Jacob Chansley — the bare-chested Arizona man who wore a furry headdress, horns, and elaborate face paint during the Jan. 6 riot — told “60 Minutes” in his first comments from jail that…
nypost.com
The lone regret Chansley has, he said, was believing that he was allowed into the Captiol after being “waved in” by police officers, giving him the impression that his actions were permitted, according to the report.
Jacob Chansley — the bare-chested Arizona man who wore a furry headdress, horns, and elaborate face paint during the Jan. 6 riot — told “60 Minutes” in his first comments from jail that…
nypost.com
The lone regret Chansley has, he said, was believing that he was allowed into the Captiol after being “waved in” by police officers, giving him the impression that his actions were permitted, according to the report.
Dumbfuck, exactly how big of a glutton for punishment are ya? I said it could have been that prosecutors were not in possession of these videos when BuffaloHead pled guilty; and you're sooo fucking brain-dead, your mental deformity led you to think I meant prosecutors had no other evidence at all beyond what they got from the House.
Savvy?
I changed nothing. I said the above... which led you to ask me if I was saying the DoJ only had evidence provided by the House... to which I fed you rope to hang yourself by merely saying, no, and not expanding upon that... and as expected, you did indeed hang yourself on the idiocy of that being the only logical conclusion; when in fact, it was far from it.
False. The decision is made from the perspective of the defense attorney. I’m some disputes, the court can intercede. But even then deference is paid to the defense perspective.
It would help things enormously if you’d at least try to be accurate.
If the defense thinks that exculpatory evidence has been withheld, they need to argue that to a judge who will also get a chance to hear from the prosecution to determine if there has been a violation of Brady v Maryland. Still, it never went to trial. I do not see that Brady v Maryland requires the prosecution to turn over all evidence before a person take a plea deal. It wouldn't make that much sense anyway. Taking a plea deal means you're admitting guilt. Why would you need evidence against you to determine if you committed a crime? As the perpetrator, you would be the one who knows what you did.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. These violations often arise after a trial. Here it was after a plea. The government had all those videos. They had been demanded by defense counsel. But the prosecution failed to turn them over. So, a discovery violation and a Brady violation.
You're stepping on a few rakes here, so I'll do my best to point them out. One, if it was just the House that had them, then there wouldn't be a problem with Brady v Maryland which applies to the prosecution, not to Congress.
False. That which is the possession of the House is I. The possession of the government. The possession is thus absolutely attributable to the prosecution.
But that doesn't matter, because you're already wrong. The DoJ did have the tapes. The fact that they didn't release them publicly does not mean they haven't been released to the defendants.
I don’t care about being made public. They should have been turned over to the defense upon the defense demand. And the defendant is not even obliged to specifically ask for Brady material.
Last, the defense didn't "object" to anything in court. They went to the media and made that claim, where we all know there's no repercussions for straight up lying about this. So when Chansley's lawyer files in court stating that they didn't get the videos, I'll take their claims seroiusly. For now, they're just running their mouths to get on TV. The fact that Chansley's lawyer hasn't filed on this (not saying they won't, it's only been a week, so I'm patient), is also the reason that the prosecution hasn't denied it to them. Because the DoJ speaks through court filings.
But wait! The piece of garbage Domonic Pezzola did make this claim in court and the DoJ did have the chance to reply. And you know what? The DoJ states in their court filing that they did indeed give these videos to Chansley.
If (and I applaud your ability to share that final bit of information) it is true that the material had been shared, with the defendant, then I would agree with you.
But, of course, it isn’t clear that the prosecution reply is accurate as to that co-defendant’s motion. Assuming it is true, then the DOJ has clean hands as to that portion of discovery and as to the Brady claim.
Someone posted a cop's video from behind as this narcissistic dope was being ushered OUT of the Senate Chamber. Turns out it was not a simple spear one could find easily online, but yours was a great guess considering how little there was to go on. Your image also shows that he simply zip tied the flag to the spearhead. I haven't been able to see under the flag from any angle well enough to confirm that the bottom was zip tied as well, but seeing as he couldn't even be bothered trimming off the excess on the top one, I think it's a safe bet.
Now, looking carefully, one can see that he jambed a steel spearhead on top of a bronze headed spear, I would venture to make it as tall as himself when resting on the floor. The handle appears to be black and wooden with some wooly fringe wrapped around the top.
So far, I have not found an exact match for either spearhead nor the handle. One can see how minimal the "Viking" hat is from this angle. Looks like three fox tails and two bison horns glued to a piece of cardboard for stiffness, then stapled to a black ski hat.
The guy clearly has some crafting skills, money, and loves seeing himself in mirrors.. especially if it looks like he might have thick hair on top of his head. LOL
On second thought, it could just be a single, long spear with a very fancy handle. Why they'd ever let some nut walk around the Capitol with that thing though sure beats the hell out of me!