Video proof that

[Boilermaker03]

Lazarus and Dunn lied/perjured themselves in the Jan 6 trials vs the Oathkeepers. Now I'm not friend of the Oathkeepers, but I also believe in the rule of law. This is also proof that the defendants in this case and most likely in most cases were never given the video of that day for their defense.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Lazarus and Dunn lied/perjured themselves in the Jan 6 trials vs the Oathkeepers. Now I'm not friend of the Oathkeepers, but I also believe in the rule of law. This is also proof that the defendants in this case and most likely in most cases were never given the video of that day for their defense.

View embedded media

This is so easy!

Send this video by “Blaze News” to their large legal team so that they can appeal the convictions!

Hahahahahaa; a question—why on earth do you think that hasn’t happened?

 

[Riveting-]

Hahahahahaa; a question—why on earth do you think that hasn’t happened?

Why on earth would you think any of the Jan 6 protesters received a fair trial when the FBI has covered up its role, refusing to comment when questioned by elected representatives in Congress?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Why on earth would you think any of the Jan 6 protesters received a fair trial when the FBI has covered up its role, refusing to comment when questioned by elected representatives in Congress?

Oh? Covered up their role? Refused to speak to Congress?

You are flat out factually incorrect. The FBI has always agreed to speak to Congress, just not in open hearings so that sources and methods aren't revealed. They aren't up for a public insult/speechmaking charade that includes questions that the elected reps knows the FBI cannot answer publicly; questions and speeches made just to create outrage for naïve simpletons.

 

[Riveting-]

Oh? Covered up their role? Refused to speak to Congress?

You are flat out factually incorrect. The FBI has always agreed to speak to Congress, just not in open hearings so that sources and methods aren't revealed. They aren't up for a public insult/speechmaking charade that includes questions that the elected reps knows the FBI cannot answer publicly; questions and speeches made just to create outrage for naïve simpletons.

I said 'comment'. Here is a clip of the asst director telling Cruz she cannot answer the question, 'did the FBI comment crimes of violence on Jan 6.' You're saying the FBI's sources and methods of committing violent crimes must be kept from the public?

Are you also saying the Jan 6 defendants did have that info from the FBI for their trials - because if not, it was not possible for them to have a fair trial, right?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

I said 'comment'. Here is a clip of the asst director telling Cruz she cannot answer the question, 'did the FBI comment crimes of violence on Jan 6.' You're saying the FBI's sources and methods of committing violent crimes must be kept from the public?

Are you also saying the Jan 6 defendants did have that info from the FBI for their trials - because if not, it was not possible for them to have a fair trial, right?

View embedded media

It's in an open hearing. They had multiple closed hearings with Congress.

Cruz: "How many FBI Agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?"
FBI: "Sir, I hope that you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of the sources and methods."

Cruz then asks over and over about sources and methods, and each time she answers similarly.

But in a closed hearing, of course Congress can (and does) get exactly those answers. And with repercussions if they leak that information from the closed hearings.

So, JUST LIKE I SAID, Cruz is grandstanding so that naïve YouTube watchers think they're hiding something.

And yes - during discovery the prosecution is required to provide all Brady and Giglio material to the defense. At times, that material may necessitate viewing en camera with the judge. If the prosecution is worried that revealing sources and methods would be too much of a problem, they have the choice of revealing, or dismissing the case to avoid, but they cannot choose to exclude Brady/Giglio material.

It's standard federal criminal procedure.

Hey - I get it; the average (and even the average educated) citizen doesn't know about this stuff, but it's taken very, very seriously.

 

[Riveting-]

It's in an open hearing. They had multiple closed hearings with Congress.

Cruz: "How many FBI Agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?"
FBI: "Sir, I hope that you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of the sources and methods."

Cruz then asks over and over about sources and methods, and each time she answers similarly.

But in a closed hearing, of course Congress can (and does) get exactly those answers. And with repercussions if they leak that information from the closed hearings.

So, JUST LIKE I SAID, Cruz is grandstanding so that naïve YouTube watchers think they're hiding something.

And yes - during discovery the prosecution is required to provide all Brady and Giglio material to the defense. At times, that material may necessitate viewing en camera with the judge. If the prosecution is worried that revealing sources and methods would be too much of a problem, they have the choice of revealing, or dismissing the case to avoid, but they cannot choose to exclude Brady/Giglio material.

It's standard federal criminal procedure.

Hey - I get it; the average (and even the average educated) citizen doesn't know about this stuff, but it's taken very, very seriously.

How seriously was it taken in the case of the Shaman, where videos of him being escorted by CPs on a tour of the Capitol were not part of his trial?

 

[Riveting-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/19/fbi-digital-surveillance-misuse-jan6-blm/

 

[Riveting-]

Informant warned FBI weeks before Jan. 6 that the far right saw Trump tweet as 'a call to arms'

The email, which has not previously been made public, adds to the mounting evidence that the FBI had intelligence warnings that Jan. 6 was a major threat.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[HoosierfanJM]

So you've chosen to ignore all of the Brady and Giglio disclosures that are always followed (if they aren't that prosecutor will lose their law license, and the federal agent will lose their ability to work operational matters). Because messing up a Giglio disclosure (for the prosecutor) or having a serious Giglio disclosure (for the officer) will prevent them from being a usable witness for the rest of their career potentially.

And you've countered with multiple red herrings. The federal government, with tens of thousands of officers, sometimes makes errors and faces repercussions for doing so? That's not the spawn of some stupid conspiracy theory; that's to be expected with that many people working their ass off.

There was intelligence that Trump and various domestic terrorism friends of his were dangerous? No shit, Sherlock. And they still are.

You're completely out of your league here; you're falling for stupid human tricks by politicians meant to agitate the masses. And you're drastically underestimating the professionalism and integrity of fricking heroes that work really hard and put their lives on the line for you, and are heroic in part because they do so even when the naïve hold them in contempt for being as good as they are.

 

[Riveting-]

No, with

So you've chosen to ignore all of the Brady and Giglio disclosures that are always followed (if they aren't that prosecutor will lose their law license.

Did a prosecutor lose his or her license for withholding evidence in the Shaman case? I don't think so.

And you've countered with multiple red herrings. The federal government, with tens of thousands of officers, sometimes makes errors and faces repercussions for doing so? That's not the spawn of some stupid conspiracy theory; that's to be expected with that many people working their ass off.

There was intelligence that Trump and various domestic terrorism friends of his were dangerous? No shit, Sherlock. And they still are.

You forgot to add that we never hear about all the ways they save us from catastrophe. Bob likes to point that out.

You libs used to be suspicious of the police state, but now you swallow the full load no matter how corrupt and incompetent they are.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

No, with

Did a prosecutor lose his or her license for withholding evidence in the Shaman case? I don't think so.


You forgot to add that we never hear about all the ways they save us from catastrophe. Bob likes to point that out.

You libs used to be suspicious of the police state, but now you swallow the full load no matter how corrupt and incompetent they are.

There was quite literally zero relevant evidence withheld on that felon. NONE.

There was an appeal which was summarily tossed out of court:

William Shipley, Chansley’s attorney, argued in a motion to vacate his conviction that the footage “would have been favorable to Mr. Chansley at sentencing.”

But U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth strongly refuted those assertions in his decision to deny the motion.

“In fact, without Mr. Chansley’s apparently unequivocal acceptance of responsibility, the Court is confident that he would have received a higher sentence,” Lamberth wrote.

Lamberth also blasted Carlson’s “ill-advised” program that day, which he said was “replete with misstatements and misrepresentations” about the Capitol riot. Carlson also questioned the court’s integrity and the legitimacy of the U.S. criminal justice system as a whole with “cherry-picked videos stripped of their proper context,” the federal judge said.

“In so doing, he called on his followers to ‘reject the evidence of [their] eyes and ears,’ language resembling the destructive, misguided rhetoric that fueled the events of January 6 in the first place,” Lamberth wrote.

The Court finds it alarming that the host’s viewers throughout the nation so readily heeded his command,” he continued. “But this Court cannot and will not reject the evidence before it.”

Chansley was released from federal prisonearly and transferred to a halfway house in March.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

So you can believe either:

• the court that saw the evidence associated with a guilty plea, or
• you can be a naive sheep that believes a two bit propagandist like Tucky-ass Carlson

 

[BoilerJS]

So you've chosen to ignore all of the Brady and Giglio disclosures that are always followed (if they aren't that prosecutor will lose their law license, and the federal agent will lose their ability to work operational matters). Because messing up a Giglio disclosure (for the prosecutor) or having a serious Giglio disclosure (for the officer) will prevent them from being a usable witness for the rest of their career potentially.

And you've countered with multiple red herrings. The federal government, with tens of thousands of officers, sometimes makes errors and faces repercussions for doing so? That's not the spawn of some stupid conspiracy theory; that's to be expected with that many people working their ass off.

There was intelligence that Trump and various domestic terrorism friends of his were dangerous? No shit, Sherlock. And they still are.

You're completely out of your league here; you're falling for stupid human tricks by politicians meant to agitate the masses. And you're drastically underestimating the professionalism and integrity of fricking heroes that work really hard and put their lives on the line for you, and are heroic in part because they do so even when the naïve hold them in contempt for being as good as they are.

Pretty simple:
We have video evidence showing Epps encouraging wrong doing.
We know persons doing far less were convicted and serving jail time.
So why isn't Epps in jail?

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Pretty simple:
We have video evidence showing Epps encouraging wrong doing.
We know persons doing far less were convicted and serving jail time.
So why isn't Epps in jail?

Do you have examples? Yes, he at first encouraged violence, and later discouraged violence. But he did what he did and took a criminal hit. He clearly was acting 100% on his own volition; there is quite literally zero evidence to the contrary.

What I don't understand is, other than propagandist talking points, what makes this dumb ass two bit insurrectionist any different from hundreds of others? When this guy said they should ease off after first encouraging violence, his actions matched hundreds of other two-bit insurrectionists.

So what makes this guy different? It seems that propagandists needed a poster child and they chose this poor slob.

"James “Ray” Epps, a former Marine who ran a wedding venue in Arizona, traveled to Washington for the Jan. 6, 2021, certification of the Electoral College results. On Jan. 5, he told rowdy Trump supporters that they needed to “go to the Capitol” the next day. An attendee videotaped his comments and captured people in the crowd chanting “Fed! Fed! Fed!” at him.

During the Trump rally that preceded the electoral count, Epps told attendees they should march to the Capitol. And right before another defendant, Ryan Samsel, engaged in one of the day’s first acts of violence, Epps whispered in his ear.

Epps traveled with the mob as it turned violent — sometimes trying to quell violence, sometimes not. Prosecutors did not accuse him of having any physical contact with police officers or of entering the Capitol building itself. But, they wrote in a sentencing memo, “[e]ven if Epps did not physically touch law enforcement officers or go inside of the building, he undoubtedly engaged in collective aggressive conduct.”

The government recommended jail time for him and the CHIEF JUDGE overruled, stating that a jail sentence was not in line with similar defendants. So now the Chief Judge now has to also be in on your conspiracy theory, because the judge sees all informant docs (when they exist). So it seems that all you have are propagandist conspiracy theories. He's the "DC pizza parlor pedophile ring" of J6 insurrectionists.

I don't call you a cult member like others here, but for you to actually believe this conspiracy theory? Yeesh; seems like pretty cult-ish behavior.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Pretty simple:
We have video evidence showing Epps encouraging wrong doing.
We know persons doing far less were convicted and serving jail time.
So why isn't Epps in jail?

You KNOW people that did far less were convicted? I don’t know that. Can you provide examples?

Far less in whose opinion?

Did Ray go into the Capitol? That’s kind of a big deal.
Are you saying that some random guy that nobody knew who was telling people to go into the Capitol is more guilty of committing a crime than people who actually went into the Capitol? Or broke into the building? Or assaulted police officers?

 

[Riveting-]

There was quite literally zero relevant evidence withheld on that felon. NONE.

Are you saying the video showing the CPs giving him a tour of the Capitol was literally made available to the Shaman's attorney literally before the trial?

 

[SKYDOG]

You KNOW people that did far less were convicted? I don’t know that. Can you provide examples?

Far less in whose opinion?

Did Ray go into the Capitol? That’s kind of a big deal.
Are you saying that some random guy that nobody knew who was telling people to go into the Capitol is more guilty of committing a crime than people who actually went into the Capitol? Or broke into the building? Or assaulted police officers?

Trump didn’t go to the capital, or assault police officers, or broke into the building. That’s kind of a big deal in your argument.

 

[Riveting-]

You KNOW people that did far less were convicted? I don’t know that. Can you provide examples?

Far less in whose opinion?

Did Ray go into the Capitol? That’s kind of a big deal.
Are you saying that some random guy that nobody knew who was telling people to go into the Capitol is more guilty of committing a crime than people who actually went into the Capitol? Or broke into the building? Or assaulted police officers?

This dangerous grandmother received more punishment than Epps.

https://www.courthousenews.com/no-jail-for-kansas-grandmother-who-rioted-at-us-capitol/

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Are you saying the video showing the CPs giving him a tour of the Capitol was literally made available to the Shaman's attorney before the trial?

No, because it wasn't required as discovery. There were 44,000 hours of video. And this bullshit that "they gave him a tour?" That's just factually inaccurate. Were there officers that didn't confront the mob with resistance? Yes. Trying to avoid being assaulted by a large mob to save yourself is not "a tour."

The prosecution is required to provide all Brady material and potential trial evidence. In other words, relevant evidence! Showing this guy walking peacefully at various times is not relevant evidence to the crimes he was charged with and pled guilty to. It is the equivalent of the prosecution having video of a hit and run driver for moments when that same car wasn't running anyone over.

A defense theory of "there were moments when my guy didn't commit crimes" is nonsensical. Were that theory useable? A mob guy could say he only does business "peacefully and patriotically" weeks before ordering a hit and have that be a valid defense against horrendous criminal activity. Is that the kind of America you want?

Don't believe me? The courts found this, not me. And the appeal was dropped. Why? Because it was a legal big ol' loser. Hey, if you don't like American legal precedent and rules of procedure? That's a you problem.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Trump didn’t go to the capital, or assault police officers, or broke into the building. That’s kind of a big deal in your argument.

I didn’t mention trump. This point isn’t about him. Why are you deflecting? Why do you have to make everything trump trump trump? What argument are you referring to?

 

[SKYDOG]

I didn’t mention trump. This point isn’t about him. Why are you deflecting? Why do you have to make everything trump trump trump? What argument are you referring to?

That’s what I thought. You got nothing of any substance on this topic.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

This dangerous grandmother received more punishment than Epps.

https://www.courthousenews.com/no-jail-for-kansas-grandmother-who-rioted-at-us-capitol/

AHHHHH!!! She got 24 months of probation and zero jail time. Not everyone's sentence is compared in every way to everyone else's sentence.

Take your fake outrage and shove it.

 

[Riveting-]

No, because it wasn't required as discovery. There were 44,000 hours of video. And this bullshit that "they gave him a tour?" That's just factually inaccurate.

I saw video of them showing him around, followed by him saying a prayer of thanks for the CP's service. Want me to post it?

The prosecution is required to provide all Brady material and potential trial evidence. In other words, relevant evidence! Showing this guy walking peacefully at various times is not relevant evidence to the crimes he was charged with and pled guilty to. It is the equivalent of the prosecution having video of a hit and run driver for moments when that same car wasn't running anyone over.

In other words, the prosecution - in this case the federal government - literally decides what evidence is 'relevant".

Or does the defense get a say in what is "relevant"?

A defense theory of "there were moments when my guy didn't commit crimes" is nonsensical. Were that theory useable? A mob guy could say he only does business "peacefully and patriotically" weeks before ordering a hit and have that be a valid defense against horrendous criminal activity. Is that the kind of America you want?

Don't believe me? The courts found this, not me. And the appeal was dropped. Why? Because it was a legal big ol' loser. Hey, if you don't like American legal precedent and rules of procedure? That's a you problem.

Or maybe because the Shaman was mentally destroyed from months of solitary confinement, and was out of money.

 

[Riveting-]

AHHHHH!!! She got 24 months of probation and zero jail time. Not everyone's sentence is compared in every way to everyone else's sentence.

Especially those like Epps who, despite the video evidence -- and after appearing on the FBI's most wanted list -- are mysteriously never tried.

 

[Boilermaker03]

This is so easy!

Send this video by “Blaze News” to their large legal team so that they can appeal the convictions!

Hahahahahaa; a question—why on earth do you think that hasn’t happened?

Because they just now had the permission to release the video.

 

[Boilermaker03]

It's in an open hearing. They had multiple closed hearings with Congress.

Cruz: "How many FBI Agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?"
FBI: "Sir, I hope that you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of the sources and methods."

Cruz then asks over and over about sources and methods, and each time she answers similarly.

But in a closed hearing, of course Congress can (and does) get exactly those answers. And with repercussions if they leak that information from the closed hearings.

So, JUST LIKE I SAID, Cruz is grandstanding so that naïve YouTube watchers think they're hiding something.

And yes - during discovery the prosecution is required to provide all Brady and Giglio material to the defense. At times, that material may necessitate viewing en camera with the judge. If the prosecution is worried that revealing sources and methods would be too much of a problem, they have the choice of revealing, or dismissing the case to avoid, but they cannot choose to exclude Brady/Giglio material.

It's standard federal criminal procedure.

Hey - I get it; the average (and even the average educated) citizen doesn't know about this stuff, but it's taken very, very seriously.

It may be grandstanding, but since you said yourself that Congress would get in trouble if they leaked the info from the closed hearings, then this is the only way these Congressmen can get the info out that the FBI was in fact involved. Otherwise, the public would be in the dark. Do you think the public deserves to know what really happened?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Do you have examples? Yes, he at first encouraged violence, and later discouraged violence. But he did what he did and took a criminal hit. He clearly was acting 100% on his own volition; there is quite literally zero evidence to the contrary.

What I don't understand is, other than propagandist talking points, what makes this dumb ass two bit insurrectionist any different from hundreds of others? When this guy said they should ease off after first encouraging violence, his actions matched hundreds of other two-bit insurrectionists.

So what makes this guy different? It seems that propagandists needed a poster child and they chose this poor slob.

"James “Ray” Epps, a former Marine who ran a wedding venue in Arizona, traveled to Washington for the Jan. 6, 2021, certification of the Electoral College results. On Jan. 5, he told rowdy Trump supporters that they needed to “go to the Capitol” the next day. An attendee videotaped his comments and captured people in the crowd chanting “Fed! Fed! Fed!” at him.

During the Trump rally that preceded the electoral count, Epps told attendees they should march to the Capitol. And right before another defendant, Ryan Samsel, engaged in one of the day’s first acts of violence, Epps whispered in his ear.

Epps traveled with the mob as it turned violent — sometimes trying to quell violence, sometimes not. Prosecutors did not accuse him of having any physical contact with police officers or of entering the Capitol building itself. But, they wrote in a sentencing memo, “[e]ven if Epps did not physically touch law enforcement officers or go inside of the building, he undoubtedly engaged in collective aggressive conduct.”

The government recommended jail time for him and the CHIEF JUDGE overruled, stating that a jail sentence was not in line with similar defendants. So now the Chief Judge now has to also be in on your conspiracy theory, because the judge sees all informant docs (when they exist). So it seems that all you have are propagandist conspiracy theories. He's the "DC pizza parlor pedophile ring" of J6 insurrectionists.

I don't call you a cult member like others here, but for you to actually believe this conspiracy theory? Yeesh; seems like pretty cult-ish behavior.

Epps, acted exactly as you'd expect a federal informant to do. Encourage people to break the law, but skirt that line of what not to do to stay out of trouble. Problem is, the DOJ got too greedy and prosecuted others that did way less and sentenced them to 10-20 years of prison. It was an obvious double standard.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You KNOW people that did far less were convicted? I don’t know that. Can you provide examples?

Far less in whose opinion?

Did Ray go into the Capitol? That’s kind of a big deal.
Are you saying that some random guy that nobody knew who was telling people to go into the Capitol is more guilty of committing a crime than people who actually went into the Capitol? Or broke into the building? Or assaulted police officers?

Yes. Enrique Tarrio was never at the Capitol. He was sentenced to 22 years.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

It may be grandstanding, but since you said yourself that Congress would get in trouble if they leaked the info from the closed hearings, then this is the only way these Congressmen can get the info out that the FBI was in fact involved. Otherwise, the public would be in the dark. Do you think the public deserves to know what really happened?

Sources can be revealed and unsealed via a court order. Happened in Boston with the Whitey Bulger matter.

But some sources will never be unsealed. If there were information leading to us having found Bin Laden that’s not being unsealed even if those sources had misconduct. So not always.

By the way; glad to see that you are still using the signal of a laugh emoji!!
REMEMBER, we have established that when you do that for one of my posts it signifies that you are embarrassed and now fully agree with me!!

 

[Boilermaker03]

No, because it wasn't required as discovery. There were 44,000 hours of video. And this bullshit that "they gave him a tour?" That's just factually inaccurate. Were there officers that didn't confront the mob with resistance? Yes. Trying to avoid being assaulted by a large mob to save yourself is not "a tour."

The prosecution is required to provide all Brady material and potential trial evidence. In other words, relevant evidence! Showing this guy walking peacefully at various times is not relevant evidence to the crimes he was charged with and pled guilty to. It is the equivalent of the prosecution having video of a hit and run driver for moments when that same car wasn't running anyone over.

A defense theory of "there were moments when my guy didn't commit crimes" is nonsensical. Were that theory useable? A mob guy could say he only does business "peacefully and patriotically" weeks before ordering a hit and have that be a valid defense against horrendous criminal activity. Is that the kind of America you want?

Don't believe me? The courts found this, not me. And the appeal was dropped. Why? Because it was a legal big ol' loser. Hey, if you don't like American legal precedent and rules of procedure? That's a you problem.

There's literally video of him going all over the building with a police escort.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

Yes. Enrique Tarrio was never at the Capitol. He was sentenced to 22 years.

Organizing a violent seditious conspiracy.

Tarrio is one of the most prolific criminals in American history.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Sources can be revealed and unsealed via a court order. Happened in Boston with the Whitey Bulger matter.

But some sources will never be unsealed. If there were information leading to us having found Bin Laden that’s not being unsealed even if those sources had misconduct. So not always.

By the way; glad to see that you are still using the signal of a laugh emoji!!
REMEMBER, we have established that when you do that for one of my posts it signifies that you are embarrassed and now fully agree with me!!

You can try and make up your own narrative if you want, but that's in your little make believe world.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

There's literally video of him going all over the building with a police escort.

OMG! There is no such thing.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Organizing a violent seditious conspiracy.

Tarrio is one of the most prolific criminals in American history.

What would you call it when someone is telling people to go "IN to the Capitol, because that's where our problems are"?

 

[Boilermaker03]

OMG! There is no such thing.

Yes there is. I've seen it

 

[HoosierfanJM]

What would you call it when someone is telling people to go "IN to the Capitol, because that's where our problems are"?

The same thing a ton of those insurrectionists did, after being told by Trump that they should.

 

[Boilermaker03]

The same thing a ton of those insurrectionists did, after being told by Trump that they should.

So why was Epps the only one let off for doing so? He literally was being ignored until the public made a big enough stink about it. Then when he did go to trial, they handled him with kid gloves.

 

[HoosierfanJM]

So why was Epps the only one let off for doing so? He literally was being ignored until the public made a big enough stink about it. Then when he did go to trial, they handled him with kid gloves.

He went to trial? I missed that lol

 

[Boilermaker03]

He went to trial? I missed that lol

Yes, he did.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/us/politics/ray-epps-sentenced-january-6.html