No, Chansley Was Not Escorted Into the Capitol Building

[XponentialChaos]

No. My answer sufficed, you pussy retarded hack bitch.

New question. Don’t run away again this time you lying sack of shit.

 

[BackAgain]

Which ones impeded the official proceeding?

The ones who engaged in either violence or other criminal behavior with the intent to prevent the official proceedings.

I’m surprised even a dope of your tragically limited intellect couldn’t figure that out by now.

 

[BackAgain]

New question. Don’t run away again this time you lying sack of shit.

No. It was already answered. And I haven’t run from a single thing — as you knew when you repeated that lie.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOLOL

By that whine, you mean proving you lied.

Nope. Have fun down your rabbit hole of Dumbassery, Simp.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The ones who engaged in either violence or other criminal behavior with the intent to prevent the official proceedings.

Ok, so let’s remove the ones who committed violence from the discussion since we agree on them.

Let’s discuss the rest of the mob that broke into the building. Did they impede the official proceeding?

 

[XponentialChaos]

No. It was already answered. And I haven’t run from a single thing — as you knew when you repeated that lie.

I pointed out the post that you ran away from. Then you ran away from that post as well.

Whoops. Looks like you’re a lying sack of shit.

 

[Nostra]

More whining from the forum dumbfuck who can't stop lying.

Stop shitting yourself over a pointy flag pole, Buttercup.

 

[BackAgain]

Ok, so let’s remove the ones who committed violence from the discussion since we agree on them.

Let’s discuss the rest of the mob that broke into the building. Did they inpede the official proceeding?

Wrong question. The correct question is whether the officials who decided to have the legislators make a hasty retreat felt that some of the more active intruders represented a threat. It appears they did. So rhose officials delayed the proceedings. (A determination I don’t criticize at all.)

So, no. The intruders didn’t delay or impede. But the consequence of their behavior did result in a decision to delay the certification.

Again. So what? That’s still got fuck all to do with anything attributable to Shaman-boi.

 

[Faun]

Yanno...............I'm thinking that BackAgain is a world class troll, because he spins everything in such an interesting way. Takes some intelligence to try to do that. And, I'm choosing to believe that he is an excellent troll, because I can't believe that anyone could post like they do and actually be stupid enough to believe it.

If you want a good laugh, just ask him why he changed his forum name and returned to the forum after losing a bet to leave the forum forever; and stating specifically that he wouldn't return under a new name

 

[BackAgain]

I pointed out the post that you ran away from. Then you ran away from that post as well.

Whoops. Looks like you’re a lying sack of shit.

Liar. I haven’t run away from anything. And I did already answer the questions — even your more meaningless and dishonestly based questions.

Why do you rely so entirely on lying?

 

[Faun]

Because they didn’t turn it over. Fuck sake, you moron, even the prosecution doesn’t claim that they had ever turned it over to the defense. And worse yet, the defense lawyer had clearly and explicitly demanded it. And of course, it was Brady material.

You don't know they had it at the time BuffaloHead pleased guilty.

 

[Faun]

Because the House had the tapes and only just released them.

Which could mean prosecutors didn't have at the time. They can't turn over evidence they didn't have.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only tour this criminal ever got from the cops was a trip to solitary confinement.

 

[Nostra]

Which could mean prosecutors didn't have at the time. They can't turn over evidence they didn't have.

Wait. So you are saying the Biden DOJ only had evidence the Piglosi Jan 6 Clown Show fed them?

 

[Faun]

Nope. Have fun down your rabbit hole of Dumbassery, Simp.

LOL

Denying you lied when you were flat out caught lying is quite amusing to me. You falsely claimed 9 cops have BuffaloHead a "guided tour" and I was able to prove, with video evidence, that was a lie as the video shows him oproaching them while they were standing around; and then walking past them as they remained standing around.

 

[Faun]

Stop shitting yourself over a pointy flag pole, Buttercup.

LOLOL

Shouldn't you be writing that to BuffaloHead in prison? I'm sure he'd appreciate the correspondence and your undying support.

 

[Marener]

I do believe it’s exculpatory. I’m sure the defense sees it as exculpatory. And the determination is supposed to be made by the defense, not by the prosecutor.

False. The judge determines what is and isn't exculpatory. If the defense thinks that exculpatory evidence has been withheld, they need to argue that to a judge who will also get a chance to hear from the prosecution to determine if there has been a violation of Brady v Maryland. Still, it never went to trial. I do not see that Brady v Maryland requires the prosecution to turn over all evidence before a person take a plea deal. It wouldn't make that much sense anyway. Taking a plea deal means you're admitting guilt. Why would you need evidence against you to determine if you committed a crime? As the perpetrator, you would be the one who knows what you did.

Because the House had the tapes and only just released them. The defense promptly objected that the prosecutors had failed to turn them over. (And there is no question that possession is imputed to the prosecutors since they were in the “Government’s” possession.) Plus, at no point since then have the prosecutors denied that it hasn’t been turned over.

You're stepping on a few rakes here, so I'll do my best to point them out. One, if it was just the House that had them, then there wouldn't be a problem with Brady v Maryland which applies to the prosecution, not to Congress. You can't claim a violation of Brady because Congress didn't turn over evidence. But that doesn't matter, because you're already wrong. The DoJ did have the tapes. The fact that they didn't release them publicly does not mean they haven't been released to the defendants. Tapes are made public through the trials when they're used in trials for evidentiary purposes.

Last, the defense didn't "object" to anything in court. They went to the media and made that claim, where we all know there's no repercussions for straight up lying about this. So when Chansley's lawyer files in court stating that they didn't get the videos, I'll take their claims seroiusly. For now, they're just running their mouths to get on TV. The fact that Chansley's lawyer hasn't filed on this (not saying they won't, it's only been a week, so I'm patient), is also the reason that the prosecution hasn't denied it to them. Because the DoJ speaks through court filings.

But wait! The piece of garbage Domonic Pezzola did make this claim in court and the DoJ did have the chance to reply. And you know what? The DoJ states in their court filing that they did indeed give these videos to Chansley.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Faun]

Wait. So you are saying the Biden DOJ only had evidence the Piglosi Jan 6 Clown Show fed them?

LOLOL

No, you flaming dumbfuck, I never said that nor am I saying that now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False. The judge determines what is and isn't exculpatory. If the defense thinks that exculpatory evidence has been withheld, they need to argue that to a judge who will also get a chance to hear from the prosecution to determine if there has been a violation of Brady v Maryland. Still, it never went to trial. I do not see that Brady v Maryland requires the prosecution to turn over all evidence before a person take a plea deal. It wouldn't make that much sense anyway. Taking a plea deal means you're admitting guilt. Why would you need evidence against you to determine if you committed a crime? As the perpetrator, you would be the one who knows what you did.

You're stepping on a few rakes here, so I'll do my best to point them out. One, if it was just the House that had them, then there wouldn't be a problem with Brady v Maryland which applies to the prosecution, not to Congress. You can't claim a violation of Brady because Congress didn't turn over evidence. But that doesn't matter, because you're already wrong. The DoJ did have the tapes. The fact that they didn't release them publicly does not mean they haven't been released to the defendants. Tapes are made public through the trials when they're used in trials for evidentiary purposes.

Last, the defense didn't "object" to anything in court. They went to the media and made that claim, where we all know there's no repercussions for straight up lying about this. So when Chansley's lawyer files in court stating that they didn't get the videos, I'll take their claims seroiusly. For now, they're just running their mouths to get on TV. The fact that Chansley's lawyer hasn't filed on this (not saying they won't, it's only been a week, so I'm patient), is also the reason that the prosecution hasn't denied it to them. Because the DoJ speaks through court filings.

But wait! The piece of garbage Domonic Pezzola did make this claim in court and the DoJ did have the chance to reply. And you know what? The DoJ states in their court filing that they did indeed give these videos to Chansley.

View attachment 765747

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Smackdown

 

[Nostra]

LOL

Denying you lied when you were flat out caught lying is quite amusing to me. You falsely claimed 9 cops have BuffaloHead a "guided tour" and I was able to prove, with video evidence, that was a lie as the video shows him oproaching them while they were standing around; and then walking past them as they remained standing around.

Have fun down your rabbit hole of Dumbassery, Simp.