An accused capital.
Rioter have to say accused because the man has not been convicted, but a man by the name
of Richard Barnett, you probably don't know the name, but you'll recognize him from the
photo because this is the dude who had his picture taken with his feet up on Nancy Pelosi's
desk.
So he's an accused capital rioter until he is convicted.
But his lawyers went to court this past week and told the judge that they want a list of
words, phrases, and topics, totally barred from this dude's upcoming trial.
So the list of words that his, his lawyers do not want said in court, let me
read this, Mr. Barnett requests that his, that this honorable court order, the exclusion
of terrorism, terrorist, insurrection, insurrectionists, mob rioter treason traitor, sedition conspiracy
attack on the capital attack on democracy threat to democracy attack on Congress, white
supremacy slash supremacists police were killed Stu Gunn and other inflammatory language related
to groups such as the proud boys and Oathkeepers as well as references to places on the grounds
or in the capital where he did not go.
So basically they're trying to say, look, Hey, um, we know this is bad, uh, but could
you just not say like any bad words about our guy?
In fact, if you could really just tell prosecutors to go in there and be like, wow, he's such
a standup guy.
He's pretty, super awesome.
That would be cool.
If you could just do that and not let them use any words to suggest that this man broke
the law now, to be fair, to be fair, some of those words absolutely could sway a jury,
which is why the lawyers are doing that.
However, when you put pretty much every possible word out there, the judge is gonna be left
with no choice, but to PO, uh, probably depending on the judge deny the motion, right?
You went too big, too much, too far.
and that's not even as far as they went, they went even further.
Barnett's attorneys also asked the court to exclude any news reports that mention police
officers who died after the riot.
And they want to prohibit prosecutors from introducing video or photo evidence of violent
clashes with police officers, because he wasn't a part of that.
You know, it was happening in the event that he was involved in, but he wasn't involved
in that specific subset of the event.
So you can't show that it gets worse.
The attorneys ask the court to bar prosecutors from telling the jury that Barnett legally
owned guns and was involved in second amendment groups.
And they also don't want them to introduce any evidence about
Trump's own legal fight to overturn his election loss.
All right.
So you can't talk about the entire thing that started the capital riot, why this, uh, uh,
tool was in there to begin with you can't call him an insurrectionist or a terrorist
or talk about any other groups involved in any of this stuff.
Can't do any of it, but you also can't, uh, show anything that happened that day either.
So, so what can the prosecutors do?
What is left for them as evidence other than literally the photograph showing this man
at Nancy's P Nancy Pelosi's desk, right?
That's the fun part of it.
Even if the judge goes along with everything, this guy's lawyers say, if the judge says,
all right, fine, whatever you want, we'll do it.
Prosecutors are gonna be like, oh no, all we have left.
Is this picture of you at the scene of the crime?
Oh, no.
However, will we get a conviction when all we're left with is the photographic evidence.
You're screwed either way, but it doesn't matter what words you exclude from the trial.
You're gonna end up
in prison.