Image 01 Image 03

“QAnon Shaman” Lawyer: Feds Withheld Exculpatory Video Shown On Tucker

“QAnon Shaman” Lawyer: Feds Withheld Exculpatory Video Shown On Tucker

Government withholding the video was “a dagger in the heart of our American justice system”

The “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, with a potential sentence of up to 20 years, and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

Per CNN reporting of the sentencing, Chansley’s alleged violent tendencies on January 6 were mentioned by the Judge as a factor:

Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon Shaman,” was sentenced to 41 months in prison for his role in the US Capitol riot.

The Justice Department had asked for Chansley to receive a harsh sentence as a way to set an example among the January 6 rioters, and prosecutors have positioned Chansley as emblematic of a barbaric crowd.

Since then, Chansley gained fame as the “QAnon Shaman,” a figure known in the fringe online movement and for widely shared photos that captured him wearing face paint and a headdress inside the Senate chamber.

Judge Royce Lamberth has had Chansley held in jail since his arrest, despite his multiple attempts to gain sympathy and his release.

Other judges are likely to look to Lamberth’s sentence as a possible benchmark, since Chansley is one of the first felony defendants among more than 660 Capitol riot cases to receive a punishment.

Pictures of Chansley at the Capitol went viral because of his bizarre appearance while leading others through the Capitol, shouting into a bullhorn. As one of the first 30 rioters inside the building, he made his way to the Senate dais that was hastily vacated earlier by then-Vice President Mike Pence, and left a note that read, “It’s Only A Matter Of Time. Justice Is Coming!” according to his plea documents.

Chansley also carried an American flag on a speared flagpole, which prosecutors have characterized as a weapon.

Lamberth asked only a few questions – about Chansley’s leaving a note for Pence and whether he knew of other threats to Pence’s life coming from the crowd, and about his choices that day.

“He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he?” Lamberth said to Chansley’s defense attorney. “For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”

Prosecutor Kimberly Paschall used several videos to show Chansley’s entrance into the Capitol building and Senate chamber, yelling along with the crowd. “That is not peaceful.”

Paschall called his role as the “flag-bearer” of the mob “chaos” and “terrifying.”

Chansley showed contrition and apologized:

For more than 30 minutes, Chansley spoke to Lamberth about the impact jail has had on him, and the guilt he feels for breaking the law.

He said he was wrong to enter the Capitol on January 6, and that he is not an insurrectionist or domestic terrorist, but rather a “good man who broke the law.”

His sprawling speech held the attention of the judge, as Chansley quoted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and “The Shawshank Redemption,” and described wanting to live his life like Jesus Christ and Gandhi.

“The hardest part about this is to know that I’m to blame. To have to look in the mirror and know, you really messed up. Royally,” Chansley said.

“I was in solitary confinement because of me. Because of my decision. I broke the law … I should do what Gandhi would do and take responsibility,” he says. “There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it, that’s what men of honor do.” He promised to never have to be jailed again.

“I think your remarks are the most remarkable I’ve heard in 34 years,” Lamberth told Chansley, calling his speech “akin to the kind of thing Martin Luther King would have said.”

But, Lamberth added, “what you did here was as horrific as you now concede,” and he could not justify a shorter sentence.

Last Tuesday night, Tucker Carlson showed video of Chansley, never before made public, walking casually through the Capitol, interacting peacefully with dozens of officers, some of whom seemed to be assisting Chansley, including getting him access to the Senate Chamber, as we reported, Jan. 6 Footage: Capitol Police Escorting a Calm ‘QAnon Shaman’ to Senate Floor:

The video seems at odds with the portrayal of Chansley’s conduct at the plea hearing and in the government’s case. And the video, of course, was not complete as to everything he did that day, but it did seem inconsistent. Surely the feds had turned it over to Chansley’s defense prior to him making the decision to plead guilty—the weight of the government evidence is one of the things any defendant would consider. And certainly the defense counsel knew about the video to argue for a lighter sentence, and the Judge knew as well, right?

Well tonight Chansley’s attorney was on Tucker, and he denied that the video was ever turned over to the defense:

Maybe it wouldn’t have made a difference, but that’s not the standard. The government has to turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence. At a minimum the video is partially exculpatory as to the severity of Chansley’s conduct and could have factored into sentencing.

(added) A question is, would this enable Chansley to reopen his conviction and/or sentence. I wish I had a better understanding of criminal procedure, particularly where there is a plea deal. The plea agreement waived any right to challenge the plea except for “newly discovered evidence,” so that could seem to leave some path open. It certainly would seem to leave open a motion to modify the sentence, but I defer to those with more criminal law experience.

UPDATE 3-12-2023

The Government has filed papers in another case disputing that the video was not “disclosed” to Chansley’s lawyer. But the disclosure as part of a voluminous discovery dump was after the plea deal, though before sentencing. So even by the government’s account, Chansley did not have the video when he entered the plea deal, and it’s implausible to think that defense counsel would search additional discovery after the plea unless he was alerted to the possibility of new exculpatory evidence.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


He didn’t make himself “the image of the riot.” Nancy Pelosi did. She instructed the Capitol police to escort him to the Senate Chamber, knowing that his photogenic, loony outfit would allow the fully compliant press to make him the face of the J6 “insurrection.” All part of the setup to make the J6rs, and therefore Trump, look bad.

Also, the cops clearly weren’t worried that his flagpole was a potential weapon.

Remember Ted Stevens?

    Now Ron Johnson is talking about that big door that was mysteriously left open and could only have been opened from the inside.

    This is almost certainly how the violent operatives gained access first. And the videos showing Capitol Police holding doors open and waving people in is coming too.

    There are lot of politicians and media people lying through their teeth right now who will be humbled when all of this is exposed. If they had a case, they would be making it and showing us the proof they claim to have that Carlson and Fox are deceptively editing the video evidence.

    I was watching Joe Rogan interviewing that scumbag idiot Mark Dice last night. Dice, who admitted not having watched Carlson’s presentation, had insisted that the videos were clearly edited to shape the narrative and when watching it for the first time immediately declared that they were clearly edited. Yeah, Carlson says right at the beginning that they are edited to remove all of the footage that shows nothing but empty rooms. The video was captured on surveillance cameras, not by professional cameramen.

    Dopey YouTube frauds are also being exposed in this latest development. Instead of looking for proof of government lies and fraud, maybe we should be asking the government to show us one example where they were telling us the truth about anything. Do the ever tell the truth?

    Brady! Brady! Brady!

    DaveGinOly in reply to Wisewerds. | March 9, 2023 at 6:02 pm

    Does anyone seriously doubt that if the flagpole didn’t have a spear point that it wouldn’t have been characterized as a weapon?

George_Kaplan | March 8, 2023 at 9:31 pm

If potentially exculpatory evidence wasn’t passed to the defence, is an appeal possible?

    Recce1 in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 9, 2023 at 8:17 am

    Absolutely! And very likely his plea bargain would be overturned.

    Then the real battle should be enjoined, that of taking the DOJ to the woodshed. Not only should there be a massive civil suit against the government, there also should be criminal complaints filed against the DOJ prosecutors who withheld exculpatory evidence, If found guilty, they should be sentenced to what he was, if not the maximun permitted for such duplicity

    mrtomsr in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 9, 2023 at 11:04 am

    I have noticed on Twitter that Jonathan Turley and Shipwreckedcrew have both weighed in on this subject. Shipwreckedcrew will apparently be on Tucker tonight. Because he has multiple J6 defendants, I wish Tucker had him on with Chansley’s original lawyer with whom he has concerns about the counsel and advice given to Chansley.

      Sanddog in reply to mrtomsr. | March 9, 2023 at 11:35 am

      Chansley’s original lawyer didn’t have a lot to work with since Pelosi refused to release any exculpatory footage. He had to deal with the full force of the fed and the media portraying Chansley as a violent maniac storming the capitol to kill every democrat. As with other high profile cases that involve left wing politics, the truth is irrelevant and they’re going to do whatever is necessary to get their pound of flesh.

    rocuall in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 9, 2023 at 1:16 pm

    I believe he has a case for appeal.. and it should go to a higher court OUTSIDE of DC

    DaveGinOly in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 9, 2023 at 6:03 pm

    It seems to be a form of prosecutorial misconduct.

      Edward in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 10, 2023 at 9:04 am

      Not “seems”. Failure to provide the defense with Brady material is unconscionable. And it isn’t at all likely to have been because after two years available for case prep the prosecution didn’t know of the existence of the video of Chansley. I once had to step in between an AUSA and a defense attorney who alleged that we had not conducted full discovery (we had) to keep the argument non-physical. And these two men had known and worked with each other for years.

What recourse is there?

    RicoT JD in Mipples in reply to Dathurtz. | March 9, 2023 at 8:28 am

    Online whining, obviously. You don’t escape criminal liability for a bank robbery because you did something laudable and legal not relevant to the actus reus shortly beforehand.

      Of course not. However the totality of the circumstances of conduct is an important consideration at sentencing. Particularly when the evidence reflecting the totality of the conduct and circumstances were apparently suppressed by the prosecution.

      Every person who committed a violent act should be charges and prosecuted for their crimes. Everyone who forcibly entered, broke windows or smashed through doors should be charged and prosecuted. I don’t personally know anyone who disagrees with that.

      The vast majority of the folks present were in fact ‘mostly peaceful’ which we have been assured is the true measure of purpose. They were basically guilty of what amounts to trespass. Some not even that due to Capital police assisting their entry by removing barricades and opening doors.

      We’re not talking about a bank robbery. What did he actually do that was illegal? Being escorted to the chambers by police suggests he did nothing illegal.

      DaveGinOly in reply to RicoT JD in Mipples. | March 9, 2023 at 6:13 pm

      No, but prosecutorial misconduct is likely grounds for new trial. And this was misconduct. There’s a reason why the government didn’t want the videos released. This particular video positively refutes the prosecution’s narrative.
      You’ve got to ask, “If the video wasn’t damaging to the prosecution’s narrative, why wasn’t it turned over to the defense?” In light of government’s actions with regard to such matters over the last several years, it seems that this is a question that answers itself. Government has demonstrated that it is in the habit of hiding information from the courts, from Congress, and from the people, when that information is damaging to the official narrative. Otherwise why bother to hide it and risk the reveal later, creating (at least) bad optics that sap the public’s trust in government institutions? Don’t those institutions want our trust? If so, they’re doing a pretty piss-poor job of maintaining it.

John Roberts and the Supreme Court would just say, we see nothing here, business as usual. The right to all discovery be damned, the constitution is just a worthless piece of paper anyway.

Murdock has put his foot down on Tucker, there won’t be much more of anything coming forward

Like the 4 American protesters that died that day, 2 women clearly murdered

    Paul in reply to gonzotx. | March 8, 2023 at 10:29 pm

    Lol, did you actually watch Tucker tonight?

      healthguyfsu in reply to Paul. | March 9, 2023 at 2:11 am

      That would get in the way of bringing over completely made up bullshit from treeper territory.

        gonzotx in reply to healthguyfsu. | March 9, 2023 at 3:07 am

        Right, it’s all over the internet

        On just about every blog

        So stick it where the Sun don’t shine brother

          Milhouse in reply to gonzotx. | March 9, 2023 at 8:29 am

          No, it’s not. It’s only all over the fever swamp where you reside, and the pestilent sewers you call blogs.

      gonzotx in reply to Paul. | March 9, 2023 at 3:36 am

      Did you see any new film?

        Paul in reply to gonzotx. | March 9, 2023 at 8:12 am

        How much film do we need to see to know the investigation was a sham? Rather than being redundant, he advanced the argument by moving the discussion along to the specific constitutional rights that were violated such as withholding exculpatory evidence.

        It’s coming. Let everyone digest what has already been revealed and allow it to sink in. Only one episode and the Deep State is already in full panic mode making things even worse for themselves. Let them paint themselves deeper into the corner and then hit them with another truth bomb when they get tired.

        Here is another little-noticed development that may reveal what the NeverTrumpers plan B might be:

        These are the guys who are putting all of their eggs on DeSantis to challenge Trump. Now fantasize DeSantis endorsing Trump at some point. Gretchen Whitmer would be their backup? I’m telling you, we have the Deep State operation cornered with their backs pinned to the wall. All it would take to win would be for DeSantis to say no to the dirty money, be part of one of the greatest stories in history as Trump finishes what he started and then be president for 8 years.

        The Deep State isn’t the only player capable of kabuki theater. And their kabuki theater has already been exposed. Now Tucker Carlson refers explicitly to the Uniparty. Maybe Trump and DeSantis are staging one for the ages.

          Bill Kristol–per the link you provided–is calling for support for a Gretchen Whitmer / Abigail Spanberger ticket–both Democrats, not for support of DeSantis. The crazy #NeverTrump cabal that this came from reportedly couldn’t decide amongst themselves who would be worse for their dreams of reviving the neocon big government, big spending, big war progressive party of Bush. Both are so awful to their pipe dream that they settled on ::: checks notes ::: that woman. Surreal.

          First care to explain how anti-DeSantis spam is relevant to this story?

          Second care to explain why you have to lie if your case for nominating Trump is so wonderful?

          Here is a very simple case against nominating Donald Trump

          1. He is highly unpopular among the general public-He lost the popular vote both times he ran by an extremely significant margin. You may point out he won 2016. Yes he did, but he didn’t just lose the popular vote the reason he won was because Hillary Clinton considered Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan a blue wall that didn’t need to be contested. For exactly how different that would have been if she had understood those states to be in play MITT ROMNEY won more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 during his landslide loss there than Donald Trump did in 2016. Making people change their mind about someone they already made a decision about is extremely difficult under perfect circumstances let alone what we have.

          2. Since 2016 he has lost every election involving himself. 2018-Blue wave year. 2020-Biden victory. 2022-With his nominees running on him we had a net loss in the senate and what could have been a massive red wave in the house turned into barely retaking it when we started out almost there. The candidates who put us over the top in the house by the way were moderates often running in extremely non-Trump districts. Trump candidates didn’t just lose the swing districts, they lost red districts like Grand Rapids to. Lauren Boebert barely won re-election in an overwhelmingly Republican district.

          3. Since 2020 he doesn’t appear to have learned anything and far from expanding his appeal has focused on reducing it. Did being told your vote for Trump was fake and that Vladimir Putin determined the 2016 election make you more inclined to back Democrats? That is exactly how independents and democrats feel towards narratives of massive fraud.

          I have yet to see you actually go over the case against Trump all I ever see from you is lies about DeSantis. Could you go over why you think 2022 isn’t a prediction for what will happen if we do exactly the same thing again in 2024?

          @Fuzzy: Kristol’s speech was pure ignorant idiocy. What he is advising the Republicans to do is what they have been doing all along. That is the very essence of the Uniparty. It is just another indication that the Deep State has no plan B. That is what creates the opportunity for DeSantis to kill of the REAL enemy and it isn’t Trump.

          Did you notice that in my fantasy scenario DeSantis comes out as a hero for the ages? Instead of being remembered as Ron DeSanctimonious, his heroic act would forever be know as DeSantisization or some other eponymous rendering of DeSantis. What a great American story to tell for generations. But if Trump is the only thing that obsesses you, it can never happen. DeSantis NEEDS Trump and Trump needs DeSantis to win in an historic rout over the Uniparty. We cannot afford to come out of this with the GOPe still in the game. There is no defeating the Democrats before first destroying the GOPe.

          The pieces are all there. It would be called a miracle. All of that dirty money that is now being committed to DeSantis for the taking would be left hanging with nowhere to go but… Whitmer? That’s all they got? Why would DeSantis bet everything on them? I can’t possibly be the only one who sees this opportunity.

          McConnell and his gang of 18 are already getting antsy about DeSantis being slow to announce as they watch their clown car plans disintegrate. My fantasy scenario is hanging in there. Stop being such a defeatist.

          Huh? What is “defeatist” about my comment?

          Kristol and his branch of progressive “Republicans” have zero influence over the party now, and that was the general gist of the Politico piece. They’re pathetic and on the outside trying to claw their way in . . . apparently to the Democrat Party.They are only worth quoting so that we can all point and laugh.

          And this may come as a surprise to you, but the “uniparty” you like to carry on about is also composed of a co-equal–to the executive/presidency–branch of our Constitutional Republic. How is electing ANYONE president going to change that when voters in their districts (for the House) and states (for the Senate) elect their own reps and sens?

          @ Danny: apparently you are another one here who doesn’t know how to read. And you lie to accuse me of lying. Grow up.

          @fuzzy: Your world would be much more lucid if you dropped your blind hate of Trump. His defeat is all you care about. Your anger is causing you to suffer tunnel vision. If for no other reason, I am praying for DeSantis and Trump to reveal that this little fight was staged for the reasons I outlined above just to see how you weasel out of your corner. There are lots of ways to win but only one would be decisive. Yours is not it and you are completely closed-minded about any other acceptable outcome than for Trump to lose. You are a prime example of why “conservatives” (whatever that is) don’t win. You just can’t imagine winning.

          I don’t even know how to respond to this because it’s completely . . . strange. Did you even read my comment? Because I don’t see any relationship between your response to what you seem to imagine I said and what I actually said.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Pasadena Phil. | March 9, 2023 at 6:17 pm

          A few nights ago, Tucker casually suggested that Biden is on drugs during certain events to make him look alert and aware. (I’ve thought that since the beginning of his administration, at least. Sometimes he has Betzoid eyes, and it’s always when his cognitive functions seem to be firing on more cylinders than usual, and vice versa.)

JackinSilverSpring | March 8, 2023 at 9:54 pm

Our government lies. This is not what we the people signed up for when we accepted the Constitution that gives the federal government the powers it has. One wonders how long we the people will stand for the federal government’s penchant for disregarding the Constitution.

    nordic prince in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | March 8, 2023 at 10:33 pm

    Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. Thanks to Obama, the government can now lie to you (propagandize you) and it’s perfectly legal.

    “This prohibition [against disseminating propaganda to foreign publics] was lifted in 2012, when the SMMA was signed into law by President Obama, allowing the same propaganda disseminated by our government to foreign publics, to now be released in the U.S. for the very first time.

    “And yes, our government is also now allowed to create propaganda tailored specifically for U.S. public consumption, using any media as it sees fit, while remaining anonymous as the source of the material being reported.”

    Everything that we’ve been told through mainstream media and the politicians has been one lie after another. They wanted John Q. Public to believe a specific narrative about January 6, and they relied on their buddies in the lapdog media to push that narrative.

    And like with “covid,” John Q. Public swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

    The establishment screams like stuck pigs whenever any actual truth slips out, because then people start to understand they’ve been lied to constantly.

    Real eyes
    Real lies

      JackinSilverSpring in reply to nordic prince. | March 8, 2023 at 10:48 pm

      So how long will we the people take this?

      Obama is the cause of much of the misery today, from chasing domestic terrorists, spreading misinformation, stoking racial animosity, all while profiting off the system. The most devious. Picking corrupt and cruel Biden is par for the course, as he enabled Biden to spread his own poison across the land and overseas.

      Milhouse in reply to nordic prince. | March 9, 2023 at 1:01 am

      the government can now lie to you (propagandize you)

      And there is your lie. Propaganda does not mean lies. The Smith-Mundt Act prohibited the government from showing US audiences any program that it produced for foreign audiences, no matter how true and relevant they might be. The fact that the government produced them was enough to ban them from domestic publication. Lifting that prohibition does not authorize the government to lie, whether to foreign or domestic audiences. (Of course there’s never been any law forbidding it to lie either.)

        Blackgriffin in reply to Milhouse. | March 9, 2023 at 5:22 am

        Of course they lie and their lies are the direct result of their total corruption. They’ve moved so far from the Constitution and the rule of law they can’t even see them anymore. They’re not a government anymore, they’re a criminal cabal.

          MattMusson in reply to Blackgriffin. | March 9, 2023 at 7:20 am

          At this point, the President of the Senate could sodomize a young boy on the podium and the Media would ignore it, even if they accidentally broadcast the attack on CSPAN.

          Milhouse in reply to Blackgriffin. | March 9, 2023 at 8:23 am

          Utterly nonresponsive. How does anything you wrote justify Nordic Prince’s claim?

          Milhouse in reply to Blackgriffin. | March 9, 2023 at 8:24 am

          MattMusson, that’s even more non-responsive. Even if it were true, which it isn’t, how would it justify Nordic Prince’s claim?

        Idonttweet in reply to Milhouse. | March 9, 2023 at 8:56 am

        Of course they lie to us. It wouldn’t matter if there was a law prohibiting it or not, they’d do it anyway.

        For decades, the official position of the U.S. government was that something called Area 51 did not exist, despite ‘conspiracy theorists’ claims and extensive documentary and photographic evidence to the contrary. Eventually, the government was forced to acknowledge that Area 51 does exist, despite its earlier denials, cover-ups and lies.

        Roswell in 1947, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, MK Ultra. There are more examples than you can count, and my point is simply that the government lied to the American people about these things for years. In the case of Roswell, they lied for almost 50 years before the most recent version change.

        People will try to justify the cover-ups by citing national security or whatever. That does nothing to change the fact that they lied to us all.

        This is a government that taps your phone, collects your data and monitors your whereabouts with impunity. Do you really think they wouldn’t lie to you?

          Milhouse in reply to Idonttweet. | March 10, 2023 at 10:27 am

          Nobody has claimed that governments never lie, or aren’t lying. We are discussing Nordic Prince’s wild claim, which is completely unsupported by facts.

        nordic prince in reply to Milhouse. | March 9, 2023 at 9:54 am

        When they push a narrative that does not comport with facts, that is LYING.

        Propaganda (whether “good” or “bad”) is the putting forth of a specific narrative – an admixture of truths, half- truths, lies, and misinformation/ disinformation – designed to shape public opinion.

        Propaganda can also lie by omission.

        This government does and has done that for at least 60 years, and likely far longer.

          Milhouse in reply to nordic prince. | March 10, 2023 at 10:26 am

          No, it is NOT lying. At most it is spin, which is a powerful and morally neutral tool.

          And of course the government has always been allowed to direct propaganda at a domestic audience. It’s impossible to imagine a government that doesn’t, and probably no such government has ever existed in human history.

          The Smith-Mundt Act did not mention “propaganda”. It specifically governed the programs the US government produced to propagandize American values in Europe and other places. It forbade the government to publish those programs to a domestic audience. Those programs are not lies, never were lies. But they were unabashedly spin, as you would expect them to be.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | March 9, 2023 at 6:23 pm

        If propaganda isn’t a means to deliver falsehoods, it wouldn’t be called “propaganda,” it would be called “facts.” The idea that it is not entirely lies does not mean that it is meant to tell the truth, it only means that the inclusion of truth is meant to lend an air of respect to the lies that it is intended to convey.

        “And a lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly told between two truths.”
        Deep Throat, The X Files

          Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 10, 2023 at 10:20 am

          If propaganda isn’t a means to deliver falsehoods, it wouldn’t be called “propaganda,”

          Bullshit. Propaganda just means “advertising”, “public relations”. Yes, it pushes a narrative; that’s not lying, it’s spin. Everyone does it and there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s probably wise to limit how a government does so to its own people, because it’s too easy to abuse, but some amount of government propaganda is unavoidable and necessary.

    MattMusson in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | March 9, 2023 at 7:18 am

    The Government no longer lives by the law.

    Perhaps one reason is that a large percentage of the populace has no clue what the Constitution is or how it was intended to apply to the Federal government.

thad_the_man | March 8, 2023 at 10:15 pm

This is absolutely disgusting.

The government entered into a contract negotiation committing major fraud not to mention violating civil rights while doing so.

I hope he sues Schumer, Pelosi, Lizzy girl, and Kenzinger. They all knew, kept quiet, and actually profited. or at least tried to.

    Milhouse in reply to thad_the_man. | March 9, 2023 at 2:01 am

    They can’t be sued. Congressional immunity. It’s explicitly in the constitution.

      Paul in reply to Milhouse. | March 9, 2023 at 3:00 pm

      Yeah, reminds me of Hairy Reed lying to the world about Mittens. And then laughing about it… ‘it worked, didn’t it?’

      I guess at some point the only recourse against lying scum such as Reed is the ‘exercise band treatment’

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | March 9, 2023 at 6:29 pm

      Art. I, sec. 6
      The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

      The protection is not so broad as you suggest. A Congress critter making slanderous comments anywhere other than during a “speech or debate in either house” seems to not be protected by this section.

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 10, 2023 at 10:30 am

        Committee sessions count too. As does any speech that is made in the course of their legislative duties. And it also extends to their staff, who of course never participate directly in speeches or debates on the floor of the house.

    gonzotx in reply to thad_the_man. | March 9, 2023 at 3:37 am

    Well maybe you get a wish

    McConnell is in the hospital, he fell

In a country with an intact justice system this would be and automatic mistrial. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a country.

The only way to resolve these questions is to release all the video.

It’s now fair to ask at this point if any more will be shown, and if the suggestions of suppression are accurate. The same loop of the shaman does not tell the story, or of Sicknick.

If McCarthy wants the video out, he may need to find another messenger.

As it stands now, it looks like a riot and the most incompetent insurrection, perhaps ever. Indeed, the most competent actors may have been embedded feds to stoke the rioters.

Sounds like escorting Chansley to the Senate chamber, where he could be cast as “the face of the insurrection,” was a hastily cobbled-together back-up plan.

The initial plan seems to have been to let the mob invade the Senate chamber while the Senators were still in it.

That is the obvious implication of the account given by Capitol Police Officer Tarik Johnson, interviewed by Tucker on Tuesday.

As the mob encroached on the capitol building, and then started coming in, Johnson kept radioing his supervisors for permission to evacuate the Senate chamber, and they kept not answering.

He said that if he evacuated the Senators without authorization he faced being disciplined by the department, but as the people who should have ordered the evacuation kept not answering, and he saw a last chance to get the Senators on a clear path out, he finally decided that he had to take it upon himself to order the evacuation without authorization.

It is after that order that the Senators can be seen running down the hall, with Schumer testifying today (Wednesday), that he barely got out before the protesters came in: that they were right on his heels.

So if not for one officer who acted without orders, the Senate chamber would have been invaded with the Senators inside. And we are supposed to believe that would have been an accident?

No way. That officer blew up Pelosi’s first plan to frame the protesters.

Epps and his men removed the police barriers and ushered the crowd up to the Capitol building, where someone inside opened the doors, after which the protesters made their way to the Senate chamber, where the Senators were SUPPOSED to still be inside.

If they had been, we can be pretty sure that Epps or some other FBI-affiliated Reichstag fire-setters would have been on hand to initiate some violence that the incoming election stealers could use to vilify all Trump supporters.

Instead all they got was QAnon Shaman and a couple hundred other innocent protestors for the made-up crime of “parading” in the People’s House, their house. Most of the breaches, maybe all of the breaches, were by the FBI, Pelosi, and their corrupt minions.


    DaveGinOly in reply to AlecRawls. | March 9, 2023 at 6:38 pm

    It makes perfect sense that Pelosi would put Senators at risk! I wonder if the Senators themselves have even contemplated such a scheme, and what would they say if they had an inkling that the Speaker of the House intentionally put them in danger and risked their well-being? Ha!

The man clearly has emotional problems.

The most shameful aspect of all this is the abuse of the emotionally disturbed, for political gain, by the democrats.

Shame, shame, shame.

He should be freed immediately as reparations for prosecutorial misconduct.

The worst thing is not that it wasn’t disclosed, a procedural matter, but that they ignored their own evidence.

Why hasn’t the Republicans in the Congress and Senate DEMANDED that this INNOCENT man be released????????????????

    Milhouse in reply to gmhunt. | March 9, 2023 at 8:27 am

    Because that’s not how it works.

    CommoChief in reply to gmhunt. | March 9, 2023 at 10:10 am

    He ain’t exactly innocent. Whatever else the video shows it does clearly place him not only in the Capital but in restricted areas. No way around the fact that his presence in those areas was unlawful.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to CommoChief. | March 9, 2023 at 12:07 pm

      He was being escorted by Capitol police. That makes his presence lawful. If he wasn’t allowed to be there then it is the Capitol police and their bosses who have broken the law by enabling his presence.

        They were accomplices, because as LEOs, they had a positive duty to intervene if they are witnesses to a crime. Certainly, they had no authority to enable a crime.

      Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | March 10, 2023 at 10:32 am

      He was not on notice that any of those areas were “restricted”.

Old Navy Doc | March 9, 2023 at 8:13 am

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

― Ronald Reagan

The video doesn’t change anything. He was charged with a crime of intent. What was his intent for being there?

Obstruction of an Official Proceeding:

(c) Whoever corruptly—

otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Stuytown. | March 9, 2023 at 6:44 pm

    Define “corruptly.”
    Anyone who was there to protest a stolen election (a crime) and to demand (even force) adherence to Constitutional and other lawful processes, was not there “corruptly.” Sedition and insurrection are crimes against a government and its lawful actions. When it is the purpose of a group of people to invoke the Constitution and demand adherence to it (and the law) by government officials, that in no way is sedition or insurrection.

    AlecRawls in reply to Stuytown. | March 9, 2023 at 7:02 pm

    There is no indication that anyone except for the Epps and the other FBI-affiliated Reichstag-fire setters had any intent to disrupt the Senate. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights to peacefully and legally protest, as President Trump had urged.

    You are aware, right, that Epps and his accomplices removed the signs and barriers marking the Capitol grounds as off limits (which they normally are not)?

    And you are aware, right, that when this crowd reached the building and were peaceably assembled in front of it, that it was the Capitol Police who commenced hostilities by attacking the peaceful protesters with flashbangs from the balcony above, and only that did some parts of the crowd become aggressive?

    And you are aware that more Epps accomplices have been id’ed on video breaking windows and pushing people to enter?

    And you are aware that it was someone inside the Capitol who opened the doors?

    This was clearly an FBI orchestrated operation to frame peaceful protesters who had no criminal intent. These oath-breaking FBI figures are the criminals. They are the one’s who need to be prosecuted.

    Milhouse in reply to Stuytown. | March 10, 2023 at 10:34 am

    That law was directed at acts, such as destroying evidence that you know some government entity wants for an investigation. It was never intended to apply to congressional sittings, and until 2021 nobody ever imagined it would be.

I should hope that withholding exculpatory evidence was sanctionable prosecutorial misconduct in the federal courts, but it’s Judge Lamberth so that’s not going to happen.

Chansley (Quaon S) was in royce Lambeth’s court which may be both good and bad. Lambeth has a history of being rather annoyed by prosecution misconduct. As compared to Sullivan who blessed the misconduct in the Flynn case.

The problem for Chansley is that he plead guilty which creates huge appeal hurdles regardless of guilt or innocence. The burden of proving guilt shifts from govt proving guilt to the defendant proving innocence , since he plead guilty as opposed to being found guilty by the jury.


    henrybowman in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 9, 2023 at 12:48 pm

    Chansley was broken by cruel and unusual captivity, along with the constant repetition that everything they accused him of was ultimately his own fault. Show trials work best with Manchurian Defendants.

      DaveGinOly in reply to henrybowman. | March 9, 2023 at 6:50 pm

      It should be self-evident that any plea agreement is made under duress, and therefore shouldn’t be enforceable later once the defendant decides to withdraw his plea. No agreement made under duress is consensual, and therefore shouldn’t be enforceable. (The government is forced to adhere to any such agreement because it’s prohibited from trying a person again once a verdict has been rendered by the court. The defendant isn’t bound by any such limitation.)

This is an example for why you should NEVER even consider entering D.C. as anything but a tourist, and as a tourist only visiting museums and leaving.

The D.C. courts are not going to give you a fair trial, the Capitol Hill Police are very much partisan, and appeals have an over 90% chance of failure.

In the vast and overwhelming majority of cases the court verdict is the end.

The fact that an actual la professor who saw the exculpatory evidence is not saying “this makes an appeal likely to succeed” speaks for itself.

I would love it if Prof. Jacobson corrects me on this but my understanding is the trial verdict will almost always be final.

Working to change who is on a school board, or helping local initiatives to get CRT our of the local schools gets results, going to D.C. to protest gets you arrested and achieves nothing.

Think of your safety, if someone wants to do a protest in D.C. tell him “You are free to spend 4 years in a cell I will not be joining you”.

    Agreed. You couldn’t pay me to go DC for ANY reason these days.

    henrybowman in reply to Danny. | March 9, 2023 at 1:02 pm

    I make it a point never even to route trips though areas that don’t trust me to carry my sidearm.

    John Farnham teaches that one of the easiest ways to achieve effortless self-defense is to adhere to The Rule of Stupids: never do stupid things, in stupid places, at stupid times, around stupid people. You know, like going out at 2AM, in a snowstorm, in Chicago, to buy a Subway sub, alone with yourself, a stupid person named Jussie Smollet.

    Even passing through a gun-free state (or District) already violates the stupid places and stupid people clauses. I don’t need to give my adversaries a head start.

Andrzejr2 (właso) | March 9, 2023 at 9:55 am

Chansley was convicted by his lawyer. After all, he was the one who wrote Chansley’s “confession”.

2smartforlibs | March 9, 2023 at 10:09 am

This is the second attorney that said this in 24 hours. Still, the loyal Kool-Aid crowd refused to believe the DOJ had to give information over. They like to attempt to say its Congress(and they don’t have to since it’s not law enforcement) that didn’t give it up not the DOJ. Well, it’s the DOJ that said the buck never got here.

    henrybowman in reply to 2smartforlibs. | March 9, 2023 at 1:10 pm

    A competent lawyer would have demanded the release of the footage known to exist. If the court refused, it would now be completely valid cause for appeal and reversal. If the court agreed and the holder of the footage refused, the defendant might actually have had to be released. There have been other cases in the news over the past several years of defendants prosecuted by the government, the government absolutely refusing to show critical evidence because it was “classified,” and the defendants walking.
    Was Chansley’s lawyer competent enough to do this? I haven’t heard, either way. I do know that a lot of J6 defendants were provided low-grade “public defenders,” the usual technique that governments use to end-run Gideon without severely threatening their power to slam-dunk a defendant.

      Every attempt by every defendant attorney to gain access to this footage has been hamstrung by *both* the DOJ and the judges involved. There is no neutrality used by the *extremely* limited number of judges who have pipelined these cases through the system. Any attempt to access footage is refused, any protests are squashed, and any defendants who object are *smashed* by the DOJ pushing for every single enhancement they can squeeze into the charges and the judges signing off for every one of them. Oh, and the press is more than happy to ignore the requests, making it look like the defendants are even more guilty.

      There is no justice in the DOJ for anybody charged with anything involving J6.

Speaker McCarthy is allowing Representatives to schedule times to view the J6 videos with their staffers

, former chair of the Jan. 6 committee, said lawmakers were never
given that type of access to the footage last Congress. “It’s strictly a
new policy that the new speaker has put in place,” he told CNN.

Thompson said he doesn’t think any of the Jan. 6 members themselves ever had access to the footage — they let only staff view it. “I’m actually not aware of any member of the committee who had access. We had a team of employees who kind of went through the video.”

.. damning and an attempt to exculpate themselves at the same time
seems to leave Nancy Pelosi holding the bag

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | March 9, 2023 at 12:03 pm

That sentence was a sick farce even without the new video. Judge Lamberth is a lying poseur who is more guilty of affronts to the Constitution than the Q-anon shaman ever could have been.

The judge, the prosecutor, the staff, and everyone who worked to put Chansley away are guilty and should all serve out twice the sentence that Chansley got – including having to sit in solitary for twice the time that Chansley did.

Our system is infested at the top with criminals of the worst sort. Either they start being held truly accountable for their crimes or you can just kiss this nation good-bye and look forward to real, truly painful and terror-filled chaos to come as it goes down the toilet.

    I hate to say it, but the level of corruption, collusion, and tyranny that this entire event exhibits is already well past the level that the Second Amendment was written to correct.

The Rule of Law is dead in the USA. The courts are beyond any reform. Patriot must agree that we can only preserve our freedoms by the Declaration of a Second Republic with a new constitution that enshrines our freedom for the foreseeable future.

Insufficiently Sensitive | March 9, 2023 at 12:16 pm

prosecutors have positioned Chansley as emblematic of a barbaric crowd.

And Judge Lamberth has wholly subscribed to this myth. He therefore associates Chansley’s bizarre getup with violence he did not commit, and by brute symbolism justifies a long solitary confinement PLUS an extended jail sentence. What’s missing here?

Justice, that’s what. It’s immoral to jail someone simply for having black skin near a crime scene, and no less immoral to severely punish a costume freak for strolling around while others commit violence.

    In modern terms, who’s to say that he doesn’t have a perfect right to identify as a buffalo? Persecuting him for that threatens his safety and the safety of his entire herd.
    Come on, Democrats — those are YOUR RULES.

    It’s interesting that his bearing of a weapon (the spear-point flag pole) is seen by authorities as emblematic of an intent to cause physical harm. I see the bearing of a weapon in such circumstances and then not using it as evidence of an intent to not actually hurt anyone. SCOTUS says you can’t be required to give up one constitutional right in order to exercise another. Certainly, the shaman didn’t surrender his rights to bear arms, to self-defense, or to his property while exercising his 1st Amendment rights. The bearing of an obvious weapon, by my lights, is itself a 1st Amendment issue, as doing so sends the political message “I am a free man.” (The bearing of weapons, especially ceremonial weapons, has historically been used to this purpose.)

“The government has to turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence.”

This seems almost quaint and from another era. Some era before Democratic administrations enjoyed the establishment media’s complete cooperation.

Feds Withheld Exculpatory Video Shown On Tucker

Even if they did, that lawyer screwed him by recommending a guilty plea. Now he has no right of appeal no matter what exculpatory evidence is found.