No, Chansley Was Not Escorted Into the Capitol Building

[BackAgain]

The “improper purpose”, to me, would be indicated by him being in a place he knew he wasn’t supposed to be (past police barricades and into a building that was broken into) to disrupt a congressional proceeding. That’s how I would interpret that.

Show me that his purpose was to “disrupt” a congressional proceeding. I’d suggest that burden is on the proponent. By contrast, I believe his purpose was merely to be heard before the certification might make his being hear a moot point.

As opposed to, let’s say that there happened to be a tourist who got lost in the Capitol and he’s carrying a large bag. Everyone panics, thinking it could be a bomb and the room is evacuated until it’s discovered that this was just an honest mistake. This would be impeding on the official proceeding but without “improper purpose.” Something like that.

His improper purpose of being there is called trespass.

That’s my take on it. Looks like the judges and lawyers agree with me too,

According to … ?

so I think I’m on the right track.

And it could turn out that way. But then again, maybe not.

Still haven’t heard your take on all this. Go ahead and explain why me and the judges are wrong.

Which judges are you making reference to?

 

[BackAgain]

Damn near spat up mah spleen.

Too bad you didn’t. But your odd reaction to being told the truth isn’t my concern.

 

[BackAgain]

So you can’t show me your response to post #259. You ran away from that one, like I ******* said.

And now you got caught in a lie.

Nope. Answered already. Repeating your own lie doesn’t make me a liar. You liar.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Show me that his purpose was to “disrupt” a congressional proceeding. I’d suggest that burden is on the proponent. By contrast, I believe his purpose was merely to be heard before the certification might make his being hear a moot point.

Richard Barnett, the guy who put his feet on Pelosi’s desk, went to trial and was convicted of the same crime. Was his purpose any different?

The people who peacefully protested without breaking into the Capitol were there to be heard. The people who broke into the Capitol were there to disrupt the official proceeding at the very least. Some were there for much, much worse.

His improper purpose of being there is called trespass.

It goes beyond that. A lost tourist could have been trespassing. These people were there for a purpose. They were there to be disruptive and they ended up impeding the official proceeding.

And it could turn out that way. But then again, maybe not.

And you will be fine with either outcome?

Which judges are you making reference to?

The judge in the Richard Barnett case, among others. Seems that they’re on my side in this one. So you have an uphill battle.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Nope. Answered already.

You had no response to post #259. Therefore you’re a liar.

QED.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have never run away.

 

[BackAgain]

Richard Barnett, the guy who put his feet on Pelosi’s desk, went to trial and was convicted of the same crime. Was his purpose any different?

What one guy says his purpose was doesn’t impute that alleged purpose to others.

The people who peacefully protested without breaking into the Capitol were there to be heard.

Yep.

The people who broke into the Capitol were there to disrupt the official proceeding at the very least.

Nope.

Some were there for much, much worse.

A vague possibility. No evidence for your claim, however.

It goes beyond that. A lost tourist could have been trespassing. These people were there for a purpose.

To be heard.

They were there to be disruptive

According to you. But you don’t get to speak for them.

and they ended up impeding the official proceeding.

It did get delayed.

And you will be fine with either outcome?

What?

The judge in the Richard Barnett case, among others. Seems that they’re on my side in this one. So you have an uphill battle.

Nope. It seems in that case a particular judge agreed with your view or overlooked the question entirely.

 

[jc456]

I do. It is clear.

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

Yep

 

[jc456]

LOL

Spear...

Spear...

Why didn’t he use it as a spear?

 

[XponentialChaos]

What one guy says his purpose was doesn’t impute that alleged purpose to others.

Looks the same to me. If Barnett and and Chansley have different purposes, please explain what makes them different. If they aren’t different, then they should both be convicted of the same crime.

Nope.

Judge disagrees with you.

A vague possibility. No evidence for your claim, however.

”Hang Mike Pence!”

According to you. But you don’t get to speak for them.

And the judge.

What?

Will you be fine with the decision if Chansley and the other idiots, after challenging the rulings, are still found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding?

Nope. It seems in that case a particular judge agreed with your view or overlooked the question entirely.

Oh it wasn’t just that judge. Several other idiots were found guilty of the same thing. I was just using that one as an example to show that the legal minds in charge agree with me, not you.

 

[jc456]

What one guy says his purpose was doesn’t impute that alleged purpose to others.

Yep.

Nope.

A vague possibility. No evidence for your claim, however.

To be heard.

According to you. But you don’t get to speak for them.

It did get delayed.

What?

Nope. It seems in that case a particular judge agreed with your view or overlooked the question entirely.

They obstructed the proceedings

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yep

So these people obstructed the official proceeding and should be found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding.

 

[jc456]

Looks the same to me. If Barnett and and Chansley have different purposes, please explain what makes them different. If they aren’t different, then they should both be convicted of the same crime

Where is the threat?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Well “patriots”, was it worth it?

Are you happy with the outcome of Jan 6? Are you happy with the punishments handed down for these idiots?

 

[jc456]

So these people obstructed the official proceeding and should be found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding.

The prosecutor and judge did, you bet

 

[XponentialChaos]

Where is the threat?

?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And why would that be an issue?

Well, to know all of that I assume you must be on his legal team, right?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why didn’t he use it as a spear?

You mean why didn't he wear big, bitey teeth as well?

 

[Lastamender]

People are serving prison time for the same things Epps did. He needs to join them.

Ray Epps Lied - He Committed Criminal Acts and It Was ALL CAUGHT on Video -- Here Are the Eight Trump Supporters the FBI Arrested and Who Are Serving Years in Prison for Committing Same Act

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[jc456]

You mean why didn't he wear big, bitey teeth as well?
View attachment 766037

None of the officers were injured were they? Why wouldn’t he have taken them down if his intent was physically motivated?

Still waiting