Chansley was described by the prosecution as "the public face of the Capitol riot." He stood out from the rioters who stormed the Capitol, shirtless with a horned headdress at the dais where Vice President Mike Pence had been presiding at the certification of the 2020 election.
I'm glad he will be at a minimum security prison at least.
He did his role well. He was there to draw the cameras to him and to be the face of the insurrection. A well-mannered, well behaved guy who didn't hurt anybody or damage any property.
I remember that evening, when he was livestreaming his conversation with the feds on the phone on his way home. And the comments by his sister. And I looked into his visits to various events before 1/6.
My impression was that he was a kind of a friendly happy guy. Nothing like Antifa or any of the normal malcontents who hate us. I also thought he was very intelligent and articulate.
In the end, I decided he was an operator. He had a specific mission and that was to become the face of the event for the press to focus on. At the same time he was cheerful and non-violent.
He also is having to do real prison time while Ray Epps hasn't had any consequences whatsoever. This despite video of Epps directing the people to attack the capital and all sorts of sketchy stuff.
If Chansley is a bad guy, why are they prosecuting him, and not Ray Epps?
But we don't have to agree. I understand why people think Chansley was a plant to make us look like wackos.
Just going off my own intiuition and observations of that event, it all seemed way to staged. I agree he is an operator, which side is anyone's guess.
I tend to follow three rules when dealing with any information or scenario:
Pay attention to your surroundings (observe)
Trust no one. Period. This does not apply to faith.
Question everything.
To answer your question of why prosecute him and not Epps, the answer is simple. Optics. I believe shammy's role was to always be in the camera. Both during and post J6.
Which leads me to your last sentence. Yes, I believe his role is to paint a broad picture of anons for the normie MSM zombies.
If Chansley's role was to paint anons as violent extremists, wouldn't he have at least had verbal confrontations with the capitol police and encouraged people to misbehave like Ray Epps did?
Chansley instead just appeared to be an amiable goofball.
I'm glad he will be at a minimum security prison at least.
He did his role well. He was there to draw the cameras to him and to be the face of the insurrection. A well-mannered, well behaved guy who didn't hurt anybody or damage any property.
I disagree. I don't think he was ever on our side.
Yes, people have different ideas about Chansley.
I remember that evening, when he was livestreaming his conversation with the feds on the phone on his way home. And the comments by his sister. And I looked into his visits to various events before 1/6.
My impression was that he was a kind of a friendly happy guy. Nothing like Antifa or any of the normal malcontents who hate us. I also thought he was very intelligent and articulate.
In the end, I decided he was an operator. He had a specific mission and that was to become the face of the event for the press to focus on. At the same time he was cheerful and non-violent.
He also is having to do real prison time while Ray Epps hasn't had any consequences whatsoever. This despite video of Epps directing the people to attack the capital and all sorts of sketchy stuff.
If Chansley is a bad guy, why are they prosecuting him, and not Ray Epps?
But we don't have to agree. I understand why people think Chansley was a plant to make us look like wackos.
Agreed to agree but disagree.
Just going off my own intiuition and observations of that event, it all seemed way to staged. I agree he is an operator, which side is anyone's guess.
I tend to follow three rules when dealing with any information or scenario:
To answer your question of why prosecute him and not Epps, the answer is simple. Optics. I believe shammy's role was to always be in the camera. Both during and post J6.
Which leads me to your last sentence. Yes, I believe his role is to paint a broad picture of anons for the normie MSM zombies.
If Chansley's role was to paint anons as violent extremists, wouldn't he have at least had verbal confrontations with the capitol police and encouraged people to misbehave like Ray Epps did?
Chansley instead just appeared to be an amiable goofball.