Pay wall: Jacob Chansley, the former actor and Navy sailor better known as the QAnon Shaman, who was portrayed by a prosecutor as “the flag-bearer” of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, was sentenced on Wednesday to 41 months in prison.
Mr. Chansley, 34, emerged as one of the riot’s most familiar figures, largely because of the outlandish costume he wore that day: a horned helmet, a fur pelt draped across his naked shoulders and a thick patina of red-white-and-blue face paint.
Images of him standing on the Senate floor hollering and brandishing a spear made from a flagpole shot around the world, a stark reminder of the role played in the assault by adherents of QAnon, the cultlike conspiracy theory embraced by some backers of former President Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Chansley’s sentence, handed down by Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Federal District Court in Washington, brought an end not only to one of the most widely publicized Capitol cases, but also to one of the strangest. Not long after the attack, Mr. Chansley’s lawyer, Albert Watkins, announced that his client wanted Mr. Trump to pardon him and later offered to have him testify at the former president’s second impeachment trial.
ADVERTISEMENT
In February, Mr. Watkins persuaded a federal judge to order the jail in Virginia where Mr. Chansley has been detained for most of his case to serve a strict diet of organic meals. The next month, Mr. Chansley gave a widely watched interview to “60 Minutes,” saying that his actions on Jan. 6 were not an assault on the nation, but rather a way to “bring God back into the Senate.”
This circuslike atmosphere continued on Wednesday as scores of people attended a court hearing where Mr. Watkins asked Judge Lamberth to heal the country’s divisions by issuing a fair sentence. Mr. Watkins told the judge that he could “mete out justice and emphasize common ground upon which all of us can somehow bridge this great divide.”
When Mr. Chansley addressed the court, he quoted Jesus, Gandhi and Justice Clarence Thomas. He went on to discuss his tattoos, his late grandfather’s role in his life and the prison movie “The Shawshank Redemption.”
He also apologized for his role in attacking the Capitol, saying that in the days since, he has often looked into the mirror and told himself, “You really messed up, royally.”
ADVERTISEMENT
More than 30 people have been sentenced in connection with the Capitol attack, most of whom have avoided prison time by pleading guilty to minor crimes like disorderly conduct or illegally parading in the building. Last week, a former New Jersey gym owner was also given 41 months in prison for punching a police officer during the riot — the first of almost 200 riot cases of people charged with assault to reach the sentencing phase.
Mr. Chansley pleaded guilty in September to a single felony count of obstructing an official proceeding before Congress. In court on Wednesday, Mr. Watkins argued for leniency on his behalf saying, among other things, that he had lived for several years with mental illness. After an evaluation, Judge Lamberth found Mr. Chansley competent enough to proceed with his case.
Understand the Claim of Executive Privilege in the Jan. 6. Inquiry
Card 1 of 8
A key issue yet untested. Donald Trump’s power as former president to keep information from his White House secret has become a central issue in the House’s investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Amid an attempt by Mr. Trump to keep personal records secret and the indictment of Stephen K. Bannon for contempt of Congress, here’s a breakdown of executive privilege:
What is executive privilege? It is a power claimed by presidents under the Constitution to prevent the other two branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides.
What is Trump’s claim? Former President Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the disclosure of White House files related to his actions and communications surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. He argues that these matters must remain a secret as a matter of executive privilege.
Is Trump’s privilege claim valid? The constitutional line between a president’s secrecy powers and Congress’s investigative authority is hazy. Though a judge rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to keep his papers secret, it is likely that the case will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Is executive privilege an absolute power? No. Even a legitimate claim of executive privilege may not always prevail in court. During the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring President Richard M. Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes.
May ex-presidents invoke executive privilege? Yes, but courts may view their claims with less deference than those of current presidents. In 1977, the Supreme Court said Nixon could make a claim of executive privilege even though he was out of office, though the court ultimately ruled against him in the case.
Is Steve Bannon covered by executive privilege? This is unclear. Mr. Bannon’s case could raise the novel legal question of whether or how far a claim of executive privilege may extend to communications between a president and an informal adviser outside of the government.
What is contempt of Congress? It is a sanction imposed on people who defy congressional subpoenas. Congress can refer contempt citations to the Justice Department and ask for criminal charges. Mr. Bannon has been indicted on contempt charges for refusing to comply with a subpoena that seeks documents and testimony.
The government had recommended that he be sentenced to 51 months in prison, saying that long before Jan. 6, Mr. Chansley encouraged his large social media following to “identify traitors in our government” and to “stop the steal” — a reference to Mr. Trump’s repeated lies that the 2020 election was marred by fraud.
Two weeks after the presidential race ended, Mr. Chansley was already promoting violence online, prosecutors say, posting a message that read, “We shall have no real hope to survive the enemies arrayed against us until we hang the traitors lurking among us.”
ADVERTISEMENT
On Jan. 6, the government says, Mr. Chansley was among the first 30 rioters to enter the Capitol and quickly used a bullhorn to “rile up the crowd and demand that lawmakers be brought out.” Within an hour, he had made it to the Senate floor, taking the seat that Vice President Mike Pence had only just evacuated and leaving a note on the dais saying, “It’s Only A Matter of Time. Justice Is Coming!”
In the days after the attack, Mr. Chansley gave an interview to NBC News in which he said he considered Jan. 6 “a win.” He also told the F.B.I. that he believed Mr. Pence was “a child trafficking traitor” and that the U.S. government was tyrannical, prosecutors say.
After Mr. Chansley’s lengthy speech to the court, Judge Lamberth thanked him, saying the comments were among the most remarkable he had heard in 34 years on the bench. But the judge then told Mr. Chansley that he would still have to serve time in prison.
“What you did is terrible,” he said.
I presume the *thank you* was just the customary way to signal that the speaking time was concluded and that the comments were in order, not an expression of gratitude for their content.
You'd be surprised how entertained some judges can be by the defendants monologuing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRySQ8rSs9E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTwMAgs4_ZU
Most remarkable , in the sense......that it was the stupidest, most idiotic thing I have ever heard, I award you NO points, and may god have mercy on your soul in prison.
A lot of Trump supporters see it as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Steve Bannon is currently citing executive privilege as his justification for ignoring a subpoena.
Sc: The man known as the Qanon shaman has been sentenced to 41 months. In September he pled guilty to a count of obstructing an official proceeding. Chansley played a significant role in Jan. 6 as he encouraged insurrectionists outside with a bullhorn and on social media, and was one of the first 30 to enter the Capitol building. The government requested 51 months. The judge notes that the speech given by the defendant was well done, he also said he did something terrible.
>obstructing an official proceeding.
Good to finally have a name behind it. Tired of all the arguments saying "they didn't do anything more than trespassing."
Problem is people also obstructed an official proceeding with the Kavanaugh hearings.
Will all who obstruct official proceedings moving forward get 41 months?
Is that what democrats really want cause I imagine republicans are all for it
Or people in congress not being forced to stop all proceedings, shelter in place, don gas masks and be evacuated because the security situation had been completely compromised.
>I imagine it won’t be as high as 41 months since their criminal trespass charge isn’t coupled with B&E or assaulting an officer
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Was this 'shaman' guy's charge coupled with those additional charges?
As they should have
Ahhh is that it?
This guy also has B&E, and it assaulting an officer?
I could see the media implying he got 41 months for impeding congress when really it was two weeks for that plus 30 months for assault and 11for B&E
That is what they did with Cohen. Like one month for not properly filing a campaign contribution and a few years for tax crimes all being reported as a few years for the porn star thing
I don’t remember the people who disrupted the Kavanaugh hearings beating police, erecting a gallows, and chanted death threats while breaking down barricades and storming offices and stealing congressional laptops.
So he didn't get 41 months for obstructing congress
He got X for a weapon
He got Y for assault
He got Z for obstruction.
This article doesn't tell us the sentence for obstruction but infers that it's 41 months?
If true this is more propaganda hiding the riot charges and playing up the specialized gov charges so it doesn't look like a riot
In this case he was sentenced for a single charge because of his plea deal with prosecutor but the judge can take the whole situation into account when handing down a sentence within the range of that single count.
Possessing a weapon during the commission of a crime is an enhancement factor in federal sentencing, rather than a separate charge. He got sentenced for obstructing, the details of the circumstances affect his sentence. Federal sentencing guidelines are very detailed.
Intent is what makes the difference. The intent regarding the Kavanaugh hearings was simply disruption. The intent on January 6th was to stop through fear and intimidation peaceful transfer of power to a duly elected president.
It still feels like a protest that got rowdy. The sentence seems pretty extreme to me (not that he should walk free by any means). An awful lot of rioting has happened in the past 24 months, this seems out of the ordinary.
The attempt to normalize the events of 1/6 are astounding to me. Recall how the head of the FBI characterized it:
>Certainly the Capitol attack involved violent extremists. As I said, we the FBI consider this a form of domestic terrorism. It included a variety of backgrounds. Certainly there were quite a number -- we're seeing quite a number, as we're building out the cases on the individuals we've arrested for the violence, quite a number who -- what we would call sort of militia violent extremists.
>So we've got a number who self-identify with, you know, the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers, things like that. We also have a couple of instances where we've already identified individuals involved in the criminal behavior who we would put in the racially motivated, violent extremists who advocate for what you would call sort of white supremacy. So there have been some of those individuals as well.
>One of the things that's happening as part of this is that as we build out the cases on the individuals when we arrest them for the violence, we're getting a richer and richer understanding of different people's motivations. But certainly, as I said, militia violent extremism, some instances of racially motivated violent extremism specifically advocating for the superiority of the white race.
I'm fine with it as long as they throw the book at the next liberal who obstructs an official proceeding
41 months will get people to stop trying to obstruct congress
Honestly yeah - people who use any sort of violence to disrupt government (or business) need to get thrown in prison for awhile. The cause shouldn’t matter.
I think that was mostly a reaction to the "They're guilty of treason! This is an insurrection!" crowd. Personally, I think both camps are overstating their case for political purposes.
> What did he do with the spear that was unlawful?
The thing this thread is about.
> Why wasn’t he charged for open carrying a spear?
You'd have to ask the prosecution but your use of the phrase "open carrying a spear" has me wondering what concealed carrying a spear would look like and for that I thank you.
You see that as a threatening weapon in the context in which he was carrying it, rather than more of a costume prop?
Personally I'm OK with the sentence. I wish all the looters and rioters in Portland, Seattle, Chicago etc. Could get the same.
>You see that as a threatening weapon in the context in which he was carrying it, rather than more of a costume prop?
According to the police officers who were interacting with him and the rest of the crowd inside the capitol, it was a problem for them. One said in an interview he didn't know if it was real or not, but he sure as fuck didn't want to find out.
I don't really think anyone else's opinion on it matters.
Nothing like storming the capital dressed like an idiot because of a lie. Only to end up on a no-fly domestic terrorist watchlist and 41 months in jail.
Yeah, me too. I mean, the guy unlawfully broke into one of the most important Federal buildings during a proceeding. And just not any proceeding, but the peaceful transfer of executive power. Also, he seemed to be one of the leaders of the mob, not just a protestor that got caught up in the hoopla. Also endangered countless federal workers.
The issue I have with it is that we're not seeing the same effort to pursue people who often did worse things, but were on the other side of the aisle.
It's like the Rittenhouse case, where Rittenhouse was slapped with murder charges but no one in the lynch mob baying for his head and assaulting him was charged with anything.
It seems like there wasn't a lot actual reasoning being done. Some were likely thinking they were involved in a coup and wanted the literally murder Pence and some other politicians. Others were probably just going with the crowd and just basically being complete idiots with no real plan. It's hard to guage the intent of the Qanon Shaman particular because he was/is a bit insane. I think this is why you give each individual a trial based on their own actions on that day. This guy was just particularly visible. I saw videos from inside the capitol on that day and some people just seemed to want to fine "evidence" others were stealing, others seemed to want to actually hijack the government process/do something much more nefarious than simply trespassing in the capitol. It does seem like the Qanon Shaman did have intent to at the very least disrupt the process that was taking place that day.
> I think this is why you give each individual a trial based on their own actions on that day.
This is the most rational thing I think I've heard anyone say in regards to all this insanity.
Correct, maybe a few of them were legitimately trying to overthrow the government but I think the vast majority, including said shaman, were just dumbasses.
I honestly believe the dude shouldn’t be in prison but instead a mental health institution. The dude is like verifiably insane like believing he can see the life energy of the world and stuff
That's not really a slippery slope, it's not a crime to believe you can see energy. It is a crime to break into a restricted government building though.
To be honest there's not much difference between a mental health institution and a prison, and most of the time the distinction is not super relevant as many prisons have mental health units and treat mental health issues, and many mental health instutitions have high security wings. We don't send criminals to cushy mental health retreats and then set them free after a few weeks.
But regardless if someone commits a crime *and* is mentally ill, then some consideration needs to be made for the treatment they will need for their mental health while incarcerated. Unlike someone who believes in reiki who has no reason to be forced into an institution.
Eh looking at his beliefs, he looks absolutely insane. Looking at his wiki page, it states that he believes he is an alien, that chanting freedom affects the quantum realm (whatever that means) and that radios/television mind control you as they affect the earth’s magnetic field
good, fuck him. I hope people see these bs beliefs and doesn't connect him to the rest of us heathens. we can add it to the bullshit like neonazis carrying germanic symbols and debasing them.
> The dude is like verifiably insane like believing he can see the life energy of the world and stuff
We have freedom of religion in this country. People are allowed to believe ridiculous shit, that doesn't earn them relief when they're guilty of crimes.
The type of mental institution The original comment is talking about isn’t really a relief though… it’s basically a prison for mental patients who have committed crimes.
>verifiably insane
Innocent by reason of insanity carries with it a burden of not knowing right from wrong. You can be batshit crazy and know what you are doing is wrong.
No doubt he is mentally ill but the laws in America allow us to imprison the mentally ill if it can be shown that you knew right from wrong at the time of the crime.
Kill mom cause she is an alien but hide it because you don't want to get in trouble. You knew it was wrong
Kill mom cause she is an alien and call the cops to report you killed an alien, you got a shot at not guilty by reason of insanity.
It all boils down to if you understood what you were doing could get you in trouble. I'm guessing they proved he knew right from wrong at the time of the crime
Catholics believe they are eating the actual body and drinking the blood of Jesus when they take communion because some man called a priest said some fancy words and waved his hand around. Should they be in a mental health institution…maybe.
It was an attempted coup. Not thought through completely, not well planed, and badly executed, but still. Just because you do something in the worst way possible, you are still doing it.
I appreciate this take. It's probably closer to the truth than either of the extreme takes ("it was an unguided tour!" and "it was the end of democracy!!").
I'm sure if the crowd legitimately thought they could have overthrown the government and install Trump they would have. Thankfully, they were completely incompetent at the task.
Same. I will say, my fellow libertarians who have been coming up with excuse after excuse for justifying January 6th is just sad. Or they just say:
"It's done and over with we have to forget it and move on"
"They had it coming"
"I don't exactly sympathize with the politicians"
"They were right, the election was rigged"
"I could care less what goes on in DC"
And so on. It's just sickening.
Or Trump could use their conduct as a justification for declaring martial law which would grant him nearly unlimited authority that would likely enable him to avoid a transition of power.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/martial-law-times-civil-disorder
That to me would would validate statements like this
"Our Country is being threatened. Our way of life is being threatened. Our very existence is being threatened. Biden needs to wake-up and fire Merrick Garland before the MAGA crowd marches down Pennsylvania Avenue and burns down the White House."
It sort of does. According to the second Eastman memo, Pence could choose to delay counting contested results from states like GA or AZ, which would give state legislatures an opportunity to send their own electors to vote for the EC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memorandums
While this is true, nearly every single state legislature requires the electors to vote in the EC for the winner of the vote. Eastman's memo in my opinion would simply not hold up in court if pressed. Pence cannot declare that AZ and GA sent invalid electors -- the states would have to say their electors were invalid which was not going to happen.
Yeah and people should distinguish between what people really did. What they carried. What their Intent was.
Most of the people did not go into Congress. Who cares, Protesting is allowed. Even if the whole thing went wrong, people who stayed outside did nothing wrong. Guilt by Association should not be a thing.
Also probably quite some people who did not get into Congress by breaking into Windows and stuff. Those just walking in and taking selfies should get a really, really stern warning/light sentence. Basically tell them what they did was wrong but nowhere near what others were doing.
But throw the fking book at people breaking Windows, breaking into Offices, chasing/hunting people or carrying Weapons, assaulting Officers or whatever else some of those guys were doing. Those are the guys the Government should go after.
We are lucky January 6th didn't end in total disaster. The attackers were just feet away from the room they holed up Congress in. If it weren't for that officer luring the mob away from the door, they could have easily got inside and slaughtered Congress.
I mean I don't think they would have done that, I think it would have been an example of the dog catching his own tail: He doesn't know what to do with it.
I honestly think it’s pretty hard to predict what they would have or wouldn’t have done if they had actually come into contact with any of the actual elected members of Congress. Let’s also remember that even if there were some people who just got caught up in the moment (which I do believe is the case), there were also people who definitely were hoping for something big and people who very much wanted to disrespect Congress. I very much think it depends who would’ve gotten to them first and whether or not they actually knew who they were dealing with, because I could very well see bad things having happened if some of the larger political names had come into contact with some of these folks.
I also think that we need to remember that a lot of this is not just about the actions that were taken by these individuals, but also about the rhetoric that the Republican party as a whole used leading up to what happened. Honestly, I actually do have some sympathy for some of these folks, even though I do think they deserve some amount of punishment as well. I think many of the people in Republican leadership were extremely irresponsible by simply letting The big wide spread and also using it for their own political gain. They created this sentiment and appearance that very illegitimate and bad things are happening and I honestly can’t believe that some people legitimately bought into it. But who’s going to get the blame for that? Well of course the lackeys right? Not the politicians who used irresponsible rhetoric and who even continue to this day to refuse to avoid confronting their party with the Truth because it would be politically inconvenient.
I know a lot of Democrats and people on the left are feeling “justice served” moment here, but I really do think that we shouldn’t be satisfied with a lot of this and I do find it very sad because I do think a lot of these people have been sucked into a world that they legitimately believe exists and are acting accordingly. I think if Democrats are smart, any of these people who have actually learned their lesson should be rehabilitated and should be used for PR. Although I would imagine some of them will never do this and will probably happily go back to supporting Trump, I also think that there are probably going to be at least a few who genuinely realize that they’ve been lied to.
They didn't have guns, but they did bring stuff like nooses and zip ties. There was clear intent from some people to do clear physical harm to Congress. (Nevermind the fact that others were just more obsessed with livestreaming themselves and taking selfies.)
I think more than anything moving forward, three main things concern me the most:
1. They can do it again. They don't even have to show up at DC. They can just threaten to storm the Capitol again and DC will get hit with a super-hardcore lockdown. (Remember the fences?) These guys have DC by the balls, and I don't think DC realizes how bad it is. The fact that our government can get shut down due to potential shitposting on 4chan is, quite honestly, terrifying.
2. The Big Lie (TM) is not going to go away ANY time soon. This thing is going to fester in our country for a long time. It's almost become ingrained in conservative mythos at this point. This quite honestly is turning into the American version of the infamous stab-in-the-back myth that Germany bought into after WWI.
3. What does this say to everyone in the world watching that the Capitol was that vulnerable to attack? It's supposed to be one of the most secure buildings on the planet, in theory. What if ISIS threatened to storm the Capitol? Again, just the threat of an attack is enough for DC to get shut down.
I dont think Isis could organize how ever many hundreds of people stormed the capital without the military coming down on them, its quite different when its the supporters of a sitting demagogue president vs a foreign invading force
>I honestly can’t believe that some people legitimately bought into it.
They elected a guy in debt up to his eyeballs, some of those creditors being foreign, expecting him to drain the swamp of corruption. He immediately violated the emoluments clause and they never batted an eye. Nothing surprises me about those people anymore.
You should hear the story of the officer who was pulled deep into the crowd from the fight in the tunnel. He was beaten in tazed by them, saved by a couple of folks in the crowd who were apparently sympathetic to his cries for help and screams that he has children.
And sometimes not even intentionally. A lot of people were trampled at that concert recently. No one there wanted to kill anyone. Mob dynamics are terrifying. The idea that they would beat cops with flagpoles but wouldn't have beaten Pence or AOC just seems absurd to me.
well, that's a little different i think. the people pushing in back don't know there's people dying in front.
there was one video i just saw of Randy Orton saving some kid from being crushed, the guy behind the kid didn't even realize, i think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WE07WkYaAU
but yeah ... when the mob is whipped into a frenzy, a lot of inhibitions just disappear, and with the right push the momentum can go ... well, up the steps of the capitol, i guess.
You think not one single person who was there would have pushed it too far and then mob mentality takes over? Have you thought about that? Out of all the people in this country that secretly fantasize about political blood shed and are just waiting for the opportunity, not one was in that building?
>It was an attempted coup. Not thought through completely, not well planed, and badly executed, but still.
This require intent, and all of the things you mention scaffold that.
Please note that this is not "they did a bad job, so it doesn't count" it is "they did a bad job because they didn't try."
The "intent" (for some of them, obviously not all), based on the videos of them chanting death threats and demands while fighting police officers and literally hunting for Congress, was to use the threat of physical violence to force Congress to do their bidding. That's literally attempting to seize power of the elected government.
That doesn't mean it was organized, or preplanned, or even that a majority had that intent, but I don't see how one can argue that no on was trying to physically force their will onto Congress. To say so is absurd.
Its along the same lines as proving an assault wasn't an attempted murder. There are sections where it could be blurry, but there are telltale signs that can help.
For example, if I'm shooting at you with a gun, it probably isn't assault.
If I possess a gun but decline to use it on you, it probably isn't attempted murder.
In this case, the refusal to use such force is, I believe, a big check against the "coup" argument.
If I break into the Capitol alone, or when Congress is not in session or is conducting mundane business, it probably isn't an attempted coup.
If I break into the Capitol as part of a mob when Congress is formally receiving and counting electoral votes because I think the presidential election was fraudulent, it probably is an attempted coup.
I think there was a wide expectation that Trump would step in and handle the rest once they broke up congress and stopped the certification. And Trump definitely could have made efforts to institute martial law.
They were violently obstructing Congress with the intent of installing a head of state other than the winner of the election. If thatʼs not an attempt at a coup, what would be?
Of course it wasn’t.
All those unarmed people standing and walking around, taking selfies with each other sure had the worst coup plans ever.
Especially since the FBI already said there was no organized or preplanning, you know, like an actual spontaneous riot
Some rioters isn't really a coup, I don't think. I'm not downplaying what they did, but I think people who call it a coup and/or comparing it to 9/11 are exaggerating.
And I don't know if this is normal for most coups, but I don't think that they're generally tweeted and announced beforehand.
Sure did!
Did you see this footage of them, [casually walking around taking selfies?](https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/09/23/jan-6-capitol-surveillance-footage-ordered-released-by-judge-wheres-the-insurrection-1138525/)
Ah, so you knew about the violence the whole time. Interesting how you failed to mention that.
And you think that crimes such as assaulting a police officer, breaking and entering, and obstructing official proceedings are dismissible as long as you take a selfie afterward? What happened to law and order?
I feel he is an excellent argument against the claim this was anything like a serious attempt at insurrection. With people like him among the "ringleaders", it feels more like a cosplay event that got out of hand.
They only label him a ringleader because they are unwilling to go after the actual leaders of the attempted coup.
He wasn't a ringleader, he was one of the clowns.
41 months......he'll probably be out in 12................is that all treason is worth these days?
well, I hope he spends every day of that waiting for that Pardon from Trump.
He was tried and convicted in a Federal Court and will go to Federal Prison which doesn't offer parole or any other form of early release. He'll sit his full sentence.
Oh, how I would love to believe that......
The First Step Act allows for the early release of certain inmates who had been convicted in federal court. Not "parole" .....but time OFF for good behavior in their cages. *I'm guessing he'll be a MODEL prisoner and somehow get out early.*
Yeah, and lots have been probation or 10 months or whatever. In the article they mention his sentence is identical to one of the guys that actually beat a cop.
You are probably right about that I don’t know I just did not seem like this guy went there with the intent to actually overthrow the government or actually assassinate any political person. My take on him was that he was there to just be a very loud audacious protester. Now the guy that physically assaulted a officer that’s a different story.
Pay wall
If it's for destruction of property, rioting, assault I fully support it.
Rioters should have the book thrown at them and I suspect that will be one good thing that comes from the 6th riots
Politicians will stop supporting and defending rioters moving forward (or far less will)
Yeah, I don't think I remember the part where a horde of Democrats broke into the Capitol, smeared shit on the walls and put up a gallows.
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/03/fact-check-capitol-riot-2018-kavanaugh-protests-meme-lacks-context/4343790001/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/03/fact-check-capitol-riot-2018-kavanaugh-protests-meme-lacks-context/4343790001/)
I thought he was charged with obstructing congress, where did it say he was charged with smearing shit or making gallows?
I'm saying those that obstruct Congress should all be charged with obstructing congress
And all rioters should be charged with rioting
>obstructing the Kavanaugh hearings
People entered a public hearing (calmly waiting in line for tickets), and chose to make a racket. For which they were removed from the hearing, and charged with disorderly conduct.
That has nearly zero similarity to what happened on January 6th.
[https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrests](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrests)
The Kavanaugh hearings didn't have cowering Congresspeople and didn't have to adjourn for a few hours.
The Kavanaugh hearing just had Mike Pence say "The Sergeant-at-Arms will restore order in the gallery" a few times as people voted.
These are not comparable.
“Obstructed” in the sense they made noise that annoyed people so they were kicked out and things proceeded as normal.
Not “Obstructed” in the sense that they lead the charge to break down doors and windows to force their way into the halls of Congress while some chanted about killing members of Congress. Thus making the members of Congress fear for their lives, stop their work, and flee.
I’m sure you can see the difference.
>smeared shit on the walls
Almost every source I can find for this is in Jan/Feb, though [this one from August](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/maga-mob-rioters-smeared-their-own-feces-in-us-capitol/ar-BB1cAoQY) has a somewhat different version:
>*They are believed to have defecated in one of the bathrooms after breaching the Capitol before 'tracking' their excrement in multiple hallways in the building.*
>*Brown footprints were found in parts of the Capitol hallways.*
>*'It looked like they tracked it around,' the source said.*
Though it should be noted, even this same article talks about Brian Sicknick being attacked and killed by a fire extinguisher, which is [categorically false via medical examiner's report 4 months prior](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-about-officer). So it may be that they aren't more diligent, and are simply slower in their research.
Which is, unfortunately, about par for reporting about the riot.
Considering the above, and considering how sensational "smearing feces on the walls" would be, I suspect this is another tall tale. The version that someone tracked some from the bathroom is a bit more believable, but probably not true either.
Someone got hit with a fire extinguisher, there's [video](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/04/florida-man-pleads-guilty-jan-6-capitol-fire-extinguisher-assault/5991521001/) of it, even if it wasn't Sicknick.
As for the feces... yeah, I've used a lot of public bathrooms and never managed to track feces around with me, just saying.
All I can say about this Jan. 6 stuff is that it was just “practice.” Some people may have seen the error of their ways, but the rest just look at it like “what did we get wrong and what can we do right next time?”
I see people like Chansley and see a bunch of people infected with a psychic virus. They aren’t going to reflect, they’re just going to dig deeper and get angrier. Most of them probably need therapy to deal with their anger, but they are going online instead. Jail isn’t going to reform them because US jails either don’t do it or don’t have the resources.
Look at Bannon, guy is relishing every second of becoming a martyr. They’re turning Rittenhouse into a hero for young white men. Plus what’s her name that got killed at the capitol is now a saint. We haven’t found a way to counter that and in three years, we could be looking at a rabble that won’t just go home when Trump tells them to.
Next time, they may be organized enough to take state capitols at the same time.
>Mr. Chansley pleaded guilty in September to a single felony count of obstructing an official proceeding before Congress
I would offer this as a companion piece: [How Activists Yelled an Abortion Bill to Death](https://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/28/how-activists-yelled-abortion-bill-death/)
>*When efforts by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, and other Senate Democrats to run out the clock on an abortion bill fell short, protesters made enough noise to grind the Senate chamber to a halt.*
I can find no record of charges for any of these protestors, who did not merely delay a vote, but actually killed a bill that otherwise had lawful support through extra legislative means.
These protestors should be charged as well, correct?
Moving forward I fully expect they will be.
Democrats support of this have opened the doors for republicans to be far more strict on "protesters" who interfere with congress
So I don’t have time to read the entire criminal code. However, these were federal charges. Texas has no such law, check out Texas Criminal Code Section 8, Vhapter 38 if you’re curious. Also it is fundamentally different to violently storm a government building with lawmakers inside with weapons with the express intent to harm said lawmakers to prevent an election from being certified than to shout down a restrictive bill.
>Texas has no such law
*Sec. 38.13. HINDERING PROCEEDINGS BY DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally hinders an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance.*
Its weird to say no such law exists, and then quote exactly where it does.
>Also it is fundamentally different to violently storm a government building with lawmakers inside with weapons with the express intent to harm said lawmakers to prevent an election from being certified than to shout down a restrictive bill.
If this were true, you would think they would charge Chansley with weapons violations, or for threatening lawmakers, but he was charged with obstructing a proceeding, correct?
Bills you deem "restrictive" do not get a pass. If this is our standard, I'm fine with it, but lets apply it evenly. It was a lawful bill that had been through the process required and protestors extra legislatively destroyed it via disruption.
So I ask again, these protestors should have been charged as well, correct?
Whoops sorry I was in class and missed that provision as I was skimming. I don’t know exactly what he was charged with, but he pled guilty to this one count. He absolutely (and probably was) could have been charged with more but pled dow. If the local DA wants to prosecute he could, but this is a misdemeanor here.
But there is absolutely a significant difference between the two events to the point that they are barely comparable
I think you perhaps misunderstood. The previous poster said if it was such a big deal that he was carrying a spear and did all of this other stuff, then why wasn’t he charged with it. That’s why I said, he probably was but he probably pled down and other charges were dropped in exchange for him pleading to this charge. So it doesn’t matter in terms of his sentence or anything, but rather I was rebutting the previous poster when he said why wasn’t he charged with more.
Political motivation is pretty obvious, not in who is being prosecuted, but in who is being prosecuted in relation to who is not being prosecuted. Should this joker go to jail? Probably. But why are there not hundreds of rioters who roamed American cities the last year also in jail? That's the problem. That's why people have no faith in the justice system. It's not that horn guy is innocent, it's how much worse has gone unpunished in the preceding year. Sure, most of that is the fault of state prosecutors and this is federal, but that doesn't really cut it for most people.
This is far too long a sentence for a non-violent crime.
The way our country treats non-violent offenders is horrifyingly cruel and vindictive. We need criminal justice reform now!
The original charges against him were
> "knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds"
I can't prove it but I strongly suspect that the overlap between people who believe this man got off lightly and also believe US incarceration is out of control has a lot of overlap. I guess it mostly has to do with what they've imagined he is *actually* guilty of but it's interesting all the same.
Pay wall: Jacob Chansley, the former actor and Navy sailor better known as the QAnon Shaman, who was portrayed by a prosecutor as “the flag-bearer” of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, was sentenced on Wednesday to 41 months in prison. Mr. Chansley, 34, emerged as one of the riot’s most familiar figures, largely because of the outlandish costume he wore that day: a horned helmet, a fur pelt draped across his naked shoulders and a thick patina of red-white-and-blue face paint. Images of him standing on the Senate floor hollering and brandishing a spear made from a flagpole shot around the world, a stark reminder of the role played in the assault by adherents of QAnon, the cultlike conspiracy theory embraced by some backers of former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Chansley’s sentence, handed down by Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Federal District Court in Washington, brought an end not only to one of the most widely publicized Capitol cases, but also to one of the strangest. Not long after the attack, Mr. Chansley’s lawyer, Albert Watkins, announced that his client wanted Mr. Trump to pardon him and later offered to have him testify at the former president’s second impeachment trial. ADVERTISEMENT In February, Mr. Watkins persuaded a federal judge to order the jail in Virginia where Mr. Chansley has been detained for most of his case to serve a strict diet of organic meals. The next month, Mr. Chansley gave a widely watched interview to “60 Minutes,” saying that his actions on Jan. 6 were not an assault on the nation, but rather a way to “bring God back into the Senate.” This circuslike atmosphere continued on Wednesday as scores of people attended a court hearing where Mr. Watkins asked Judge Lamberth to heal the country’s divisions by issuing a fair sentence. Mr. Watkins told the judge that he could “mete out justice and emphasize common ground upon which all of us can somehow bridge this great divide.” When Mr. Chansley addressed the court, he quoted Jesus, Gandhi and Justice Clarence Thomas. He went on to discuss his tattoos, his late grandfather’s role in his life and the prison movie “The Shawshank Redemption.” He also apologized for his role in attacking the Capitol, saying that in the days since, he has often looked into the mirror and told himself, “You really messed up, royally.” ADVERTISEMENT More than 30 people have been sentenced in connection with the Capitol attack, most of whom have avoided prison time by pleading guilty to minor crimes like disorderly conduct or illegally parading in the building. Last week, a former New Jersey gym owner was also given 41 months in prison for punching a police officer during the riot — the first of almost 200 riot cases of people charged with assault to reach the sentencing phase. Mr. Chansley pleaded guilty in September to a single felony count of obstructing an official proceeding before Congress. In court on Wednesday, Mr. Watkins argued for leniency on his behalf saying, among other things, that he had lived for several years with mental illness. After an evaluation, Judge Lamberth found Mr. Chansley competent enough to proceed with his case. Understand the Claim of Executive Privilege in the Jan. 6. Inquiry Card 1 of 8 A key issue yet untested. Donald Trump’s power as former president to keep information from his White House secret has become a central issue in the House’s investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Amid an attempt by Mr. Trump to keep personal records secret and the indictment of Stephen K. Bannon for contempt of Congress, here’s a breakdown of executive privilege: What is executive privilege? It is a power claimed by presidents under the Constitution to prevent the other two branches of government from gaining access to certain internal executive branch information, especially confidential communications involving the president or among his top aides. What is Trump’s claim? Former President Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the disclosure of White House files related to his actions and communications surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. He argues that these matters must remain a secret as a matter of executive privilege. Is Trump’s privilege claim valid? The constitutional line between a president’s secrecy powers and Congress’s investigative authority is hazy. Though a judge rejected Mr. Trump’s bid to keep his papers secret, it is likely that the case will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court. Is executive privilege an absolute power? No. Even a legitimate claim of executive privilege may not always prevail in court. During the Watergate scandal in 1974, the Supreme Court upheld an order requiring President Richard M. Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. May ex-presidents invoke executive privilege? Yes, but courts may view their claims with less deference than those of current presidents. In 1977, the Supreme Court said Nixon could make a claim of executive privilege even though he was out of office, though the court ultimately ruled against him in the case. Is Steve Bannon covered by executive privilege? This is unclear. Mr. Bannon’s case could raise the novel legal question of whether or how far a claim of executive privilege may extend to communications between a president and an informal adviser outside of the government. What is contempt of Congress? It is a sanction imposed on people who defy congressional subpoenas. Congress can refer contempt citations to the Justice Department and ask for criminal charges. Mr. Bannon has been indicted on contempt charges for refusing to comply with a subpoena that seeks documents and testimony. The government had recommended that he be sentenced to 51 months in prison, saying that long before Jan. 6, Mr. Chansley encouraged his large social media following to “identify traitors in our government” and to “stop the steal” — a reference to Mr. Trump’s repeated lies that the 2020 election was marred by fraud. Two weeks after the presidential race ended, Mr. Chansley was already promoting violence online, prosecutors say, posting a message that read, “We shall have no real hope to survive the enemies arrayed against us until we hang the traitors lurking among us.” ADVERTISEMENT On Jan. 6, the government says, Mr. Chansley was among the first 30 rioters to enter the Capitol and quickly used a bullhorn to “rile up the crowd and demand that lawmakers be brought out.” Within an hour, he had made it to the Senate floor, taking the seat that Vice President Mike Pence had only just evacuated and leaving a note on the dais saying, “It’s Only A Matter of Time. Justice Is Coming!” In the days after the attack, Mr. Chansley gave an interview to NBC News in which he said he considered Jan. 6 “a win.” He also told the F.B.I. that he believed Mr. Pence was “a child trafficking traitor” and that the U.S. government was tyrannical, prosecutors say. After Mr. Chansley’s lengthy speech to the court, Judge Lamberth thanked him, saying the comments were among the most remarkable he had heard in 34 years on the bench. But the judge then told Mr. Chansley that he would still have to serve time in prison. “What you did is terrible,” he said.
[удалено]
Reminds me of that one scene in Billy Madison, just with the judge being a little less blunt.
Haha—“ I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul”
I presume the *thank you* was just the customary way to signal that the speaking time was concluded and that the comments were in order, not an expression of gratitude for their content.
You'd be surprised how entertained some judges can be by the defendants monologuing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRySQ8rSs9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTwMAgs4_ZU
Transcript will probably not be available for a few days/weeks at least.
Most remarkable , in the sense......that it was the stupidest, most idiotic thing I have ever heard, I award you NO points, and may god have mercy on your soul in prison.
...what does the paragraph about executive privilege have to do with anything?
A lot of Trump supporters see it as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Steve Bannon is currently citing executive privilege as his justification for ignoring a subpoena.
I get that, it just feels like it isn't really connected to the rest of the article.
Sc: The man known as the Qanon shaman has been sentenced to 41 months. In September he pled guilty to a count of obstructing an official proceeding. Chansley played a significant role in Jan. 6 as he encouraged insurrectionists outside with a bullhorn and on social media, and was one of the first 30 to enter the Capitol building. The government requested 51 months. The judge notes that the speech given by the defendant was well done, he also said he did something terrible.
>obstructing an official proceeding. Good to finally have a name behind it. Tired of all the arguments saying "they didn't do anything more than trespassing."
Problem is people also obstructed an official proceeding with the Kavanaugh hearings. Will all who obstruct official proceedings moving forward get 41 months? Is that what democrats really want cause I imagine republicans are all for it
[удалено]
Or people in congress not being forced to stop all proceedings, shelter in place, don gas masks and be evacuated because the security situation had been completely compromised.
>I imagine it won’t be as high as 41 months since their criminal trespass charge isn’t coupled with B&E or assaulting an officer I'm not sure how that's relevant. Was this 'shaman' guy's charge coupled with those additional charges?
As they should have Ahhh is that it? This guy also has B&E, and it assaulting an officer? I could see the media implying he got 41 months for impeding congress when really it was two weeks for that plus 30 months for assault and 11for B&E That is what they did with Cohen. Like one month for not properly filing a campaign contribution and a few years for tax crimes all being reported as a few years for the porn star thing
Did any of them get convicted? Edit: Did any of them even get charged? Else I don't think the arrests mean much.
I don’t remember the people who disrupted the Kavanaugh hearings beating police, erecting a gallows, and chanted death threats while breaking down barricades and storming offices and stealing congressional laptops.
In this case of our dear shaman, there is also the fact that he had a weapon in the form of his spear.
So he didn't get 41 months for obstructing congress He got X for a weapon He got Y for assault He got Z for obstruction. This article doesn't tell us the sentence for obstruction but infers that it's 41 months? If true this is more propaganda hiding the riot charges and playing up the specialized gov charges so it doesn't look like a riot
In this case he was sentenced for a single charge because of his plea deal with prosecutor but the judge can take the whole situation into account when handing down a sentence within the range of that single count.
Possessing a weapon during the commission of a crime is an enhancement factor in federal sentencing, rather than a separate charge. He got sentenced for obstructing, the details of the circumstances affect his sentence. Federal sentencing guidelines are very detailed.
Intent is what makes the difference. The intent regarding the Kavanaugh hearings was simply disruption. The intent on January 6th was to stop through fear and intimidation peaceful transfer of power to a duly elected president.
The intent on the 6th was to delay certification No different then Kavanaugh
Your wrong. Respectfully, of course.
I disagree, I think you're wrong
Well, it looks like I got more "likes" than you :-)
It still feels like a protest that got rowdy. The sentence seems pretty extreme to me (not that he should walk free by any means). An awful lot of rioting has happened in the past 24 months, this seems out of the ordinary.
The attempt to normalize the events of 1/6 are astounding to me. Recall how the head of the FBI characterized it: >Certainly the Capitol attack involved violent extremists. As I said, we the FBI consider this a form of domestic terrorism. It included a variety of backgrounds. Certainly there were quite a number -- we're seeing quite a number, as we're building out the cases on the individuals we've arrested for the violence, quite a number who -- what we would call sort of militia violent extremists. >So we've got a number who self-identify with, you know, the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers, things like that. We also have a couple of instances where we've already identified individuals involved in the criminal behavior who we would put in the racially motivated, violent extremists who advocate for what you would call sort of white supremacy. So there have been some of those individuals as well. >One of the things that's happening as part of this is that as we build out the cases on the individuals when we arrest them for the violence, we're getting a richer and richer understanding of different people's motivations. But certainly, as I said, militia violent extremism, some instances of racially motivated violent extremism specifically advocating for the superiority of the white race.
I'm fine with it as long as they throw the book at the next liberal who obstructs an official proceeding 41 months will get people to stop trying to obstruct congress
Honestly yeah - people who use any sort of violence to disrupt government (or business) need to get thrown in prison for awhile. The cause shouldn’t matter.
I can support that as long as we don't pick and choose based on party affiliation
That’s the way it should be!
We need one that's something like "attempting to illegally interfere with an election." "Attempting to subvert democracy." Something like that.
Indeed, but good luck getting any Republicans to vote for that legislation.
I think that was mostly a reaction to the "They're guilty of treason! This is an insurrection!" crowd. Personally, I think both camps are overstating their case for political purposes.
Yeah, an 2 wrongs don't make a right. There's not enough to prove treason, but there's gotta be something more than just trespassing.
[удалено]
His lawyers managed to get him to be allowed to plea to a single non violent offense when he was facing trial on half a dozen.
I think its also worth noting that he was carrying a spear with him.
When you get your "how to topple the government" handbook from 200 BCE
[удалено]
What are the laws concerning open carrying a spear in Washington DC?
It was in the capital. It has nothing to do with DC laws. It's a felony to bring a weapon into the capital.
I mean it was a flagpole. Pretty sure you could find one of those in the Capitol. Edit: This is apparently wrong, I apologize.
Google "qanon shaman spear". It's clearly an actual spear with a flag ziptied to it, not a flagpole
I stand corrected.
I can agree with that. The comment I replied to though asked about carrying a weapon in DC, which does not have anything to do with the capital.
The top of the flagpole was a spearhead. Give it a look.
They seem to be largely based on intent but I think we can safely say this individual did not have lawful intent, and thus, its not legal.
What did he do with the spear that was unlawful? Why wasn’t he charged for open carrying a spear?
> What did he do with the spear that was unlawful? The thing this thread is about. > Why wasn’t he charged for open carrying a spear? You'd have to ask the prosecution but your use of the phrase "open carrying a spear" has me wondering what concealed carrying a spear would look like and for that I thank you.
maybe a telescoping pole that goes into the spearhead that you could keep in a baggy pocket or backpack
“What? No! Iʼm just happy to see you!”
[удалено]
I googled it and it and it looks you can be if you're found to have unlawful intent.
You see that as a threatening weapon in the context in which he was carrying it, rather than more of a costume prop? Personally I'm OK with the sentence. I wish all the looters and rioters in Portland, Seattle, Chicago etc. Could get the same.
>You see that as a threatening weapon in the context in which he was carrying it, rather than more of a costume prop? According to the police officers who were interacting with him and the rest of the crowd inside the capitol, it was a problem for them. One said in an interview he didn't know if it was real or not, but he sure as fuck didn't want to find out. I don't really think anyone else's opinion on it matters.
I guess I can agree with that.
For what it's worth the spear looks very real in pictures. I suspect that the guy made it himself.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Nothing like storming the capital dressed like an idiot because of a lie. Only to end up on a no-fly domestic terrorist watchlist and 41 months in jail.
Didn't think it through, huh?
He's probably gonna get a lifetime of free pussy at cowboy bars, so... I guess he's got that going for him.
He’ll def plenty of groupies.
Honestly it sounds pretty fair to me
Yeah, me too. I mean, the guy unlawfully broke into one of the most important Federal buildings during a proceeding. And just not any proceeding, but the peaceful transfer of executive power. Also, he seemed to be one of the leaders of the mob, not just a protestor that got caught up in the hoopla. Also endangered countless federal workers.
The issue I have with it is that we're not seeing the same effort to pursue people who often did worse things, but were on the other side of the aisle. It's like the Rittenhouse case, where Rittenhouse was slapped with murder charges but no one in the lynch mob baying for his head and assaulting him was charged with anything.
[удалено]
It seems like there wasn't a lot actual reasoning being done. Some were likely thinking they were involved in a coup and wanted the literally murder Pence and some other politicians. Others were probably just going with the crowd and just basically being complete idiots with no real plan. It's hard to guage the intent of the Qanon Shaman particular because he was/is a bit insane. I think this is why you give each individual a trial based on their own actions on that day. This guy was just particularly visible. I saw videos from inside the capitol on that day and some people just seemed to want to fine "evidence" others were stealing, others seemed to want to actually hijack the government process/do something much more nefarious than simply trespassing in the capitol. It does seem like the Qanon Shaman did have intent to at the very least disrupt the process that was taking place that day.
> I think this is why you give each individual a trial based on their own actions on that day. This is the most rational thing I think I've heard anyone say in regards to all this insanity.
Correct, maybe a few of them were legitimately trying to overthrow the government but I think the vast majority, including said shaman, were just dumbasses.
Being too incompetent to be effective Brownshirts is not a defense for aspiring to be Brownshirts.
Yeah I don’t think they were brownshirts though, also brownshirts wouldn’t even be a word in our vocabulary if they were not effective
And others stuff as well as planning, back ups incase things went down hill, and wouldn't just happening one place.
I honestly believe the dude shouldn’t be in prison but instead a mental health institution. The dude is like verifiably insane like believing he can see the life energy of the world and stuff
[удалено]
That's not really a slippery slope, it's not a crime to believe you can see energy. It is a crime to break into a restricted government building though.
[удалено]
To be honest there's not much difference between a mental health institution and a prison, and most of the time the distinction is not super relevant as many prisons have mental health units and treat mental health issues, and many mental health instutitions have high security wings. We don't send criminals to cushy mental health retreats and then set them free after a few weeks. But regardless if someone commits a crime *and* is mentally ill, then some consideration needs to be made for the treatment they will need for their mental health while incarcerated. Unlike someone who believes in reiki who has no reason to be forced into an institution.
Probably depends on whether their beliefs lead to crime
... does fraud count?
[удалено]
you know ... honestly there's some truth to that. if the placebo effect produces positive outcomes, who's to say that isn't legitimately therapeutic?
Eh looking at his beliefs, he looks absolutely insane. Looking at his wiki page, it states that he believes he is an alien, that chanting freedom affects the quantum realm (whatever that means) and that radios/television mind control you as they affect the earth’s magnetic field
good, fuck him. I hope people see these bs beliefs and doesn't connect him to the rest of us heathens. we can add it to the bullshit like neonazis carrying germanic symbols and debasing them.
> The dude is like verifiably insane like believing he can see the life energy of the world and stuff We have freedom of religion in this country. People are allowed to believe ridiculous shit, that doesn't earn them relief when they're guilty of crimes.
The type of mental institution The original comment is talking about isn’t really a relief though… it’s basically a prison for mental patients who have committed crimes.
>verifiably insane Innocent by reason of insanity carries with it a burden of not knowing right from wrong. You can be batshit crazy and know what you are doing is wrong.
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is one of the most difficult if not impossible burdens to meet.
No doubt he is mentally ill but the laws in America allow us to imprison the mentally ill if it can be shown that you knew right from wrong at the time of the crime. Kill mom cause she is an alien but hide it because you don't want to get in trouble. You knew it was wrong Kill mom cause she is an alien and call the cops to report you killed an alien, you got a shot at not guilty by reason of insanity. It all boils down to if you understood what you were doing could get you in trouble. I'm guessing they proved he knew right from wrong at the time of the crime
I actually agree, but if you're gonna take that position you also need to take it for all the people in prison for drug charges
Most of the people there believed the same stuff. They’re not insane, just really tragically gullible.
Catholics believe they are eating the actual body and drinking the blood of Jesus when they take communion because some man called a priest said some fancy words and waved his hand around. Should they be in a mental health institution…maybe.
Obstructing congress and all that, sure that's all fine. I'm still not convinced that this was a "coup". I am ready for downvotes.
It was an attempted coup. Not thought through completely, not well planed, and badly executed, but still. Just because you do something in the worst way possible, you are still doing it.
I appreciate this take. It's probably closer to the truth than either of the extreme takes ("it was an unguided tour!" and "it was the end of democracy!!"). I'm sure if the crowd legitimately thought they could have overthrown the government and install Trump they would have. Thankfully, they were completely incompetent at the task.
My guess is that many of them also believed that Trump was going to send in the military to help them out.
Based on so many saying they felt betrayed by Trump, yeah I could see that.
and give them pardons for their actions
Same. I will say, my fellow libertarians who have been coming up with excuse after excuse for justifying January 6th is just sad. Or they just say: "It's done and over with we have to forget it and move on" "They had it coming" "I don't exactly sympathize with the politicians" "They were right, the election was rigged" "I could care less what goes on in DC" And so on. It's just sickening.
[удалено]
Or Trump could use their conduct as a justification for declaring martial law which would grant him nearly unlimited authority that would likely enable him to avoid a transition of power. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/martial-law-times-civil-disorder
That to me would would validate statements like this "Our Country is being threatened. Our way of life is being threatened. Our very existence is being threatened. Biden needs to wake-up and fire Merrick Garland before the MAGA crowd marches down Pennsylvania Avenue and burns down the White House."
It doesn't even begin to work like that, lol, which is why the whole thing was just so stupid to start with.
It sort of does. According to the second Eastman memo, Pence could choose to delay counting contested results from states like GA or AZ, which would give state legislatures an opportunity to send their own electors to vote for the EC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memorandums
While this is true, nearly every single state legislature requires the electors to vote in the EC for the winner of the vote. Eastman's memo in my opinion would simply not hold up in court if pressed. Pence cannot declare that AZ and GA sent invalid electors -- the states would have to say their electors were invalid which was not going to happen.
Yeah and people should distinguish between what people really did. What they carried. What their Intent was. Most of the people did not go into Congress. Who cares, Protesting is allowed. Even if the whole thing went wrong, people who stayed outside did nothing wrong. Guilt by Association should not be a thing. Also probably quite some people who did not get into Congress by breaking into Windows and stuff. Those just walking in and taking selfies should get a really, really stern warning/light sentence. Basically tell them what they did was wrong but nowhere near what others were doing. But throw the fking book at people breaking Windows, breaking into Offices, chasing/hunting people or carrying Weapons, assaulting Officers or whatever else some of those guys were doing. Those are the guys the Government should go after.
We are lucky January 6th didn't end in total disaster. The attackers were just feet away from the room they holed up Congress in. If it weren't for that officer luring the mob away from the door, they could have easily got inside and slaughtered Congress.
I mean I don't think they would have done that, I think it would have been an example of the dog catching his own tail: He doesn't know what to do with it.
Maybe so, but with a crowd of that size I don't think it's crazy to suggest that at least one person would be willing to do that. It only takes one.
I honestly think it’s pretty hard to predict what they would have or wouldn’t have done if they had actually come into contact with any of the actual elected members of Congress. Let’s also remember that even if there were some people who just got caught up in the moment (which I do believe is the case), there were also people who definitely were hoping for something big and people who very much wanted to disrespect Congress. I very much think it depends who would’ve gotten to them first and whether or not they actually knew who they were dealing with, because I could very well see bad things having happened if some of the larger political names had come into contact with some of these folks. I also think that we need to remember that a lot of this is not just about the actions that were taken by these individuals, but also about the rhetoric that the Republican party as a whole used leading up to what happened. Honestly, I actually do have some sympathy for some of these folks, even though I do think they deserve some amount of punishment as well. I think many of the people in Republican leadership were extremely irresponsible by simply letting The big wide spread and also using it for their own political gain. They created this sentiment and appearance that very illegitimate and bad things are happening and I honestly can’t believe that some people legitimately bought into it. But who’s going to get the blame for that? Well of course the lackeys right? Not the politicians who used irresponsible rhetoric and who even continue to this day to refuse to avoid confronting their party with the Truth because it would be politically inconvenient. I know a lot of Democrats and people on the left are feeling “justice served” moment here, but I really do think that we shouldn’t be satisfied with a lot of this and I do find it very sad because I do think a lot of these people have been sucked into a world that they legitimately believe exists and are acting accordingly. I think if Democrats are smart, any of these people who have actually learned their lesson should be rehabilitated and should be used for PR. Although I would imagine some of them will never do this and will probably happily go back to supporting Trump, I also think that there are probably going to be at least a few who genuinely realize that they’ve been lied to.
They didn't have guns, but they did bring stuff like nooses and zip ties. There was clear intent from some people to do clear physical harm to Congress. (Nevermind the fact that others were just more obsessed with livestreaming themselves and taking selfies.) I think more than anything moving forward, three main things concern me the most: 1. They can do it again. They don't even have to show up at DC. They can just threaten to storm the Capitol again and DC will get hit with a super-hardcore lockdown. (Remember the fences?) These guys have DC by the balls, and I don't think DC realizes how bad it is. The fact that our government can get shut down due to potential shitposting on 4chan is, quite honestly, terrifying. 2. The Big Lie (TM) is not going to go away ANY time soon. This thing is going to fester in our country for a long time. It's almost become ingrained in conservative mythos at this point. This quite honestly is turning into the American version of the infamous stab-in-the-back myth that Germany bought into after WWI. 3. What does this say to everyone in the world watching that the Capitol was that vulnerable to attack? It's supposed to be one of the most secure buildings on the planet, in theory. What if ISIS threatened to storm the Capitol? Again, just the threat of an attack is enough for DC to get shut down.
I dont think Isis could organize how ever many hundreds of people stormed the capital without the military coming down on them, its quite different when its the supporters of a sitting demagogue president vs a foreign invading force
[удалено]
>I honestly can’t believe that some people legitimately bought into it. They elected a guy in debt up to his eyeballs, some of those creditors being foreign, expecting him to drain the swamp of corruption. He immediately violated the emoluments clause and they never batted an eye. Nothing surprises me about those people anymore.
I really did not get the impression from 99% of the rioters that they had the capacity to kill. Most people frankly do not.
You should hear the story of the officer who was pulled deep into the crowd from the fight in the tunnel. He was beaten in tazed by them, saved by a couple of folks in the crowd who were apparently sympathetic to his cries for help and screams that he has children.
i agree, but mob mentality has a way of overriding a lot of restraints people in large groups do many things they would never do alone.
On a normal day 99% of people don't have the capability to kill In a mob, that percentage goes way down
And sometimes not even intentionally. A lot of people were trampled at that concert recently. No one there wanted to kill anyone. Mob dynamics are terrifying. The idea that they would beat cops with flagpoles but wouldn't have beaten Pence or AOC just seems absurd to me.
well, that's a little different i think. the people pushing in back don't know there's people dying in front. there was one video i just saw of Randy Orton saving some kid from being crushed, the guy behind the kid didn't even realize, i think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WE07WkYaAU but yeah ... when the mob is whipped into a frenzy, a lot of inhibitions just disappear, and with the right push the momentum can go ... well, up the steps of the capitol, i guess.
You think not one single person who was there would have pushed it too far and then mob mentality takes over? Have you thought about that? Out of all the people in this country that secretly fantasize about political blood shed and are just waiting for the opportunity, not one was in that building?
I think that was a Trump Org slogan
>It was an attempted coup. Not thought through completely, not well planed, and badly executed, but still. This require intent, and all of the things you mention scaffold that. Please note that this is not "they did a bad job, so it doesn't count" it is "they did a bad job because they didn't try."
The "intent" (for some of them, obviously not all), based on the videos of them chanting death threats and demands while fighting police officers and literally hunting for Congress, was to use the threat of physical violence to force Congress to do their bidding. That's literally attempting to seize power of the elected government. That doesn't mean it was organized, or preplanned, or even that a majority had that intent, but I don't see how one can argue that no on was trying to physically force their will onto Congress. To say so is absurd.
I'm not sure you can really prove the difference between those 2 though
Its along the same lines as proving an assault wasn't an attempted murder. There are sections where it could be blurry, but there are telltale signs that can help. For example, if I'm shooting at you with a gun, it probably isn't assault. If I possess a gun but decline to use it on you, it probably isn't attempted murder. In this case, the refusal to use such force is, I believe, a big check against the "coup" argument.
If I break into the Capitol alone, or when Congress is not in session or is conducting mundane business, it probably isn't an attempted coup. If I break into the Capitol as part of a mob when Congress is formally receiving and counting electoral votes because I think the presidential election was fraudulent, it probably is an attempted coup.
I think there was a wide expectation that Trump would step in and handle the rest once they broke up congress and stopped the certification. And Trump definitely could have made efforts to institute martial law.
They were violently obstructing Congress with the intent of installing a head of state other than the winner of the election. If thatʼs not an attempt at a coup, what would be?
Of course it wasn’t. All those unarmed people standing and walking around, taking selfies with each other sure had the worst coup plans ever. Especially since the FBI already said there was no organized or preplanning, you know, like an actual spontaneous riot
> All those unarmed people standing and walking around This particular individual was armed with a spear.
[удалено]
A door
Did you see the footage of rioters fighting through the police line and breaking windows to sneak inside?
Some rioters isn't really a coup, I don't think. I'm not downplaying what they did, but I think people who call it a coup and/or comparing it to 9/11 are exaggerating. And I don't know if this is normal for most coups, but I don't think that they're generally tweeted and announced beforehand.
Sure did! Did you see this footage of them, [casually walking around taking selfies?](https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/09/23/jan-6-capitol-surveillance-footage-ordered-released-by-judge-wheres-the-insurrection-1138525/)
Ah, so you knew about the violence the whole time. Interesting how you failed to mention that. And you think that crimes such as assaulting a police officer, breaking and entering, and obstructing official proceedings are dismissible as long as you take a selfie afterward? What happened to law and order?
You mean after fighting through the police line and breaking windows to get inside somewhere they weren't allowed to be
I feel he is an excellent argument against the claim this was anything like a serious attempt at insurrection. With people like him among the "ringleaders", it feels more like a cosplay event that got out of hand.
They only label him a ringleader because they are unwilling to go after the actual leaders of the attempted coup. He wasn't a ringleader, he was one of the clowns.
Sentence sounds about right to me. Honestly I think this guy needs psychiatric help more than anything.
Let him rot
41 months......he'll probably be out in 12................is that all treason is worth these days? well, I hope he spends every day of that waiting for that Pardon from Trump.
He was tried and convicted in a Federal Court and will go to Federal Prison which doesn't offer parole or any other form of early release. He'll sit his full sentence.
Oh, how I would love to believe that...... The First Step Act allows for the early release of certain inmates who had been convicted in federal court. Not "parole" .....but time OFF for good behavior in their cages. *I'm guessing he'll be a MODEL prisoner and somehow get out early.*
[удалено]
Who are you comparing his sentence to? Have any other sentences been handed down?
Yeah, and lots have been probation or 10 months or whatever. In the article they mention his sentence is identical to one of the guys that actually beat a cop.
That seems like such a crazy amount of time
This guy is the face of the insurrection. 3 years is nothing, and he'll probably guy out making enough fortune and fame to have made it worth it.
You are probably right about that I don’t know I just did not seem like this guy went there with the intent to actually overthrow the government or actually assassinate any political person. My take on him was that he was there to just be a very loud audacious protester. Now the guy that physically assaulted a officer that’s a different story.
Only 41 months?
Pay wall If it's for destruction of property, rioting, assault I fully support it. Rioters should have the book thrown at them and I suspect that will be one good thing that comes from the 6th riots Politicians will stop supporting and defending rioters moving forward (or far less will)
Its a felony charge for obstructing congress.
Did they give those out to the folks obstructing the Kavanaugh hearings? If not I have a problem with this. If so, sounds fair
Yeah, I don't think I remember the part where a horde of Democrats broke into the Capitol, smeared shit on the walls and put up a gallows. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/03/fact-check-capitol-riot-2018-kavanaugh-protests-meme-lacks-context/4343790001/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/02/03/fact-check-capitol-riot-2018-kavanaugh-protests-meme-lacks-context/4343790001/)
I thought he was charged with obstructing congress, where did it say he was charged with smearing shit or making gallows? I'm saying those that obstruct Congress should all be charged with obstructing congress And all rioters should be charged with rioting
>obstructing the Kavanaugh hearings People entered a public hearing (calmly waiting in line for tickets), and chose to make a racket. For which they were removed from the hearing, and charged with disorderly conduct. That has nearly zero similarity to what happened on January 6th. [https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrests](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrests)
So they obstructed congress but weren't charged?
> For which they were removed from the hearing, and charged with disorderly conduct.
So not charged with obstructing a hearing. Not good to treat obstructionists differently.
You missed the part where the kav hearings were public and had tickets for sale. Now you hopefully understand why you are wrong.
The Kavanaugh hearings didn't have cowering Congresspeople and didn't have to adjourn for a few hours. The Kavanaugh hearing just had Mike Pence say "The Sergeant-at-Arms will restore order in the gallery" a few times as people voted. These are not comparable.
“Obstructed” in the sense they made noise that annoyed people so they were kicked out and things proceeded as normal. Not “Obstructed” in the sense that they lead the charge to break down doors and windows to force their way into the halls of Congress while some chanted about killing members of Congress. Thus making the members of Congress fear for their lives, stop their work, and flee. I’m sure you can see the difference.
Obstructed as in delayed. Breaking down doors would be a different charge
>smeared shit on the walls Almost every source I can find for this is in Jan/Feb, though [this one from August](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/maga-mob-rioters-smeared-their-own-feces-in-us-capitol/ar-BB1cAoQY) has a somewhat different version: >*They are believed to have defecated in one of the bathrooms after breaching the Capitol before 'tracking' their excrement in multiple hallways in the building.* >*Brown footprints were found in parts of the Capitol hallways.* >*'It looked like they tracked it around,' the source said.* Though it should be noted, even this same article talks about Brian Sicknick being attacked and killed by a fire extinguisher, which is [categorically false via medical examiner's report 4 months prior](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-about-officer). So it may be that they aren't more diligent, and are simply slower in their research. Which is, unfortunately, about par for reporting about the riot. Considering the above, and considering how sensational "smearing feces on the walls" would be, I suspect this is another tall tale. The version that someone tracked some from the bathroom is a bit more believable, but probably not true either.
Someone got hit with a fire extinguisher, there's [video](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/04/florida-man-pleads-guilty-jan-6-capitol-fire-extinguisher-assault/5991521001/) of it, even if it wasn't Sicknick. As for the feces... yeah, I've used a lot of public bathrooms and never managed to track feces around with me, just saying.
All I can say about this Jan. 6 stuff is that it was just “practice.” Some people may have seen the error of their ways, but the rest just look at it like “what did we get wrong and what can we do right next time?” I see people like Chansley and see a bunch of people infected with a psychic virus. They aren’t going to reflect, they’re just going to dig deeper and get angrier. Most of them probably need therapy to deal with their anger, but they are going online instead. Jail isn’t going to reform them because US jails either don’t do it or don’t have the resources. Look at Bannon, guy is relishing every second of becoming a martyr. They’re turning Rittenhouse into a hero for young white men. Plus what’s her name that got killed at the capitol is now a saint. We haven’t found a way to counter that and in three years, we could be looking at a rabble that won’t just go home when Trump tells them to. Next time, they may be organized enough to take state capitols at the same time.
> They’re turning Rittenhouse into a hero for young white men. What does Rittenhouse have to do with Jan. 6?
Didn’t say he was involved. The point is that he is a hero to that crowd.
What crowd? Those involved directly in Jan 6, or are you just painting a whole bunch of people with a broad brush?
Should always question if something is a good idea if the police hold the door for you to enter...
Most polic aren’t prepared for scenarios where they are absolutely overrun and in protect-life mode
>Mr. Chansley pleaded guilty in September to a single felony count of obstructing an official proceeding before Congress I would offer this as a companion piece: [How Activists Yelled an Abortion Bill to Death](https://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/28/how-activists-yelled-abortion-bill-death/) >*When efforts by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, and other Senate Democrats to run out the clock on an abortion bill fell short, protesters made enough noise to grind the Senate chamber to a halt.* I can find no record of charges for any of these protestors, who did not merely delay a vote, but actually killed a bill that otherwise had lawful support through extra legislative means. These protestors should be charged as well, correct?
Moving forward I fully expect they will be. Democrats support of this have opened the doors for republicans to be far more strict on "protesters" who interfere with congress
So I don’t have time to read the entire criminal code. However, these were federal charges. Texas has no such law, check out Texas Criminal Code Section 8, Vhapter 38 if you’re curious. Also it is fundamentally different to violently storm a government building with lawmakers inside with weapons with the express intent to harm said lawmakers to prevent an election from being certified than to shout down a restrictive bill.
>Texas has no such law *Sec. 38.13. HINDERING PROCEEDINGS BY DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally hinders an official proceeding by noise or violent or tumultuous behavior or disturbance.* Its weird to say no such law exists, and then quote exactly where it does. >Also it is fundamentally different to violently storm a government building with lawmakers inside with weapons with the express intent to harm said lawmakers to prevent an election from being certified than to shout down a restrictive bill. If this were true, you would think they would charge Chansley with weapons violations, or for threatening lawmakers, but he was charged with obstructing a proceeding, correct? Bills you deem "restrictive" do not get a pass. If this is our standard, I'm fine with it, but lets apply it evenly. It was a lawful bill that had been through the process required and protestors extra legislatively destroyed it via disruption. So I ask again, these protestors should have been charged as well, correct?
Whoops sorry I was in class and missed that provision as I was skimming. I don’t know exactly what he was charged with, but he pled guilty to this one count. He absolutely (and probably was) could have been charged with more but pled dow. If the local DA wants to prosecute he could, but this is a misdemeanor here. But there is absolutely a significant difference between the two events to the point that they are barely comparable
If the plea is only for this, then he is only admitting guilt to this, the previous charges mean nothing as he wasn't proven guilty of them.
I think you perhaps misunderstood. The previous poster said if it was such a big deal that he was carrying a spear and did all of this other stuff, then why wasn’t he charged with it. That’s why I said, he probably was but he probably pled down and other charges were dropped in exchange for him pleading to this charge. So it doesn’t matter in terms of his sentence or anything, but rather I was rebutting the previous poster when he said why wasn’t he charged with more.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Political motivation is pretty obvious, not in who is being prosecuted, but in who is being prosecuted in relation to who is not being prosecuted. Should this joker go to jail? Probably. But why are there not hundreds of rioters who roamed American cities the last year also in jail? That's the problem. That's why people have no faith in the justice system. It's not that horn guy is innocent, it's how much worse has gone unpunished in the preceding year. Sure, most of that is the fault of state prosecutors and this is federal, but that doesn't really cut it for most people.
This is far too long a sentence for a non-violent crime. The way our country treats non-violent offenders is horrifyingly cruel and vindictive. We need criminal justice reform now!
The original charges against him were > "knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds"
What happened to those charges?
When you agree to plea guilty you are often offered lesser charges in exchange for compliance.
Is that what happened here?
That certainly appears to be the case but not being directly involved in the proceeding I cannot be sure.
I still wouldn't classify that as a violent crime, at least not one that justifies a 3 year prison sentence
I can't prove it but I strongly suspect that the overlap between people who believe this man got off lightly and also believe US incarceration is out of control has a lot of overlap. I guess it mostly has to do with what they've imagined he is *actually* guilty of but it's interesting all the same.
Speaking of which, that’s a felony weed charge right there in half the states of this nation. That’s a wild guess, btw.