The Congress was in process of counting votes, and the attack stopped the process, so its textbook obstruction.
Obstruction, by definition, is blocking something from moving forward. The process wasn't blocked from moving forward; only postponed.
Which is exactly what they did. LOL So, if you block a highway, it doesn't count if it doesn't close it permanently? What's the point of trying to justify the attack? It was wrong at so many levels
You're reading into this something that isn't there. The defendant is entitled to all the evidence so that he can make whatever defense he wants. This is the difference between a big government and a small government worldview mentality. In my small government view, the defendant is entitled to put forth whatever defense he wants with all available evidence as required by Supreme Court precedent. The alternative is a big government position where large alphabet-soup entities review all of the evidence and then cherry-pick data to give to people they target for prosecution, only providing them with the evidence that lends to a guilty verdict with the longest possible sentence. But, before the verdict they make sure they keep these people locked up for long periods of time, often in solitary confinement, preventing them from speaking to the press and public by withholding evidence and exaggerating information they know the defendant can't refute without the evidence they have suppressed. At the same time, they piece together a prosecution knowing the full story and having all the evidence that the criminal defense lawyer is obstructed from viewing. That is not how justice is supposed to work in a democratic country. These are the actions typically taken by a fascist Banana Republic.
I'm not justifying the attack. I'm calling it what it was -- a riot that had elements of violence that made it necessary for members of Congress to evacuate UNTIL the chambers could be secured (which if done prior to the protest would not have required the postponement).
So do you want to address the evidence of an unarmed women being lethally shot by an armed cop when there was no evidence of her endangering his life? Other cops have been charged with much less. This is highly political!
Evidence of him walking down the hall way? Of him eating at McDonalds? What is that evidence of? Its not evidence. If there was evidence showing that he was at South Beach in Miami at the time of the attack, then it would prove his innocence. However, there is evidence of him facing off with the cops, and there is evidence of him being inside the Capitol. Even Tuckers edition incriminates him. He pled guilty, because there is nothing he can do or say that would disprove him being there. He was guilty of a crime every second he spent inside the Capitol, and he was there for 60 minutes.
The Judge, in Chensley's case, denied him bail not on the basis of the charges, but partly on that of his participation in a "violent insurrection". He was not charged with insurrection or sedition, so that should not have been a consideration in denying him bail. There's no evidence of him committing any violent acts, but plenty of video evidence of him calmly walking through the corridors of the Capitol.
He spent 30 min facing off with the cops who defended the Senate chamber, and later wrote a note threating Mike Pence. If you think his actions were all good and legal, then so be it. We'll have to agree to disagree. Tucker managed to sell it as an OK thing to do, which pretty much guarantees it will happen again.
I'm thinking you have no confidence in the 1/6 Committee, if that's what you think. Or did you forget what its mandate was?
I don't recall saying anything about the Committee. Tucker did sell the "it was a peaceful event" line and here you are (and others) bending over backwards arguing nothing bad happened there, and the rioters are innocent victims. So, yes, it will probably happen again. Heck Trump is already asking people to take it to the streets to defend him.
It's the unspoken conclusion of your comment about Tucker's influence. Apparently you believe his influence is better than the 1/6 Committee's. I didn't watch Tucker's show on the videos. But I definitely have watched you and others here make strawman arguments. Who do you think we are; fans of Omar?
I really don't know enough about wikileaks to form an intelligent opinion, but to the extent anyone was exposing classified data they had a duty to keep secret, that's very different than exposing classified information that someone else shared with you, but shouldn't have. I have always questioned why the US can go after Assange, based on the premise that if he has never even set foot on US soil, and he did not commit an act of war on behalf of a foreign power (which takes it out of the criminal realm and into international relations and all that), but beyond that I'd have to know more. Regardless, if there are enough safety concerns, then whatever is affected by that ought be classified. Privacy? The people who work in the building are our employees, and just like any other employee, they have no right to privacy, save if they're in the *******. Just like if you fly a plane for a living, when you are in that cockpit, every word you say is recorded, every button you press, every movement on a control surface is recorded, to the degree that they can hear pilots breathing and in some cases have been able to discern someone's heartbeat. When you are on any job, that's how much privacy you don't have, and it should not be any different for politicians. I've advocated on this forum many times that classrooms ought to have webcams installed for the same reasons, but to protect the privacy of the kids, NOT the employees and teachers (which are just a specific type of employee), access should be limited to parents, administrators (of which there are no doubt far too many), certain public officials, and on specific occasions for specific reasons, perhaps some members of the press. Now, if there is some secret bunker under the Capital building that the public doesn't know about (and this is pure rank speculation on my part, I have no personal knowledge of any such thing existing or not), sure, exclude and classify that. But aside from things of that nature, we own every single frame coming from every single camera in every single government building, even if it takes a FOIA request to get. What they should do is put all the video up on a server somewhere that is open to the public writ large, then there would be no further debate about what might or might not be found therein, and whether or not Tucker or anyone else who might in the future broadcase parts of it is cherry picking becomes irrelevant. Including every hallway that was empty the entire day, and for days before and after, then we can debate whether or not there is TJeff's ghost walking those empty halls to the delight of conspiratorialists everywhere. Though it would be kind of cool if there was something of that nature.
Like what? I didn't mention the Committee, or their influence. You are the only one here taking about them. Many were peaceful, which is typically true in any protest which turns to a riot. Most did not even enter the Capitol, but quite a few did, and they are the problem.
A feeble dodge remains a dodge, unless you are completely unaware of the 1/6 Committee's point of existence. Most have been arrested and charged with various crimes. Many of them misdemeanors. Your point about protests turning into riot offshoots is conceded.
That claim is 100% ignorant. CHANSLEY, Jacob Anthony (aka Jacob Angeli) Case Number: 1:21-cr-3 Charge(s): Civil Disorder; Obsrtuction of an Official Proceeding; Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building; Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building; Violent Entry and Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building; Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building Location of Arrest: ARIZONA, Phoenix Case Status: Arrested 1/9/21. Indicted 1/11/21. Arraigned 1/29/21 and pleaded not guilty to all counts. Plea agreement entered 9/3. Sentenced 11/17 to 41 months in prison followed by 36 months supervised release, must pay $2,000 restitution. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/chansley-jacob-anthony
You'd think that kind of prosecution would lead to disbarment. Example: https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3285862&page=1 I wonder if apparent authority is a defense in DC? That the cops appeared to have the authority to let people come and go into the capitol?
If a Capitol Police officer held the door open for you and then kindly greeted you on your way in I don't see how you can get a conviction for the typical protestor beyond intense partisan influence. That's why this "insurrection" talking point is so important to the left. If police allowed you into the building and then politely escorted you around while opening doors to help facilitate your free movement, how can you presume that individual believed that they were taking part in an insurrection to overthrow the government that those officers were there to protect? This is likely why they hid such footage from defense attorneys. Not getting a harsh conviction for the Q-Anon Shaman would be extremely detrimental to their narrative. So they locked them up in solitary confinement, claimed he violently entered, and then said he was a ringleader for a violent insurrection. When the reality seems like he peacefully entered and walked around by himself and a pair of capitol police officers. And now even the chairman of the January 6th Committee is claiming that nobody on his committee had access to view the footage for themselves and he had never even heard of the Q-Anon Shaman (despite him being front and center of their propaganda) to avoid answering questions about this. That's how damaging this release was to their narrative. And the far left continues to defend something that not even the January 6th Committee is attempting.
That’s a lotta words Lord Tits and Wine. I’m sure the 40k plus hours of video was not vetted by security experts before McCarthy irresponsibly dumped it in Tucker's lap for partial payment of his speakership. What could bad actors learn from it besides watching a bunch of MAGA losers milling around wondering what to do next and demonstrating they are the least qualified to make America great again? They can get the floor plan of the capitol building, camera placements, where security is stationed, exits, vulnerabilities, etc. But you don’t care about that, you just want to find an excuse for their actions. Good luck.
They said during Congressional hearings that the footage had already been flagged for security issues from previous investigations, and Tucker's team was only allowed to view the video that did not impose risk. But most of it was uncensored. Additionally, they said his team viewed it in a SCIF for security purposes. They also said the plan is to open it up to more media entities, but they started with one group because of the security logistics. Did you have the same concerns when Democrats gave access of the same footage to movie/tv producers for the past couple of years (which we also paid them for their time)? Or, does the concern only come into play when Republicans give access to the footage to people who they hope will tell their version of events? The difference here is Democrats paid liberal media producers to tell a narrative they wanted to be told. They delivered pieces of video that added sound effects and audio added to silent video to mislead the American public and to further that narrative and emotional outrage. Republicans gave access to conservative producers and told them to report what they found. That's it. And Tucker's team didn't have access for very long, so they started by reviewing the video bookmarks that the J6 investigators placed and found they omitted a lot of context to mislead the American public.
Despite all your rationalizations....you just want to find an excuse to relieve them of accountability for their actions. Good luck.
