Qanon shaman...likely to get a new trial considering the government withheld video evidence from the defense....

[hadit]

And did the government have a deadline for providing this video?

Oh, brother. Now you're reaching.

 

[Resnic]

Sometimes I wonder if he struck some kind of deal with democrats to go there and get in trouble so he could be the poster boy for the so called insurrection.

He wore a crazy outlandish outfit, looked like a scary ultra mega maga, and had his picture plastered allover the news and magazine covers. It's not without reason to think he was paid to be there. I know if I was offered X amount of money to go to jail I might consider it.

I mean he was escorted around the place like it was no big deal alone by multiple cops and not once did they act anything but friendly to him, then he went to being the democrats poster child for the big scary and ultra violent insurrection. It just seems very suspect.

 

[Marener]

Oh, brother. Now you're reaching.

How so?

 

[hadit]

No, but I have eyes and logic with which to make an opinion.

If you can't argue how it's exculpatory, you can't argue that it needed to be turned over.

It's not my call. If the defense thought they could use it, the prosecution should have turned it over.

 

[hadit]

How so?

AFAIK, no one said they would get it to them if they just had more time. There was no effort made to get it to them.

 

[Marener]

It's not my call. If the defense thought they could use it, the prosecution should have turned it over.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. The defense has to make an argument before a judge with a rationale as to why it should have been turned over.

The judge will not overturn his plea because the defense feels like it.

 

[Marener]

AFAIK, no one said they would get it to them if they just had more time. There was no effort made to get it to them.

As far as you know doesn't go very far.

It's well known that the DoJ had been working and struggling to be able to comply with the discovery requests. This article explains it quite nicely. There has been tremendous effort to get the videos to the defense, but it could not be done rapidly.

The evidence in the Jan. 6 investigations is overwhelming — literally

The evidence in the Capitol insurrection probe rivals what the Hubble telescope has amassed. Sorting through it all has ground many cases to a halt.

www.latimes.com

The DoJ has asked the courts for more time to be able to provide this information. That's why I ask whether the DoJ was given a deadline by the court to turn it all over and if the DoJ had a response to such an order. This is a procedural argument and requires that the procedure be followed.

 

[hadit]

As far as you know doesn't go very far.

It's well known that the DoJ had been working and struggling to be able to comply with the discovery requests. This article explains it quite nicely. There has been tremendous effort to get the videos to the defense, but it could not be done rapidly.

The evidence in the Jan. 6 investigations is overwhelming — literally

The evidence in the Capitol insurrection probe rivals what the Hubble telescope has amassed. Sorting through it all has ground many cases to a halt.

www.latimes.com

The DoJ has asked the courts for more time to be able to provide this information. That's why I ask whether the DoJ was given a deadline by the court to turn it all over and if the DoJ had a response to such an order. This is a procedural argument and requires that the procedure be followed.

All I know is there are people still in jail waiting for a trial. They had the time.

 

[hadit]

Sorry, but that's not how it works. The defense has to make an argument before a judge with a rationale as to why it should have been turned over.

The judge will not overturn his plea because the defense feels like it.

And maybe now they will make that case. They shouldn't have to, is the point.

 

[Marener]

All I know is there are people still in jail waiting for a trial. They had the time.

Seems there's a lot you don't know.

 

[Marener]

And maybe now they will make that case. They shouldn't have to, is the point.

Until there's actual logic behind the demand, I'm not going to get too excited. These videos aren't exculpatory, we can all see that.

 

[hadit]

Until there's actual logic behind the demand, I'm not going to get too excited. These videos aren't exculpatory, we can all see that.

I'm sure the fever swamp agrees with you.

 

[hadit]

Seems there's a lot you don't know.

And I admit when I don't know something, unlike some of the posters on here who opine like they are attorneys at law.

 

[BlueGin]

I think my next question will be where he got his law degree from.

I was going to but figured it would be a waste of time.

 

[Marener]

I'm sure the fever swamp agrees with you.

Sorry, but in court you have to present arguments. Not a list of "I wanna's".

 

[Marener]

And I admit when I don't know something, unlike some of the posters on here who opine like they are attorneys at law.

Doesn't stop you from making assertions without knowledge.

I'm not claiming to be an attorney, but I can see a video and be rational about whether it's exculpatory.

 

[hadit]

Doesn't stop you from making assertions without knowledge.

I'm not claiming to be an attorney, but I can see a video and be rational about whether it's exculpatory.

My assertion is that the defense should have been given video that shows their client at the scene of the incident so THEY (not you) could decide if it could be used to get their client a more favorable outcome. That requires more common sense than legal knowledge, and you have yet to go beyond, "They shouldn't have had it because I don't think it's exculpatory".

 

[Marener]

My assertion is that the defense should have been given video that shows their client at the scene of the incident so THEY (not you) could decide if it could be used to get their client a more favorable outcome. That requires more common sense than legal knowledge, and you have yet to go beyond, "They shouldn't have had it because I don't think it's exculpatory".

My position is that the government isn't obligated to have it because it's not potentially exculpatory.

If the defense wanted the information, they have yet to prove that they were denied it. As we have seen in the article I provided, the DoJ was working hard on making sure the defendants were getting the information, but that it was taking time.

The title of this thread claims that Chansley will get a new trial. Ignoring the fact that he pled guilty, I think it's unlikely he's going to get that because he will be unable to prove that the material would have likely affected the outcome.

Furthermore, it doesn't keep me up at night because we all know beyond a reasonable doubt that Chansley did indeed commit the crime he pled guilty of.

 

[Billy_Bob]

its been DC Judges & Juries. Wrong every step of the way to now. Suddenly they become “honest”?

Nope... He simply can't lie his way out of this one... The evidence is public..

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sometimes I wonder if he struck some kind of deal with democrats to go there and get in trouble so he could be the poster boy for the so called insurrection.

He wore a crazy outlandish outfit, looked like a scary ultra mega maga, and had his picture plastered allover the news and magazine covers. It's not without reason to think he was paid to be there. I know if I was offered X amount of money to go to jail I might consider it.

I mean he was escorted around the place like it was no big deal alone by multiple cops and not once did they act anything but friendly to him, then he went to being the democrats poster child for the big scary and ultra violent insurrection. It just seems very suspect.

Yea, don't buy into the leftist lies bro.....This guy was Antifa.....sent there by the FBI to make Trump supporters look like they were a bunch of QAnon conspiracy pushing freaks...


Now look at all of these right-wingers falling into Biden's trap and calling this guy a hero....but not you bro, you are the illuminated one