Did the "QAnon Shaman" Get the Shaft? New Evidence Raises New Questions on the Chansley Case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If there is one image from Jan. 6th that will remain indelible with the day, it is the "QAnon Shaman." Bare chested and wearing an animal headdress, horns and red-white-and-blue face paint, Jake Angeli Chansley is to the Capitol riot what Rosie the Riveter was to World War II. Howling and "chanting an unintelligible mantra" on the Senate floor, he is the embodiment of the unhinged rage that led to one of the most disgraceful attacks on our constitutional process in history.
However, the newly released Fox footage from that day raises serious questions over the prosecution and punishment of Chansley. The videotapes aired on the Tucker Carlson Show this week shows Chansley being escorted by officers through the Capitol.Two officers appear to not only guide him to the floor but actually appear to be trying to open locked doors for him. At one point, Chanseley is shown walking unimpeded through a large number of armed officers with his six-foot flag-draped spear and horned Viking helmet on his way to the Senate floor.
It is otherworldly footage. At no point does Chansley appear violent or threatening. Indeed, he appears to thank the officers for their guidance and assistance.
Before addressing the legal implications of this footage, one thing should be clear. The public should have been given access to this footage long ago and the Jan. 6th Committee withheld important evidence on what occurred inside the Capitol on that day.
While it is understandable that many would object to Carlson being given an exclusive in the initial release, many in the media are denouncing the release of the footage to the public at all. Press and pundits are now opposing greater transparency in resisting any contradiction of the narrative put forward by the Jan. 6th Committee.
However, this is not just material that the public should be able to see, it was potential evidence in criminal cases like that of the QAnon Shaman.
When the footage aired, I wrote a column raising the question of whether this evidence was known to or shared with the Chansley's defense. After all, he was portrayed as a violent offender by the Justice Department at his sentencing.
It now appears that the answer is no. I spoke with Chansley's new counsel, Bill Shipley, and confirmed that defense counsel did not have this material.
In the hearing, federal prosecutor Kimberly Paschall played videos showing Chansley yelling along with the crowd and insisted "that is not peaceful."
That portrayal of Chansley would have been more difficult to maintain if the Court was allowed to see images of Chansley casually walking through a door of the Capitol with hundreds of other protesters and then being escorted by officers through the Capitol. At no point is he violent and at no point is he shown destroying evidence. Instead, he dutifully follows the officers who facilitate his going eventually to the unoccupied Senate floor.
We all knew that Chansley was treated more harshly because of his visibility. It was his costume, not his conduct, that seemed to drive the sentencing. In the hearing, Judge Royce Lamberth noted, "He made himself the image of the riot, didn't he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event."
Lamberth hit Chansley with a heavy 41-month sentence for "obstructing a federal proceeding."
However, the QAnon Shaman was led through the Capitol by officers. Defense counsel could have noted that his "obstruction" in going to an unoccupied Senate floor was facilitated by officers. While the police were clearly trying to deescalate the situation after the Capitol was breached, this is evidence of how Chansley came to the Senate. Indeed, his interaction with officers could have impacted how he viewed the gravity of his conduct. It certainly would have been material to the court in sentencing the conduct.
In his rambling sentencing statement to the court, Chansley apologized for "a lot of bad juju that I never meant to create."
I have great respect for Judge Lamberth, who has always shown an admirable resistance to public pressure in high profile cases. I cannot image that Lamberth would not have found this footage material and frankly alarming.
At first blush, this would appear a clear "Brady violation" when a prosecutor fails to provide a defendant with any evidence that is favorable or exculpatory to his case. Like most things in Chansley's life, it is a bit more complex than it would seem.
First, Chansley quickly pleaded guilty to the charge. This may have been due in part to the draconian treatment that he received by the Justice Department, which insisted on keeping him in solitary confinement with no apparent justification. The result is that he moved rapidly to sentencing without significant discovery in his case.
Second, the footage was in the possession of the legislative branch so the Justice Department could claim that it was not required to produce it. Indeed, the prosecution may have been entirely unaware of the footage.
Third, Chansley waived an appeal of the plea agreement and is now weeks away from release. The case is practically closed.
It is not clear, however, if Judge Lamberth will find the failure to disclose this evidence troubling and worthy of inquiry. None of this means that Chansley should not have been given jail time. Indeed, it is appropriate to sentence rioter to greater than average time due to the assault on our constitutional process.
Yet, it is hard to believe that Judge Lamberth would have given 41 months to a nonviolent, first offender who was led through the Capitol by police officers to the floor. This was a Navy veteran who had documented mental disabilities and a defendant who pleaded guilty to the crime.
The role of Congress in withholding this footage is disgraceful and wrong. The Congress and the January 6th Committee knew of this footage and its relevance to a pending criminal case. Yet, they refused to make it public. Instead, the January 6th Committee hired a former ABC producer to put on a made-for-television production of highly edited images for public consumption. Countervailing evidence or images were consistently excluded and witnesses appeared as virtual props to support high-quality video packages.
Even The New York Times admitted the narrative was meant to "recast the midterm message" and "give [Democrats] a platform for making a broader case about why they deserve to stay in power."
The image of the QAnon Shaman being escorted through the Capitol by police officers is hardly the image that they wanted to show the public. So Committee members and counsel buried footage that was clearly relevant to literally hundreds of people facing criminal sentencing across the country. They did this while repeatedly referencing those cases in hearings as upholding the rule of law.
I hold little sympathy for Chansley or the others arrested on that day. I was highly critical of President Donald Trump's remarks before the riot.
However, it is hard to see this withheld evidence and not conclude that the Qanon Shaman got the shaft.
Jonathan Turley
Many of them got the shaft
This is hilarious!
You're making this guy out to be some kind of hero.
He wanted to get noticed on 1/6 and he did.
I am?
OMG, show me where?
it's now a proven fact that fucker carlson will say anything for better ratings and stock price, isn't it?
Damn, I was looking forward to the response.
I guess we're out of luck on that.
We have quickly gone from the broad assertion that Jan 6 was peaceful and not an insurrection, to hand wringing over Jacob Chansley.
Face saving 101.
Your crowd denied him his rights.
And you still can't answer why any judge would have given 41 months to a nonviolent, first offender who was led through the Capitol by police officers?
Then was set up for failure by the Democrats and a false narrative. Although not surprising.
He plead guilty so he IS guilty.
Trespass maybe...but nothing else.
Obstruction of Congress. He could have got 20 years. I would never plead guilty of anything I didn't do. He's guilty. He was there. Congress had to stop what they were doing and were therefore "obstructed". All the trumpies sending him money he had plenty to hire the best attorneys. Do the crime, do the time.
I would never plead guilty to anything I didn't do.
Are you aware of the Brady Rule?
Yea, doesn't apply in a guilty plea.
People plead guilty to things they didn’t do all the time but I’m sure you know you never would. Without a doubt.
Bullshit! If they withheld evidence from the defense the plea we be void.
Putin and the rest of the autocracies appreciate your support.
And Xi wants you to give him more room in the bed
Xi has just been re-elected. And the Chinese government is an autocratic dictatorship. They too appreciate your anti-American support.
No way, it is a benevolent, internationally helpful government. Full of bright, shiny people, unless you’re Muslim.
I wonder if Joe Biden called to congratulate him.
Joe love Xi long time.
With the release of the hidden video, it does bring his (and many others) charges and conviction into question.
No wonder they were so angry!
I saw where Chuck Shithead is upset about all his lies being exposed calling on Rupert Murdoch to stop airing the videos.
Oh ya, he's calling on Murdoch to censor Carlson.
The same guy who threatened Supreme Court Justices and lied his ass off about Justice Kavanaugh.
It's the exact opposite here. WE AREN'T THE ONES WHO ARE LYING.
No? Were cops killed by the crowd on Jan 6th?
No, WE AREN'T.
It's a simple question.
I always wonder who in the fuck this "we" is all the time............................
The radical left?
Jane's Revenge?
I don't know
It was a deflection.
Apparently it's our eyes that are lying, or at least that's what the insurrection apologists would have you believe.
What they don't seem to understand is that it wasn't the January 6th committee that convinced most people that January 6th was a violent attempted insurrection. It was watching the events unfold that day with our own eyes. But of course these loser apologists are desperate to change the narrative and shift the focus off the fact that they're giving aid and comfort to those who attacked our country and our constitution. So any narrative that diverts from that reality is welcome for them, and Tucker delivered right on time.
The funny thing is that this may have had the complete opposite effect for the vast majority of Americans who don't have their heads shoved up Tuckers ass. The rest of the media is now spending hours playing the testimonies of those who were there along with the all the footage we already have proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that rightwing Trump supporters did in fact violently attack the capital and beat capital police officers injuring more than a hundred of them in their attempt to stop the constitutionally mandated peaceful transfer of power, thus by definition making them insurrectionists. Nothing in Tuckers video proves otherwise and they know it, but they will feign ignorance because the truth is just too fucking inconvenient for these dissatisfied useless bigots.
True only in the bizzarro world
So you believe we should only accept the Qanon Shaman video as the true record of events that day instead of what we all watched unfold with our own eyes? If so then that is truly straight out of conservative bizzaro universe.
Lest some forget what actually happened that day due to "accidently" shoving their heads up Tuckers Pucker.
Did I say that or are you just making shit up again?
Anyone who was filmed committing a crime should be prosecuted but not everyone there committed crimes. Protesting is not a crime even if 99% of the country doesn't agree with you. The government cannot hold back exculpatory evidence no matter who or why they're being prosecuted, it's a crime in itself.
The Jan 6th protestors were most peaceful.
- paraphrasing much of mass media’s coverage of the 2020 rioting/looting.
Protesting what? A valid election? NO ONE should have been at the Capitol that day. No one. The 50 states had already individually certified their election results.
Sorry, there was no legitimate protest that day.
And beyond that, they should have "protested " outside. Not after entering the building through the benefit of broken windows and doors.
Where in the constitution does it say only protests deemed as legitimate can take place and who gets to make the decision as to what is and is not a legitimate reason?
Sorry, that is not up to you and is only your opinion.
No re-education camps in the US to send folks who disagree with you ...... yet.
Sorry ....
40,000 hours of unreleased video says you DIDN'T get all the information. You only saw what they wanted you to see.
I dont watch Tucker Carlson, but I read that he has shown almost nothing of the 40,000 hours, and has not even shown extended clips on his show the last three nights.
So how do you know what the 40,000 hours show? Because Tucker tells you? ROFL.
If he had some sort of smoking gun evidence that the riot was peaceful he would have shown it.
Maybe you should. You might learn something.
From what has been released so far, much of the shit pile you gladly ate from was a lie. Can only imagine how much of your narrative will be torn apart with further releases.
See, there's the difference. Unlike you, I don't think he's going to make the "smoking gun" announcement and have it fail miserable. My guess is he'll just release the videos and watch the J6 Shit Show narrative fall apart (much like we are seeing with just a few videos released).
are you QAnon ?
I'll take "Stupid Questions" for $100 Alex
It's estimated that 30 million people watched 1/6/2021 unfold in real time. I was one of them and I certainly don't need any video to tell me what own my eyes witnessed.
Then it stands that you and the estimated 30 million people didn't see the videos the Democrats kept hidden. Maybe you owe Carlson and Fox News a thank you.
oh, so no answer.
[deleted]
I repeat:
“Maybe you owe Carlson and Fox News a thank you.”
A ‘thank you’ only in confirming that they had an agenda…ratings matter more than truth.
They have admitted as much.
And yet, some feel compelled to deny that demonstrable, undeniable fact.
Details, details .... worker drones take what they are fed and ask no questions. Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz
Exactly. The Democrats had an agenda and you lapped it right up.
i don't get it either. These new videos show what the Democrats didn't want to be seen.
Murdock tells them in plain english that his hosts lie and it's not about the red or blue, it's about the green and they still watch fox devotedly.
“These new videos show…”
…what you have been groomed to accept.
As opposed to what we all saw unfolding live on that horrendous day.
If you are going to quote somebody make sure you are quoting the right person.
As you've been groomed to accept the false narrative from the shit show.
Apparently you DIDN'T see all of what was unfolding. That's why the videos are being released. And now the left and Democrats are crying about the videos. Why is that? Because it goes against the pile of shit they fed you?
" Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive", then get caught ......
Laughing my backside off over this.
They don't even have enough of a moral compass to know that editing films to create a false narrative is wrong.
Agreed. It's sad to see the likes of Tucker Carlson and his Fox News cohorts editing this footage to create a false narrative. And it's even sadder to see the gullible saps who are buying this bullshit. Even Tuckers pieced together video of Captain Qanon fails to actually disprove anything that has already been presented and what is already known. It's not like any of the video shows the Wizard of Oz behind the scenes pulling the ropes and strings of a cardboard MAGA crowd that apparently didn't break into the capital, didn't beat officers, didn't break down doors and windows and were just, as Tucker characterized it, "a peaceful sightseeing tour".
If someone believes the 2020 election was "stolen" then they're clearly an abject moron who doesn't care about facts.
If someone believes the attack on the capital January 6th was just a "peaceful sightseeing tour" then they're clearly an abject moron who doesn't care about facts.
"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated,” - Donald J Trump
No kidding.
and yet, the most poorly educated groups vote predominately Democrat
“…the most poorly educated groups vote predominately Democrat.”
cite?
" Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees. The Democrats’ edge is narrower among those with college degrees or some post-graduate experience (49%-42%), and those with less education (47%-39%). Across all educational categories, women are more likely than men to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. The Democrats’ advantage is 35 points (64%-29%) among women with post-graduate degrees, but only eight points (50%-42%) among post-grad men."
A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation | Pew Research Center
Non-College Whites Had Affinity for GOP Before Trump (gallup.com)
Republicans secure almost a super-majority of non-college educated whites. You could almost say non-college educated whites are the white bread and butter of the Republican party where they like 'em old, ignorant and angry.
none of that refutes or even addresses what I wrote but hey, good try!
look it up.
the two poorest educated groups vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
I prefer you to look it up so there will be no bitching about the source.
hint: Google " poorest educated groups in the US".
https://research.com/education/high-school-dropout-rate#:~:text=In%20particular%2C%20American%20Indian%2FAlaska,%25%20(NCES%2C%202021).
Currently black women are both the most educated and the lowest paid demographic in the United States. Considering that, is it any wonder they overwhelmingly vote Democratic?
It kind of blows the old racist tropes we still hear all to Hell!
What old racist tropes are you referring to?
Lol. Try and think that through for one second. .
You could almost say non-college educated whites are the white bread and butter of the Republican party where they like 'em old, ignorant and angry
What slurs do you use to describe the non college educated blacks who are the bread and butter of the Democratic party?.
Dependents??
Are people actually saying that? It seems most people are either saying it was mostly peaceful (by CNN and MSNBC definition of mostly peaceful), a riot or an insurrection.
So you have proof that the footage was edited? Lets see it.
Not just no but HELL no.
"These were not insurrectionists, they were sightseers." - Tucker Carlson
I said most people, not all people. I am sure you can find a few examples if you look hard enough just like you can find a few examples of people that are sure the moon is made of cheese.
Tuckster would have been better served if he said they were mostly peacefully protesting.
Did you watch the Tucker produced video? It was multiple disparate clips pieced together to create a narrative. It is not some continuous unedited video of all Qanon Shaman events. It does not show how he breached the capital in the first place, does not show all the interactions the capital police had with him and doesn't refute the narrative given by the capital police who said they were trying to de-escalate a violent situation and were trying to escort the Shaman out of the building.
So the proof was the pieced together video clips. Do you have any evidence that Tucker put EVERY clip of the Qanon shaman in his released video clip? If so, let's see it. Or is it that you just trust Tuckers pucker so much that you couldn't imagine he'd ever lie to you? Even though he's admitted to lying to his gullible viewers for ratings, his gullible viewers still line up for a double helping of his bullshit.
I guess it's a testament to how fucking gullible his viewers are, he can tell them he's lying to them and they double down on their loyalty. That's really something that's only possible in the rightwing conservative alternate universe where facts, truth and reality go to die. The folk inside would much rather be told they're special, they're smart, they're right about everything, their God is the only true God, their faith is the only true faith and their God will eventually come and murder all these higher educated liberal progressive bi-coastal elites and anyone who doesn't conform to religious conservative morals. Those folk have no use for reality, they've already made their bigoted hateful minds up.
That's a pretty long winded way to say you don't have shit.
Yet again, your rebuttal is nothing more than nuh’uh.
So now you are bitching because Carlson did the same thing the Jan 6 committee did.
No hypocrisy there when it was plainly obvious to any thinking adult that the committee did the same thing--showed selected videos to create a narrative. In fact, the committee hired a tv guy to produce their little show, so exactly what Carlson did.
You have succeeded in showing your hypocrisy but failed in all else.
So you're saying the video shown on Fox was "unedited", correct?
You asked for proof, the proof was in the fucking video shown which was disparate clips from different hallways with no continuous timeline and no complete record of the Qanon shamans movements or actions.
Those with their heads firmly planted up Tuckers ass appear to be claiming this video is "unedited" and proves some alternate narrative than the one we all watched on January 6th. The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, so prove this video is unedited and that this is a complete accurate representation of events that day. If you can't then you've just proven your side of the argument "don't have shit", as usual.
“That's a pretty long winded way to say you don't have shit.”
Thanks for keeping it short. You and yours are left scrambling in the quixotic attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Tens of thousands minutes of tape, edited or not, only confirm the ugly truth.
I ask for the same thing I've ask your for - Proof of a claim. And look at that - the response was similar to yours - a bunch of nothing.
I know this is a bit much to ask of you but, perhaps you can prove the videos released by Carlson are edited.
Never said that. That's an assumption you are making. I'm merely telling you to back up your claim.
And you failed to step up. Assuming Carlson's videos are edited that would mean you're a hypocrite. You are all good with edited video from the Shit Show but not from an opposing source.
I don't recall where I was asked to show the January 6th committee footage was unedited. As I've said multiple times before, the January 6th committee didn't convince me that this was an attempted insurrection, the footage I watched that day did. Unless you're fucking blind deaf and dumb, what we all saw was a violent insurrection. To say otherwise is to prove oneself either completely unreliable or monumentally partisan and not to be trusted.
Oh please, it's clear dumb fuck rightwing conservatives wouldn't know hypocrisy if it was a mushroom sized wart on their nose. It's right their on their faces every day but they strain their eyes to look past it desperate to deflect and distract from what everyone else can see is as plain as the hypocrisy on their faces.
“…the footage I watched that day did. Unless you're fucking blind deaf and dumb, what we all saw was a violent insurrection.”
Undeniable.
There's nothing to scramble about (unlike the left and the Democrats). The videos apparently are a threat to you all and have you all in a tizzy.
You mean the ugly truth that you all ate from the same pile of shit?
Are you going to retract this post, or are you good with spreading misinformation?
You weren't, but it doesn't take much to assume they were selected videos shown to create a narrative--which is EXACTLY what you are bitching Carlson is doing.
Maybe there are some that fit that. I am not one of them. I see your hypocrisy in full blooming color. You are constantly bitching about Carlson when the Jan 6 committee produced a show. That qualifies you as a hypocrite, and all your denials are futile until your posts change.
“Assuming Carlson's videos are edited…”
Ya think? [deleted]
Well that's a hilarious way to backtrack when you realize you're losing the argument.
Wow. Just when I didn't think I could find a dumber argument, you come up with that "winner".
I was asked to prove the Tucker video was edited. I pointed out that the clip itself makes it beyond obvious that it was edited as it's half a dozen different clips from different hallways and cameras and the only way to make such a video is to fucking edit it. And what do I get for pointing out this obvious glaring error in their original argument? I'm called a hypocrite for not pointing out the same for the January 6th committee, which of course is not even the fucking topic or even being discussed in this thread.
Once again, to anyone with apparent problems with reading comprehension, the January 6th committee convinced me of NOTHING. It merely added small details to the already beyond obvious MAGA inspired attack on the capital that I and millions of others watched that day with our OWN eyes. I'm sure the only reason the fucking scum bag insurrectionists apologists are not getting this basic fact is that it's too inconvenient for them to counter. If it's the Jan 6th committee they can constantly take shots at the messenger claiming how it wasn't non-partisan even though it had multiple Republicans on the panel and dozens of Republicans testimonies of that days events. But I guess it's true, you can never get a stubborn dumb fuck to accept anything they don't want to accept no matter how much evidence, facts and reality you present.
Were they more or less edited than the Jan 6 committee's videos?
I'll take that as your way of saying you were wrong. And of course we all know what assuming will do to you... and apparently it was successful.
Link to EXACTLY where I said they were edited. I'll wait.
And where exactly did I say they weren't?
What was not edited? What we saw live on TV January 6th!
Then your unforced error is as bad and as plain as your hypocrisy.
Only a dumbfuck idiot would think the Jan 6 committee didn't do the same thing as Carlson--show only parts of videos to support whatever narrative they wanted to portray.
Bitching about one doing it when both did is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
“Were they more or less edited…”
Were you more or less inclined to believe your eyes as events unfolded on January 6th?
I sure am sorry the question was obviously too hard for you to even attempt to answer.
I'll try to lob a few softballs your way in the future.
Exactly! We are not basing our beliefs about what happened January 6th merely on what the Congressional January 6th Committee presented into evidence, because we saw it all play out live on our televisions right in front of our own eyes.
Please do expose such a dumb fuck who made such a claim.
I'm not bitching about the Jan 6th footage because that's not the topic here. Also, the Jan 6th footage did not make ANY new claims it tried to prove with edited footage. What we all watched LIVE was more than enough. The video from the committee merely filled in some blanks and showed specific individuals actions that day.
The committee was not unlike a court case presenting evidence of an act. Few prosecutors rely purely on a single unedited video clip to prove their case. In the committee they presented video, testimony, texts, phone calls and first hand accounts of what happened that day which only confirmed what every patriotic American already knew. Those who were desperately trying to invent a new narrative for the obvious insurrection aren't patriotic Americans, they are scum traitors who don't deserve to call themselves American.
I already have, but perhaps the person is too much of a dumbfuck to even recognize it.
Okay, I'll play along and pretend, too.
I just won't be a fucking hypocrite while doing so..
I see you've gone from irrelevant snark to insinuated insult, bravo.
Too late...
you are adept at "thinking" you see something but still can't see your own hypocrisy. I would like to say I'm surprised but can't lie.
I'm not sure how many more times I have to point out that the January 6th footage was mostly irrelevant to me and did not change my view of January 6th in the slightest. Of course they were playing the 'Greatest Hits' from the footage that I and millions of Americans had already seen live.
So what's the difference between what Tucker is presenting and the live footage we all saw with our own eyes? Tuckers tape is a few clips out of tens of thousands of hours of footage he apparently has showing a guy being led around by capital police who say they were trying to move him to an exit and remove him from the building and they were doing so in a peaceful manner because they were attempting to deescalate the violent intrusion.
Does that change any of the violence, chaos, the over hundred officers injured, the vandalism, the broken doors and windows, the death mob chant of "Hang Mike Pence!"? No, of course not, but apparently you're more desperate to deflect to others being supposed hypocrites than to admit the obvious.
whatever gets you through a day.
What an obtuse comment.
You saw what the mass media wanted you to see. Did you see Capital Police leading peaceful protestors around the capital building?
Nope, not until a few weeks ago.
TDS appears to have rotted many of your brains completely away.
Where did I claim the videos were edited (other than being clipped which is obvious given they were shorter than 41,000 hours)? Where does anyone claim that the videos by Carlson were changed and thus fake (akin to photoshopping)?
Do better than endless strawman arguments and fabricated false claims.
Lets start with Dismayed in 3.1.1
You should really do better keep up with the thread.
Where does DP claim the videos were CHANGED and thus FAKE (akin to PHOTOSHOPPING )?
Here, read what he wrote:
He said the footage was edited to create a false narrative. Yeah, Jeremy, Sparty, Just Jim, given Carlson did not show 41,000 hours of footage he clearly edited it. Hello?
And obviously Carlson was trying to put forth the false narrative that the crowd was peaceful and that violence was not ensuing. He did that by (stupidly) omitting videos that we all have seen .
DP did NOT claim that Carlson CHANGED the video (e.g. actually changed what was shown through technical mischief akin to Photoshopping). He claimed Carlson presented excerpts of real videos pieced together to support a false narrative of a peaceful sightseeing tour.
Now, read again what you quoted from me:
Some people have the remarkable disability to routinely misread what others write and substitute their own biased presumptions.
Reading comprehension failed you again. I quoted it. Hell, YOU QUOTED IT.
I didn't quote you. Try reading my comment again. I even gave you the link to the comment.
Your typical bullshit game.
Jeremy and Texan:
Editing footage = extracting parts of a corpus of footage. Done all the time. Clearly done since less than 41,000 hours was shown. Get a clue.
Changing footage = modifying the content of footage (e.g. using Deepfake-like technology)
Carlson edited the footage to present a false narrative that the insurrection was peaceful and the Shaman was exclusively escorted around the Capitol. Nobody has claimed that he changed (modified) the content of the footage he aired; only that he took select portions of it to show (that is 'editing').
Who do you think is dumb enough to fall for your obtuseness game?
I see you don't want to address 3.1.53 and opted for semantics. Tell me you don't have an argument without telling me you don't have an argument. Oh wait, you did in 3.1.54.
You are impossible Jeremy. No matter how clearly explained you just stubbornly cling to your obtuse narrative.
Semantics = meaning. You need to learn the meaning of 'editing' when it applies to video.
Editing = changing. I get that those of you on the left struggle with definitions (among a wide variety of other things). This one is pretty simple. I'm sure even you could figure it out with some assistance.
If one edits 41,000 hours of video to extract a few minutes for presentation, one has not changed the content of the video. Changing the content of the video is entirely different.
WAIT!!!! You are actually dumb enough to believe he edited all the video down to a few minutes? [deleted]
Jeremy, video editing is a process where a video presentation is produced by pulling out select content from a larger corpus of footage.
Dodging the question I see.
[deleted]
Your attempts here to define “words” for the unwashed masses are legendary. This reminds me of your attempts to ignore all accepted definitions of “faith” but I digress.
Definition of Edit:
1b is what you speak of. Problem is, to be intellectually honest, you have to deal with 1a & 1c. Both of which speak to Jeremys point.
Ediiting a video doesn’t only involve physically changing the video that was shot. It also means, to pick and choose only the unchanged excerpts, that suit a particular purpose. A desired narrative if you were. Leaving out all excerpts that may not support a desired narrative.
The Jan 6th committee was like that. Pushing a desired narrative (bring down Trump supporters) no matter what. Otherwise it wouldn’t have taken years for all the video to come out. Had they been honest from the start and released ALL of the video from the start, we wouldn’t be talking about this today.
Yeah, Sparty, and that is what DP was saying. You do not even understand the controversy. Get a clue before foolishly opining.
Lol .... personal attacks all you got.
You just lost the debate. Again.
It is a sure bet that when shown to be dead wrong you will leap to projection.
Ya! Faux 'news' is doing some serious projection, deflection, and denial here. They're the ones who have been caught lying and now quadrupling down on them.
I think you should apply for a copyright and make a song out of it.
Ya! I'm laughing my ass off at all these articles about Faux 'news' and their PP&D and all the PD&D in these articles!
How much laughing will that take?
How many lameass impertinent questions can you ask?
As many as some of these comments warrant.
How many lameass impertinent comments can you(and a few others) make?
He might have been treated unfairly; if so, that is a failure of our judicial system. Many of those caught in the Capitol might have been treated unfairly. To intelligently opine on that, we would need to review the trials. I will say that anyone who is within the Capitol building after it has been violently breached is asking for trouble. That is basic common sense so those who failed to understand this put themselves at risk.
Regardless, Jan 6th was about the actions and inaction of Trump and his cronies.
Not with the film hidden, and the rights to discovery and a speedy trial denied:
The 6th Amendment:
"The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay , the right to a lawyer , the right to an impartial jury , and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you."
Your comment suggests you read the opposite of what I wrote. I stated that he might have been treated unfairly. Your reply argues that he might have been treated unfairly.
Hello?
The struggle is real.
‘Methinks the lady doth protest too much’
Oh ya: "Hamlet" by William Shakeseare
You can't do it with that. Nobody got that.
It isn't easy, is it?
A rebuttal usually counters what someone wrote. Best to read rather than presume.
You were given a chance to coindem the editing of film to construct a false narrative.
You refused to do so.
That's what Faux 'news' has done.
That was clever 6 years ago!
No, no it wasn't
Can you explain the Brady Rule for us?
This is a forum, not an on-demand education seminar. If you need to understand the Brady Rule do a search and read.
If you have a legal opinion (i.e. from a reputable attorney who has studied the trial) that the prosecution did not disclose exculpatory evidence in Jacob Chansley's trial then deliver it. If not, you are simply barking in the wind (not a good look).
Also, Chansley is a minor, largely irrelevant, part of the Jan 6th insurrection. Trump, in contrast, is the major player.
I'll ask you.
Well...what did Trump do?. How was he a player?
He wasn't even there....for heaven's sake.
He admitted his guilt, entered into a plea deal with the prosecutors and his case did not go to trial.
Trump:
All of the above (and more) were covered by the Jan 6th committee proceedings.
He was the quarterback.
They learned it from the Jan 6 lets get Trump committee.
Chansley is a deflection.
I'd ask you to provide proof of that but we already know the results of that.
First, you want proof that the Jan 6th event was fundamentally about Trump?? Really? You do not understand this already?
Second, when I provide evidence to back up my claims, you ignore it and keep asking for it. Your (beyond lame) tactic is well known so why do you even bother anymore?
Some ask repeatedly for evidence which is provided yet never provide any evidence of any of their claims, ever.
Assume I'm from Missouri and SHOW ME. All we've seen are your talking points that you've spammed all over the place.
Then provide a link to FACTS and not some news agency. I'm not playing "I heard from a friend of a friend who heard from a friend of a friend". Which, BTW seems to be a favorite tactic of you and those around you.
Now. You want to get back on the topic (Jake Angeli Chansley and the fucked up situation the Democrats hiding video put him in) or blather on and on endlessly about unrelated shit?
I give Tig credit for a LOT of patience with you guys. I dont have that patience. I do know that he has made something like dozens of comments that go well into very specific detail about Jan 6, particularly related to Trumps actions or inactions.
You have never once gone into a single detail about it all, because you dont know any details.
None of you watched the Jan 6 hearings, and hence you are left defenseless to the facts.
You should be happy Tig still answers your nonsense.
And I'm supposed to give a shit because....
Nope still don't care. Don't you have another "Smoking Gun" article to put up or justify Biden looking for dead people on stage?
I will give you this, you keep it simple. [deleted]
How else and I going to get to your level?
It IS pointless though. No matter what, they (a particular group of uber-partisans) continue to make the same claims no matter how clearly they are proven wrong.
[deleted]
we're the globetrotters and they are the washington generals
Projection
Because he gets away with it.
You think only Ds have uber partisans??
Part of this thread has been removed for a slap fight. Knock it off. Only warning.
This comment frames a fucked up liberal mentality very nicely.
You people should all be happy that the chosen “chose” to intermingle and deal with the unwashed masses.
God .... and you and your up voters wonder why they get hammered here all the time. Amazing.
I think I know 1st pretty well and I’m sure that is not what he was trying to say but since his comment has been censored, I can’t be 100% sure.
And when some people are asked for proof they respond "truth is truth and needs no proof".
If they weren't violent, and didn't damage any property, and are ushered in and lead around by the police? Try again.
Garland, the DOJ, and Jan 6th committee are the ones that should be sweating bullets now.
Withholding information from defense in trial is illegal. Time for Brandon's/Garland's/Democrat's two tier justice system to end; and for them to live under the same laws the rest of us do.
Apparently you would be one whose common sense failed him. If the Capitol building was violently broken and entered to disrupt the workings of Congress, I would immediately have the sense to NOT ENTER THE BUILDING.
Then you did not pay attention to what the committee presented. They were absolutely NOT focused exclusively on security and were indeed focused on Trump and his cronies. You are clearly arguing out of ignorance. Obviously you did not watch the committee proceedings.
If that is what happened then that is a failure of the legal system. That happens. Not really earth shaking news and entirely irrelevant to the issue of Jan 6th.
A truly stupid claim. Everyone on the planet with half a mind has seen the violence. Do you actually believe that all those breaking and entering the Capitol were ushered in and lead around by the police? Why post such nonsense?
You again prove that you have no clue. You prove that you either did not watch the proceedings or were unable to comprehend them.
Who has suggested otherwise? You have nothing so you introduce a strawman argument.
Says who....you?
You obviously did not watch the proceedings.
Well, it was biased and one sided testimony intentionally done by the Democrats.
The high-ranking, connected Republicans whose testimonies compromised their careers were biased and one-sided???
Focus on testimony by Republicans against an R PotUS.
Yes, didn't you watch the proceedings? It was pretty obvious to anyone not looking through a DNC lens.
Incredible that you would go so far as to claim the Republicans Cipollone, Barr, Bowers, et.al. were all so biased that they gave false testimony against Trump.
Your defense of Trump is irrational.
There is no defense of Trump, just an indictment of the process. There was no attempt to show the full story, just the DNC approved talking points. They did exactly what Tucker is being accused of doing now.
Except everyone testifying under oath were republicans and many, if not most, served in the Trump Administration.
By totally ignoring the testimony of the R witnesses you are defending Trump and thus part of the enablement of Trump.
Do you think the Barr was lying when he testified that he informed Trump that his "rigged election" claims were bullshit? Do you think there are other parts of his testimony where he contradicts that statement he made?
Do you think Bowers was lying when he testified that Trump asked him to submit alternate (fake) electors? Do you think there are other parts of his testimony where he contradicts that statement?
The first thing that comes to mind is what a toady for the lunatic right the once respectable Jonathan Turley has become. The only comparable example is Alan Dershowitz.
But that is obvious.
What about Jacob Chansley?
We see video of him walking peacefully through halls. What was being said by either him or the cops during all this walking? That would be interesting to know. I think this fool got into the most trouble when he entered the Senate chamber and pretended to be the presiding officer, at the same time his chums were rifling through papers on the senators desks. He most likely got charged with that too.
It is interesting, although pitiful, that with the utter collapse of Tucker Carlson's Monday night presentation the right is now reduced to making the QAnon Shaman the focal point of all their outrage about the "lies" of jan 6. Chansley was never more than a minor figure in most peoples minds, who thought he was a nut. Now, according to the right he is a major symbol of government malfeasance. He is the poster child for the meanness of the federal government.
He is the way they are trying to distract from the total failure of their arguments about Jan 6.
That is about all he is at this point. Carlson and the rest of the clowns are exploiting this poor guy.
This is what Carlson gave them so they are running with it. Instead of the focus being on Trump's actions and inaction, people are running around all upset that the Shaman, Hawley, and other very minor insignificant characters were possibly treated too harshly.
Just PD&D John, all they have.
I believe he pled guilty, and most of those caught for the destruction of the Capitol which Fox isn't showing their viewers, have not only pled guilty but have openly stated they were misled, lied to by a lot of people, and that they believed Trump was calling on them and believed all the lies they were told by him and others spurring this violence. Why were all the Republicans running in the hallways, why were all the Republicans holed up with Democrats with mounds of furniture they piled in various rooms to get away from the violence? Even Republicans are speaking out about the Tucker revisionist history of this attack.
As all did in the old Soviet system.
An old retired NYC detective (with his trusty baseball bat) could explain how it works, in case you were wondering.
Right. So now you're actually accusing the police and/or justice department of beating a false guilty plea out of him without a shred of evidence. But then again when did rightwing conservatives ever actually need evidence, more than half of them believe Qanon conspiracy theories and ramble on about Jewish space lasers so evidence is clearly not something they care about.
So it's really no wonder that more completely baseless horse shit conjecture is being flung about. The Qanon Shaman committed crimes, he was arrested, tried and pled guilty to those crimes, and yet his fellow Qanon dipshit morons are now creating fantasy reasons for why he's both not guilty and why he might plead guilty while actually being innocent just like they did with that fucking traitor Michael Flynn.
"Do you believe in the peaceful transition of power in the United States of America?"
"The Fifth" - Michael Flynn
Spoken like a true champion of rightwing conservative fascism.
Didn't you know that what actually happened on 1/6, what we saw with our own eyes, is, according to some here, what we were 'led to believe'?
Why don't you tell us?
What were we not allowed to see?
And what were 'we' not allowed to see?
Apparently we were not allowed to see the QAnon Shaman being escorted around the Capitol building by police officers in a peaceful manner.
Did they offer him coffee and donuts too?
I think that he only eats organic.
Are you following me? If so, quit.
And yes, everyone already knows the numbnut allegedly eats organic. I assume as long as someone buys it for him since he wasn't among the ranks of the employed before his arrest. You are aware of that, right?
Following you? Do you mean if I’m attracted to the more stupid comments here? Yes.
Yes.
Question asked, question answered. So, now we shift from histrionics to hyperbole.
Tucker Carlson shook the tree and look at what fell out. If we are allowed to see.
Essentially nothing new short of a few small (and irrelevant) nuts.
Maybe so. Surely attracted a lot of nutcrackers.
A rational fair-minded person would be repulsed not only by Trump's refusal to accept the election results, but also and by the same token, the duplicity of the Jan 6th Committee.
I would compare the treatment of the QAnon Shaman in the entire picture of Jan 6th to being caught in a hurricane and worrying that your umbrella is broken.
Anyone that wants to see fair justice might disagree.
That allegory requires a hurricane. There weren't preparations for a hurricane. And there wasn't any damage caused by a hurricane. The only thing that was tarnished was the pomp and ceremony of a government that cares more about itself than about the country.
Politicians were upset that their self indulgent celebration of government was disrupted by a man dressed in an unusual manner. Not that long ago the political reaction would have been considered 'white privilege'. These same privileged politicians participate in protests and riots in cities and communities around the country. Nancy Pelosi kneeled in the rotunda of the Capitol to show support for and solidarity with not-so-peaceful protests occurring outside the Capitol building.
The whole point of the Jan. 6th committee was to show that politicians are special and must not be exposed to the same things common people on the streets must endure. Politicians are to be protected, coddled, pampered, and indulged. And their own self indulgent celebration of their self importance is not to be disrupted. Someone can burn a grocery store and a prosecutor may look away. But yelling obscenities and pounding on doors in the Capitol is a capital crime. Burning a city block is political speech that must be protected. But taking that sort of protest into the Capitol is treason.
Hurricane? More like a Will Smith slap that ruined the glitz and glamour of a self indulgent celebration. A celebration that only the right kind of people can attend. Commoners aren't allowed.
“…taking that sort of protest into the Capitol is treason.”
Agreed.
We differentiate offenses in every jurisdiction…local, state, and federal. To equate one offense with another is to admit one’s misunderstanding of our entire judicial system.
We've been hearing a lot about a two tiered judicial system where the privileged are given leniency and the wrong kind of people are treated harshly. When the rubber meets the road, privilege keeps its advantage.
Politicians are the right kind of people. The rest of us are the wrong kind of people. Commoners are only allowed to have scraps from the dumpster in the alley.
You act as though Carlson delivered Earth-shaking revelations. The Shaman, Hawley, et.al. are next to irrelevant in the big picture of Trump’s post election loss actions and inaction.
A rational mind would properly weight the importance of facts. Comparing Trump’s behavior to the actions of a biased committee illustrates faulty thinking.
In short, Carlson deflected to minor players. I suspect that is because he has nothing to dispute the testimony presented by the connected, high-ranking Republicans who compromised their political futures by testifying.
Outside the MAGA bubble January 6th revisionist spinners are being widely, loudly and roundly rebuked and ridiculed...
Nobody is taking them seriously. They are being laughed at!
Carlson showed a whole 4 minutes out of over 40,000 hours of tapes.
Similar to the Jan 6 shitshow. They just showed the same clips again and again and again and again and again and again...........................
Not in the least bit similar to what the committee did. They showed tapes that were pertinent and instructive.
The only thing that fell out of the tree was Carlson.
Chansley pleaded guilty to a charge of Obstructing an Official Proceeding. Chansley accepted responsibility and accountability for what he did. Chansley didn't lie or twist his actions into something they weren't. So, Chansley's conviction for a crime is not what is outrageous.
What is outrageous is the harsh sentence imposed by the court. What that reveals is that judicial prerogative in sentencing can be manipulated, coerced, or influenced by bias. If judicial prerogative can be manipulated into imposing harsher sentences then it follows that same prerogative can be manipulated into imposing lenient sentences. Being subject to manipulation means the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
While that may be cause to question the power of judicial prerogative, the real underlying problem of concern is really the power of prosecutors to manipulate court proceedings. Prosecutors have the power to pursue criminal proceedings or not. Prosecutors have the power to withhold evidence, selectively present evidence to obtain a desired outcome, and manipulate the imposition of sentences.
Prosecutorial abuse has become a political tool that circumvents the pursuit of justice. Prosecutors are becoming political servants rather than public servants. The Chansley case is an indicator that there needs to be serious reforms for how prosecutors perform their duties. Are prosecutors officers of the court? Or are prosecutors a function of political government serving a political end?
Chansley is a moron. If you think he's so great and so put upon why don't you send him money? Or organic apples or something?
Do you think he got extra time in jail for that?
No, he got adulation from the QLoon MAGA types
Chansley lived in the basement at his mother's house. Forty something years old, basically unemployed. Apparently a Trump supporter. And dumb as a box of rocks too. Yeah, dude like him portend a future of what?
Other than being a Trump supporter it sounds like a certain Senator from Pennsylvania
If that is the best you have how can you qualify yourself to take part in this discussion?
After all America is finally being forced to prosecute a former President!
Hopefully. And finally.
I understand the reticence to do so, but Trump is running again! For the sake of our Republic Trump forces legal recourses upon US...
No matter what, we never went there. Trump is forcing it now!
Nah. I suspect Trump's running will be from lawyer to lawyer. The first needle prick in the gas bag is about to occur.
The ultimate lesson of January 6th was that the Capitol Police should have immediately fired upon Trump's January 6th Insurrectionists when they first started storming their barricades and have never let any of them inside the United States Capitol thus forcing the US Congress to flee for their lives...
Trump would not let them do so because he wanted it to succeed!
Any other group attacking the Capitol would have been shot dead.
WTH is that supposed to mean? TRUMP wouldn't let them???
citation please......................
Trump could have stopped it right away but he did not want to!...
The Capitol Police allowed the mob inside because they were not allowed to use appropriate force to stop them, on Trump's orders!
Bullshit as said. And again, citation.......................
How when and how were the orders communicated to the force?
Why were Trump's January 6th Insurrectionists allowed to storm past hundreds of Capitol Police, multiple defensive barricades, bash through windows and force both the United States Senate and House of Representatives to flee into underground bunkers?
Who was responsible? Who let them in? Who could've stopped it?
Who was really in charge on the morning of January 6th, 2021?
You are going to have to talk to the capitol police, the DC police, the DC mayor, and the other agencies that had a heads up. They were outmanned and, in true Baltimore mayor riot allowing fashion, decided to let them vent their frustrations.
Obviously on a piece of used toilet paper. The comment is full of shit.
Outnumbered by over 10,000 to less than 1,500.
The protestors. The outnumbered Capitol Police. Maybe an additional 5,000 armed force.
In charge of what?
Absolutely why they should not have waited till Ashley Babbit stuck her dumbass head into the House Chamber to shoot!
The Capitol Police should have used appropriate possibly lethal forces to protect Congress right from the very get go! From the first broken barricades. From the first blasts of bear spray. From the first punches thrown. Where else in the world would this have been allowed to happen?
Lets see. Perhaps you can answer some related questions:
But what did the FBI do with that information?
Then there's this about deployment of the National Guard
If you read the link, the request for National Guard assistance was sent in December and approved. The WH did not give any order for the NG to stand down. So the bullshit narrative that the delay was on Trump is shot.
Except January 6th the violent mobs supported the tyrant!
The person in charge of the criminal mob supported them...
So, no!
I would say nice try but that response does not rise to that level. More like a lameass try.
Yeah, you're not in that position.
You are happy you got checkmated?
Ahh, there it is. The "I can't dispute anything you presented" / "I'm clueless" meme.
Get some new material. Using the same ones again and again and again shows a lack of imagination and are just boring.
They were there for the former 'president' -- after he incited the insurrection -- he watched it for hours on TV while refusing to call off his scumbags -- 'they're doing this for ME'
All true jbb - WE know all you have stated to be factual and true.
Thank you for the positive feedback...
You are most welcome. I am always here to help.
no, the ultimate lesson is that it's not a good idea for local governments to defend and refuse to punish people who riot, attack police, attack government buildings etc. By January 2021, it was clear that rioting was not treated seriously or punished and effectively normalized it.
Any other group attacking the Capitol would have been shot dead
If only an assault on the White House where dozens of police were injured had occurred six months earlier in order to test that hypothesis.
That is a lameass spin on January 6th. How many of those Trump January 6th Insurrectionists now arrested were BLM or ANTIFA?
That is a lameass deflection that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Pretty much all you have is lameass deflections.
Yep! How dare I deflect from a deflection?
In other words, you don’t understand what a deflection is.
Nope, I easily identified your deflections!