Is our Federal Justice system in Washington D. C. corruptly uninterested in justice?

[monorprise]

Is our Federal Justice system in Washington D. C. corruptly uninterested in justice?

Whether or not you think Jacob Chansley did anything else wrong he had the right to a fair trial and that included being able to see exculpatory evidence in his defense.

We expect politicians of both parties to be unfair in their political attacks but judges and courts are suppose to follow the law impartially and blindly.

Yes, they denied him a fair trial for political reasons

Yes, they denied him a fair trial out of incompetents

No, he wasn't entitled to any evidence supporting his defense claims

[goaded]

Video of a man not committing a crime does not negate video of the same man committing a crime. (And he was committing a crime just by being in the building, whether or not a vastly outnumbered police force was bothered with him at the time.)

[monorprise]

@goaded Our federal goverment has made and retained soo many laws, every single American violates on average 3 of them a day.

Not a single one of us is in that government's eyes innocent, its just a question of whether or not they choose to take the time to prosecute us.

The question in this post is not whether or not Jacob Chansley did anything else wrong, but rather whether the goverment deliberately and criminally denied him access to evidence they knew they in support of his case.

If they did, that is a very serous miscarriage of Justice.
The judge and Jury had the right to see the whole story. This would have effected not only their judgement of his guilt but if still guilty his sentencing.

Like it or not this evidence does support his case, the capital police made no effort to stop him, and easily could have done so. As I told you before in this country the congressional building is regarded as "The People's house". There is no place in this country where it is more legitimate or appropriate to protest.

It is not hard to imagine how Jacob Chansley might have believed his actions were permitted. The judges claims against him were clearly unjustified.

[goaded]

"The question in this post is not whether or not Jacob Chansley did anything else wrong, but rather whether the goverment deliberately and criminally denied him access to evidence they knew they in support of his case."

They did not. He was convicted of "a single count of obstructing an official proceeding and agreed to accept the prosecution's recommended sentence of 41 to 51 months in prison as part of the settlement"

Whether he was being violent is irrelevant. That he was part of a mob that were obstructing an official proceeding is indisputable. So is his incitement of others.

While we're at it, why do you think the judge and jury didn't see this video? Just because it wasn't previously seen in the media doesn't mean it wasn't in evidence. (I don't know if it was, but I'd be surprised if the government would risk a mistrial on such a high profile case.)

[monorprise]

@goaded said: "They did not. He was convicted of "a single count of obstructing an official proceeding and agreed to accept the prosecution's recommended sentence of 41 to 51 months in prison as part of the settlement""

Knowing the federal goverment they probably scared him into thinking he had no choice. However as the Judge pointed out the video evidence they concealed backs up his story and beleive that he was allowed in there.

The fact that the capital police escorted and even unlocked the doors for him proves he didn't disrupt anything.

I don't know why congress abandoned the capital before hand but clearly they were in no danger from the unarmed people being escorted in the building.

[goaded]

"I don't know why congress abandoned the capital before hand but clearly they were in no danger from the unarmed people being escorted in the building. "
They were in danger from all the armed people, however they got into the building. Even an unarmed mob can kill you.

I really wonder if any of the police suicides were officers who'd let the mob in because they'd supported Trump.

"The investigation into the January 6 attack remains under investigation. Our Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the actions of 35 police officers from that day. We currently have suspended six of those officers with pay," the department said in a statement. www.npr.org/.../capitol-police-suspends-6-officers-investigates-dozens-more-after-capitol-riots

[monorprise]

@goaded Except there were no armed people in the Capital, except their own police of course.

[goaded]

Define "armed". I guarantee yours won't match the legal definition.

[monorprise]

@goaded Having a weapon designed to kill, otherwise everyone is always armed.

[goaded]

"Armed means furnished with weapons of offense or defense; furnished with the means of security or protection. In short it means carrying a weapon... In Buchannon v. State, 554 So. 2d 494, 495 (Ala. 1989) the court held that “In the context of substantive criminal statutes, most courts have concluded that "armed" means having a weapon that is within a person's immediate control and available for his use. "
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/armed/

[monorprise]

@goaded You really need to stop getting your definitions form the U. S. court system. You should have figured out long ago that the courts really don't care about anything, and it is very much in their interest to have laws and definitions sufficiently ambiguous as to let them convict or release anyone for any reason they choose.

if you want a real definition try thinking for yourself.

[goaded]

So if I came at you with a pointy stick, I wouldn't be armed, in your mind?

The law is the law. The United States was founded on the idea of rule of law. Why do you hate your country so much?

[monorprise]

@goaded If I accept your definition of armed, you would be armed so long as you were not naked, and indecently exposed if you were.

[goaded]

It's not "my" definition, it's the US legal definition (and I'm pretty sure it's similar to other jurisdictions). The mob was armed. Trump knew it, because they were staying outside the cordon that would have taken weapons away from them in order to get close to the president. He sent them to the Capitol, thinking they were going to be fighting for the truth (they were misinformed) anyway.

[gorydetails]

This isn’t surprising. We know the democrats weaponize the power of the government against their political opponents. It started with Obama using the IRS to sic on his political enemies. They’re tin-pot dictators.

[Anonymous]

President Trump can't have classified documents, but senator Biden can illegally have them in his garage.

[goaded]

Trump knew he had them, didn't return them when found, lied about possessing them. Those three differences are important. (There wouldn't have been any scandal if Trump had simply returned all the documents when he was asked for them.)

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded

Keep crying you pussy German loser.