and his attorneys did have access to the video”
This dummy keeps saying Chansley’s attorneys had access to the videos and uses a link to prove it. Watkins name (attorney) is mentioned. It’s a low class blog which is all ATS has in his armamentarium (LOL)
Let’s hear what Watkins, the attorney, has to say.
“The footage was not received by us,” said Watkins, who added he maintained copious records. “It was a right taken away from Jake. How can I put what the options are if I don’t know what evidence the government has.”
“The court has to be upset,” Watkins said, referring to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who imposed the sentence. “The government tried to portray him as a leader, leading the charge, threatening, an imposing person with a flag and flagpole, inciting others, when clearly this [video) is demonstrative of quite to the contrary.
“I hope everyone, everyone, realizes this damages all of as Americans, not just Jake. This ruins it for everyone.”
ATS is a liar.
S. Meyer,
Dang! Bringing facts to the table!
Good on ya, and thank you!
S. Meyer, did it occur to you that his attorney may have been covering his behind and trotted out that statement because he really did have the video? He’s an attorney who represents insurrectionists. It’s likely he is just as delusional as the rest and he is playing the victim card.
Any additional video wouldn’t have changed his chances of staying out of jail. He would have faced 20 years if he didn’t plead guilty. Instead he got 41 months. That is less than what he should have gotten in the first place.
If his attorney had and failed to use the video that would be “inneffective assistance of counsel” – which will get a conviction – even a guilty plea overturned.
While your claim is unlikely – pretty much all the J6 defense attorney’s have been on the record for the past 2 years claiming that DOJ was not cooperating. In many instances the video we are seeing that is exculpatory for one defenant was made public because it was inculpatory for another.
DOJ provided very little, but what they provided was shared among most defense attorney’s and in some instances they were able to use the same evidence DOJ used against one client to help theirs. A small number of charges were dropped as a result. Farm more likely would have been dropped had this all been made public.
For the most part I do not think people are watching this unfold with rapt attention.
Tucker does a whole show – and ordinary people see or read about 2-3 minutes of it elsewhere.
I do not think people are paying alot of attention to the Republilcan hearings either.
But that does NOT mean they are having little effect.
A super majority of people have been suspicious of the lefts claims regarding J6.
Now they are not – they know they were lied to.
They did not watch Tucker, or …
But they can tell. The vituporous response of the left is proof that whatever Tucker aired must be damning.
For most people the “story” and most of what they know is – the Capitol video was inexplicably witheld, and the left went balistic when it was released and as parts of it are made public.
That tells them all they need to know.
The same is true of the 2020 election and the Hunter Biden story. And even MAL.
In all cases the left, the media, democrats and government have been playing wackamole trying to protect a narative and keep more information from getting out.
Reasonable people conclude the narrative is false.
That conclusion is reinforced by all the other “right wing conspiracy theories” that have proven true.
You rant constantly about the 2020 election.
It is aparently necescary for you in some way to have everyone in the world agree with you that the election was not stolen.
You can not cope with the fact that people do not accept your claim.
you keep trying to beat everyone into submission.
The actual J6 story is not allowed to be – thousands of people disagree with you and demanded that congress do something.
You demand congress do things all the time.
You have sought to make disagreeing and petitioning congress into a crime.
Election results are contested all the time.
Rarely people win such contests.
Election fraud is fairly comonplace but rarely organized and rarely large enought to change results.
But rarely is not the same as never.
US history is full of election fraud that altered election outcomes. Lyndon Johnson infamously stuffed the ballot with 80,000 extra votes in his first TX senate race to win.
The means by which we committ fraud change over time.
Nearly every mechanical voting machine was found to have had teeth filed off gears when they were retired permanently in 2003.
If fraud is possible and the results are going to be close – it is likely, probably even certain to occur.
There have been several incidents of GOP election fraud in the past several years.
There have also been many instances of D on D fraud in primaries – a recent significant case is in LA.
Large scale fraud is rare – because it is usually too easy to catch.
But change the election rules over night, go lawless and get the help of a biased media – and maybe you can pull off fraud in 6 states.
I have noted before – 200K fraudulent votes from Philadelphia is called a normal election.
Regardless, the allegations of fraud could have been dealt with – nobody likes a sore loser.
Actually establish that Trump lost fair and square and he is done – forever – nobody likes a sore loser.
But they do like people taking on the status quo.
YOU Made Trump’s election claims credible.
All you had to do is conduct the election like normal.
Follow the rules, follow the law.
Then when Allegations were made – actually investigate.
As with J6 – we know you are lying, when you refuse to allow the public to see the evidence.
The Collusion delusion. Covid, the Election, The Hunter Biden Laptop,
And all the other things you tried to bury – burrying them is the evidence you are lying.
You want people to accept the results for the courts – do not corrupt the courts.
On the election – the courts should have allowed inquiry – instead of fighting tooth and nail against it.
When government is hiding things – we know you are lying.
Did it occur to you that you are too stupid to think? If the lawyer did get the material then those that gave it to him would show proof. They didn’t, but you are too stupid to figure that out.
“He’s an attorney who represents insurrectionists.”
Again your ignorance is showing through. You draw conclusions based on thin air. Why do you do this to yourself? Are you a masochist?
“Any additional video wouldn’t have changed his chances of staying out of jail.”
The video and other information make it clear he was overcharged. Only an ignoramus would think differently. You fit the criteria.
Oh come on! January 6 is merely the latest on a long series of election protests going back to George Washington! It is NOT an attack on the Constitution. I have a book beside me called Deliver the Vote which documents election chicanery and the results going back to this nations beginnings. Democrats are using the event politically and those who are imprisoned are political prisoners. Many of those men swore to protect and defend the Constitution. Unlike Blumenthal, they are true patriots. So what that they were let into the Capitol (by Capitol police)? I am ASHAMED of the country I fought to defend. We are now the USSR!
They attempted to keep baby trump in office after loosing an election. That is not a protest. That is a failed coup. Pay the price for your failed coup attempt.
baby trump – lol. I realize the left wants to turn the entire nation into what it has done to entire cities, but some of us aren’t liking that. And you can call them babies or anything else you want, but until you have something to offer the nation, besides the models you’ve already built, we’re simply gonna laugh at you and wonder how you got to be so freaking moronic.
It was not a coup.
It was not a insurrection.
It was a protest gone badly.
It paled in comparison to the arson, looting, destruction of property and people killed during the 2020 Summer of Love.
“U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger lambasted Carlson’s segment on the Jan. 6 footage in an internal memo Tuesday. The Capitol Police spokesperson confirmed the memo’s authenticity to the AP.
“Last night an opinion program aired commentary that was filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6 attack,” Manger wrote. “The opinion program never reached out to the Department to provide accurate context. One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as ‘tour guides.’ This is outrageous and false.”
For the full memo: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1633153535729860608 (this is the first part, and the next tweet in the thread has the second part)
GOP Senators:
McConnell:
“With regard to the presentation on Fox News last night, I want to associate myself entirely with the opinion of the chief of the Capitol police about what happened on Jan. 6,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday, holding up a copy of the police chief’s statement. McConnell said “my concern is how it was depicted” on Carlson’s highly rated show.
“Clearly the chief of the Capitol Police, in my view, correctly described what most of us witnessed firsthand on Jan. 6,” he said.
“It was a mistake, in my view, [for] Fox News to depict this in a way completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here at the Capitol” described, McConnell said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3888363-mcconnell-says-fox-news-made-a-mistake-by-underplaying-violence-of-jan-6/
Tillis:
“I think it’s bullshit,” Tillis told reporters in the Capitol. “I was here. I was down there, and I saw maybe a few tourists, a few people who got caught up in things,” he added. “But when you see police barricades breached, when you see police officers assaulted, all of that … if you were just a tourist you should’ve probably lined up at the visitors’ center and came in on an orderly basis.”
Cramer:
“I think that breaking through glass windows and doors to get into the United States Capitol against the borders of police is a crime. I think particularly when you come into the chambers, when you start opening the members’ desks, when you stand up in their balcony — to somehow put that in the same category as, you know, permitted peaceful protest is just a lie,” Cramer said.
Romney:
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said it’s “really sad to see Tucker Carlson go off the rails like that,” saying he’s “joining a range of shock jocks that are disappointing America and feeding falsehoods.” “The American people saw what happened on Jan. 6.” Romney told reporters. “They’ve seen the people that got injured. They saw the damage to the building. You can’t hide the truth by selectively picking a few minutes out of tapes and saying this is what went on. It’s so absurd. It’s nonsense.
“It’s a very dangerous thing to do, to suggest that attacking the Capitol of the United States is in any way acceptable and it’s anything other than a serious crime, against democracy and against our country,” Romney said. “And people saw that it was violent and destructive and should never happen again. But trying to normalize that behavior is dangerous and disgusting.”
Graham: “I’m not interested in whitewashing Jan. 6”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/bulls-gop-senators-rebuke-tucker-carlson-downplaying-jan-6-mostly-peac-rcna73764
Here you are quoting Republican leaders that most on this blog take issue with. There are Republicans that do not deserve to represent conservatives. How many times have people mentioned that McConnell should be replaced. But you quote him as evidence for the ideas you push stating he is Republican proof.
ATS, you are being deceptive even though you are not lying.
I notice the Capitol Police Chief has not claimed any of the videos were anything but 100% accurate.
He takes exception with the conclusions.
In a memo he then conviently “leaked” to the media. SOP for Democrats Pelosi probably provided the content.
He takes exception to the cherrypicking as well.
Take note how you don’t mention the name or date of the one involved. Manger was appointed under the control of Pelosi and Schuma in July of 2021 long after jan6. One might want to call that damage control.
You have no credibility on anything for you remain vague trying to make others believe something that doesn’t exist.
Let Manger, the “he” in your response ask to appear on Tucker’s show and provide his version. You hate sunlight.
Let him go on Tucker’s show and explain what was happening as Chansley was guided through the Capitol Building.
For those that don’t know, Manger was sworn in as Chief of Police on July 23, 2021. The protest was on Jan6 2020. At that time who were in charge of the Capitol Police? Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. They have done everything they can to create a phony situation accusing others rather than the guilty parties, themselves.
Let us hear Pelosi testify.
ATS, you have not one ounce of legitimacy on this blog.
He sounds like Chad Wolf, who was pushing back against the narrative that DHS agents protecting courthouses were stormtroopers®™ who were kidnapping peaceful protesters and shoving them into unmarked vans®™.
The media and the Dems (but I repeat myself) were the ones pushing this narrative
What would you expect him to say? The performance of the Capitol police was not good, although they have the excuse that they were not given adequate support by Nancy Pelosi. If the offer of National Guard troops been accepted, there would have no riot, no deaths.
It is beyond outrageous that these protesters who wrongly broke through some deliberately undermanned police barriers are sent to prison as basically terrorists with no bail and subject to torture when BLM protestors in NYC are being paid restitution for their troubles is beyond any reasoning person’s comprehension. Millions and millions of damage across this country by rioters – still going on in spots at every instance of a perceived slight – yet shrugged off by the left as practically virtuous actions because they are in agreement with their stated goals (which do not include looting in their manifesto but is the catalyst for large numbers joining the ranks) and our “Justice” Department has no interest in putting any of them behind bars for years. What has happened to our country is heartbreaking.
A statement prepared by the Department of Justice, which was signed by Chansley and his attorney, provides a timeline of his movement in the Capitol:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download
Ryan J. Reilly: “Tucker: ‘To this day, there is dispute over how Chansley got into the Capitol building.’ False. You can literally see QAnon Shaman entering in footage he aired moments earlier. He wasn’t snuck in some back door, he came in moments after the door was kicked in.”
https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1632913534953705473 — video
also see the rest of the thread
Ever since the Watergate and OJ Simpson (Orenthal James Simpson) Trials. Television & Print Media have been ‘sensationalizing’ the Publicly Funded Venue (The Court’s Stage Set) to fill in ‘Content and Broadcast Airtime’ across all media-product lines. HEY! Its FREE!, courtesy of the Government, Why not take advantage of it.
And so it goes, the wheels on the Media Circus Bus go round and round …
Watching the Capitol Police Officers accompany Jacob Chansley through the Capitol building casually chatting and opening doors for him, it’s hard to justify how Chansley could even be charged with criminal trespass. Either the Capitol Police weren’t seriously concerned about showing folks around the building that afternoon, or the decision was made to let them in to the building as part of a larger agenda. Remember that the Capitol Police answer only to the Capitol Police Board and are conveniently exempted from any Freedom of Information Act requests (as is Congress). Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
There are 5 lies the Democrats presented in there fantasy show trial
The quiet respectful shaman that is sentenced to 41 months. Well covered by our Host. STBD is the prosecution provided this exculpatory evidence to defense
The whole Loudermilk reconnaissance tour of the Captial was actually a tour of site a block from the Capital
Officer Sinknik is shown fully functioning well after he was supposed to have murdered by a fire extinguisher.
Ray Epps lied under oath. Not much of a surprise, it is clear he is a federal agent provocateur. Epps is shown on video a full half hour after his testimony claims.
Josh Hawely running like a scared little girl. Showing all the video, just documents Hawely was the last of a group being evacuated by law enforcement. He made sure the group he was in, all preceded him and he was following up behind the group. Democrats used their edited version, to mock and laugh at Hawley. Not a big deal, just shows how shallow and unserious the entire Jan 6, all Democrat selected committee, operated.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/the-five-biggest-lies-exposed-by-tucker-carlsons-bombshell-january-6th-surveillance-video-release/
It is far worse. When he is being escorted through the building it shows an intent to use the entire thing as a political set up. Russian collusion hoax all over again. We still don’t know who unlocked the doors that were said to “always” be locked. Ray Epps, time to call him in under oath to answer for his role and for his own words about orchestrating it.
Jonathan Turley wrote, “…making Chansley [an out-of-work actor] an example because he was the most visible is dangerously detached from his underlying conduct.”, “In the end, justice has to remain blind. In this case, that means focusing on the crime rather than the costume.”
We prosecute and convict on criminal actions NOT visibility.
I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone that engaged in violent acts against the Capitol Police or engaged in vandalism of the United States Capitol building on Jan 6th; however, anyone that’s willing to watch the video has seen actual undeniable video evidence that Chansley was simply trespassing in the Capitol and he was railroaded by a politically motivated prosecution that clearly withheld relevant evidence that contradicted the prosecutions narrative against Chansley. Chansley, an out-of-work actor, chose a national stage to display his talents and exposure he got, it worked in the short run; however, in the long run the consequences of his actions were that he put himself in a position to be used as political pawn.
I have been saying for quite a while now…
Based on the narrative I had been hearing from the political left, I suspected that Chansley was likely only guilty of misdemeanor trespass. Regardless of him pleading guilty to a massive government system that was hell-bent on his personal destruction for political reasons, I think the video proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was unjustly prosecuted for the crimes he was accused of. Chansley may be a genuine P.O.S. (I really don’t know), but this kind of transparent politically motivated corrupted prosecution cannot stand in the United States of America.
His conviction should be thrown out and he should be awarded a new trial. This would be a really good case for a prominent Democrat, who is a supporter of the United States Constitution and a defense trial lawyer; someone like Alan Dershowitz.
“a politically motivated prosecution that clearly withheld relevant evidence”
What’s your evidence that the prosecution withheld these tapes from Chansley?
Kyle Cheney (Politico): Capitol Police department sources tell me the footage Tucker Carlson aired tonight of Jacob Chansley (the Q Shaman) was virtually all available to Jan. 6 defendants via discovery — not part of some newly unearthed batch. It makes sense because USCP has long acknowledged that it provided the vast majority of Jan. 6 footage from the hours of 12pm – 8pm to defendants, encompassing the bulk of events that day.
That is reflected here, a March 2021 court filing: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-80b2-dae3-affa-e6f753140000
…
Chansley’s entry into the Capitol isn’t a mystery. Here’s footage of him rushing the barricades outside the Senate with the front lines of the mob. This video was released during the first Jan. 6 trial of Guy Reffitt. [embedded video]
And here’s the clip of Chansley, just a couple minutes later, actually entering the building in the first wave of rioters to get inside. This was also released during the Reffitt trial, if not earlier. [more video] …
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1632937167881134080
In response to a question about “virtually all,” Cheney responds My understanding is there’s a brief clip outside Senate chamber, maybe a few seconds long, that would’ve required extra vetting but may also have been turned over. Sources just weren’t 100% sure about that one brief clip.
“I suspected that Chansley was likely only guilty of misdemeanor trespass.”
Why rely on your suspicions? You could choose to read the statement of offense that Chansley signed, which details more than that. I posted a link to it earlier. Focus on the full set of evidence.
Yup Anonymous, I read that confession. I would have never, ever signed such an obviously skewed confession narrative with all the direct and indirect implications of actions that it contained. Who advised him to sign that P.O.C. document? No rational person would have signed that document, I’m gonna take a wild guess that he was bullied/coerced into signing that, but sign it he did. What a fool.
Interestingly enough, it’s very clear that the whole picture of Chansley’s individual actions was not included in the signed confession; therefore, there is nothing in your comment that directly contradicts what I wrote, it’s simply the other side of the narrative. You’re welcome to your own opinion in the facts but it’s too bad that you intentionally omit all the facts.
Or maybe he understands his own actions better than you do and knowingly chose to plead guilty.
He later said “I deeply regret and am very sorry I entered into the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. I should not have been there. Period. … I was wrong. Period.” “I am deeply disappointed in former President Trump. He was not honorable. He let a lot of peaceful people down. I have to leave judging him up to other people.”
https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/he-was-not-honorable-qanon-shaman-denounces-trump-in-statement-promised-by-his-lawyer-on-lawcrime-podcast/
“it’s too bad that you intentionally omit all the facts.”
So did you. And neither one of us has ALL the facts. Do you bizarrely believe that either one of us has ALL of them?
Typical Stalinist.
Anonymous wrote, “So did you.”
That right there gets you the standard bite me reply given to those that falsely impune my character. I did no such thing. FO Anonymous, go troll someone else.
Steve Witherspoon, you always lash out when someone points out something that contradicts or disputes what you say. Anonymous was right.
You get triggered so easily and get all bent out of shape over being called out. Even when there is clear evidence that you did do what you’re called out on.
There are over 1000 people on the “exonerated list”. These are convicted criminal defendants who have subsequrntly been PROVEN innocent.
These are not people who got off on technicalities. These are the rare instances when we can PROVE these people did not committ the crime they were accused of.
Nearly every single person on the exonerated list confessed at one time.
Yet we know they did not committ the crime.
Some like Chamsley have mental health issues that make them manipulable.
But some are people you beleive never would have falsely confessed in a million years.
The FACT is that we KNOW that with sufficient time and the right techniques anyone can be made to confess to anything.
This is not a right left issue.
Confessions should never be allowed in court. EVER.
Law enforcement should be permitted to use a confession to find other evidence, but not directly to prove guilt.
They are too unreliable.
J S – you are right to note how easily confessions can be abused by police and prosecutors, especially in the federal system where the power disparaity between government and defendant is so vast. I think Prof Turley has the same concerns.
I personally think our jurisprudence regarding police interogations is 180 degrees off.
We are trying to construct a framework where police can use all kinds of tricks to elicit the truth from perpitrators, while preventing abuses that result in error.
That is an impossible task, and inevitably results in hair splitting games.
I would suggest that we just take the 5th amendment to mean that a persons confession is not admissible in court.
That would end the incentive for law enforcement to elicit false confessions.
Allow the police to use whatever techniques they wish (short of violence) to obtain information, but they may only use that information to find other evidence. Not as admissible evidence itself.
This makes the interest of the police align with finding the truth, because only the truth will help them get a conviction.
Most of my posts target left wing nuts who are lying.
But I repeat often here that I am libertarian – not conservative.
I am a strong advocate for police reform and prison reform – though not at the expense of anarchy.
Nor do I think the route to better policing is through demonizing the police.
I want more sunlight – in congress, in the government, in law enforcement, in J6, in the election.
I want many of the same things that those on the left claim to want. But I am not so stupid as to beleive that all change is automatically good, or that all change that calls itself a step in the direction I want to go, will prove to be good or an improvement.
The overwhelming majority of changes – in the free market or in govenrment FAIL.
Getting it right is hard.
The modern left has lost its way. It is authoritarian, not libertarian, and it is dangerous.
Turley is of the old left, not the new.
But he has not quite come to grips with the gulf that exists between the old and new left and that he has more common ground with the right.
That is not because the right is so wonderful. But because the modern left is so incredibly far left.
I was telling the truth, Steve. The difference between us is that I consistently admit when I’m wrong, as I did elsewhere in this column about whether his lawyers had access to all of the video that Carlson showed, but you do not consistently admit when you’re wrong (only some of the time). You also frequently respond to liberals with insults. Grow up.
” I consistently admit when I’m wrong,”
ATS, that is a lie. You don’t admit the truth when you are wrong. What you do is provide data that is wrong but can not be proven wrong at the time. You hope that in the future everyone forgets what you said while some later remember and repeat your lies. Sometimes you repeat proven lies repeatedly.
Let’s start hearing you tell us all the phases of the Russia Hoax that you lied about. Then we can go subject by subject. You use your anonymous identity to hide your lies.
You admit to a lie only when you have no choice like you did today. I posted the attorney’s statements about half a dozen times before we heard you admit you were wrong. You had no evidence that you were right. You do this intentionally.
Anonymous – Gigi claims above that he was “crazy” and “mentally ill”. His plea agreement was written by attorneys, probably by those working for the DOJ.
Kyle Cheney (Politico): Capitol Police department sources tell me
So according the link. no one made a claim not citing any evidence?
Exactly the same procedure used to fuel the Trump Russia lie, for 5 years.
The defendant doesn’t have to request the evidence, the government is required to produce it, whether or not the defendant requests it. Government disclosure of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence is part of the constitutional guarantee to a fair trial. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). The law requires the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. Because they are Constitutional obligations, Brady and Giglio evidence must be disclosed regardless of whether the defendant makes a request for exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33 (1995). Neither the Constitution nor this policy, however, creates a general discovery right for trial preparation or plea negotiations. U.S. v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 629 (2002); Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977).
If you have a case(s) that says otherwise cited it. This defendant was denied his rights under Brady, et al, and is entitled to have the plea set aside.
You sir are on the left, not on the side of the Constitution. I heard Trumps speech, it was not a speech advocating violence at all. To the contrary. The protesters, and there was a million or so, were by far peaceful until an FBI agent or informant or agitator got the crowd riled up! There is even an email or text he sent his brother stating he was going to do that.
No one, committed an insurrection. That is total BS, and you know it! So does the government. None of the prisoners deserve the gulag treatment they are getting, no due process for years, no communucation with family or friends, food that u would not even give your dog, beatings, and a couple even committed suicide, it’s that bad! This is a rogue government we have now that no longer represents the majority! People like you are part of this problem. Certainly the media are government agents insofar as doing exactly as the government tells them to do and say. But you know, Americans can be pushed too far. So, when you go after our children and our guns, that will eventually start a war within, a deadly one. All you lefties are sick minded and Communists. You may get what u wish for, but when u do, you will not like it. Then it is too late to change. What you created will be your life! Unfortunately, we all will have that life, enslaved to government. We basically are a stupid nation, with many stupid people! People who just cannot see what is really going on, because they are easily propagandized! Those people are SHEEPLE! It’s sad, but so true. They have no clue.
Annie,
Your reply ended up being a physically reply to my comment but your comment contents seems to be directed at the comment posted by Anonymous, is that correct?
Steve
He even appears to thank the officers for their assistance.
Thank them? He openly prayed for them.
Anyway JT, you can stop giving disclaimers about your reverence for our political institutions and your disgust of those that violated them on January 6th. It’s so painfully obvious that those institutions are not even revered by many of those elected to work inside them. Aim your disgust at them, because the riot would never had occurred if not for them.
Olly, though in the past, I think such disclaimers were an attempt to demonstrate balance, today Professor Turley is going out on a limb with his comments. Many on the left want to go gunning for him and are looking for the opportunity. I applaud Professor Turley’s bravery and astute management of his perilous situation.
S. Meyer,
I agree.
It is not uncommon for the rabid leftists to attack the good professor, but this one seems to be drawing out the worst of them, e.g. Bill and killing American citizens.
It is not uncommon for the rabid leftists to attack the good professor, but this one seems to be drawing out the worst of them,…
That’s kind of my point Farmer. His statesman persona isn’t stopping attacks. And it’s not as if he and his family are it risk by the government cartel…yet. It’s time for him to unleash the Patrick Henry inside him.
Seth, Professor Turley doesn’t need to tread lightly in the area of the law, rights, our constitution and our cherished institutions. He doesn’t need to express his bona fides anymore. Instead, he needs to drop the mild-mannered, even-tempered persona and leverage his well-established reputation with a fiery denunciation of the public servants defiling our revered institutions. No more Mr. Smith when he got to Washington. But the Mr. Smith on the Senate floor. Yes, he will be attacked for it, but he’s already attacked for much of his “quiet” opinions. He’s the right guy to go nuclear on the entire, disgusting political class destroying this country.
Olly, my sentiments are with you and you represent what I would like to see, but Turley has a family. Additionally sometimes one requires a different approach to get their point across so they don’t have their head chopped off before they are finished.
Think of the following statement and see how it turns. “Friends, Romans and Countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar not to praise him….
…but Turley has a family.
I get it Seth. Sir Thomas More comes to mind for me. But in all seriousness, JT is in too deep on the side of the law, justice and our sacred institutions to pretend he’s a fence-sitter. He’s got the statesman reputation and now he needs to add “fiery” to his approach while he still has a form of government capable of protecting his right to speak freely. Otherwise he could find himself quoting Martin Niemöller.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Olly, a pyrrhic victory doesn’t end the war.
You may respect Lamberth but I find him both nasty and unintelligent. Charnsley didn’t make himself the image of the event, as if that would be a particularly heinous crime. The government and the prosecutors did that and Lamberth was nothing more than their useful idiot, and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is stupid rather than malevolent.
“Every good conspiracy needs a patsy.”
Charnsley and dozens of others are the patsies. And after 2 years we all have a good ideas who were the conspirators and what they conspired to do.
Judge Lamberth is “nasty”? At Chansley’s request, the judge had the defendant moved to the Alexandria Detention Center, so he could have a diet of organic food which the D.C. Dept. of Corrections was unable or unwilling to provide. (In another case, he released a defendant who wasn’t getting proper medical care and held in contempt D.C. corrections officials for their indifference.
Judge Lamberth is or was a Republcian appointed by Ronald Reagan. He also served in the armed forces in South Vietnam, per Wikipedia. He proably has a conservative record on rulings, but if you stay long enough in Washington D.C., “capture” is possible.
“I have great respect for Lamberth, but the sentence was hard to justify, particularly when compared with other defendants.”
But then just a few paragraphs over he states,
“I agree with Lamberth that Chansley and others warrant longer than average sentences due to this attack on our constitutional process.”
Turley agrees with the sentence. He agrees with the longer than average sentences. Turley seems conflicted between sticking to his Fox News required narrative and his own real views.
Tucker Carlson’s videos clearly have been manipulated to whitewash the reality fo what happened. Even republicans are calling BS on Tucker’s obviously cherry picked narrative using the footage he was given. Tucker Carlson is a veritable liar and even Republicans know it. All he’s doing is “maintaining the brand” and keeping his audience glued to his show. He’s not portraying the truth, he’s placating his viewers so they keep watching his show.
Surely Turley wouldn’t be this naive. Those police officers were not just escorting Chancy as a courtesy. They were keeping an eye on him because they couldn’t arrest him among the crowd. They risked the mob attacking them if they attempted to arrest him. They already knew who he was and all they needed to do is keep an eye on him and keep him from doing any thing more than what he was doing. Even the capitol police are saying Tucker carlson did NOT completely vet the videos with them despite saying he did. That’s why he’’s known as a veritable liar.
“Tucker Carlson’s videos clearly have been manipulated to whitewash the reality fo what happened.”
As always. Statement of fact. Zero evidence
His videos haven’t necessarily been manipulated, just cherry-picked to advance his position. I guess the word one should use today is “curated.”
evidence?
nisquire – what is wrong with advancing a position? He was forthright in saying that he was showing another side to January 6.
Yours is a very incisive comment about the risk of arresting Chansley on the spot. It also meant tying up (occupying) 8 or 9 officers who could have been deployed elsewhere. The Carlson shows only one act — apparently benign — of Chansley. The Statement of Offense he signed and swore to describes much more behavior–bad behavior. Among other things, he gave an incendiary speech in the Senate (or was it House) chamber, even though he did “pray for” the police. And the government’s sentencing memorandum gives an even fuller view of his conduct, which included encouraging before Jan. 6 a breach of the Capitol on the day of the protests. As it is, Chansley’s sentencing range under the federal guidelines was 41-51 months. The government asked for 51, the defendant asked for time served, and Judge Lamberth sentenced at the low end, 41 months. In light of Chansley’s conduct, that was not an unreasonable sentence. I know a little about this stuff as a lawyer who has represented about twenty Jan. 6 defendants.
“. It also meant tying up (occupying) 8 or 9 officers who could have been deployed elsewhere. “
We saw those 8 or 9 officers who weren’t deployed elsewhere so one has to wonder what you are talking about.
Nisquire – reasonable in light of his conduct as shown on the videos, or reasonable in light of the signing statement? The latter was probably written by DOJ attorneys.
I disagree about about sentencing this man at all. Until Ray Epps, John Sullivan, Lila Morris, Michael Byrd, and whatever officers threw flash bang grenades and teat gas into the crowd get sentenced, the others should be let go and never should have been jailed. These were all politically motivated.
I have a problem with Turley’s article on Chamsley.
What is increasingly likely is there is NO EVIDENCE Chamsley and many – most others committed any crime.
The “narative” this was an insurection has crumbled.
Even the claim this was PARTLY a riot is very weak.
It appears likely that MOST of those in the capitol got there legally and were peaceful.
Being escorted through the Capital by Capital police, and then being tried and sentenced to 41 months as all the characteristics of entrapment.
How do we find out if this video evidence was provided to Defense by the govt, as required by law.
He pleaded guilty. No trial.
Typical way for a Stalinist or a Nazi to respond. ATS has no ability to think past his nose and consider the circumstances. Who was his lawyer? How much money did he have? What was his mental status?
People like you should be escorted out of this nation so they can learn what a free person is. You and your type prey on innocents who cannot defend themselves. You are a coward and hide yourself so you cannot be held for your actions.
Allan / S. Meyer’s daily insults, example # 1024.
Walking through the Capitol was a “desecration?” That is our House. Not yours and all the bigwigs. Ours. We pay for it. It is normally open to the public at that time of day. Are you aware that Mayor Bowser had ordered all public restrooms closed to Trump supporters that day? Just one more kick in the groin to Americans who had foolishly believed they had rights before November 3. Maybe they just wanted to use the restroom. It was a cold, nasty, bitter day in DC and those people were ushered in. They didn’t burn down any buildings or topple any statues. Now they are locked up, beaten, one male prisoner lost an eye due to the severity of the beatings. One male prisoner was sexually assaulted by a guard. They are American citizens who have been stripped of their rights. What you saw on tv is what some of us have been trying to tell you for 2 years and you haven’t wanted to listen just as we begged you for circumspection regarding the shots. Now you’re shocked, shocked? When this all comes out, as it will, because every lie will be revealed, there will be consequences for all who participated in this shameful travesty. The insurrection didn’t happen on January 6. It happened with Peter Strzok’s insurance policy and the fbi’s takedown of Flynn and the Russia Russia Russia impeachment hoax and it’s still happening with treating President Trump’s classified documents differently than Obama’s, Bush’s, and Clinton’s.
I see where Shumer and the other usual suspects are alleging that Fox (Carlson) have edited the tapes to favor the protestors. I don’t watch Carlson or any talking head. Any truth to those allegations?
The tapes he showed on Monday night did not seem doctored to me, but he did prove that the J6 committee had doctored the tapes. My guess is that the Dems are doing the same thing they have been doing all along: knowingly lying, knowing their lapdogs in the MSM will propagate their lies. When the truth comes out later on the lie will have taken root. They’re playing to their base and any credulous independents that are out there.
oldmanfromkansas,
Nothing is doctored, it’s cherry picking segments to support a narrative.
Let me make this perfectly clear…
They are NOT “doctoring” videos which directly implies changing the content of the videos. There is absolutely no need to “doctor” any video, all the evidence for both sides is right there all they have to do is look for it. They are very selectively cherry picking video segments that support a preconceived narrative, it’s very intentional, it’s usually very unethical/immoral, and it’s lying my omission no matter which side is doing it!
No.
Confession through projection by Schumer.
I see where Shumer and the other usual suspects are alleging that Fox (Carlson) have edited the tapes to favor the protestors.
Huh? If you watched Tucker Carlson, or Dan Bongino, or any number of other “talking heads”, you wouldn’t even need to ask your question.
Pay attention Olly – I don’t watch any of them, which means I have not seen the tapes and I don’t have an opinion as to whether they have been edited. So I asked and got a couple of helpful answers. Then I saw your comment
So I asked and got a couple of helpful answers. Then I saw your comment.
Brilliant! You claim to not watch any so called “talking heads” showing actual videos and instead you deemed helpful the opinions made by random people on a blog who have likely watched those very same “talking heads” showing those videos. Attention paid.
The political left has been cherry picking video since January 6th to favor the political left, now the political right has the reigns and can cherry pick video to undermine the political left’s narrative. The political left has been intentionally withholding evidence since January 6th and they have done it for pure political purposes, this is political tit-for-tat and well deserved.
Steve,
Right.
Shumer crying about the threat to democracy!
What? That we might see all the evidence/video and make our own conclusions?
Or is it when it is a threat the Democrat’s narrative may fall apart, that it is then a threat to democracy?
Had the J6th committee shown this video, and or all the rest of the video, they might of had some credibility.
No, it just was a clown show for all to see.
We didn’t hear Schumer or any of the other proponents of the narrative that has emerged from the January 6 Committee hearings criticizing the elements of that carefully constructed mini-series. It was a prime time political event that was choreographed by professional professional media experts, all intended to deliver the desired message to the American public. Of course, communications between the Speaker of the House and the Sargeants at Arms were off limits. You have to wonder what the budget was for this charade.
Again: what is your evidence that any relevant tapes were withheld from the defendants?
Anonymous wrote, “Again: what is your evidence that any relevant tapes were withheld from the defendants?”
You’re kidding, right?
The burden of proof on this point is legally and morally on the side that implies that the relevant tapes were released to the defendants and that sir is exactly what you are trying to do.
You know good and well that I cannot prove a negative, whereas you can in fact prove a positive if they actually did release the relevant tapes, therefore you’re an illogical trolling hack.
“I cannot prove a negative”
One can prove some negatives and not others, just like one can prove some positives and not others. That a claim is negative does not imply that it cannot be proved, even though many people falsely claim this. And if you cannot prove “The political left has been intentionally withholding evidence since January 6th,” you should not be claiming it as a fact.
Kyle Cheney (Politico): “Capitol Police department sources tell me the footage Tucker Carlson aired tonight of Jacob Chansley (the Q Shaman) was virtually all available to Jan. 6 defendants via discovery — not part of some newly unearthed batch. … My understanding is there’s a brief clip outside Senate chamber, maybe a few seconds long, that would’ve required extra vetting but may also have been turned over. Sources just weren’t 100% sure about that one brief clip.”
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1633099049946558471
More generally, the DOJ notes that it had turned over “more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies” (https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-80b2-dae3-affa-e6f753140000), including the video from 12-8pm on J6. The video that Carlson was given access to was not limited to 12-8pm, which accounts for it including more hours.
Anonymous wrote, “And if you cannot prove “The political left has been intentionally withholding evidence since January 6th,” you should not be claiming it as a fact.”
Are you really this stupid?
It’s now self-evident that the government has been withholding video evidence since January 6th, the release of said video evidence is PROOF POSITIVE that they were withholding it and the videos contain evidence that contradicts the political left’s narrative. I can claim it as fact because it’s now a verified FACT.
You lie until your lies are discovered and then, “Kyle Cheney (Politico): “Capitol Police department sources tell me the footage Tucker Carlson aired tonight of Jacob Chansley (the Q Shaman) was virtually all available to Jan. 6 defendants via discovery — not part of some newly unearthed batch. “.
The lawyers have spoken. The exculpatory information wasn’t adequately provided. You and your Democrat friends prevented the world from seeing the actual videos. That is fact. That includes the defendants. You and your Democrat friends made sure to have a producer create a film to indict Jan6 protestors while they added sound to silent video so that whatever unproven statements were made the public would believe them.
ATS, you are a liar and Stalinist supporting show trials and jailing innocents. You should be shunned. We saw that type of thing done in Nazi Germany as well and millions were killed. You are part of the fascist animals that make such holocausts possible.
Jonathan Turley just wrote in a new blog…
JT also wrote “Indeed, the prosecution may have been entirely unaware of the footage.” That’s because the footage was in possession of the USCP, not the DOJ.
Shipley’s claim is disputed by an unnamed sources in the USCP. See my 10:42 AM response. One of them is clearly wrong. Neither one of us currently knows which one it is.
The prosecution is supposed to make sure they are not convicting someone based on lack of information. They should have been the first ones to look at the tapes. They had plenty showing cherrypicked data.
You have no credibility.
Annnnnddd, it is Steve Witherspoon for the win, with the facts!!!!!
Good on ya, Steve! Please, do take a victory lap while the rest of us applaud and cheer!!
He is definitely putting his law license on the line.
“what is your evidence that any relevant tapes were withheld from the defendants?”
“The footage was not received by us,” said Watkins, who added he maintained copious records. “It was a right taken away from Jake. How can I put what the options are if I don’t know what evidence the government has.”
“The court has to be upset,” Watkins said, referring to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who imposed the sentence. “The government tried to portray him as a leader, leading the charge, threatening, an imposing person with a flag and flagpole, inciting others, when clearly this [video) is demonstrative of quite to the contrary.
“I hope everyone, everyone, realizes this damages all of as Americans, not just Jake. This ruins it for everyone.”
Watkins is willing to testify.
I note how ATS wants to pretend what Chansley’s attorney says doesn’t exist. He has no credibility.
The tapes weren’t doctored, but they were cherrypicked, and Carlson lied about them. For example, Carlson lied “To this day, there is dispute over how Chansley got into the Capitol building,” when there is video of Chansley entering the building: https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1632947170541182976
For a fuller discussion of Chansley’s actions that Carlson tries to brush over, he’s the statement of offense that Chansley signed when he pled guilty: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download
“Carlson lied about them. For example, Carlson lied “To this day, there is dispute over how Chansley got into the Capitol building,” when there is video of Chansley entering the building:”
ATS, you are dense. There may be tapes, but that doesn’t stop the disputes just like the disputes about whether the tapes were released to Chansley’s attorney. They weren’t! Watkins confirms that , yet you are disputing the question.
“The footage was not received by us,” said Watkins, who added he maintained copious records. “It was a right taken away from Jake. How can I put what the options are if I don’t know what evidence the government has.”
“The court has to be upset,” Watkins said, referring to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who imposed the sentence. “The government tried to portray him as a leader, leading the charge, threatening, an imposing person with a flag and flagpole, inciting others, when clearly this [video) is demonstrative of quite to the contrary.
“I hope everyone, everyone, realizes this damages all of as Americans, not just Jake. This ruins it for everyone.”
QAnon shaman is a political prisoner.
The officials appear to be assisting him in gaining access to internal areas.
Specifically, the U.S. Capitol Police officers were shown on the footage opening doors for him.
Yet none of those mitigating factors seemed to count for much.
Mitigating factors, and even underlying facts, don’t count for much in a political show trial where the objective is not justice but intimidation.