Why Even the Left Should Care about the QAnon Shaman
at least, if you care about your Constitution...
I've been taking some heat over my Facebook posts about the J6 videos being shown on Tucker this week. Some of the shallower thinkers there just accuse me of being a Trump fan, or supportive of the "insurrectionists" or being a Tucker Carlson fanboy. Like I said, those are the shallower thinkers here. We can (and should) ignore them.
So just what IS the importance of the tapes that Tucker Carlson is reviewing? Some people are quite upset about the videos it seems - mustn't go against the narrative we've listened to for two plus years, Orange Man Bad, insurrection, cherry picking, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Well, there's this little item to consider - those tapes may provide exculpatory evidence which the prosecution is required by law to provide to defense counsel. This concept is called the Brady rule, and was the result of a 1963 Supreme Court decision about potential defense evidence.
Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution.
The prosecution, not to mention the J6 idiots committee members, have insisted that the accused, and in particular Chansley, acted with extreme violence, were threatening, etc. etc.
In the case of Chansley, the Qanon Shaman, we can see via the video this is not true. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what the prosecutor told us.
This is indeed exculpatory material. It might not have made a difference in the outcome, but had it been made available, perhaps Chansley might have chosen not to plead guilty to the lesser charge. It might have actually forced the government to drop the other charges. We don't know, do we?
What we do know is, it proved the prosecution lied about him, and the video may well have had an effect on his sentencing had it been made available.
The prosecutor must disclose an agreement not to prosecute a witness in exchange for the witness's testimony. (This is a possibility, for example, Ray Epps)
The prosecutor must disclose leniency (or preferential treatment) agreements made with witnesses in exchange for testimony. (Again, Ray Epps. We just don't know much about him, do we?)
The prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence known only to the police. That is, the prosecutor has a duty to reach out to the police and establish regular procedures by which the police inform the prosecutor's office of anything that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant. Not all exculpatory evidence is required to be disclosed by Brady and its progeny; only evidence that is "material to guilt or punishment" must be disclosed because its disclosure would create a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the proceeding. The prosecutor is not obligated to personally review police files in search of exculpatory information when the defendant asks for it, but to allow the defense reasonable access.
I would suggest that the complete denial of the tapes is a fairly extreme violation of the Brady rule.
The last paragraph quoted above references "evidence that is material to guilt or punishment". That most certainly describes the video of Chansley, the Shaman, walking about with the police. After all, the prosecutor made a lot of noise about how dangerous, "threatening" and "violent" Chansley was - yet in the video, we see him walking with the police, chatting with them and being in no way threatening or violent. He even spoke a prayer for them. Scary stuff.
And those videos were known ONLY to the police, weren't they? They were kept hidden by the DOJ and the J6 Committee for over two years.
Yesterday, March 7, a retired cop was denied a sixty day continuance by the judge in her trial so that her lawyer could review the new evidence from the tapes.
Carpenter’s lawyer argued that she should be allowed to view the potentially exculpatory footage before her trial and requested a continuance of 60 days to do so.
The U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg admitted the request from Carpenter is “certainly not a frivolous request by any means”, but sided with the prosecution [to deny the request] regardless.
Boasberg violated Carpenter’s Constitutional Rights by turning down her request after lead Prosecutor Michael Graves asked the judge to ignore her plea in a “Government Response to the Motion.”
Boasberg complied with the prosecution, denied Carpenter’s request and ordered the trial start this week minus the footage.
Boasberg’s justification for his unlawful ruling is that delaying trials for Jan. 6 defendants (like Carpenter) to allow time for them to review the new trove of Capitol and police surveillance video released by McCarthy’s office for exculpatory evidence could “derail dozens of trials that are set in the next few months.”
Boasberg has implied the inconvenience the court will encounter having to wait to get the footage to defendants to review supersedes their Constitutional Right to a fair trial.
So there you have it. YOUR government is denying an accused her constitutional right to due process, a fair trial.
And that is why, whatever happens, Tucker Carlson's review of these tapes, and subsequent publicity, is so important.
And that is why you should care about the QAnon Shaman and what happened to him. Even if you’re a democrat. Especially if you’re a democrat.
Tonight’s tune - honestly, the Stars and Stripes Forever, played by the United States Army Field Band. First of all, I love Sousa’s music and secondly, this piece was played perfectly. One of the best parts of the entire video is watching the performers and conductor at the end of it. They know - and are justifiably proud of - the superb performance they gave. So enjoy…
Well said, Mr. Moran! It's time to start giving J6 its real name: The Insurrection Myth.
It's interesting how the ones who so desperately want the "shaman" to have been a violent terrorist 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛'𝑡 addressing the video. What, precisely, is their reaction to that video?
MY first reaction was simple: It was as Tucker said: the police politely, cheerfully -- 𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛! -- escorting Mr. Chansley around the Capitol, opening doors for him, chatting, laughing, stepping aside so he can pass and all that.
The entire time, Chansley was entirely unarmed as well! Unless you want to suggest that Chansley was going to seize power in America... with two buffalo horns. 😂
Sorry, but none of this is how one behaves in the face of a dangerous, or violent, insurrectionist. This is how one behaves in the face of what one knows 𝒏𝒐𝒕 to be an insurrection or a violent incident. That much is not in doubt.
This is how one behaves when faced with... a tour group. An unusual, but obviously non-threatening one. And I'm figuring, they've seen a heckuva lot more unusual in their time! After all, they allowed "Code Pink" to invade and take over the Senate (I think it was the Senate), to the acclaim of all the Dems.
So, finally, how DOES the Left react to the recording? At this point, they're all shouting as loudly as they can, "Tucker is wrong!!!" But, they're not saying why.
And, what is the answer to the rest of the questions as well? For example: Why did Mr. Chansley's defense not have access to this recording? Tucker had access to the entire 41,000 hours of recording, and his team found it overnight.
I'm NOT a legal expert, but can anyone tell me how this recording is 𝒏𝒐𝒕 grounds for tossing out the entire conviction, and AT LEAST granting a new trial? The ball is in the Left's and the Dems' court. They need to provide something other than feigned indignation.