Video proof that
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
You are ducking my question about who decided what evidence was "relevant' in the Shaman's trial ?
The judge looks at all the evidence and decides, or looks just at the evidence the prosecutor says is 'relevant'?
It seems like the new norm.
Especially for Liberal Judges.
Or in this case, a bush appointed judge that’s been on the bench for over 20 years and has a Yale law school degree.
Of course, you’ll probably try to justify why that is bad through some crazy ass conspiracy theory
The key question is, does the judge look at all the evidence and decide what is relevant, or does the prosecutor decide what is relevant and tell the judge?
He was still sentenced. Again, they used kid gloves. They barely charged him with anything.
The guy in the video says the judge (from Yale Law School) denied this footage to the Shaman's lawyer.
Still waiting on @HoosierfanJM to use his legal expertise to tell us who would have decided what evidence was "relevant."
Whomever, I am pretty sure the defense attorney was not involved in that decision.
Geez - I saw that you threw a bunch of mentally diminished middle school insults at me in sports threads. Such a pathetic cheap shot; nothing to do with the sports board and not somewhere that I will comment nor respond.
As your hero, Lyndon Baines Johnson eloquently stated, “We can achieve nothing by lawlessness and divisiveness among the American people."
I know that while you lob 'off-your-meds' insults at me, LBJ is a man you truly admire. So, you should heed his words and learn to respect America, the rule of law, and me. Because I do not do throw those type of idiotic insults at you.
Your posts, however? Those are horrible. Most of them are naïve, mis-informed, deliberately divisive and diversionary, pathetic, and flat-out stoooopid.
Do better and get back on your meds before you hurt yourself.
Last edited:
It was mere speculation about who the 'weird' (as Zach called it) middle-aged loosier was who kept loudly insulting him even after the game. If it wasn't you, all you had to do was say so (although your previous lies on this forum about A. Biden have severely diminished what little credibility you had).
The search engine easily proves these are more lies from you, but on the plus side, you are meeting our expectations.
You really know how to hurt a guy, Pubv (or Kurt, etc). I will get over it though.
In the meantime, are you ready to man or woman up and concede my point - which is that the Jan. 6 defendants could not get fair trials because their lawyers did not have access to the evidence that the government (the judge, according to you) decided was not "relevant" - without consulting the defense about the 'relevance."
Last edited:
Unlike you, I made no claim to have some special legal expertise.
That is why I am asking you to concede the Jan 6 defendants did not get fair trials, which is consistent with your own words about a government employee - the judge - deciding what evidence is relevant without input from the defense.
Your post, as quoted above, makes absolute zero sense.
- The judge ultimately decides what is relevant.
- Lawyers can file motions to request modification of discovery parameters.
- If the judge is wrong on the legal basis for discovery, lawyers can appeal.
- If either side does not provide required discovery, the judge can take punitive measures against the offending party, vacate a plea, and/or declare a mistrial.
- The judge determined appropriate discovery.
- The defendant pled before trial.
- Post-plea, the defense filed a motion stating that required discovery was not provided and asked for the plea to be withdrawn.
- The judge summarily denied that motion, and did so in a scathing ruling about the defense.
- The defense could have easily appealed if they thought the judge was in error, but they withdrew their appeal.
QAnon Shaman Guy and his lawyers are fully aware that this track was bullshit and that there is no chance for them to prevail. They are so aware that they aren't even willing to chase millions of dollars if they are right. ALL OTHER CONVICTED DEFENDANTS aren't even wasting their time because they also are quite aware that it is bullshit.
Yet Riveting believes because Tucky Carson tells him he's supposed to. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*Now watch your response be completely off of this topic and insult-filled about Joe Crow or some other irrelevant nonsense.*
Last edited:
I know you feel embarrassed and humiliated again, but try to calm down and apply your self-proclaimed legal expertise to the following:
If the Shaman's lawyer was a failure, does that mean the hundreds of other lawyers representing J6ers were also failures by not requesting information about the gov's role in inciting the riot?
Or does it mean they asked for that information and were denied by the judge on the basis of the judge determining that evidence was not relevant.
Asking because I am not aware of a single J6er or attorney coming forth or leaking after the trial that the government explained the extent of its role in the riot.
If the Shaman's lawyer was a failure, does that mean the hundreds of other lawyers representing J6ers were also failures by not requesting information about the gov's role in inciting the riot?
Or does it mean they asked for that information and were denied by the judge on the basis of the judge determining that evidence was not relevant.
Asking because I am not aware of a single J6er or attorney coming forth or leaking after the trial that the government explained the extent of its role in the riot.
Humbled and embarrassed? That makes no sense either.
His lawyer wasn’t the failure; the facts did not support overturning or appeal. The lawyer presented the existence of all 44,000 hours of video, asked for the plea to be vacated because of it, and his ass was handed to him by the judge.
The existence of that video has not changed a legal outcome In ANY J6 case that I’m aware of. And it’s not because the video is unavailable, it’s because every G6 defense attorney knows that it’s a loser of an argument and they’ll be left out of court.
“Riveting and Ticky Carlson say so” is not grounds for successful appeal.
Last edited:
Whose "facts" did not support that?
If the gov was withholding info about its role in the riot, then the facts were not the full facts, right?
Or, if the gov was not withholding that info, then there are hundreds of attorneys and J6ers who know what the gov was claiming as its role - yet not one of them has stated that info.
Every G6 defense attorney could appeal based on the discovery of thousands and thousands of hours of video of any of it was exculpatory. None of them have successfully done so. I don’t think any of them have even appealed!
That means that for yours and Tucker Carlson‘s conspiracy theory to be true, you now need thousands of defensive attorneys to be in on the conspiracy.
My theory is not about the video, but about how many fed agents were part of the crowd and what was their role.
Some court documents have indicated many gov employees were among the crowd. A 'Pulitzer Prize winning reporter from NYT who was there said the place was crawling with them.
If you with your vast legal expertise were repping a J6er, wouldn't you demand to know what all those gov employees were doing there, especially in light of previous instances of DOJ/FBI corruption?
This from the one major newspaper that published the truth about the laptop before the 2020 election:
nypost.com
Exclusive | FBI lost count of how many paid informants were at Capitol on Jan. 6, and later performed audit to figure out exact number: ex-official
The FBI had so many paid informants at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that they lost track of the number and had to perform an audit to determine how many “Confidential Human Sources” wer…
nypost.com
Former Capitol Hill Police Chief Steven Sund has said that, in addition to the paid informants, the FBI had at least 18 undercover agents in the crowd plus an estimated 20 from the Department of Homeland Security (from the link)
Also: “These revelations reinforce existing concerns, identified by Special Counsel [John] Durham, about the FBI’s use of, and payment to, CHSs who have fabricated evidence and misrepresented information.
Also: “These revelations reinforce existing concerns, identified by Special Counsel [John] Durham, about the FBI’s use of, and payment to, CHSs who have fabricated evidence and misrepresented information.
I’m not interested that in our history there has been corrupt law enforcement. There’s a ton of officers—let the corrupt one rot and celebrate the heroes.
Give me a link to the article that says that inside the Capitol it was crawling with Federal Agents. I don’t give a rat’s ass if the rally had federal law enforcement—they’re supposed to be there; to protect the President, to keep the peace, to monitor problems, for all kinds of reasons.
It’s a good link; I also like the NY Post, but those are not AGENTS! Those are a “handful” of INFORMANTS. (Btw—Crappy testimony by the FBI in saying “handful.”)This from the one major newspaper that published the truth about the laptop before the 2020 election:
Exclusive | FBI lost count of how many paid informants were at Capitol on Jan. 6, and later performed audit to figure out exact number: ex-official
The FBI had so many paid informants at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, that they lost track of the number and had to perform an audit to determine how many “Confidential Human Sources” wer…
Geez, I would hope that agents had informants in the mix at and before a god damn insurrection! It would be a dereliction of duty if domestic terrorism investigative agencies did not. I mean, there’s a reason that Romney was begging the White House pre-insurrection to do something—he read the intelligence community’s briefings. And that was based on informant information.
And yes; in a closed hearing Congress can learn about all of these informants.
Last edited:
“In the crowd” does not mean inside the Capitol.
And if an undercover agent felt like they had to be in to avoid being fingered as law-enforcement, then they should be in. And what could they do once they got in to stop it? In any event, if that happened, Congress can hear all about it in closed hearings.
We already know the inside was crawling with Federal agents. How could you not know that?
Good question!
While every situation is different, the answer is basically “yes.“
For a conviction to be obtained, discovery must include all information about informants and undercover law-enforcement, that contributed to the evidence, and any information about informants and undercover, law-enforcement that could be considered exculpatory.
i’m not talking about Capitol security officers/law enforcement. Anything else? Show me the link.
In any event, 50% of the people in there could’ve been federal, law-enforcement officers posing as insurrectionists and the convictions would still stand as long as the government did not entrap and disclosed to the defense counsel everyone that was there. Not by name so as to identify them to defense counsel, but by undercover alias and informant identification number. That would include their role, their location, and anything that contributed to investigative evidence.
Last edited:
By the way, this happens in major drug conspiracy takedowns all the time. Law-enforcement predicates the criminal activity, has it largely staffed by law-enforcement undercovers, and then invites the bad guys in to do drug deals. The key is that there is no entrapment.
That’s why defense attorneys get discovery, including all evidence related to the roles played by Undercovers and informants.
Law-enforcement is not only allowed, but is encouraged to infiltrate, but ONLY when they do so without entrapping.
That’s why defense attorneys get discovery, including all evidence related to the roles played by Undercovers and informants.
Law-enforcement is not only allowed, but is encouraged to infiltrate, but ONLY when they do so without entrapping.
And when judges take a plea deal, they go to great lengths to question defendants, to ensure that the government did not entrap, and that the plea is entered, fully and voluntarily with no coercion.
@HoosierfanJM Many of the J6'ers didn't have the money to afford their own attourney, thus they were assigned one as a public defender. In a overwhelmingly Democrat district. You do the math on how hard these defense lawyers actually worked for their clients.
Oath Keepers, Proud Boys want public defenders. And the Constitution they sought to upend protects that right
The majority of suspects in the January 6 insurrection could wind up with court-appointed attorneys. That's how the American justice system works.
www.wusa9.com
"The majority of suspects in the January 6 insurrection could wind up with court-appointed attorneys. That's how the American justice system works."
Last edited:
Nope, this just isn't true.
Here's a case where a Judge denied the defendant the ability to review the footage.
Judge denies Jan. 6 defendant’s bid for time to review McCarthy’s Capitol security footage
The judge said he worried that widely permitting Jan. 6 defendants to slow down their criminal proceedings in order to review this footage could derail dozens of trials.
www.politico.com
The government was trying to keep this stuff hidden. Many defendants did not get access to the footage until the Republicans released it. Even then, many were denied by Judges in many cases.
OMG,
The problem isn't whether the defense attorney asked for video to be accepted for his/her defense.
The videos were withheld by the Democratic Congress and no one even knew they existed until the Republicans took over the Congress.
If your point is that public defenders don't give full effort and are biased against certain clients? While that is possible, I strongly disagree. In my experience it takes a special presonality to want to be a public defender. Usually they are wired to give best effort to clients that they truly find abhorrent, and frequently do so in a more genuine way than paid counsel.@HoosierfanJM Many of the J6'ers didn't have the money to afford their own attourney, thus they were assigned one as a public defender. In a overwhelmingly Democrat district. You do the math on how hard these defense lawyers actually worked for their clients.
Oath Keepers, Proud Boys want public defenders. And the Constitution they sought to upend protects that right
The majority of suspects in the January 6 insurrection could wind up with court-appointed attorneys. That's how the American justice system works.
"The majority of suspects in the January 6 insurrection could wind up with court-appointed attorneys. That's how the American justice system works."
However, if your point is that defendants without means get public defenders that are often over-assigned and less experienced than the best that monied defendants can get? I 100% agree.
And if so, you are therefore stating there would not be prosecutorial/law enforcement misconduct.
And that's why appeals are part of our legal system -- to offer a conviction expungement path should compelling exculpatory evidence exist.
Most people associate this with newly found DNA or a confession clearing someone wrongly convicted of murder, but of course it can be applied to any type of conviction.
The QAnon Shaman tried and the judge laughed it out of court because there was nothing exculpatory. There was no appeal of the judge's ruling because ... because ... because the judge was spot-on correct.
