Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Jan 6 public hearings Live


spartan max2
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Figure of speech.

Doug

Ah, so when the lefties protesting Trump threatened him it was a figure of speech. But conservatives don't have figures of speech.... apparently :blink: 

 

21 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

If it was all so innocent, why didn't Pence, et al. hang around and give a speech?

Doug

Why didn't Trump front the crowds at the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots? Because they were rioting! Seriously, this is the best you could come up with :w00t: 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 Little wonder the Trump Deranged avoid venues where they'd have to back up their BS, legally and impartially. 

Believe you'll find it stands up pretty well in court.

A federal judge ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress as part of a criminal conspiracy when he tried to subvert the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” U.S. District Court Judge David Carter wrote.

Carter’s sweeping and historic ruling came as he ordered the release to the House’s Jan. 6 committee of 101 emails from Trump ally John Eastman, rejecting Eastman’s effort to shield them via attorney-client privilege.

Source: Politico

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

I've been thinking about Trump a lot tonight.  He grew up watching his Dad in the real estate business and he learned the art of telling people what they want to hear.  It's what he knows and it worked well enough to make him rich and get him some trophy wives.  Because he was a rich man's son, he was able to graduate from good schools without learning much about American history or civics.  He thought he could run the country like he ran his businesses, some of which have failed spectacularly, because he obviously didn't know much about the government.  Two things he was honest about:  1. he didn't know his job would be so hard and 2. he didn't know repealing and replacing Obamacare would be so difficult.  He tried to keep a lot of his campaign promises, but they were mainly ones that were bad for the country.  The main promise he didn't keep was getting Wall Street out of government, since he appointed a lot of rich businessmen and Wall Street types to high office.  The stock market had been going up under Obama and Trump managed not to screw it up until he was out of office; though we are getting predictions of an impending crash.  He seems to love his children, but even gangsters do that.  He has a Jewish son-in-law and has promoted his daughter's career in business so one would think he would not be totally anti-semitic or opposed to women in business, but maybe he made exceptions for his own family.  I wonder if he even realized how much violence and bigotry he unleashed on this country.  Whether there was a Russian connection or not, he was clearly in over his head.

Doug

It wasn't Trump supporters burning down cities in 2020. Do you do any research at all, or would facts get in the way of your conclusions?

Like America: Half of Trump’s staff are women | Washington Examiner

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

Believe you'll find it stands up pretty well in court.

A federal judge ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress as part of a criminal conspiracy when he tried to subvert the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” U.S. District Court Judge David Carter wrote.

Carter’s sweeping and historic ruling came as he ordered the release to the House’s Jan. 6 committee of 101 emails from Trump ally John Eastman, rejecting Eastman’s effort to shield them via attorney-client privilege.

Source: Politico

That's an opinion from the bench and "more likely than not" is hardly a definitive legal judgment. You can find a judge that will, vaguely, say pretty much anything you want them say, but not with weight of law behind them.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's an opinion from the bench and "more likely than not" is hardly a definitive legal judgment. You can find a judge that will, vaguely, say pretty much anything you want them say, but not with weight of law behind them.

All legal rulings handed down by a Judge are opinions from the bench.

"More likely than not" was the required burden of proof in this particular instance.

And the weight of law attached to that ruling forced Eastman to hand over that set of emails to the committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Believe you'll find it stands up pretty well in court.

A federal judge ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress as part of a criminal conspiracy when he tried to subvert the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” U.S. District Court Judge David Carter wrote.

Carter’s sweeping and historic ruling came as he ordered the release to the House’s Jan. 6 committee of 101 emails from Trump ally John Eastman, rejecting Eastman’s effort to shield them via attorney-client privilege.

Source: Politico

Isn't the legal standard in a criminal trial "beyond reasonable doubt"? What does "more likely than not" even mean in a court of law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

All legal rulings handed down by a Judge are opinions from the bench.

"More likely than not" was the required burden of proof in this particular instance.

And the weight of law attached to that ruling forced Eastman to hand over that set of emails to the committee.

It didn't charge, condemn or sentence Trump for a crime and was carefully worded to avoid libel. Only a trial and conviction will carry any lasting political repercussions for Trump. In the meantime, TDs will have to content themselves with wishful thinking and fantasy--as they have for the last six years.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Ah, so when the lefties protesting Trump threatened him it was a figure of speech. But conservatives don't have figures of speech.... apparently :blink: 

Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.    When I said you wanted to hang criminals, it was a figure of speech.  I didn't mean it literally.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It wasn't Trump supporters burning down cities in 2020. Do you do any research at all, or would facts get in the way of your conclusions?

Like America: Half of Trump’s staff are women | Washington Examiner

Did Trump have binders full of women, too?

Doug

P.S.:  his staff were in government, not business.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug1066 said:

Did Trump have binders full of women, too?

Doug

It's funny how Trump-hate brings out the petty and vindictive in the small-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Isn't the legal standard in a criminal trial "beyond reasonable doubt"? What does "more likely than not" even mean in a court of law?

It means "More likely than not", which was the legal standard required here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It didn't charge, condemn or sentence Trump for a crime

Wasn't a criminal trial. Nor did it claim to be.

Was, however, an initial test of the level of evidence in a courtroom. One you'll notice that Trump lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

It means "More likely than not", which was the legal standard required here.

It was an article published in a left wing newspaper,  as long as you know that is the legal standard that this particular opinion/article was trying to reach. 

In other words,  no real legal weight of any kind at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
5 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It was an article published in a left wing newspaper,  as long as you know that is the legal standard that this particular opinion/article was trying to reach. 

In other words,  no real legal weight of any kind at all

WASHINGTON—A federal judge said that former President Donald Trump and a law professor “more likely than not” committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results, in a ruling clearing the way for related emails to be turned over to congressional investigators.

John Eastman had sought to stop the release of the emails to the House select committee probing the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. In rejecting his lawsuit, Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California cited the crime-fraud exception, which removes protections for documents written in furtherance of crime.

Source: Wall Street Journal.


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Wasn't a criminal trial. Nor did it claim to be.

Was, however, an initial test of the level of evidence in a courtroom. One you'll notice that Trump lost.

No, it was a judge granting access to evidence to a series of hearings you guys have repeatedly reminded me are not legal proceedings. This judge has prejudiced himself, rendering his opinion legally irrelevant, going forward.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
20 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

No, it was a judge granting access to evidence

In a court ruling -- which was that "“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021” 
 

20 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

This judge has prejudiced himself, rendering his opinion legally irrelevant, going forward.

Fairly sure that's not how court rulings work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

In a court ruling -- which was that "“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021” 
 

Fairly sure that's not how court rulings work.

If a judge's public opinion is the defendant is guilty, prior to a trial, it most certainly does, Stateside. Innocent, until proven guilty, here.

Bias or prejudice typically means the judge has acted or spoken in a way that prevents him or her from treating the party or attorney in a fair and impartial manner. Bias or Prejudice Concerning a Party or Attorney. If a judge is biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney, he cannot be fair and impartial in deciding the case.

wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

WASHINGTON—A federal judge said that former President Donald Trump and a law professor “more likely than not” committed a felony in their efforts to block the 2020 election results, in a ruling clearing the way for related emails to be turned over to congressional investigators.

John Eastman had sought to stop the release of the emails to the House select committee probing the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. In rejecting his lawsuit, Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California cited the crime-fraud exception, which removes protections for documents written in furtherance of crime.

Source: Wall Street Journal.


 

My bad, I misread the article, I skimmed it and just assumed it was an op-ed. That said, this is simply a ruling for the gathering of evidence. Judges generally err on the side of discovery in this type of situation, and all the ruling really did was admit a bunch of emails that someone didn't want to provide. As long as you are well aware of the legal gulf between "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) and "beyond reasonable doubt", I'm happy to move on :geek: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

If a judge's public opinion is the defendant is guilty, prior to a trial, it most certainly does, Stateside. Innocent, until proven guilty, here.

Court rulings are based upon the evidence available to the court.

They're not personal opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

My bad, I misread the article, I skimmed it and just assumed it was an op-ed. That said, this is simply a ruling for the gathering of evidence. Judges generally err on the side of discovery in this type of situation, and all the ruling really did was admit a bunch of emails that someone didn't want to provide. As long as you are well aware of the legal gulf between "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) and "beyond reasonable doubt", I'm happy to move on :geek: 

I already had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.    When I said you wanted to hang criminals, it was a figure of speech.  I didn't mean it literally.

Doug

Ah, I misread your comment. Apologies. 

That said, what did you mean? I'm not sure anything I've said about the legal system could be described as wanting to hang them even figuratively. I want the law to do its job, that's all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Court rulings are based upon the evidence available to the court.

They're not personal opinions.

Where did I say they were? Trump isn't on trial and This judge did not rule or pass judgement on his guilt. That wasn't his purpose. He allowed access to information and gave his opinion of the guilt of a man not on trial which is legitimate grounds for recusal. Otherwise, Trump's right to due process would be compromised. Any judgment rendered by this judge would be tainted and prejudicial. Stop shooting from the hip and look at up yourself.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Oops.

Have they prosecuted Trump yet?

Doug

I'll say it again though... Half True.

You posted a link and quoted it. And in the very link, it says what you quoted is half true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
33 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Where did I say they were? Trump isn't on trial and This judge did not rule or pass judgement on his guilt. That wasn't his purpose. He allowed access to information and gave his opinion of the guilt of a man not on trial which is legitimate grounds for recusal. Otherwise, Trump's right to due process would be compromised. Any judgment rendered by this judge would be tainted and prejudicial. Stop shooting from the hip and look at up yourself.

Not that a Californian Judge is likely to be involved in a DC prosecution -- but prior court rulings are hardly grounds for recusal.

As can plainly be seen by the Judge's further rulings in the Eastman case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Believe you'll find it stands up pretty well in court.

A federal judge ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress as part of a criminal conspiracy when he tried to subvert the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” U.S. District Court Judge David Carter wrote.

Carter’s sweeping and historic ruling came as he ordered the release to the House’s Jan. 6 committee of 101 emails from Trump ally John Eastman, rejecting Eastman’s effort to shield them via attorney-client privilege.

Source: Politico

From the article...

Quote

The remarkable ruling may be the first in history in which a federal judge determined a president, while in office, appeared to commit a crime. The decision has no direct role in whether Trump will be charged criminally but could increase pressure on the Justice Department and its chief, Attorney General Merrick Garland, to conduct an aggressive investigation that could lead to such charges.

So, like Tiggs said no legal authority other then the ordered release of the Eastman emails.

Good for them they got those Eastman emails. I believe Eastman is the architect of 90% of the idiotic actions that went down on Jan-6.

Still think Trump will walk away on this at the end.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.