No, Chansley Was Not Escorted Into the Capitol Building

[BackAgain]

Actually...............it depends on the use and the intent of the person using it.

A baseball bat in the hands of a baseball player on a field playing a game is considered a piece of sporting equipment. Hell, they even sell them as such in most stores.

However..........................

That same baseball bat in the hands of someone who wants to do harm to another person becomes a club and a weapon, it is no longer a piece of sporting equipment.

Depends on the use of the object in question, as it can go either way. What the QAnon shaman was holding in his hands was an object that could be used as either. As long as he held it in a position to display the flag, it was a flagpole. The second he starts to use it in a threatening manner, it becomes a spear and a weapon.

You can use a baseball bat as a weapon. Of course. But that doesn’t make it a weapon in and of itself.

Similarly, a flag pole may look somewhat akin to a “spear,” but standing alone it doesn’t constitute a spear. It’s a flag pole.

 

[BackAgain]

Nonsense. A mob breaking through the Capitol doors caused Congress to have to be evacuated.

Certainly anyone can see the direct connection between those two actions?

Nonsense. Some members of a group broke down some doors. That he was a part of the “group” doesn’t make him a participant in the subset who broke down the doors. No guilt by association.

There appears to be a nexus between the mob entering the bldg and the delay in the official proceeding. That doesn’t prove his guilt for a variety of reasons. Among other things, if the case ends up with him withdrawing his plea and instead going to trial, the government will have to prove his intent.

 

[jc456]

In, around, you're arguing semantics. Your version is actually worse because he entered the building ILLEGALLY after he stood there and watched his comrades break the windows open.

CLAIM: Footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol shows that Jacob Chansley, who participated in the riot sporting face paint, no shirt and a fur hat with horns, was “led through the Capitol by police the entire time he was in the building.”

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Court documents and video footage from the attack on the Capitol make clear that Chansley, who is widely known as the “QAnon Shaman” and is one of the most recognizable Jan. 6 rioters, entered the Capitol without permission, was repeatedly asked to leave the building and was not accompanied at all times.

Posts misrepresent rioter’s actions in Jan. 6 Capitol attack

After Fox News host Tucker Carlson broadcast Jan. 6 security footage previously unseen by the public on his Monday night primetime show, social media users began sharing segments from his program that misrepresented Chansley’s involvement in the riot.

apnews.com

that doesn't show he was escorted into the building. Still waiting for that for the OP?

 

[SeaMajor7]

Here's the Capitol Police ESCORTING the "insurrectionists" out of the Senate...



wow, we dodged a bullet and came this close to losing our democracy.....

 

[XponentialChaos]

It’s not clear at all. If he had pled to just trespass, you would have a much firmer argument. But as things stand, you don’t.

I do. It is clear.

Was the official proceeding obstructed or impeded? Yes or no.

 

[Care4all]

Nonsense. Some members of a group broke down some doors. That he was a part of the “group” doesn’t make him a participant in the subset who broke down the doors. No guilt by association.

There appears to be a nexus between the mob entering the bldg and the delay in the official proceeding. That doesn’t prove his guilt for a variety of reasons. Among other things, if the case ends up with him withdrawing his plea and instead going to trial, the government will have to prove his intent.

He confessed to it. He said he came to the DC Rally and Capitol to stop the electoral count, or something of the sort...??

 

[BackAgain]

I do. It is clear.

False. You don’t. And it’s not clear in the slightest.

Was the official proceeding obstructed or impeded? Yes or no.

Is that the sole element? Yes or no?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Is that the sole element? Yes or no?

No. I’m getting there. Notice that I didn’t duck your question. You should try it some time.

You can go ahead and answer the question now.

 

[XponentialChaos]

False. You don’t. And it’s not clear in the slightest.

You already said that. Maybe you can try answering the question this time.

 

[Marener]

Nonsense. Some members of a group broke down some doors. That he was a part of the “group” doesn’t make him a participant in the subset who broke down the doors. No guilt by association.

There appears to be a nexus between the mob entering the bldg and the delay in the official proceeding. That doesn’t prove his guilt for a variety of reasons. Among other things, if the case ends up with him withdrawing his plea and instead going to trial, the government will have to prove his intent.

He isn’t guilty by association. He’s guilty because his actions caused the disruption.

No, he didn’t break down the doors. That’s why he’s not charged with breaking down the doors. But, having seen that the doors were broken down, and knowing he was not supposed to be going into the Capitol, he can’t claim innocence.

He fully intended to enter the Capitol.

I see almost no possibility that he could withdraw his plea. There’s simply no basis for it, especially since it’s been well over a year since his plea was accepted.

 

[BackAgain]

No. I’m getting there. Notice that I didn’t duck your question. You should try it some time.

You can go ahead and answer the question now.

So, it isn’t the sole element. Cool. So, what do you point to?

 

[BackAgain]

You already said that. Maybe you can try answering the question this time.

You already made the assertions which you then merely repeated. See how that works?

 

[BackAgain]

He isn’t guilty by association. He’s guilty because his actions caused the disruption.

Says you. But your say so ain’t evidence. His actions arguably make him guilty of trespass. But none of his actions can be shown to have caused any delay in that official proceeding. And you cannot point to anything which would demonstrate his intent.

No, he didn’t break down the doors. That’s why he’s not charged with breaking down the doors. But, having seen that the doors were broken down, and knowing he was not supposed to be going into the Capitol, he can’t claim innocence.

Maybe he knew he wasn’t allowed inside. Or maybe he didn’t. But again, mere presence (even without permission) constitutes only trespass.

He fully intended to enter the Capitol.

Since he doesn’t appear to have been bound up and thrown unwillingly into the building, sure. So what?

I see almost no possibility that he could withdraw his plea.

Thankfully, you’re not the judge and alleged Brady violations are taken very seriously by honest judges. Getting his plea back is actually more likely than not.

There’s simply no basis for it,

Of course there is.

especially since it’s been well over a year since his plea was accepted.

Also irrelevant.

 

[Faun]

Go change your Depends with Fawnboi, Buttercup.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So, it isn’t the sole element. Cool. So, what do you point to?

Was the official proceeding obstructed or impeded? Yes or no.

4th time asking.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You already made the assertions which you then merely repeated. See how that works?

It’s a yes/no question and you keep avoiding it. I think you’re avoiding answering because you know that you’re wrong. That’s why you ran away from this last time as well. You’ve been here long enough - you should know that this makes your position look extremely weak.

 

[Marener]

Says you. But your say so ain’t evidence. His actions arguably make him guilty of trespass. But none of his actions can be shown to have caused any delay in that official proceeding. And you cannot point to anything which would demonstrate his intent.

Chansley was perfectly aware that Congress was in session to certify the electoral votes. He occupied the dais in the Senate Chambers.

Maybe he knew he wasn’t allowed inside. Or maybe he didn’t. But again, mere presence (even without permission) constitutes only trespass.

The rioters broke into the Capitol by smashing windows mere feet from him. He knew he wasn’t allowed in.

Since he doesn’t appear to have been bound up and thrown unwillingly into the building, sure. So what?

Because it demonstrates intent. He intended to go into the Capitol when he wasn’t allowed in.

Thankfully, you’re not the judge and alleged Brady violations are taken very seriously by honest judges. Getting his plea back is actually more likely than not.

There is no Brady violations. For starters, Chansley took a plea deal. It didn’t go to trial.

Of course there is.

Let’s hear it.

Also irrelevant.

Not at all. Retracting guilty pleas well after the indictment is prejudicial to the prosecution.

 

[Faun]

See.

See what? You lied and got caught. There was no video of 9 cops, all at once, giving BuffaloHead a "guided tour." What there was, was BuffaloHead walking with 2 cops, down a corridor where 9 other cops were just standing around as BuffaloHead approached them and walked past them...

"We counted at least 9 officers who were within touching distance of unarmed Jacob Chansley. Not one of them even tried to slow him down." ~ Tucker Carlson​

So now, police just standing around is "giving a 'guided tour'," is it, Dumbfuck?

 

[Faun]

LOL

Spear...

Spear...

 

[Faun]

Actually...............it depends on the use and the intent of the person using it.

A baseball bat in the hands of a baseball player on a field playing a game is considered a piece of sporting equipment. Hell, they even sell them as such in most stores.

However..........................

That same baseball bat in the hands of someone who wants to do harm to another person becomes a club and a weapon, it is no longer a piece of sporting equipment.

Depends on the use of the object in question, as it can go either way. What the QAnon shaman was holding in his hands was an object that could be used as either. As long as he held it in a position to display the flag, it was a flagpole. The second he starts to use it in a threatening manner, it becomes a spear and a weapon.

Actually, either way, that's still a baseball bat. That never changes no matter how it's used. All that changes is one use of it is criminal while the other is not.

Same with a spear.