So what? He was guilty of a crime, and now he's doing time.
So... you agree that being in front of a podium is not a violent act.
Not for me or millions of others. It just makes the police complicit. Being led into a bank by the president to rob it isn't exculpatory, either. It's aiding and abetting if there was no prior plan, and criminal conspiracy if there was. Everybody that facilitated the crimes of January 6th should be brought to justice.
You would pursue charges against the police officers accompanying Chansley?!? IMO, this throw-everyone-in-jail mentality is dangerous.
It remains a mystery to me why so many Americans want this covered up rather than investigated and prosecuted as a serious crime.
How is revealing exculpatory evidence not the opposite of a cover-up?
No one is claiming it was. But if he was part of an organized conspiracy to break into tthe Capitol then any violence done by others would apply to him. I suspect he was just there as part of Trump's election fraud.
As far as I am aware conspiracy is not something Chansley was charged with. If you have additional evidence that Chansley was also part of a conspiracy, then you should share it.
No it isn't. That he was INSIDE the building illegally with others IS the crime of obsructing the official proceeding. The members of congress had to stop their work due to him and others breaking into the building. As explained the police were overwhelmed and at some point worked to get the rioters out, as the video showed. The police could not arrest the people who were inside because they feared more violence, and had no where to put a 1000 people. Fortunately many of the rioters took video and pictures and the law enforcement have been able to track them down.
It's entirely possible that you don't understand what exculpatory evidence is even when it is carefully explained to you. Here is a link for you to go study:
Cornell Law School: Exculpatory Evidence.
Well if a person lies then they are a liar. I don't call people liars unless I can confirm they are lying. Carlson is an entertainer that has very low ethics by making many untrue suggestions and statements, but he is making quite a bit of money. He plants a lot of fasle ideas by using tons of innuendo.
If you have evidence that the video footage is a lie, then please share it. Otherwise, don't claim that you only call people liars when you can confirm they are lying.
Him being in the Capitol was the crime. His presence in the Capitol, along with many hundreds of others, resulted in Congress stopping their proceeding, thus the crime. You don't seem to understand that him being IN THE BUILDING was the crime. How the police corralled all the rioters is irrelevant to them committing a crime as soon as they broke in.
Chansley Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building was only one of the crimes he was charged with. Also, what police do to corral people does matter.
The guy was an idiot to trust Trump in the first place. He was an idiot again by travelling to the Capitol to protest an election that was secure and valid. He was stupid on a thrid level by following others into the Capitol. If this guy has mental health problems then his parents should seek legal guardianship and not allow him to make his own poor choices. And again, it does not matter how the poilce corralled the rioters after they broke in, that these people broke into the building WAS the crime.
Your rebuttal consists of what-about-Trumpism, Chansley-was-an-idiot ad hominem, and it-doesn't-matter-what police-did. It's like you didn't read what I wrote at all.
Well he was seen in the building, and that was the crime. So there is no excupatory evidence that he wasn't IN the building, which WAS the crime. Do you follow me here? The obstruction of the official proceeding was caused when rioters broke in. Chandley was one of them He was given what, 40 months? That should be enough time for him to ponder how to not trust conmen like Trump again.
Go back and read about exculpatory evidence.
You mean that the cherry picked video shows that. So what? A cherry picked video does not qualify as evidence. Just because someone is nice at times does not mean that he was not violent elsewhere. It was shown on the very first page of this thread that Carson cherry picked his scenes. Sorry, it is not exculpatory.
Inculpatory evidence aginst Chansley is cherry-picked. However, the footage Tucker showed was not seen during Chansley's trial. The prosecution had an obligation to provide the complete footage to the defense (which they failed to do). The footage was also requested in writing by the defense, but the defense did not receive the footage. By your logic, cherry-picked inculpatory evidence of Chansley doesn't count as evidence either.