smackaholic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:23 pm
The circumstance of the trial were affected greatly by evidence being withheld.
He plead to lesser charges to avoid going to trial for more serious charges.
Had he had this evidence that he was constitutionally entitled to, he may have took his chances with a jury.
The bottom line here is that his rights were violated. And any after the fact “it wouldn’t matter anyway” argument is bullshit.
Got any other weak shit arguments?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There
Was
No
Trail
Can
You
Read
???
"Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:30 pm
by smackaholic
Kierland wrote:“The cops helped him” is not the flex they think it is. The cops clearly stated they were out manned and were in “de-escalation” mode. They literally handcuffed people, decided there were too many people to arrest and un cuffed them so they could try and talk people into leaving. You are a fucking traitor Naziaholic.
I get your point that the cops were overwhelmed and may have been going along to keep from being attacked.
Or, it could be that they were instructed to let them through and now they’re covering their asses.
Or, the cops actually were sympathetic to the “rioters”. And now they are making shit up to save their hides.
Wanna know how you get to the truth, or something close?
You get all of the video out there.
There is not a single square inch of that place that doesn’t have video with time stamps. Put it out there to get a better picture of what actually happened.
But we didn’t have that. We were fed what Nancy wanted us to see.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:34 pm
by smackaholic
Kierland wrote:
smackaholic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:23 pm
The circumstance of the trial were affected greatly by evidence being withheld.
He plead to lesser charges to avoid going to trial for more serious charges.
Had he had this evidence that he was constitutionally entitled to, he may have took his chances with a jury.
The bottom line here is that his rights were violated. And any after the fact “it wouldn’t matter anyway” argument is bullshit.
Got any other weak shit arguments?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There
Was
No
Trail
Can
You
Read
???
I read better than you.
There was no trial because he plead to lesser charges.
My point is that given the evidence he was entitled to, he might very well have done otherwise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:43 pm
by Donnie Baker's Ghost
Kierland doesn't understand how trials work.
Anyone surprised?
Anyone....??
Bueller??
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:46 pm
by Diego in Seattle
Apparently Naziholic thinks that a CPD officer getting knocked out with a barrier is "letting them in."
Re:
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:49 pm
by Diego in Seattle
smackaholic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:23 pm
The circumstance of the trial were affected greatly by evidence being withheld.
He plead to lesser charges to avoid going to trial for more serious charges.
Had he had this evidence that he was constitutionally entitled to, he may have took his chances with a jury.
The bottom line here is that his rights were violated. And any after the fact “it wouldn’t matter anyway” argument is bullshit.
Taking a plea deal doesn't mean that one isn't guilty of those lesser charges.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:10 pm
by smackaholic
Diego in Seattle wrote:
smackaholic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:23 pm
The circumstance of the trial were affected greatly by evidence being withheld.
He plead to lesser charges to avoid going to trial for more serious charges.
Had he had this evidence that he was constitutionally entitled to, he may have took his chances with a jury.
The bottom line here is that his rights were violated. And any after the fact “it wouldn’t matter anyway” argument is bullshit.
Taking a plea deal doesn't mean that one isn't guilty of those lesser charges.
You are correct. Nor does it mean they are guilty.
Why are you still avoiding the simple fact that QS had his rights to a fair trial trampled on?
It’s because you and the rest of your totalitarian buddies aren’t interested in rights.
This dude is just an egg is the omelet of your socialist utopia. Fukk him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:12 pm
by smackaholic
Diego in Seattle wrote:Apparently Naziholic thinks that a CPD officer getting knocked out with a barrier is "letting them in."
No I don’t.
Show me videotape of it happening and I fully support locking away the dude who did it for 10 years. Maybe more.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:15 pm
by Kierland
Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:43 pm
Kierland doesn't understand how trials work.
Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:43 pm
Kierland doesn't understand how trials work.
Anyone surprised?
Anyone....??
Bueller??
Ok smart guy tell me how this guy’s trial worked.
The prosecution withheld evidence the defense could have utilized. You have no problem with that because you're so politically motivated you've lost the script to the oath you allegedly took. You're a disgrace. Period. Full stop.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:25 pm
by Kierland
A) That’s not a trial cause there was no trial, so nice fail.
B) You don’t know if the prosecution had this.
C) It implicates him not exonerates him cause it shows him delaying the Official proceedings.
D) And as I said before if this is a Brady violation he has a remedy.
Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:32 pm
How about all the people who did it?
Whataboutism? From you? Surely you jest.
re: withheld evidence. Regardless of who withheld it, the guy deserves a retrial.
You have no idea what Whataboutism is do you?
And you can’t retry someone who was never tired.
No wonder you tards will believe anything, you are fact resistant.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:54 pm
by General Peters
Jsc810 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:58 pm
All you apologists for the trump idiots on 1/6:
You know if the rioters looked like this
instead of the trump idiots, then you know damn well that your reaction would be completely different. Y'all would be wondering why they were not shot the moment they broke thru the police barricade, and would be demanding that they get decades in prison.
So fuck you for supporting the 1/6 rioters, and fuck you for your hypocrisy.
If the unarmed Ashley Babbit was a black libtard and was shot by a white police officer, there would be weeks of riots all over the country, with blacks being shot, black-owned businesses being destroyed, etc.
Two can play at this fukken game.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:17 pm
by smackaholic
Jsc810 wrote:
smackaholic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:25 pmStill waiting to hear Chip’s take.
Not surprised that he’s ducking it, if that is in fact what he’s doing.
Not ducking at all, on page 1 of this thread, I posted 3 times.
If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to reply, but again I have never practiced criminal law.
I thought I already made it quite clear. And I don’t give a fukk if you practice criminal law or not. This is so fundamentally wrong.
Should the prosecution, aka Nancy and her goons, have withheld video tape of what went on?
I am not asking you whether or not QS did anything wrong. I think we can all agree that he did commit some level of law breaking.
QS’ lawyer has already stated that the government did not show the videos we’ve now seen thanks to Tucker.
These videos show a polite, patient, cooperative QS. He was led around by Capitol police officers who showed him where offices were and even tried to open doors for him.
But Nancy and co didn’t want that video out. They say on it and released selectively edited bits that painted the alleged insurgents as violent savages.
smackaholic wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:25 pmStill waiting to hear Chip’s take.
Not surprised that he’s ducking it, if that is in fact what he’s doing.
Not ducking at all, on page 1 of this thread, I posted 3 times.
If you have a specific question, I'll be happy to reply, but again I have never practiced criminal law.
I thought I already made it quite clear. And I don’t give a fukk if you practice criminal law or not. This is so fundamentally wrong.
Should the prosecution, aka Nancy and her goons, have withheld video tape of what went on?
I am not asking you whether or not QS did anything wrong. I think we can all agree that he did commit some level of law breaking.
QS’ lawyer has already stated that the government did not show the videos we’ve now seen thanks to Tucker.
These videos show a polite, patient, cooperative QS. He was led around by Capitol police officers who showed him where offices were and even tried to open doors for him.
But Nancy and co didn’t want that video out. They say on it and released selectively edited bits that painted the alleged insurgents as violent savages.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So what if he was being treated nicely by cops AFTER the cops realized that they were overwhelmed? It was more than obvious that the Capitol was off-limits to everyone but Congress & their staffs. QS was one of the first inside, so he knew that getting in required enough force to overcome the police officers. Are you going to argue that he wasn't trespassing?
And he was using a bullhorn to incite the crowd to obstruct the vote. Yet you think a few clips of cops being nice to him proves that he wasn't guilty of what he was convicted of?
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:02 am
by LTS TRN 2
Not only did the prosecutors withold the newly released footage, but they kept Buffalo Man in solitary confinement for a couple months before scaring him into pleading guilty. If these vids were shown at the trial--or before--there would have been no conviction at all. This is a farce and thoroughly disgusting abuse of a weaponized DOJ. The argument of the officers claiming to have been passive and helpful to the loan protestor so as to "deescalate" might have sounded reasonable--until we saw the actual video. There were at least seven--often more--surrounding him. He was alone and unarmed. No surprise the DNC and media hacks are sweating and fretting a might. :wink:
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:20 am
by Kierland
Again, “the cops helped me” is not the flex you think it is.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:42 am
by LTS TRN 2
The fact of the capitol police escorting Buffalo Man about--attempting to open locked doors for him--is beyond "flex," it's a plain scandal. Who gave the Stand Down And Assist order? The court of public opinion is in session. :wink:
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:52 am
by Kierland
“The cops helped me do crime so you need to let me go.”
Law and order indeed.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:45 am
by LTS TRN 2
Fuck off, Squirmy..
How can this fraud continue?
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:51 am
by Softball Bat
smackaholic wrote:It (the video) certainly is excalpatory. It shows him being cooperative and even complimentary of the police.
He was undoubtedly guilty of something that day, mostly being a dumb fukk. But he was far from being a violent insurrectionist.
He was not convicted of being a "violent insurrectionist."
His crime was obstruction.
Mr. Shaman agreed to the following...
Chansley entered the Capitol through a door other rioters had broken open. He was among the first 30 rioters inside the building.
Chansley and other rioters went to the second floor of the Senate side of the building and "were met by a line of U.S. Capitol Police officers, instructing them to peacefully leave the building." Chansley challenged U.S. Capitol Police Officer Keith Robishaw "to let them pass." Chansley ultimately used "his bullhorn to rile up the crowd and demand that lawmakers be brought out."
Chansley went to the third floor, entered the Senate Gallery and "proceeded to scream obscenities in the Gallery," as other rioters entered the Senate chamber below.
Chansley next tried to gain entry to the Senate floor and again encountered Robishaw, "who once again asked him to leave the building." Chansley said others were on the Senate floor and he was going to join them; the officer followed him.
Chansley climbed the Senate dais and sat in then-Vice President Mike Pence’s seat, taking pictures of himself. Despite repeated requests from Robishaw, Chansley refused to vacate the seat. "Mike Pence is a f- - -ing traitor," he said.
Just after 3 p.m., "other law enforcement officers arrived to support (Robishaw) and cleared the defendant and other rioters from the chamber."
Which of the above is negated by what was shown (in the video) on Cuck Carlson's show?
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:18 pm
by Kierland
LTS TRN 2 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 9:45 am
Fuck off, Squirmy..
How can this fraud continue?
You mean the made up fraud in your head?
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:42 pm
by Kierland
OTSAI
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:58 pm
by smackaholic
Softball Bat wrote:
smackaholic wrote:It (the video) certainly is excalpatory. It shows him being cooperative and even complimentary of the police.
He was undoubtedly guilty of something that day, mostly being a dumb fukk. But he was far from being a violent insurrectionist.
He was not convicted of being a "violent insurrectionist."
His crime was obstruction.
Mr. Shaman agreed to the following...
Chansley entered the Capitol through a door other rioters had broken open. He was among the first 30 rioters inside the building.
Chansley and other rioters went to the second floor of the Senate side of the building and "were met by a line of U.S. Capitol Police officers, instructing them to peacefully leave the building." Chansley challenged U.S. Capitol Police Officer Keith Robishaw "to let them pass." Chansley ultimately used "his bullhorn to rile up the crowd and demand that lawmakers be brought out."
Chansley went to the third floor, entered the Senate Gallery and "proceeded to scream obscenities in the Gallery," as other rioters entered the Senate chamber below.
Chansley next tried to gain entry to the Senate floor and again encountered Robishaw, "who once again asked him to leave the building." Chansley said others were on the Senate floor and he was going to join them; the officer followed him.
Chansley climbed the Senate dais and sat in then-Vice President Mike Pence’s seat, taking pictures of himself. Despite repeated requests from Robishaw, Chansley refused to vacate the seat. "Mike Pence is a f- - -ing traitor," he said.
Just after 3 p.m., "other law enforcement officers arrived to support (Robishaw) and cleared the defendant and other rioters from the chamber."
Which of the above is negated by what was shown (in the video) on Cuck Carlson's show?
As I have already stated, he plead to the lesser charge because given the evidence his lawyer possessed at the time, it wasn’t worth going to trial and possibly be convicted of more serious charges with more time.
But in the end all of that is a moot point. The prosecution trampled his rights. His lawyer was purposely denied evidence.
If you gave the slightest of fukks about actually following the law, you’d agree.
But for you, along with all the lefties it’s all about doing everything possible to bury Trump. This poor fukk is just collateral damage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re:
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:06 pm
by Donnie Baker's Ghost
smackaholic wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:58 pm
As I have already stated, he plead to the lesser charge because given the evidence his lawyer possessed at the time, it wasn’t worth going to trial and possibly be convicted of more serious charges with more time.
But in the end all of that is a moot point. The prosecution trampled his rights. His lawyer was purposely denied evidence.
If you gave the slightest of fukks about actually following the law, you’d agree.
But for you, along with all the lefties it’s all about doing everything possible to bury Trump. This poor fukk is just collateral damage.
Upvote.
The system is broken because partisan fucks like Kierland are too blinded by politics to call our their contemporaries on their bullshit. Jsc is a far better representative of the legal profession. Reinforcing yet again my theory that Kierland is nothing more than a paralegal to a low level attorney two degrees removed from having his name on the sign out front.
smackaholic wrote:It (the video) certainly is excalpatory. It shows him being cooperative and even complimentary of the police.
He was undoubtedly guilty of something that day, mostly being a dumb fukk. But he was far from being a violent insurrectionist.
He was not convicted of being a "violent insurrectionist."
His crime was obstruction.
Mr. Shaman agreed to the following...
Chansley entered the Capitol through a door other rioters had broken open. He was among the first 30 rioters inside the building.
Chansley and other rioters went to the second floor of the Senate side of the building and "were met by a line of U.S. Capitol Police officers, instructing them to peacefully leave the building." Chansley challenged U.S. Capitol Police Officer Keith Robishaw "to let them pass." Chansley ultimately used "his bullhorn to rile up the crowd and demand that lawmakers be brought out."
Chansley went to the third floor, entered the Senate Gallery and "proceeded to scream obscenities in the Gallery," as other rioters entered the Senate chamber below.
Chansley next tried to gain entry to the Senate floor and again encountered Robishaw, "who once again asked him to leave the building." Chansley said others were on the Senate floor and he was going to join them; the officer followed him.
Chansley climbed the Senate dais and sat in then-Vice President Mike Pence’s seat, taking pictures of himself. Despite repeated requests from Robishaw, Chansley refused to vacate the seat. "Mike Pence is a f- - -ing traitor," he said.
Just after 3 p.m., "other law enforcement officers arrived to support (Robishaw) and cleared the defendant and other rioters from the chamber."
Which of the above is negated by what was shown (in the video) on Cuck Carlson's show?
As I have already stated, he plead to the lesser charge because given the evidence his lawyer possessed at the time, it wasn’t worth going to trial and possibly be convicted of more serious charges with more time.
But in the end all of that is a moot point. The prosecution trampled his rights. His lawyer was purposely denied evidence.
If you gave the slightest of fukks about actually following the law, you’d agree.
But for you, along with all the lefties it’s all about doing everything possible to bury Trump. This poor fukk is just collateral damage.
You didn't answer the question, so I will answer it for you.
Nothing seen in the video aired on the Cuck program negates any of these things that Mr. Shaman agreed to.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 4:13 pm
by Sven Golly
I'll go a step further - I think Kierland REPORTS to a paralegal
smackaholic wrote:It (the video) certainly is excalpatory. It shows him being cooperative and even complimentary of the police.
He was undoubtedly guilty of something that day, mostly being a dumb fukk. But he was far from being a violent insurrectionist.
He was not convicted of being a "violent insurrectionist."
His crime was obstruction.
Mr. Shaman agreed to the following...
Chansley entered the Capitol through a door other rioters had broken open. He was among the first 30 rioters inside the building.
Chansley and other rioters went to the second floor of the Senate side of the building and "were met by a line of U.S. Capitol Police officers, instructing them to peacefully leave the building." Chansley challenged U.S. Capitol Police Officer Keith Robishaw "to let them pass." Chansley ultimately used "his bullhorn to rile up the crowd and demand that lawmakers be brought out."
Chansley went to the third floor, entered the Senate Gallery and "proceeded to scream obscenities in the Gallery," as other rioters entered the Senate chamber below.
Chansley next tried to gain entry to the Senate floor and again encountered Robishaw, "who once again asked him to leave the building." Chansley said others were on the Senate floor and he was going to join them; the officer followed him.
Chansley climbed the Senate dais and sat in then-Vice President Mike Pence’s seat, taking pictures of himself. Despite repeated requests from Robishaw, Chansley refused to vacate the seat. "Mike Pence is a f- - -ing traitor," he said.
Just after 3 p.m., "other law enforcement officers arrived to support (Robishaw) and cleared the defendant and other rioters from the chamber."
Which of the above is negated by what was shown (in the video) on Cuck Carlson's show?
As I have already stated, he plead to the lesser charge because given the evidence his lawyer possessed at the time, it wasn’t worth going to trial and possibly be convicted of more serious charges with more time.
But in the end all of that is a moot point. The prosecution trampled his rights. His lawyer was purposely denied evidence.
If you gave the slightest of fukks about actually following the law, you’d agree.
But for you, along with all the lefties it’s all about doing everything possible to bury Trump. This poor fukk is just collateral damage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Explain how this vid helps him. You know, like we have explained how it doesn’t.
And again, show me where the prosecution had this vid.
smackaholic wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:58 pm
As I have already stated, he plead to the lesser charge because given the evidence his lawyer possessed at the time, it wasn’t worth going to trial and possibly be convicted of more serious charges with more time.
But in the end all of that is a moot point. The prosecution trampled his rights. His lawyer was purposely denied evidence.
If you gave the slightest of fukks about actually following the law, you’d agree.
But for you, along with all the lefties it’s all about doing everything possible to bury Trump. This poor fukk is just collateral damage.
Upvote.
The system is broken because partisan fucks like Kierland are too blinded by politics to call our their contemporaries on their bullshit. Jsc is a far better representative of the legal profession. Reinforcing yet again my theory that Kierland is nothing more than a paralegal to a low level attorney two degrees removed from having his name on the sign out front.
And you suck horse cock thru gloryholes for quarters.
poptart wrote:
He was not convicted of being a "violent insurrectionist."
His crime was obstruction.
Mr. Shaman agreed to the following...
Chansley entered the Capitol through a door other rioters had broken open. He was among the first 30 rioters inside the building.
Chansley and other rioters went to the second floor of the Senate side of the building and "were met by a line of U.S. Capitol Police officers, instructing them to peacefully leave the building." Chansley challenged U.S. Capitol Police Officer Keith Robishaw "to let them pass." Chansley ultimately used "his bullhorn to rile up the crowd and demand that lawmakers be brought out."
Chansley went to the third floor, entered the Senate Gallery and "proceeded to scream obscenities in the Gallery," as other rioters entered the Senate chamber below.
Chansley next tried to gain entry to the Senate floor and again encountered Robishaw, "who once again asked him to leave the building." Chansley said others were on the Senate floor and he was going to join them; the officer followed him.
Chansley climbed the Senate dais and sat in then-Vice President Mike Pence’s seat, taking pictures of himself. Despite repeated requests from Robishaw, Chansley refused to vacate the seat. "Mike Pence is a f- - -ing traitor," he said.
Just after 3 p.m., "other law enforcement officers arrived to support (Robishaw) and cleared the defendant and other rioters from the chamber."
Which of the above is negated by what was shown (in the video) on Cuck Carlson's show?
As I have already stated, he plead to the lesser charge because given the evidence his lawyer possessed at the time, it wasn’t worth going to trial and possibly be convicted of more serious charges with more time.
But in the end all of that is a moot point. The prosecution trampled his rights. His lawyer was purposely denied evidence.
If you gave the slightest of fukks about actually following the law, you’d agree.
But for you, along with all the lefties it’s all about doing everything possible to bury Trump. This poor fukk is just collateral damage.
You didn't answer the question, so I will answer it for you.
Nothing seen in the video aired on the Cuck program negates any of these things that Mr. Shaman agreed to.
smackaholic wrote: ↑Fri Mar 10, 2023 3:58 pm
As I have already stated, he plead to the lesser charge because given the evidence his lawyer possessed at the time, it wasn’t worth going to trial and possibly be convicted of more serious charges with more time.
But in the end all of that is a moot point. The prosecution trampled his rights. His lawyer was purposely denied evidence.
If you gave the slightest of fukks about actually following the law, you’d agree.
But for you, along with all the lefties it’s all about doing everything possible to bury Trump. This poor fukk is just collateral damage.
Upvote.
The system is broken because partisan fucks like Kierland are too blinded by politics to call our their contemporaries on their bullshit. Jsc is a far better representative of the legal profession. Reinforcing yet again my theory that Kierland is nothing more than a paralegal to a low level attorney two degrees removed from having his name on the sign out front.
QueerHansLanda is nothing more than a bootlicking ambulance chaser whose face looks like a pug from the repeated bumper collisions. Referring to Shehe/It as even a paralegal is hilarious, as Shehe/It makes Saul look like a Harvard professor.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 8:00 pm
by Kierland
Yeah this is about me not the actual topic at hand.
Fuck off traitor.
Re: Re:
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:08 pm
by smackaholic
Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:30 pm
And he was using a bullhorn to incite the crowd to obstruct the vote.
Why can't you address points I make about this?
One more time, slowly.
Evidence was illegally withheld. This evidence could have strengthened QS' case an may very well have changed his decision regarding pleading to any crimes.
Your after the fact defense of "well, it wouldn't have mattered" is laughable.
Just come out and say it, you don't believe in constitutional rights to all.
Re: "Insurrection" videos
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:49 pm
by Softball Bat
smackaholic wrote:Evidence was illegally withheld. This evidence could have strengthened QS' case an may very well have changed his decision regarding pleading to any crimes.
Was it illegally withheld?
Are you sure?
Link?
Maybe, but anyway...
I asked you to tell us what you see in the Cuck Carlson video that would have overturned what he was convicted of.
Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:30 pm
And he was using a bullhorn to incite the crowd to obstruct the vote.
Why can't you address points I make about this?
One more time, slowly.
Evidence was illegally withheld. This evidence could have strengthened QS' case an may very well have changed his decision regarding pleading to any crimes.
Your after the fact defense of "well, it wouldn't have mattered" is laughable.
Just come out and say it, you don't believe in constitutional rights to all.
Again, show us that the prosecution withheld this. You’re making that up.
Next, HOW is it exculpatory? Everyone knows the cops stood down and were trying to get people to leave with words not clubs.
Lastly, the crime was already committed when this vid section starts.
Stop sucking Cuck Carlson’s* dick.
Diego in Seattle wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:30 pm
And he was using a bullhorn to incite the crowd to obstruct the vote.
Why can't you address points I make about this?
One more time, slowly.
Evidence was illegally withheld. This evidence could have strengthened QS' case an may very well have changed his decision regarding pleading to any crimes.
Your after the fact defense of "well, it wouldn't have mattered" is laughable.
Just come out and say it, you don't believe in constitutional rights to all.
Again, show us that the prosecution withheld this. You’re making that up.
Next, HOW is it exculpatory? Everyone knows the cops stood down and were trying to get people to leave with words not clubs.
Lastly, the crime was already committed when this vid section starts.
Stop sucking Cuck Carlson’s* dick.
*credit to pop (but now I’m stealing it)
QS' lawyer is on record as saying these videos were not turned over.
I assume that there is a paper trail of what was turned over and if he is lying, it will be easy enough to prove.
But just from what we already know, starting with Nancy stacking the "investigation" with only people who had an interest in taking out TBOM, it has been obvious that this was a witch hunt. Why would this be any different with the prosecution and their treatment of the defense team.
You'd think an alleged attorney who specializes in defending scumbags would have an appreciation for this subject.
