https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288
How do you ignore this?
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288
How do you ignore this?
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288
How do you ignore this?By considering the source.
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288
How do you ignore this?By considering the source.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.How do you ignore this?By considering the source.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive
editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been
compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach.
Same editing from the committee.
The question Kinzinger could not answer....why weren't they all released?
Simple, some didn't support the story being told. We saw the bad shit selectively edited.
Why not the same for good shit?
And answer this....if the other people who trashed windows and smashed glass door etc.
didn't do that....would the QAnon Shamman guy be guilty of anything?
He got a guided tour from the CP. They're on tape trying to open locked doors for him.
When they won't open they guide him off to another door. They don't ever appear to
try at all to impede him...they assist him.
So why is he getting prosecuted so harshly? Seems like it was because of what others did
and/or it politically motivated. Either way it sucks and it's unjust.
On 3/7/23 4:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive
editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been >> compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach.
Same editing from the committee.No, it certainly is not. Vanity Fair: a series of selective, edited
clips of footage from the Capitol that day that [Carlson] exclusively obtained from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
He didn't release "44,000 hours" of video.
The question Kinzinger could not answer....why weren't they all released?
Simple, some didn't support the story being told. We saw the bad shit selectively edited.All the video? The insurrectionists should get credit for the part of
Why not the same for good shit?
day in which they weren't committing crimes?
And answer this....if the other people who trashed windows and smashed glass door etc.Obstructing an official proceeding.
didn't do that....would the QAnon Shamman guy be guilty of anything?
He got a guided tour from the CP. They're on tape trying to open locked doors for him.No audio. They were following him. How was that "trying to open" the
When they won't open they guide him off to another door. They don't ever appear to
try at all to impede him...they assist him.
door and not checking it was securely locked?
The police didn't have the capacity to detain anyone, so allowing a non-violent person to wander supervised was a valid response.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:51:24 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 4:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it certainly is not. Vanity Fair: a series of selective, edited
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive
editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been >>>> compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach.
Same editing from the committee.
clips of footage from the Capitol that day that [Carlson] exclusively
obtained from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
Are you f'ing kidding me? The committee even added a bunch of
text and dramatic audio hiring a GMA producer.
I don't know what planet you live on anymore.
He didn't release "44,000 hours" of video.
I don't know what they released to Carlson. He certainly didn't air all of it.
The question Kinzinger could not answer....why weren't they all released? >>>All the video? The insurrectionists should get credit for the part of
Simple, some didn't support the story being told. We saw the bad shit selectively edited.
Why not the same for good shit?
day in which they weren't committing crimes?
You're hopeless.
And answer this....if the other people who trashed windows and smashed glass door etc.Obstructing an official proceeding.
didn't do that....would the QAnon Shamman guy be guilty of anything?
How many years did the Code Pink Pinko's get for that?
He got a guided tour from the CP. They're on tape trying to open locked doors for him.No audio. They were following him. How was that "trying to open" the
When they won't open they guide him off to another door. They don't ever appear to
try at all to impede him...they assist him.
door and not checking it was securely locked?
The police didn't have the capacity to detain anyone, so allowing a
non-violent person to wander supervised was a valid response.
He had two or more cops at times and he was the only other person in the pic. If they couldn't detain him....it's because they didn't want to.
On 3/7/23 11:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:51:24 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 4:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it certainly is not. Vanity Fair: a series of selective, edited
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:Same editing from the committee.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are >>>> the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive >>>> editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach. >>>
clips of footage from the Capitol that day that [Carlson] exclusively
obtained from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
Are you f'ing kidding me? The committee even added a bunch of
text and dramatic audio hiring a GMA producer.
I don't know what planet you live on anymore.You're proving it's not the same.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:38:43 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 11:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:51:24 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:You're proving it's not the same.
On 3/7/23 4:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it certainly is not. Vanity Fair: a series of selective, edited
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:Same editing from the committee.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are >>>>>> the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive >>>>>> editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been >>>>>> compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach. >>>>>
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
clips of footage from the Capitol that day that [Carlson] exclusively
obtained from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
Are you f'ing kidding me? The committee even added a bunch of
text and dramatic audio hiring a GMA producer.
I don't know what planet you live on anymore.
and I am blessed by that.
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outright illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:38:43 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 11:02 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:51:24 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:You're proving it's not the same.
On 3/7/23 4:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, it certainly is not. Vanity Fair: a series of selective, edited >>>> clips of footage from the Capitol that day that [Carlson] exclusively >>>> obtained from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:Same editing from the committee.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are >>>>>> the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive >>>>>> editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288 >>>>>>>>>By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach. >>>>>
Are you f'ing kidding me? The committee even added a bunch of
text and dramatic audio hiring a GMA producer.
I don't know what planet you live on anymore.
and I am blessed by that.By your internal contradictions?
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outright illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112It this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it elsewhere.
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outrightIt this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it
illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access to the
video evidence.
A basic right in our system of justice. The prosecution has to
reveal all the evidence they have, both good (exculpatory) and bad
for the defense. Unless you want to throw that right under the bus
with your free speech you're surrendering.
On 3/9/23 4:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outrightIt this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it
illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access to theWhose attorney?
video evidence.
A basic right in our system of justice. The prosecution has toLet's wait on the global condemnation until it's clear what you're
reveal all the evidence they have, both good (exculpatory) and bad
for the defense. Unless you want to throw that right under the bus
with your free speech you're surrendering.
talking about.
Your choice, I'm tired of playing your mommy.
ScottW
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/9/23 4:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Whose attorney?
On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outrightIt this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it
illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access to the
video evidence.
Jale Angeli, Qanon Shaman sentence to 4 years.
A basic right in our system of justice. The prosecution has toLet's wait on the global condemnation until it's clear what you're
reveal all the evidence they have, both good (exculpatory) and bad
for the defense. Unless you want to throw that right under the bus
with your free speech you're surrendering.
talking about.
It's a video of his attorney....watch it...or live in ignorance.
Your choice, I'm tired of playing your mommy.
On 3/9/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/9/23 4:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Whose attorney?
On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outrightIt this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it
illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access to the
video evidence.
Jale Angeli, Qanon Shaman sentence to 4 years.Thanks. He pled guilty, so I don't see the problem.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 7:49:24 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/9/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Thanks. He pled guilty, so I don't see the problem.
On 3/9/23 4:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Whose attorney?
On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outrightIt this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it
illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access to the
video evidence.
Jale Angeli, Qanon Shaman sentence to 4 years.
He has a right to see all evidence against or for him before entering a plea.
He was denied that right.
The judge didn't even know WTF happened when sentencing him.
He declared he "led the charge". A complete farce of a statement in
light of the newly released evidence.
On 3/10/23 11:26 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 7:49:24 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/9/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Thanks. He pled guilty, so I don't see the problem.
On 3/9/23 4:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:Whose attorney?
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outright >>>>>>> illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.It this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access to the
video evidence.
Jale Angeli, Qanon Shaman sentence to 4 years.
He has a right to see all evidence against or for him before entering a plea.I haven't seen that he was denied exculpatory video. The footage of him wandering the halls with police nearby doesn't clear him of stuff that happened elsewhere.
He was denied that right.
I guess every one convicted will claim they were deprived of evidence because they didn't get all 44,000 hours of footage.
The judge didn't even know WTF happened when sentencing him.He was among the first thirty or so inside the Capitol, so not an unreasonable conclusion.
He declared he "led the charge". A complete farce of a statement in
light of the newly released evidence.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-breaking/2021/03/16/jake-angeli-jacob-chansley-video-shows-storming-capitol/4716926001/
And the judge heard his statement.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056225488/self-styled-qanon-shaman-is-sentenced-to-41-months-in-capitol-riot
On 3/7/23 2:50 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 12:02 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1632915260922380288By considering the source.
How do you ignore this?
The tapes are the tapes. No matter who presents them.I refer to Benny Johnson, too plagiaristic for BuzzFeed. If these are
BTW, the ACTUAL source of the tapes is the Jan 6 committee
the Jan 6 tapes that have passed through the Tucker Carlson deceptive editing bay, all the more reason to be suspicious. That version has been compared to Jaws without the shark, leaving a nice day at the beach.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:40:18 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/10/23 11:26 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 7:49:24 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/9/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Thanks. He pled guilty, so I don't see the problem.
On 3/9/23 4:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:Whose attorney?
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power and outright >>>>>>> illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.It this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about it
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access to the >>>>> video evidence.
Jale Angeli, Qanon Shaman sentence to 4 years.
and welcome to planet Stephen, an orphan planet with no star crazily wanderingHe has a right to see all evidence against or for him before entering a plea.I haven't seen that he was denied exculpatory video. The footage of him wandering the halls with police nearby doesn't clear him of stuff that happened elsewhere.
He was denied that right.
the cosmos in darkness.
I guess every one convicted will claim they were deprived of evidence because they didn't get all 44,000 hours of footage.
The judge didn't even know WTF happened when sentencing him.He was among the first thirty or so inside the Capitol, so not an unreasonable conclusion.
He declared he "led the charge". A complete farce of a statement in light of the newly released evidence.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-breaking/2021/03/16/jake-angeli-jacob-chansley-video-shows-storming-capitol/4716926001/No sign of him smashing windows. He walked through an open door.
And the judge heard his statement.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056225488/self-styled-qanon-shaman-is-sentenced-to-41-months-in-capitol-riot"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you get here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
You are a pathetic POS.
Steve has no interest in justice and Constitutional rights for those with opposing views,
Steve advocates for justice and Constitutional rights only when it's for left wing domestic terrorists, such as at the Atlanta attack.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:40:18 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/10/23 11:26 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 7:49:24 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:I haven't seen that he was denied exculpatory video. The footage of
On 3/9/23 6:06 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-8, mINE109Thanks. He pled guilty, so I don't see the problem.
wrote:
On 3/9/23 4:22 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, mINE109Whose attorney?
wrote:
On 3/9/23 3:11 PM, ScottW wrote:
Meanwhile the story of corruption, abuse of power andIt this is anything important, I guess I'll hear about
outright illegality by the DoJ grows ever worse.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6322189491112
it elsewhere.
It's video of his attorney revealing he was denied access
to the video evidence.
Jale Angeli, Qanon Shaman sentence to 4 years.
He has a right to see all evidence against or for him before
entering a plea. He was denied that right.
him wandering the halls with police nearby doesn't clear him of
stuff that happened elsewhere.
and welcome to planet Stephen, an orphan planet with no star crazily wandering the cosmos in darkness.
I guess every one convicted will claim they were deprived of
evidence because they didn't get all 44,000 hours of footage.
The judge didn't even know WTF happened when sentencing him. HeHe was among the first thirty or so inside the Capitol, so not an
declared he "led the charge". A complete farce of a statement in
light of the newly released evidence.
unreasonable conclusion.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-breaking/2021/03/16/jake-angeli-jacob-chansley-video-shows-storming-capitol/4716926001/
No sign of him smashing windows.
He walked through an open door.
And the judge heard his statement.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056225488/self-styled-qanon-shaman-is-sentenced-to-41-months-in-capitol-riot
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you get
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not
feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you get
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not
feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".There's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used
in trial.
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
\"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you get
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the right thing."
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".There's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used in trial.
Damn.....you really want to live in a country with no constitutional rights. First you dump freedom of speech.
Now you dump a right to a fair trial.
Liberals are crying in their graves.
ScottW
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you getThere's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not
feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
in trial.
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.
On 3/11/23 10:59 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you getThere's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used >> in trial.
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not >>> feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.He had a choice and he didn't need video to know he wandered the halls. There has to be something exonerating to share before anyone can be
deprived of it.
And the Fifth Circuit doesn't think a defendant is entitled to
exculpatory evidence before a plea.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5965f013add7b0204c52c776
On 3/11/23 10:59 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you getThere's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used >> in trial.
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not >>> feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.He had a choice and he didn't need video to know he wandered the halls. There has to be something exonerating to share before anyone can be
deprived of it.
And the Fifth Circuit doesn't think a defendant is entitled to
exculpatory evidence before a plea.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5965f013add7b0204c52c776
On 3/11/23 10:59 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you getThere's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used >> in trial.
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not >>> feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.He had a choice and he didn't need video to know he wandered the halls. There has to be something exonerating to share before anyone can be
deprived of it.
And the Fifth Circuit doesn't think a defendant is entitled to
exculpatory evidence before a plea.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5965f013add7b0204c52c776
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 3:48:40 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/11/23 10:59 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:He had a choice and he didn't need video to know he wandered the halls.
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you getThere's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used >>>> in trial.
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not >>>>> feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.
There has to be something exonerating to share before anyone can be
deprived of it.
And the Fifth Circuit doesn't think a defendant is entitled to
exculpatory evidence before a plea.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5965f013add7b0204c52c776
You are fine with seeing an innocent person in railroaded to jail, as long as he opposes you politically.
If its an Anifa rioter, you will cry in your Almond milk.
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/11/23 10:59 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:He had a choice and he didn't need video to know he wandered the halls.
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you getThere's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used >>>> in trial.
here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not >>>>> feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the
right thing."
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.
There has to be something exonerating to share before anyone can be
deprived of it.
And the Fifth Circuit doesn't think a defendant is entitled to
exculpatory evidence before a plea.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5965f013add7b0204c52c776
This piece of excrement makes no mention of the fact that the guilty plea
is part of an agreement to not pursue additional charges and/or extensive sentences.
Perhaps the case in question didn't have that little twist.
But in the Shamans case, the defendant should have every right to know what ability the prosecution
actually has to carry out those threats.
You are endorsing fraudulent legal prosecutorial extortion and I don't think there is a chance in
hell of a complete examination of the circumstances surviving a Supreme Court challenge.
How much lying behinds the scenes to get a guilty plea will you turn a blind eye to?
On 3/13/23 11:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/11/23 10:59 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 8:24:31 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:He had a choice and he didn't need video to know he wandered the halls. >> There has to be something exonerating to share before anyone can be
"You were facing 20 years, Mr. Chansley. The one advantage you get >>>>> here is you're only facing now 41 months," Lamberth said. "It may not >>>>> feel it today, but let me guarantee you, you were smart and did the >>>>> right thing."There's no requirement to share non-exculpatory evidence that isn't used
and you call that justice....threats of 20 year sentences while
withholding evidence and then your defense is..."he pled guilty".
in trial.
BS....it was used to force him into a plea deal.
deprived of it.
And the Fifth Circuit doesn't think a defendant is entitled to
exculpatory evidence before a plea.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5965f013add7b0204c52c776
This piece of excrement makes no mention of the fact that the guilty plea is part of an agreement to not pursue additional charges and/or extensive sentences.Yes, I'm no fan of the Fifth Circuit.
Perhaps the case in question didn't have that little twist.
But in the Shamans case, the defendant should have every right to know what ability the prosecutionhttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009.689.0.pdf
actually has to carry out those threats.
1. The videos were produced in discovery.
Pezzola’s motion describes “shocking footage” of Chansley “walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol” with two police officers who purportedly “escort[] Chansley (and apparently other protestors) into
the Senate chamber.”... The footage is not shocking, and it was not withheld from Pezzola (or Chansley, in any material respect, for that matter)...
With the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route), all of the footage played on television was disclosed to (... defendant Chansley)
by September 24, 2021. The final 10 seconds of footage was produced in global discovery to all defense counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s Brady claim therefore fails at the threshold, because nothing has been suppressed.
End quote.
You are endorsing fraudulent legal prosecutorial extortion and I don't think there is a chance in"While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has provided defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily identify relevant cameras within the CCTV to determine whether footage was produced or
hell of a complete examination of the circumstances surviving a Supreme Court challenge.
How much lying behinds the scenes to get a guilty plea will you turn a blind eye to?
not. Accordingly, the volume of discovery does not excuse defense
counsel from making reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has
been produced before making representations about what was and was not produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and inflammatory
allegations of discovery failures."
Lying behind the scenes is what happened at Fox.
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/13/23 11:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009.689.0.pdf
1. The videos were produced in discovery.
Pezzola’s motion describes “shocking footage” of Chansley “walking >> calmly through the halls of the Capitol” with two police officers who
purportedly “escort[] Chansley (and apparently other protestors) into
the Senate chamber.”... The footage is not shocking, and it was not
withheld from Pezzola (or Chansley, in any material respect, for that
matter)...
With the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled
approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route), all of the
footage played on television was disclosed to (... defendant Chansley)
by September 24, 2021. The final 10 seconds of footage was produced in
global discovery to all defense counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s
Brady claim therefore fails at the threshold, because nothing has been
suppressed.
End quote.
You are endorsing fraudulent legal prosecutorial extortion and I don't think there is a chance in"While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has provided
hell of a complete examination of the circumstances surviving a Supreme Court challenge.
How much lying behinds the scenes to get a guilty plea will you turn a blind eye to?
defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily identify relevant
cameras within the CCTV to determine whether footage was produced or
not. Accordingly, the volume of discovery does not excuse defense
counsel from making reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has
been produced before making representations about what was and was not
produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and inflammatory
allegations of discovery failures."
Lying behind the scenes is what happened at Fox.
No idea who court listener is.... but they would be hearsay regardless.
I'll have to go direct statement from the attorney until proven otherwise.
On 3/14/23 12:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/13/23 11:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009.689.0.pdf
1. The videos were produced in discovery.
Pezzola’s motion describes “shocking footage” of Chansley “walking
calmly through the halls of the Capitol” with two police officers who >> purportedly “escort[] Chansley (and apparently other protestors) into >> the Senate chamber.”... The footage is not shocking, and it was not
withheld from Pezzola (or Chansley, in any material respect, for that
matter)...
With the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled
approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route), all of the >> footage played on television was disclosed to (... defendant Chansley)
by September 24, 2021. The final 10 seconds of footage was produced in
global discovery to all defense counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s >> Brady claim therefore fails at the threshold, because nothing has been
suppressed.
End quote.
You are endorsing fraudulent legal prosecutorial extortion and I don't think there is a chance in"While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has provided >> defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily identify relevant
hell of a complete examination of the circumstances surviving a Supreme Court challenge.
How much lying behinds the scenes to get a guilty plea will you turn a blind eye to?
cameras within the CCTV to determine whether footage was produced or
not. Accordingly, the volume of discovery does not excuse defense
counsel from making reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has >> been produced before making representations about what was and was not
produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and inflammatory
allegations of discovery failures."
Lying behind the scenes is what happened at Fox.
No idea who court listener is.... but they would be hearsay regardless.Really? You couldn't look it up?
https://www.courtlistener.com
"About CourtListener
CourtListener is a free legal research website containing millions of
legal opinions from federal and state courts. With CourtListener,
lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public can research an
important case, stay up to date with new opinions as they are filed, or
do deep analysis using our raw data."
It hosts copies of official documents such as this government response.
No, it's not hearsay:
"CONCLUSION
Dominic Pezzola’s motion is unsupported by the facts and evidence in
this case and should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW M. GRAVES United States Attorney DC Bar No. 481052"
Here it is on documentcloud: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23706141/us-doj-response-to-pezzola.pdf
On scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/631158244/Doj-Response-Carlson#
I'll have to go direct statement from the attorney until proven otherwise.You'll accept the accusation but not the response?
avoid contrary evidence.
Chansley's plea:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:1. The videos were produced in discovery.
On 3/14/23 12:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/13/23 11:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009.689.0.pdf
Really? You couldn't look it up?
Pezzola’s motion describes “shocking footage” of Chansley
“walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol” with two
police officers who purportedly “escort[] Chansley (and
apparently other protestors) into the Senate chamber.”... The
footage is not shocking, and it was not withheld from Pezzola
(or Chansley, in any material respect, for that matter)... With
the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled
approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route),
all of the footage played on television was disclosed to (...
defendant Chansley) by September 24, 2021. The final 10 seconds
of footage was produced in global discovery to all defense
counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s Brady claim therefore
fails at the threshold, because nothing has been suppressed.
End quote.
You are endorsing fraudulent legal prosecutorial extortion"While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has
and I don't think there is a chance in hell of a complete
examination of the circumstances surviving a Supreme Court
challenge. How much lying behinds the scenes to get a guilty
plea will you turn a blind eye to?
provided defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily
identify relevant cameras within the CCTV to determine whether
footage was produced or not. Accordingly, the volume of
discovery does not excuse defense counsel from making
reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has been
produced before making representations about what was and was
not produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and
inflammatory allegations of discovery failures."
Lying behind the scenes is what happened at Fox.
No idea who court listener is.... but they would be hearsay
regardless.
https://www.courtlistener.com
"About CourtListener
CourtListener is a free legal research website containing millions
of legal opinions from federal and state courts. With
CourtListener, lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public can
research an important case, stay up to date with new opinions as
they are filed, or do deep analysis using our raw data."
It hosts copies of official documents such as this government
response. No, it's not hearsay:
"CONCLUSION
Dominic Pezzola’s motion is unsupported by the facts and evidence
in this case and should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW M. GRAVES United States Attorney DC Bar No. 481052"
Here it is on documentcloud:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23706141/us-doj-response-to-pezzola.pdf
On scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/631158244/Doj-Response-Carlson#
I'll have to go direct statement from the attorney until provenYou'll accept the accusation but not the response?
otherwise.
Never said that.
That is a neat way toavoid contrary evidence.
We have a choice to make when faced with conflicting evidence. The
judge will have to decide if the evidence made it to the defendent or
not. It would appear....not...even if his attorney had access.
Chansley's plea:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1430996/download
So they buried it in 40,000 hours of surveillance video...
If nothing else Pezzola should be able to retract his guilty plea on a
lack of representation if his counsel didn't have the means to review
all the evidence provided in discovery.
IMO, he was grossly over charged and over sentenced.
On 3/15/23 10:46 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:1. The videos were produced in discovery.
On 3/14/23 12:36 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/13/23 11:56 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009/gov.uscourts.dcd.241009.689.0.pdf
Really? You couldn't look it up?
Pezzola’s motion describes “shocking footage” of Chansley
“walking calmly through the halls of the Capitol” with two
police officers who purportedly “escort[] Chansley (and
apparently other protestors) into the Senate chamber.”... The
footage is not shocking, and it was not withheld from Pezzola
(or Chansley, in any material respect, for that matter)... With
the exception of one CCTV camera (where said footage totaled
approximately 10 seconds and implicated an evacuation route),
all of the footage played on television was disclosed to (...
defendant Chansley) by September 24, 2021. The final 10 seconds
of footage was produced in global discovery to all defense
counsel on January 23, 2023. Pezzola’s Brady claim therefore
fails at the threshold, because nothing has been suppressed.
End quote.
You are endorsing fraudulent legal prosecutorial extortion"While discovery in this case is voluminous, the government has
and I don't think there is a chance in hell of a complete
examination of the circumstances surviving a Supreme Court
challenge. How much lying behinds the scenes to get a guilty
plea will you turn a blind eye to?
provided defense counsel with the necessary tools to readily
identify relevant cameras within the CCTV to determine whether
footage was produced or not. Accordingly, the volume of
discovery does not excuse defense counsel from making
reasonable efforts to ascertain whether an item has been
produced before making representations about what was and was
not produced, let alone before filing inaccurate and
inflammatory allegations of discovery failures."
Lying behind the scenes is what happened at Fox.
No idea who court listener is.... but they would be hearsay
regardless.
https://www.courtlistener.com
"About CourtListener
CourtListener is a free legal research website containing millions
of legal opinions from federal and state courts. With
CourtListener, lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public can
research an important case, stay up to date with new opinions as
they are filed, or do deep analysis using our raw data."
It hosts copies of official documents such as this government
response. No, it's not hearsay:
"CONCLUSION
Dominic Pezzola’s motion is unsupported by the facts and evidence
in this case and should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
MATTHEW M. GRAVES United States Attorney DC Bar No. 481052"
Here it is on documentcloud:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23706141/us-doj-response-to-pezzola.pdf
On scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/631158244/Doj-Response-Carlson#
I'll have to go direct statement from the attorney until provenYou'll accept the accusation but not the response?
otherwise.
Never said that.You said you'd accept the defense attorney's statement but not that of
the prosecutor.
That is a neat way toavoid contrary evidence.
We have a choice to make when faced with conflicting evidence. TheThat's addressed in the prosecutor's statement: "the volume of discovery
judge will have to decide if the evidence made it to the defendent or
not. It would appear....not...even if his attorney had access.
does not excuse defense counsel from making reasonable efforts to
ascertain whether an item has been produced before making
representations about what was and was not produced."
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:36:34 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
That's addressed in the prosecutor's statement: "the volume of discovery
does not excuse defense counsel from making reasonable efforts to
ascertain whether an item has been produced before making
representations about what was and was not produced."
Sounds like they buried it like a needle in a haystack.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:34:47 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,812 |