Hitler was kind to his dog

Proves there was no Holocaust!

In tonight’s thrilling episode, Tucker Carlson will show security video from a camera on the south side of Chicago that picked up images of shoppers paying for their merchandise. It proves there is no crime in Chicago! Lori Lightfoot was robbed by the Deep State!

Hidden video shows the real story!

‘Nothing exculpatory’

About Tucker Carlson’s whitewash of January 6, Fox contributor and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in National Review writes:

As for the videos thus far published, which focus on Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon shaman,”… we should be mindful that what is new to us is not necessarily new to him. 

Knowing what the proof against him showed, Chansley, represented by experienced defense counsel, voluntarily pled guilty to obstructing a congressional proceeding. His lawyers would have insisted on being shown any potentially exculpatory evidence prior to the guilty plea, and the prosecutors would have been obliged to produce it. I presume Chansley knew about this video, or at least images just like it; after all, he was in the Capitol and knew what he experienced there, including his interactions with the police.

And he pled guilty anyway, because there is nothing exculpatory on the video clips that Carlson has published. …

Tucker Carlson cherry picked January 6 tapes

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, said Carlson’s depiction was as “inexcusable” and compared it to those who downplayed the firesand “devastation” during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020 following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

“I was down there and I saw maybe a few tourists, a few people who got caught up in things. But when you see police barricades breached, when you see police officers assaulted, all of that.”

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota, said he was in the Capitol on Jan. 6 and firmly rejected Carlson’s portrayal of that day as “some rowdy peaceful protest of Boy Scouts.”

Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., also rejected Carlson’s comments that the day was peaceful. “I was there on Jan. 6. I saw what happened. I saw the aftermath. There was violence on Jan. 6,” Rounds told reporters.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “I’m not interested in whitewashing January 6.”

Republican Sen.  John Thune (SD) also rejected Carlson’s narrative, with Thune telling CNN: “There were a lot of people in the Capitol at that time that were scared for their lives.”

Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger Carlson’s show was “filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the January 6th attack.”

It was not peaceful. It was an abomination,”

— Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)

Why didn’t capitol police tackle the Shaman?

Andrew McCarthy answers:

Tucker Carlson and others who sympathize with the rioters and nonviolent demonstrators make much of Chansley’s being “escorted” by police in the video images.

You’d almost think Chansley was the only demonstrator wandering around the Capitol. Of course, we know he was one of hundreds. Police are trained to de-escalate violent or potentially violent situations when doing so is practicable. When they are grossly outnumbered in powder-keg situations, they are trained not to provoke people who are not menacing them, lest they needlessly ignite mob violence. 

Blaska’s Bottom Line: Most of the BLM protesters in Kenosha 2020 really were peaceful — most of the time.

What do YOU think they would have done had they found Pelosi?

because they did find her husband!

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Donald Trump, January 6 insurrection, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Hitler was kind to his dog

  1. Pingback: Hitler was kind to his dog – Wisconsin Family News

  2. William Tyroler says:

    I generally assume that Andrew McCarthy will be incisive, and he doesn’t disappoint:

    “To the extent that the media–Democrat critique is that Carlson is an opinion journalist who is apt to present a skewed picture, this is the price they must have known they’d have to pay for the January 6 committee. That panel was a blatantly partisan, monochromatically anti-Trump political exhibition that presented the country with a skewed picture, eschewing cross-examination and perspectives that deviated from its relentless theme: “Trump’s incitement to insurrection had our democracy hanging by a thread.”

    For myself, as I said about a zillion times during the committee’s proceedings, I’d have preferred for the committee to have been bipartisan; to have conducted traditional, adversarial hearings; and to have released full transcripts and videos of the witness testimony that it sliced and diced in its public presentations. That way, we could have judged for ourselves whether those presentations were fair and accurate.”

    Yes, had the J6 Committee done that, we could have judged for ourselves the accuracy of the presentation. But it didn’t, leaving that task (albeit over objection) to Carlson. The latter deserves thanks for doing so, regardless of whether one agrees with *his* spin which, even if exaggerated nonetheless offers a necessary corrective to the cynical propagandizing of the Committee. As to the latter, McCarthy offers this worthwhile perspective:

    “This narrative has always been hyperbolic. Chansley — one of the highest-profile members of the mob — was sentenced, quite appropriately, to 41 months’ imprisonment. Forty-one months, not 41 years or 410 years (i.e., not the kind of sentence meted out to terrorists, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombers who got sentences of 240 years). Chansley willfully impeded a significant congressional session, and he thus deserved every bit of the less-than-three-and-a-half-year term he got. But “democracy hanging by a thread”? Get a grip.

    This was a riot. It was not an insurrection — the word Abraham Lincoln applied to the Civil War, and the word for a federal crime that none of the 900 defendants has been charged with. The riot was condemnable but utterly ineffectual.

    The mindlessly repeated refrain that the riot “prevented the peaceful transition of power” is overwrought. The transition of power was never in doubt. Was the peace disturbed? Yes . . . that’s why so many people have been prosecuted, some for serious offenses, and many others for trivial crimes that the Justice Department would normally decline to charge. But there was so little damage done to the Capitol that Congress was able to reconvene a few hours after order was restored. It promptly affirmed Biden’s victory, as it was always certain to do. No one tried to blow up the Capitol. No one tried to mass-kill the security forces. Our Constitution held firm, and there was never any reason to suspect it wouldn’t. Our democracy was not realistically imperiled, much less at the precipice of annihilation.”

    As for Chansley, McCarthy has some things to say that I think quite wrong. That disagreement is worth exploring, but separately. But i did want to urge caution in reading too much into his seeming disdain for Chansley.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

      Well put, WT!

      Overwrought? You mean (shudder!) it wasn’t WORSE than the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, 9-11, or (gasp!) hammer toe, painful rectal itch, or genital herpes…?

      Funniest thing; ALL those charges…ALL those convictions…yet NARY_A_ONE for…(drum roll)…Insurrection?

      Anywho, this word INSURRECTION they keep using, The Gotch doesn’t think it means what they think it means.

      The Gotch

      Liked by 2 people

      • One Eye says:

        “INSURRECTION!®” means only one thing:

        Biden/Harris 2024

        Liked by 1 person

        • Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

          Jeepers O E, The Gotch is power bummin’ enough after a très lackluster performance by his WESconsin Badger Men’s BB team; no need to pile on….

          The Gotch

          Like

        • One Eye says:

          Cheer up Gotch! Always remember: Hitler’s dog.

          Like

        • Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

          Always remember: Hitler’s dog.

          Thanks. FWIW The Gotch finds more solace with the fact that, lousy as he was, der Führer was still a more accomplished artist than DementiaJoKe’s drug addled, ‘Ho schtuppin’ son Hunty…

          The Gotch

          Like

    • David Blaska says:

      Sorry, Wm Tyroler, but seditious conspiracy is the legal term for insurrection.

      Like

      • richard lesiak says:

        BURNED

        Like

      • William Tyroler says:

        Dave, you favorably cited Andy McCarthy and I simply quoted his piece to the effect that what occurred was a “riot,” “not an insurrection.” Your quarrel is with the author of the piece you promoted.

        Liked by 1 person

        • David Blaska says:

          And those who agree with him. Do you?

          Like

        • Wm. Tyroler says:

          “David Blaska says:
          And those who agree with him. Do you?”

          Thanks for asking, David. Turn it around in the first instance: why unqualifiedly tout McC if you disagree with his fundamental premise (it was a riot, not an insurrection)? But as for me, I’m disinclined to go down that rabbit hole. If pressed, I’d say I’m content to agree with McC, and others, who are much more conversant with relevant principles than I. And the idea that a disorganized, *unarmed* rabble of a few hundred malcontents mounted an “insurrection” is hyperbole that only undermines criticism of them. Fact is, no-one was charged with “insurrection.” No-one. I believe the closest charge actually lodged was “obstructing,” which is of course quite different. McC explains:

          “The mindlessly repeated refrain that the riot “prevented the peaceful transition of power” is overwrought. The transition of power was never in doubt. Was the peace disturbed? Yes . . . that’s why so many people have been prosecuted, some for serious offenses, and many others for trivial crimes that the Justice Department would normally decline to charge. But there was so little damage done to the Capitol that Congress was able to reconvene a few hours after order was restored. It promptly affirmed Biden’s victory, as it was always certain to do. No one tried to blow up the Capitol. No one tried to mass-kill the security forces. Our Constitution held firm, and there was never any reason to suspect it wouldn’t. Our democracy was not realistically imperiled, much less at the precipice of annihilation.”

          If someone wants to argue that Trump was playing with fire, that he bears at least moral responsibility for the unsettling spectacle of a rabble obstructing the business of Congress … I won’t take issue with that. It’s a serious, arguably disqualifying criticism that makes him unfit for office: why distract from it by arguing whether he’s responsible for “insurrection” rather than “obstructing.” I don’t mean to suggest that I think Trump was guilty of a crime, I don’t think he was. Nor do I think that matters: “What he did was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.”

          Like

        • David Blaska says:

          It was all a mistake? A blunder? At every step of the way he tried to overturn an election his own campaign staff told him had been lost. Every court ruled he lost. He tried the fake electors scheme. Tried to get the Georgia secretary of state to “find him” 11 thousand votes. Tried to get the attorney general’s office to threaten states Biden won. Tried to get his vice president to unilaterally overturn the election. Urged the mob to “Fight Like Hell.” Sat back as the mob chanted Stop the Steal and Hang Mike Pence.

          That’s a lot of mistakes, Mr. Tyroler.

          Like

        • Wm. Tyroler says:

          “It was all a mistake? A blunder? At every step of the way he tried to overturn an election his own campaign staff told him had been lost,” etc. Perhaps I blundered myself. The “worse than a crime” quote is Talleyrand’s withering criticism of Napoleon after the latter indeed committed a crime (the murder of a political opponent), a serious miscalculation as I recall that caused self-inflicted political harm. I did think my meaning clear when I preceded the quote with: “It’s a serious, arguably disqualifying criticism that makes him unfit for office[.]” But I perhaps should have elided the “blunder” quote. My comment’s meaning is unchanged with that quote removed. More precisely, I don’t take issue with anything in your reply.

          Like

      • David wrote, “but seditious conspiracy is the legal term for insurrection”

        That’s not accurate.

        There are various definitions of insurrection out there and whether they are “legal” definitions or laymen definitions is debatable; however, there is only one real source of the ultimate “legal” definition in the United States for such things, it’s called the United States Code (USC).

        The definitions for what we are talking about here are can be found in the CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES of the United States Code.

        Below are the related legal definitions:

        18 USC §2383: Rebellion or Insurrection
        Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

        18 USC §2384: Seditious Conspiracy
        If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

        So eliminating all the other various definitions and using the ultimate legal code in the United States of America, by definition, Seditious Conspiracy is not part of the legal definition of Insurrection they are in fact completely separate with their own unique definitions.

        Liked by 3 people

        • David Blaska says:

          Yes, thank you. But the hairs you split are the difference between first-degree and second-degree murder. Explains the nearly identical wording of the two statutes.

          Like

        • David Blaska wrote, “Yes, thank you. But…”

          You’re welcome, but… 😉

          David Blaska wrote, “…the hairs you split are the difference between first-degree and second-degree murder. “

          Nope, not splitting hairs in the slightest, simply stating the facts as they actually exist.

          David Blaska wrote, “Explains the nearly identical wording of the two statutes.”

          I don’t think they are nearly identical, I think they are unique and that uniqueness is the reason why they are two completely separate codes instead of one as you incorrectly correlated.

          We’re just going to have to agree to disagree yet again.

          Like

  3. William Tyroler says:

    And what about Chansley? As David’s excerpts indicate (Andrew) McCarthy dismisses the exculpatory value of the videos: “there is nothing exculpatory on the video clips …. (T)he charge was that Chansley obstructed Congress … (and) the just-released video is the antithesis of exculpatory evidence; it shows Chansley committing the crime charged.” In other words, it’s not exculpatory because it doesn’t defeat Chansley’s guilt — but this is blinkered. The bedrock test for exculpatory evidence is whether it “is material either to guilt *or* punishment.” Jonathan Turley makes the point that the new videos are indeed highly relevant to Chansley’s punishment, https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/08/did-the-qanon-shaman-get-the-shaft-new-evidence-raises-new-questions-on-the-chansley-case/:

    “However, the QAnon Shaman was led through the Capitol by officers. Defense counsel could have noted that his “obstruction” in going to an unoccupied Senate floor was facilitated by officers. While the police were clearly trying to deescalate the situation after the Capitol was breached, this is evidence of how Chansley came to the Senate. Indeed, his interaction with officers could have impacted how he viewed the gravity of his conduct. It certainly would have been material to the court in sentencing the conduct. …

    It is not clear, however, if Judge Lamberth will find the failure to disclose this evidence troubling and worthy of inquiry. None of this means that Chansley should not have been given jail time. Indeed, it is appropriate to sentence rioters to greater than average time due to the assault on our constitutional process.

    Yet, it is hard to believe that Judge Lamberth would have given 41 months to a nonviolent, first offender who was led through the Capitol by police officers to the floor. This was a Navy veteran who pleaded guilty to the crime.

    The role of Congress in withholding this footage is disgraceful and wrong. The Congress and the January 6th Committee knew of this footage and its relevance to a pending criminal case. Yet, they refused to make it public. Instead, the January 6th Committee hired a former ABC producer to put on a made-for-television production of highly edited images for public consumption. Countervailing evidence or images were consistently excluded and witnesses appeared as virtual props to support high-quality video packages. …

    I hold little sympathy for Chansley or the others arrested on that day. I was highly critical of President Donald Trump’s remarks before the riot.

    However, it is hard to see this withheld evidence and not conclude that the Qanon Shaman got the shaft on his sentencing.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • David Blaska says:

      What was withheld? There could be video of Adolf Hitler feeding Milk Bone doggie treats to his german shepherd. That does not negate the Holocaust. (Sorry about violating Godwin’s law.)

      Like

      • Wm. Tyroler says:

        You’re right: that’s an inapt analogy. But if I wanted to follow suit with my own Godwin’s Law violation, I’d liken the orchestrated hysteria to the reaction to the Reichstag Fire.

        What was withheld was documentary, indisputable evidence that Chansley peaceably entered the Capitol, and more: he “was led through the Capitol by officers,” arguably thereby “impact(ing) how he viewed the gravity of his conduct” (quoting Turley). I’m not claiming this evidence was relevant (“material” in the language of the applicable test) to guilt; as to that, I simply don’t know and have no opinion. But it is clearly relevant to “punishment” (i.e., length of his sentence), as Turley persuasively showed. This is a *very serious* breach of prosecutorial ethics, withholding exculpatory evidence. It’s also an abuse of governmental power, one that all should be deeply concerned about.

        Like

        • David Blaska says:

          “Chansley peaceably entered the Capitol” ??? !!!

          Not even Tucker Carlson could lie about that. Evidence presented in court showed Chansley entering the building after a fellow rioter shattered and crawled through a window. In fact, Chansley himself testified to that. …”

          Like

        • Wm. Tyroler says:

          “Not even Tucker Carlson could lie about that” (i.e., entering peaceably). I haven’t seen the videos, but I trust Jonathan Turley enough to rely on his characterization, which is:

          “That portrayal of Chansley would have been more difficult to maintain if the Court was allowed to see images of Chansley casually walking through a door of the Capitol with hundreds of other protesters and then being escorted by officers through the Capitol. At no point is he violent and at no point is he shown destroying evidence. Instead, he dutifully follows the officers who facilitate his going eventually to the unoccupied Senate floor.”

          Disclosure of this suppressed evidence wouldn’t necessarily have resulted in less than a 41-month sentence, but that’s just the point: it might well have. An aside: it’s possible to think that Chansley indeed was guilty, that the entire episode was horrific, but that the prosecuting authority violated Chansley’s due process right to a fair sentencing. Not just possible, but desirable. And possible that the prosecution did not just violated his right, but committed a serious ethical breach in the process. These are matters that can and should be discussed independent of whether Chansley actions that day were criminal, or whether Trump is undeserving of elected office.

          Like

  4. Steve says:

    the fact that the committee was partisan is NO excuse for Tucker’s excess. If you don’t like it when they do it, you should not like when we do the same.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Let’s talk about the Jacob Chansley case for a moment.

    First and foremost Jacob Chansley and his attorney did not, I repeat did not, have access to the videos that McCarthy released to Carlson and that fact was confirmed this morning by Jonathan Turley who called Jacob Chansley’s current attorney and asked him directly. The government intentionally withheld the additional videos from the public until McCarthy took over as Speaker of the House and purposefully released them. Why would the government do this, it’s because the videos undermine the government and the political left’s narrative of January 6th.

    This is directly from Jonathan Turley’s blog post this morning…

    “When the [new video] footage aired, I wrote a column raising the question of whether this evidence was known to or shared with the Chansley’s defense. After all, he was portrayed as a violent offender by the Justice Department at his sentencing.

    It now appears that the answer is no. I spoke with Chansley’s new counsel, Bill Shipley, and confirmed that defense counsel did not have this material.”

    The other videos contain relevant evidence of Jacob Chansley’s behavior on that day, all that behavior mattered then and it matters now. Jacob Chansley could not get a fair trial under the conditions that the government prosecuted him because they intentionally withheld video evidence that could give reasonable doubt to the government narrative against Chansley in jury trial. Chansley likely had no reasonable choice but to confess to whatever the government dictated.

    Additionally the confession that Jacob Chansley signed was a full of implications and innuendo. I haven’t seen any video yet of Chansley engaged in any violence of any kind. I would have never, ever signed such an obviously skewed confession narrative with all the direct and indirect implications towards violence that it contained, it was as if they were getting him to sign a guilty plea for things others did so they could throw him in jail instead of issuing a simple misdemeanor trespassing ticket.

    Three things are very clear about the Chansley case, I got these from an actual lawyer:
    1. It’s very clear now that there was a Brady violation which will likely result in an immediate reversal on appeal.

    2. The prosecutor should be disciplined for prosecutorial misconduct.

    3. The defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel.

    The facts of this case don’t necessarily apply to all the other cases of individuals involved on January 6th, each case must be taken on its own merits and facts. Punish people for what they did not what others did.

    The government did in fact withhold evidence regarding the behavior of those they were/are prosecuting and there is absolutely nothing right, ethical or moral about withholding evidence from the defense.

    This is a huge scandal and it’s going to haunt the political left and the Biden administration for the next couple of years.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. David wrote, “What do YOU think they would have done had they found Pelosi?
    because they did find her husband!”

    No “they” didn’t find her husband, a lunatic did. In my opinion, this is an unfair correlation comparison. The person that attacked Pelosi’s husband was a lunatic and implying that the January 6th rioters would have done the same or worse is an extrapolation. Rhetoric that a protesting mob screams is not comparable to a lunatic actually wielding a hammer.

    Liked by 3 people

    • richard lesiak says:

      Would they have really hung Pence?

      Like

    • David Blaska says:

      “Hang Mike Pence” was just a fun thing to say?

      Like

      • David,
        You know good and well that it’s mob rhetoric. I remember some very similar rhetoric from the anti-Walker mob at the Capitol when I took a tour of the Act 10 protests and I didn’t take that seriously either. There was plenty of similar mob rhetoric during the social justice warrior protests a couple of years ago too.

        It’s BS venting rhetoric.

        Liked by 1 person

        • P.S. I’m not justifying the rhetoric, it’s wrong and I’ve said so many times.

          Like

        • rhetoric builds gallows?

          Like

        • richard lesiak wrote, “rhetoric builds gallows?”

          Nope.

          Richard get you head out of the progressive narrative clouds and come down to reality. I saw that “gallows” and that facade structure of a “gallows” wouldn’t hang a damn thing, it looked like a theatrical set piece that would imply a gallows, not a functioning gallows. I’ve built hundreds and hundreds of theatrical set pieces around the Madison area for various theatrical groups and I recognize that type of facade construction.

          Liked by 1 person

    • David Blaska says:

      Words have meaning, Steve. Someone should remind Tr•mp of that fact. His “rhetoric” somehow (who could have guessed?) inspired a mob to smash their way into the Capitol. Where did the lunatic who attacked Paul Pelosi get the idea? It is no accident that ALL of Madison’s and Kenosha’s riots grew out of “peaceful protests” with incendiary language.

      What makes J/6 2021 an insurrection is that — unlike the random destruction of a riot — it had a specific purpose. The insurrectionists told us so: “Stop The Steal!” And they succeeded, for about 10 hours, anyway.

      Like

      • David wrote, “Words have meaning, Steve.”

        You know good and well that I know that and I prove that routinely when I forcefully chastise others for their misuse of the English language in comment threads online. “Words have meaning” is why I don’t justify the rhetoric of a hysterical mob, it’s wrong and I’ve said so many times.

        The difference between hysterical mob rhetoric and the actions of a lunatic is that one is literally just rhetoric the other is physical action. In the United States of America we don’t criminalize rhetoric, especially in protests, due to the freedom of speech that is enumerated in the United States Constitution, well at least we didn’t used to until the USA was infected with a bunch of hive-minded anti-constitutional totalitarians that want to criminalize speech – it’s Orwellian nonsense.

        David asked, “Where did the lunatic who attacked Paul Pelosi get the idea?”

        I don’t know, maybe he learned via the trickle down effect on the streets, he’s a freaking lunatic irrationally justifying his violence, he’s a violent criminal. You cannot, I repeat cannot, condemn the whole or predict the actions of the whole because of the actions of one lunatic, to do so is all sorts of wrong. Remember the immoral notion of pre-crime portrayed in the movie “Minority Report”, they condemned individuals to incarceration before any criminal action took place, this is slippery slope reasoning.

        David wrote, “It is no accident that ALL of Madison’s and Kenosha’s riots grew out of “peaceful protests” with incendiary language.”

        So is it the rhetoric that’s the root cause and should be considered criminal or is it the actual actions of violent minded individuals that are criminal? I heard the same incendiary language and so did you and neither one of us engaged in the criminal rioting activities as a result – how can that be? It’s all about individual choice. The rhetoric and/or the mob mentality did not force anyone to engage in criminal activity, period.

        David wrote, “What makes J/6 2021 an insurrection is that — unlike the random destruction of a riot — it had a specific purpose. The insurrectionists told us so: “Stop The Steal!” And they succeeded, for about 10 hours, anyway.”

        Remember your own words, “Words have meaning…”

        Reread the legal definitions I posted above, one of them specifically contains this passage, “…or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States…” which literally describes what you just wrote and exactly what some of the rioters did. That definition is exactly why some of the rioters in DC on January 6th were charged with Seditious Conspiracy instead of Insurrection, the definition of Seditious Conspiracy literally legally applies to the actions of the individuals and the definition of Insurrection does not literally legally apply to the actions of the individuals. I’m not here to try to convince you on this, again I’m simply stating the facts as they exist.

        Like

        • David Blaska says:

          Steve! We don’t have to go to Paul Pelosi’s mansion in San Francisco to find idiots inflamed by rhetoric. Tr•mp himself wound up the crowd (with help from John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani) on 1-6-21. It is a well established principal of First Amendment Law that certain speech — yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, for one — is criminally actionable. That’s why Dominion is suing Fox News for defamation. And will win.

          Like

        • David wrote, It is a well established principal of First Amendment Law that certain speech — yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, for one — is criminally actionable.”

          Are you saying that Trump’s speech on January 6th was legally equivalent to yelling fire in a crowded theater?

          Like

        • David Blaska says:

          Now I AM puzzled. You just wrote “the definition of Seditious Conspiracy literally legally applies to the actions of the individuals and the definition of Insurrection does not literally legally apply to the actions of the individuals.”

          But the definition of insurrection (you provided!) reads: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto …”

          The key word is “Whoever.”

          My surmise is the feds chose seditious conspiracy because it’s an easier standard to prove.

          Like

        • They didn’t choose insurrection because it could not be proven because it did not apply.

          Like

        • Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

          It is a well established principal of First Amendment Law that certain speech — yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater, for one — is criminally actionable.

          Not exactly.

          One actually may yell FIRE in a crowded theater…provided the theater in question happens to be, you know, like…ON FIRE; and that (to borrow a phrase) “well established principal of First Amendment Law” has been trotted out in defense of censorship for a looooong time.

          An interesting (IMO) read on the subject: Three Generations Of A HACKNEYED APOLOGIA FOR CENSORSHIP Are Enough

          The Gotch

          Like

      • David wrote, “Someone should remind Tr•mp of that fact.”

        Trump is a narcissist and has a loose cannon unethical mouth and it doesn’t matter what anyone tells him, he’s going to spout his narcissist nonsense endlessly and as long as the media covers him he’ll continue. The only way to disarm Trump’s mouth is to take away his public platform and he’ll fade away because he’s not getting the positive and negative feedback he wants. Everyone, including the media, needs to simply walk away from him and not cover anything he says or does, that’s how to disarm the mouth of a narcissist.

        Yes I know that in today’s political environment that’s damn near impossible.

        Like

  7. One Eye says:

    It’s “Insurrection!®” all the way down!

    Those J6 folks not only brained Pelosi but also shot those Americans in Mexico!

    Brought to you by Biden/ Harris 2024.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. One Eye says:

    Judge Janet commercial claims Dan Kelly was in on J6.

    Damn Republican Insurrectionist. Also, Hitler’s dog!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Kooter says:

    Was kinda hoping the videos would move Blaska off the Insurrection Ledge. I guess not.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Madtownforsure says:

    Why is our local media not reporting the increased crime in the city? Maybe so Our Lori Lightfoot oops, mayor Satya gets reelected perhaps? Whoops again, can’t say that here, sorry.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Mark Lemberger says:

    Who must fear the truth?

    Liked by 1 person

    • David Blaska says:

      What truth is being feared? That the insurrectionists snapped selfies? That some of them battered police? That Sidney Powell was right about Hugo Chavez and Dominion voting machines? That Tucker Carlson pursues ratings, not truth?

      Like

  12. One Eye says:

    Tell the Republicans you don’t like insurrections:

    Biden/Harris 2024

    Like

  13. David Blaska says:

    Great discussion about free speech and insurrection. Do we not think that law enforcement should take seriously statements like “Where are the f * * * ing traitors? Drag them out by the f * * * -ing hair” — especially when uttered by a mob that has just busted windows to invade the Capitol?

    [video src="https://d2hxwnssq7ss7g.cloudfront.net/EHclAMz0pBVX_cvt.mp4" /]

    Like

    • David Blaska wrote, “Great discussion about free speech and insurrection.”

      I agree.

      David Blaska wrote, “Do we not think that law enforcement should take seriously statements like “Where are the f * * * ing traitors? Drag them out by the f * * * -ing hair” — especially when uttered by a mob that has just busted windows to invade the Capitol?”

      Absolutely law enforcement should take these thing seriously, that’s their job.

      Like

  14. Wm. Tyroler says:

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-appalling-qanon-shamans-lawyer-says-doj-lied-withheld-videos-aired-by-carlson:

    “… Albert Watkins, whose client Jacob Chansley pleaded guilty to felony charges in connection with the Capitol riot and was sentenced to 41 months in prison, said Department of Justice prosecutors were legally bound to turn over the footage. Clips shown on Carlson’s Fox News Channel program show Chansley walking freely and peaceably through the building, often accompanied by multiple police officers.

    “We did not receive that video footage,” Watkins said. “We asked for it, and not just once or twice. Whether we asked for it or not is irrelevant because the government had an absolute, non-compromisible duty to disclose that video and they did not do so.”

    “And all the while, they were actively representing to the court and the American people that Jake was a leader, leading the charge into the Capitol,” he said. “They did not disclose that footage because it ran contrary to their rote narrative.”

    Watkins, an attorney for nearly 40 years, told The Daily Wire he was stunned to see the footage, which he could have used to defend Chansley.

    “I’ve never seen anything so vile as what I’m seeing right now,” he said. “It’s a departure from a pretty high standard they’ve maintained for a long time. Anyone who needs to have belief in the integrity of our justice system, whether they’re a left-wing New England academic or a raging right-winger, needs to say that this is really wrong and f—ing it up for everyone.”

    Watkins said anger now being focused on Carlson for locating and airing the footage should be directed at prosecutors who appeared to violate rules established in the landmark Supreme Court case U.S. v Brady, which cemented that prosecutors must turn over relevant information to defense attorneys, particularly exculpatory evidence. …

    Court filings in Chansley’s case corroborate Watkins’ claim that he repeatedly asked for all videos of his client. …”

    Like

  15. Wm. Tyroler says:

    Althouse gets it re: the withheld videos, https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/03/we-did-not-receive-that-video-footage.html: “Shameful. Illiberal. … And they posed as democracy preservationists!”

    Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s