January 6th, Just What Was It?

[metis]

Good thing she wasn't black because then Metis wouldn't be able to have such a full-throated defense.

Is there any low that you are not willing to sink into? If you aren't intelligent nor moral enough to deal with what I actually posted, then maybe let others who can post without such childish snarkiness do their job. It's the trash you so often respond with why I rarely respond to your posts.

 

[Colt]

I am not "anti-Christian" I am only anti abusers of the Bible. Yes, you provided statistical facts as an attempt to hide your racism. You never justified your beliefs. Racists often do that. You should have answered his questions.

The statistical facts justify the reality of current events in America. Leftist, in order to hide the failure of your assumptions of black inferiority (which requires you to fix) simply use the charge of racism in discourse and declare victory! Guilty White Liberals "We oppressed you, now we are going to lift you up, your fate is STILL in our hands". White guilt, the literal terror of being seen as a racist!

"What do people do with the freedom when they don't know how to handle it? They reinvent their oppression. Even as that oppression has faded away, they make it up in their mind all over again. Racism is around every conner, there is systemic racism, micro aggression, white privilege, all this designed to deal with the shock of freedom........Freedom judges you!" ~Shelby Steele

Steele does a brilliant job of outing guilty white Americans:

 

[Colt]

Is there any low that you are not willing to sink into? If you aren't intelligent nor moral enough to deal with what I actually posted, then maybe let others who can post without such childish snarkiness do their job. It's the trash you so often respond with why I rarely respond to your posts.

I know, I nailed it! Thats what angers you! In today's American conversation, dominated by guilty white leftist, IF the only women shot by police at the capital was a black women or man, you know damn well what the reaction would have been!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem with the prosecutors claim is that the only footage released until now did not include what Tucker Carlson released. Selectively releasing their footage publically makes it hard to buy the story that they didn't selectively release to the defense.

Not for me. Why wouldn't they have different standards for discovery and for public consumption? The pubic doesn't want to look at 44,000+ hours of raw footage. They want an edited version. I know that I do. Neither does the defense want to look at the 39,999+ hours that didn't make it into the J6 committee's presentation, but they might need to.

I've already pointed out how that is unlikely because Chansley waived the right of appeal in his plea deal.

That sounds like he didn't think he would be exonerated at trial, and that his attorney, who had seen the evidence against him, agreed. It sounds like he didn't give up much but the chance to pay his attorney even more to see him through trial, and the chance to pay again for a second roll of the dice.

I'm glad you agree. If you followed the discussion in this thread, then you would see that @F1fan pushed in bold text the culpability of standing in front of a podium and you chimed in opposition to my response.

I missed that, and he seems to deny having done that recently. Also, why would it matter if he had? If it doesn't matter, then this is all deflection away from the crimes committed no non-crimes like standing in front of a podium.

I notice that releasing video footage that was kept secret is not part of your description of where a cover-up begins.

I told you where the cover-up began, and I don't accept your claim that there was a coverup by the committee. Their ethics and professionalism were impeccabe.

People who broke into the capitol did commit crimes and Chansley also committed crimes.

Then he's where he belongs.

I also don't trust selective media narrations that Chansley was there to overthrow the government.

He was there to participate in the disruption Trump orchestrated for that day, and he got both his wish and his comeuppance.

the exculpatory video indicates Chansley's mental state was not violent

Why do we keep seeing this? Neither was Bernie Madoff's. So what?

Translation: With the Left all people are racist if you disagree with them. Its the strawman diversion when they can't handle facts.

Your posting belies your claim of not being racist. You might not be able to see that, but others have and have told you before I did. I'm reminded of the trop that when three people at a party tell you you're not fit to drive home, believe them even if that's not how you feel.

If you have no problem holding racist responsible for their behavior, then why can't you hold criminals responsible for theirs???

Are you referring to rioters in race riots? Who wants to see them get a pass? Not me.

What you call "racist views" may just be an aversion to people whom one has had negative interactions with and even within racial demographics.

If they generalize that experience to the entire race, then they are racist. That's the definition of bigotry.

 

[metis]

I know, I nailed it! Thats what angers you! In today's American conversation, dominated by guilty white leftist, IF the only women shot by police at the capital was a black women or man, you know damn well what the reaction would have been!

Your dishonesty is appalling, so I think it's about time I put you on my ignore list again.

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem with the prosecutors claim is that the only footage released until now did not include what Tucker Carlson released. Selectively releasing their footage publically makes it hard to buy the story that they didn't selectively release to the defense.

So your view is that the prosecutors are lying?

And again here they have released selective footage to the media. Maybe both prosecutors and media should have been more transparent to the public from the beginning.

Transparent about what?

I've already pointed out how that is unlikely because Chansley waived the right of appeal in his plea deal.

Well then, if they had this footage yet waved the right to appeal anyways, it either means they were incompetent or the footage isn't what Faux News presented it to be. Given how we already know Faux News intentionally lies to their viewers, plus the explanation from the Capitol Police, the latter seems the most likely explanation.

People who broke into the capitol did commit crimes and Chansley also committed crimes.

Then what exactly is the issue here? He committed a crime, pled guilty to it, and is now serving his sentence. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

I will repeat again: the exculpatory video indicates Chansley's mental state was not violent and it supports that he was led to the Senate Chamber by Capitol police. It is also suggestive that he was there to protest. I've said this already; you just didn't want to hear it. I also don't deny the existence of inculpatory evidence. Perhaps you should step away from pushing conspiracy theories for a while.

Perhaps you need to understand what he pled guilty to. He pled guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding. That's it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The statistical facts justify the reality of current events in America. Leftist, in order to hide the failure of your assumptions of black inferiority (which requires you to fix) simply use the charge of racism in discourse and declare victory! Guilty White Liberals "We oppressed you, now we are going to lift you up, your fate is STILL in our hands". White guilt, the literal terror of being seen as a racist!

"What do people do with the freedom when they don't know how to handle it? They reinvent their oppression. Even as that oppression has faded away, they make it up in their mind all over again. Racism is around every conner, there is systemic racism, micro aggression, white privilege, all this designed to deal with the shock of freedom........Freedom judges you!" ~Shelby Steele

Steele does a brilliant job of outing guilty white Americans:

I see. Now you have switched your strategy to projection.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Leftist, in order to hide the failure of your assumptions of black inferiority

White liberals don't assume black inferiority. The opposite is true. The belief is that with the same opportunities, we should expect similar outcomes.

Steele does a brilliant job of outing guilty white Americans

What white guilt? Is that how you understand empathy and a desire for justice? What I see is a nation comprising both a tolerant, empathetic strain and a separate, more selfish and sociopathic strain that don't understand their thinking or what motivates them, so they mock it with phrases like political correctness, snowflake, social justice worker, cancel culture, and wokeness. Tell me that you lack empathy without saying you lack empathy by complaining about any of these in people embodying tolerance, the Golden Rule, and loving fellow man. Who actually does those things, and who only give them lip service as they complain about them in others and demean them for it? People who understand none of that have to assume that guilt motivates liberal, because they don't understand compassion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I thought Reagan and Bush were much worse, because they supported outsourcing, the breaking of labor unions, the deterioration of the US economy, and the decline in the U.S. standard of living.

You must mean breaking parasitic municipal unions that all but suck the public dry of its money for its self serving luxurious benefits, perks , and votes for its bought and paid for politicians.

 

[Colt]

White liberals don't assume black inferiority. The opposite is true. The belief is that with the same opportunities, we should expect similar outcomes.

What white guilt? Is that how you understand empathy and a desire for justice? What I see is a nation comprising both a tolerant, empathetic strain and a separate, more selfish and sociopathic strain that don't understand their thinking or what motivates them, so they mock it with phrases like political correctness, snowflake, social justice worker, cancel culture, and wokeness. Tell me that you lack empathy without saying you lack empathy by complaining about any of these in people embodying tolerance, the Golden Rule, and loving fellow man. Who actually does those things, and who only give them lip service as they complain about them in others and demean them for it? People who understand none of that have to assume that guilt motivates liberal, because they don't understand compassion.

Enabling isn't compassion.

 

[metis]

What some really don't understand is that unions are an exercise in democracy versus authoritarianism.

If you're in the middle-income category, then go give a union worker a kiss and a thank you.

 

[Ponder This]

It is not exculpatory due to other evidence that has been posted in this thread. His lawyer knew that he was getting a good deal. He needs something a lot stronger than a police officer trying to guide him and possibly mislead him to be "exculpatory." That tiny bit of cherry picked video does not refute the other evidence.

She was with the group who busted out a window and was going to invade the chamber, which endangered those in it. Under such circumstances, the police had an obligation to try and thwart the assault. Under panic conditions, it is always possible an unarmed person may be hit. Thus, she must share a large part of the blame since she did not have to invade the chamber and endanger others.

As has been explained to you numerous times. Any video that shows people inside the Capitol when it was closed to the public is evidence of their crime.

Do you think the media is going to show 44,000 hours in their news coverge? No, select bits are sufficient to show America and the rest of the world what Trump MAGAs did to democracy.

Wise, what appeal would work when even Carlson shows him INSIDE the Capitol?

The podium was inside the Capitol. If a rioter is standing in front of the podium then they are inside the Capitol and committing a crime.

Right, police were escorting criminal trspassers out of the Capitol.

The investigation of certain police is if they allowed rioters in instead of stopping their entry. The Capitol was closed to the public at that time, and the police had a duty to prevent entry. Of course the Trump mod used weapons to attack police and they were injured and overwhelmed.

An investigation will find out.

Some video was not recommended to be releasd to the public due to security issues, namely the position of security cameras.

You keep saying this, but any video that shows a defendant IN the Capitol, and in the act of committing a crime won't have any evidence that helps them. This view that you adopted from Carlson's propaganda show is absurd.

Was he merely a fool who was duped by Trump and other far right media? Or did he know what he was doing to meet others and disrupt a congressional procedure? What did these aimless folls really think they would accomplish by breaking into the Capitol, keep Trump as president?

So what's up with all your blather about the video clip Carlson broadcast? It was just more video of the guy breaking the law. What's the lawyer gong to do with that? "Here's more video of my client breaking the law, let him off the hook."?

Showing a clip of him walking doesn't offset all the other video of him doing other types of acts.

He has a lawyer, the lawyer knows what he did, he got the best deal he could, and the kid took it. Maybe the kid is learning something about right wing extremist belief, and how it is not good for the nation or him personally.

Your views often defiend reason and the facts. Keep pondering.

Not for me. Why wouldn't they have different standards for discovery and for public consumption? The pubic doesn't want to look at 44,000+ hours of raw footage. They want an edited version. I know that I do. Neither does the defense want to look at the 39,999+ hours that didn't make it into the J6 committee's presentation, but they might need to.

That sounds like he didn't think he would be exonerated at trial, and that his attorney, who had seen the evidence against him, agreed. It sounds like he didn't give up much but the chance to pay his attorney even more to see him through trial, and the chance to pay again for a second roll of the dice.

I missed that, and he seems to deny having done that recently. Also, why would it matter if he had? If it doesn't matter, then this is all deflection away from the crimes committed no non-crimes like standing in front of a podium.

I told you where the cover-up began, and I don't accept your claim that there was a coverup by the committee. Their ethics and professionalism were impeccabe.

Then he's where he belongs.

He was there to participate in the disruption Trump orchestrated for that day, and he got both his wish and his comeuppance.

Why do we keep seeing this? Neither was Bernie Madoff's. So what?

Your posting belies your claim of not being racist. You might not be able to see that, but others have and have told you before I did. I'm reminded of the trop that when three people at a party tell you you're not fit to drive home, believe them even if that's not how you feel.

Are you referring to rioters in race riots? Who wants to see them get a pass? Not me.

If they generalize that experience to the entire race, then they are racist. That's the definition of bigotry.

For those that I've already explained many times over, I don't expect you want to understand anything. You've gone to making even more absurd statements than you have made yet, such as trying to make this about 44,000 hours of footage that by and large have no bearing on Chansley's case.

So your view is that the prosecutors are lying?

Failing to tell the whole truth is not exactly the same thing as lying. It's deception by ommission.

Transparent about what?

About footage requested in writing that they had a obligation in discovery to disclose to defense. Also about video made public to the media prior to Tucker's release.

Well then, if they had this footage yet waved the right to appeal anyways, it either means they were incompetent or the footage isn't what Faux News presented it to be. Given how we already know Faux News intentionally lies to their viewers, plus the explanation from the Capitol Police, the latter seems the most likely explanation.

There is serious doubt that the footage was available. Available evidence suggests it was not.

Then what exactly is the issue here? He committed a crime, pled guilty to it, and is now serving his sentence. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Fair trial is an important part of the system.

Perhaps you need to understand what he pled guilty to. He pled guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding. That's it.

This is known, but whether or not that is it is to be determined. The question of ineffective assistance of counsel could possibly end up in court.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for the support.

I'm a dude though, by the way.

Sorry about that. I thought so, but I was thrown off by the other poster referring to you as a woman. Very sorry.

[Insert some sort of hyper-macho gif here]

The trajectory of that discussion was surprising in how very clear and obvious an example it is of certain people literally not allowing themselves to think about something. It's so bizarre.

Person A: Black people are not unfairly discriminated against! Did you know that black people are only around 13% of the general population but around 50% of violent criminal acts are committed by black people?
Person B: That's very interesting. Why do you think that is?
Person A: Err... Because of culture.
Person B: But culture isn't a racial trait, so that doesn't explain why this particular race is over-represented. Do you think there is something inherent or genetic to black people that makes them more likely to be violent criminals?
Person A: No! I'm no saying that! In fact, I believe black people and white people are the same.
Person B: Okay. So why do you think black people are more likely to be violent criminals in America, then?
Person A: Well, um, it's definitely not because of racism. It must just be because they're poorer.
Person B: I see. But being poor also isn't a racial or genetic trait. So why do you think black people are poorer?
Person A: Er... Uh... Because everyone's an individual and everyone makes their own choices and race has nothing to do with it and statistics don't mean anything!
Person B: So, why did you bring up the statistic to begin with?
Person A: Because... 13/50.

Literally, it's like they're able to walk with you down the road, but when you reach a certain point where they HAVE to acknowledge a conclusion that they don't want to they just shut down their brains and run back to where you started. It's impossible to educate such people.

Exactly.
I feel like I saw something almost identical to this on TikTok or something. In that one, Person B just kept saying "why, why, why' and they actually got to the heart of the matter. Not so much here, apparently.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LoL! If you have no problem holding racist responsible for their behavior, then why can't you hold criminals responsible for theirs???

And frankly many people on the Left have true racist believes but they enjoy immunity from scrutiny by association.

I'm not a racist, you are!

 

[Jose Fly]

Failing to tell the whole truth is not exactly the same thing as lying. It's deception by ommission.

But you've not shown that they've done that.

About footage requested in writing that they had a obligation in discovery to disclose to defense. Also about video made public to the media prior to Tucker's release.

Again, the prosecution has stated that they did provide Chansley's defense with the footage. If they're lying, a judge will discover that and take appropriate action. If they're not, then nothing changes....Chansley's guilty plea stands and he stays in prison.

There is serious doubt that the footage was available. Available evidence suggests it was not.

Empty assertion.

This is known, but whether or not that is it is to be determined. The question of ineffective assistance of counsel could possibly end up in court.

Or not. Either way, I don't see how the footage changes what he pled guilty to. He was part of the mob that broke through police lines outside the Capitol, he was among the first to enter the Capitol, and after police let him into the Senate Floor to try and persuade the other insurrectionists to leave, he instead riled them up more and refused to leave to the point where he had to be physically removed by law enforcement.

He wasn't there to protest, he was there to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes, exactly what he pled guilty to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For those that I've already explained many times over, I don't expect you want to understand anything. You've gone to making even more absurd statements than you have made yet, such as trying to make this about 44,000 hours of footage that by and large have no bearing on Chansley's case.


Failing to tell the whole truth is not exactly the same thing as lying. It's deception by ommission.


About footage requested in writing that they had a obligation in discovery to disclose to defense. Also about video made public to the media prior to Tucker's release.


There is serious doubt that the footage was available. Available evidence suggests it was not.


Fair trial is an important part of the system.


This is known, but whether or not that is it is to be determined. The question of ineffective assistance of counsel could possibly end up in court.

The video is not exculpatory because it is cherry picked. There is evidence of his participation and doing what he was charged with. The he was acting somewhat sanely for a small percentage of the time is not exculpatory.

Even an axe murderer will act sane at times. That does not mean that video of her acting sanely for a few minutes proves that she did not take an an axe and give her mother forty whacks.

 

[Jose Fly]

Six people affiliated with the Oath Keepers convicted in Capitol riot

Six people described by authorities as being affiliated with the right-wing extremist group the Oath Keepers were convicted Monday of numerous federal crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

After a trial in U.S. District Court in Washington, the jury returned a total of 27 guilty verdicts, with every defendant convicted of at least one charge and most found guilty of several offenses. In all, the defendants faced 34 charges stemming from the Capitol riot. The jury, which is continuing to deliberate, issued not guilty verdicts on five counts and has yet to reach decisions on two others.

Four of the defendants were convicted of the most serious offense in the case, conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. Theirs was the latest of several trials dealing with the militia group’s involvement in the Capitol mayhem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Six people affiliated with the Oath Keepers convicted in Capitol riot

Six people described by authorities as being affiliated with the right-wing extremist group the Oath Keepers were convicted Monday of numerous federal crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

After a trial in U.S. District Court in Washington, the jury returned a total of 27 guilty verdicts, with every defendant convicted of at least one charge and most found guilty of several offenses. In all, the defendants faced 34 charges stemming from the Capitol riot. The jury, which is continuing to deliberate, issued not guilty verdicts on five counts and has yet to reach decisions on two others.

Four of the defendants were convicted of the most serious offense in the case, conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. Theirs was the latest of several trials dealing with the militia group’s involvement in the Capitol mayhem.

Huh! I guess that they did not watch Tucker's video.

Appeal!!!

 

[Jose Fly]

Huh! I guess that they did not watch Tucker's video.

Appeal!!!

I'm sure there's "exculpatory footage" of them walking down a hallway, somewhere. Tucker will be on it!

 

[Jose Fly]

Man gets 4 years for attacking police at Jan. 6 Capitol riot

A Virginia man who assaulted police with a stolen baton and used a flashing strobe light to disorient officers trying to defend the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 was sentenced Tuesday to more than four years in prison. Geoffrey Sills of Mechanicsville, Virginia, was convicted of assault with a...

news.yahoo.com

"A Virginia man who assaulted police with a stolen baton and used a flashing strobe light to disorient officers trying to defend the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 was sentenced Tuesday to more than four years in prison.

Geoffrey Sills of Mechanicsville, Virginia, was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, obstruction of Congress and robbery for his role in the violence at the Capitol's Lower West Terrace tunnel, where police were beaten and crushed as as they tried to beat back the angry mob of President Donald Trump supporters."