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

28 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.

I think it's common for the judge to make such a statement. It's that now some idiot picked up on it and is trying to imply guilt using a common technical term. Smacks of desperation, IMHO. Watch Shiff pick this up and repeat this on some CNN show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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 balance of probabilities and is a common standard a court of law.  In Australia we have precedent around how the balance of probabilities should be applied.  It's known as the Briggenshaw standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It means balance of probabilities and is a common standard a court of law.  In Australia we have precedent around how the balance of probabilities should be applied.  It's known as the Briggenshaw standard.

I specified criminal trials, since the claims here revolve around allegations that should be dealt with in a criminal court of law. In criminal proceedings, "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard by which Trump would be judged. Therefore a "balance of probabilities" argument is irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
40 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

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

Probably. I have serious doubts that the DOJ has the will to prosecute a former President, regardless of the evidence.

The DA in the Georgia election tampering case may pursue it, but I wouldn't place any large bets on either an indictment, or any jury in Georgia finding him guilty, either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

I specified criminal trials, since the claims here revolve around allegations that should be dealt with in a criminal court of law. In criminal proceedings, "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard by which Trump would be judged. Therefore a "balance of probabilities" argument is irrelevant. 

You asked:

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

What does "more likely than not" even mean in a court of law?

I answered that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

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.

Yes, you see very plainly. Do you think it likely, that lawyers, representing yourself, would have no problem with your case being handled by a judge who had already, publicly, declared you guilty? Is that how it works in Merry Old England--do you think?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yes, you see very plainly. Do you think it likely, that lawyers, representing yourself, would have no problem with your case being handled by a judge who had already, publicly, declared you guilty?

And by publicly — you mean in a prior court opinion?

Ask Eastman, for details.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You asked:

I answered that question.

Fair enough,  I meant to write "what does it mean in a CRIMINAL court of law".  Whatever you make of it,  my point was to highlight the huge gulf between a balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt, and highlight how Trump being charged and convicted would require the higher of those standards!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

Fair enough,  I meant to write "what does it mean in a CRIMINAL court of law".  Whatever you make of it,  my point was to highlight the huge gulf between a balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt, and highlight how Trump being charged and convicted would require the higher of those standards!

It means the same thing in a criminal court of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think it's common for the judge to make such a statement. It's that now some idiot picked up on it and is trying to imply guilt using a common technical term. Smacks of desperation, IMHO. Watch Shiff pick this up and repeat this on some CNN show.

That's why, when they bag up their bloated sack of feces and present it to the State Department and ask them to prosecute Trump with it, they're in for a rude awakening. Their streetcorner tactics won't fly in a court of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiggs said:

And by publicly — you mean in a prior court opinion?

Ask Eastman, for details.

 

If it prejudices a judge against a presumed innocent man, yes. That just doesn't sink in with you, coming from a country where one is guilty until proven innocent, does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It means the same thing in a criminal court of law.

If charged, Trump is going to be tried under a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard! Do you disagree with that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

If charged, Trump is going to be tried under a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard! Do you disagree with that? 

Doesn't that depend on which court he will tried?

Nevertheless, you asked what you asked; and, balance of probabilities has the same meaning in a criminal court as it does in an administrative or civil court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

If it prejudices a judge against a presumed innocent man, yes. That just doesn't sink in with you, coming from a country where one is guilty until proven innocent, does it?

Believe you'll find that the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" was coined by a Brit, at the Old Bailey in London.

Either way — prior court rulings are no indication of personal predjudice on behalf of the Judge that handed the ruling down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Believe you'll find that the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" was coined by a Brit, at the Old Bailey in London.

Either way — prior court rulings are no indication of personal predjudice on behalf of the Judge that handed the ruling down.

Wouldn't know; my people came from the Isle of Bute in Firth of Clyde. They handled things a bit different from you posh Southerners. Can't play with you anymore, more important things to do.:tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours 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.

That’s because they understand that any person ,in our legal system, can’t be pronounced guilty, until proven guilty.  ?

   Oop. I skipped ahead…I see that has been adequately addressed.     Anyway…. Over 800 rioters have been criminally charged… over 275 of those, with Obstruction.      I like how trump threw them all under the bus with his statement that those who violently took part in the “HEINOUS attack on our nation, will Pay “.    Of course his intention was entirely peaceful…with no forethought of Causing enough chaos to PREVENT ,delay, certification of the election.?  That was the purpose of the march on the capitol…to stall certification ,,in his delirious , irrational hopes of using that time to ,somehow or other,:wacko:… Change the election results!  Or even have to redo the election!!   Insanity.

Edited by lightly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, lightly said:

That’s because they understand that any person ,in our legal system, can’t be pronounced guilty, until proven guilty.  ?

   Oop. I skipped ahead…I see that has been adequately addressed.     Anyway…. Over 800 rioters have been criminally charged… over 275 of those, with Obstruction.      I like how trump threw them all under the bus with his statement that those who violently took part in the “HEINOUS attack on our nation, will Pay “.    Of course his intention was entirely peaceful…with no forethought of Causing enough chaos to PREVENT ,delay, certification of the election.?  That was the purpose of the march on the capitol…to stall certification ,,in his delirious , irrational hopes of using that time to ,somehow or other,:wacko:… Change the election results!  Or even have to redo the election!!   Insanity.

Matters not to me. If they broke the law they should pay the price. I don't care if they wrapped themselves in the flag and hummed The Star Spangled Banner while doing it. Neither Left nor Right is happy with Trump for not behaving in a manner that conforms to their own particular narrative about what occurred. 

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

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

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. 

And that's what I want.

But that law needs to be applied in an evenhanded manner.  Not one law for the rich and another for the poor.  Not one law for blacks and another for whites.  Not one law for police and another for the rest of us.  I want police to defend my civil rights, not suppress them.  I want police to protect and serve, not run away from shooters.  I want a professional police force, not untrained amateurs.  And that's it's job.

Doug

 

I'm not anti-police.  I'm pro-police.  I think a professional police force can fill a vital role in a healthy society.  But my support is contingent on having a police force that iw well trained, well disciplined, quick to report problems and report people who aren't up to snuff within the police force, applies laws fairly to everyone and with an understanding of how laws have been applied historically to harm minority and immigrant populations, who don't lie during investigations or in court, and who can seek mental health care when they need it.  I want a police force that is paid and cared for (in terms of benefits, pensions, and employment conditions) so well that there is a solid applicant pool to replace problem cops quickly so departments aren't stuck with crap officers due to a lack of replacements,  I want independent police certification that can be stripped from bad cops so they can't be cops any more just by going to a new city.

I'm not unrealistic.  I know cops ar human and will do dumb, immoral and illegal things.  I want those cops reported, outed and disciplined commensurate with the infraction, including losing the ability to serve as a police officer or being sent to prison.  Problem is:  there are many ways in which our current policing situation doesn't meet those modest expectations.  And our society isn't particularly healthy (OK, it's on life support), which feeds the us-vs-them perceptions and mindsets on both sides.  We have built a system so entrenched in making money, feeding prisons and filling beds, that I'm not sure we can fix it.  We might have to strip it down and start over.  If we don't learn our lesson, this is only the beginning.

Rioting, looting, and even to some extent terrorism are the language of people who have run out of ways to peacefully and legally address the untenable ways they are expected to live.  It's warfare for those who can't afford an army.

Beth

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

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.

I could have used a better link.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

And that's what I want.

But that law needs to be applied in an evenhanded manner.  Not one law for the rich and another for the poor.  Not one law for blacks and another for whites.  Not one law for police and another for the rest of us.  I want police to defend my civil rights, not suppress them.  I want police to protect and serve, not run away from shooters.  I want a professional police force, not untrained amateurs.  And that's it's job.

Doug

 

     Amen!    I keep thinking about how often the charge is $$$$$$$$  Fine . .OR . .  ‘this’ long in jail.   Or ,sometimes, both.

          That is stating ,openly, that the rich guy can pay the fine and go free….and the poor guy can get locked up! <_<
 

image.jpeg.f62c64752d36c0820bf11300dfb9cb1e.jpeg    <  The U.S. Supreme Court .. it says “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/24/2022 at 4:27 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You really should do more research.Fact check: Fred Trump detained at KKK rally; circumstances unclear (usatoday.com

No actually you fell into a trap said the werewolf to the little Duck, I call you Little Duck because your a Quacker!:lol:

But, that aside I am going to respond in a bumble manner, because frankly I am very disappointed! :(

After I opened up and responded to you respectfully you only responded to something you thought that you could point out  that I had incorrectly commented on.:no:

Well anyway I am going to prove you completely wrong, then you only have too choices to act like a man and apologize or to ear raw crow!;)

The actual confusion was created in 2015, when Donald TRump was confronted with e information, well needless to said he iost bladder and Bowel control in a fit of anger! The his supporter from THE ALT-RIGHT ( NeoNazi organization) attacked the credibility of the statement that Fred Trump was arrested with KKK Members in New York City

. Why this is important is because NEONAZIS, WHITE NATIONALISTS, AND MANY OTHER RADICAL RACIAL EXTREMIST GROUPS INCLUDING MANY OF THOSE WHO WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE ATTACK ON OUR CAPITAL:

The following peer reviewed journal not only covers the Fred Trump KKK connection. It also goes into how Fred Trump influenced his son Donald Trump and the effects this had on Him throughout his life up until this very day! This Journal was approved for Publication on July 18, 2019 : Publishing Authority — Journal of Urban History.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096144219858599

On 7/24/2022 at 4:27 PM, Hammerclaw said:


 

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

8 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

And that's what I want.

But that law needs to be applied in an evenhanded manner.  Not one law for the rich and another for the poor.  Not one law for blacks and another for whites.  Not one law for police and another for the rest of us.  I want police to defend my civil rights, not suppress them.  I want police to protect and serve, not run away from shooters.  I want a professional police force, not untrained amateurs.  And that's it's job.

Doug

 

I'm not anti-police.  I'm pro-police.  I think a professional police force can fill a vital role in a healthy society.  But my support is contingent on having a police force that iw well trained, well disciplined, quick to report problems and report people who aren't up to snuff within the police force, applies laws fairly to everyone and with an understanding of how laws have been applied historically to harm minority and immigrant populations, who don't lie during investigations or in court, and who can seek mental health care when they need it.  I want a police force that is paid and cared for (in terms of benefits, pensions, and employment conditions) so well that there is a solid applicant pool to replace problem cops quickly so departments aren't stuck with crap officers due to a lack of replacements,  I want independent police certification that can be stripped from bad cops so they can't be cops any more just by going to a new city.

I'm not unrealistic.  I know cops ar human and will do dumb, immoral and illegal things.  I want those cops reported, outed and disciplined commensurate with the infraction, including losing the ability to serve as a police officer or being sent to prison.  Problem is:  there are many ways in which our current policing situation doesn't meet those modest expectations.  And our society isn't particularly healthy (OK, it's on life support), which feeds the us-vs-them perceptions and mindsets on both sides.  We have built a system so entrenched in making money, feeding prisons and filling beds, that I'm not sure we can fix it.  We might have to strip it down and start over.  If we don't learn our lesson, this is only the beginning.

Rioting, looting, and even to some extent terrorism are the language of people who have run out of ways to peacefully and legally address the untenable ways they are expected to live.  It's warfare for those who can't afford an army.

Beth

 

In my opinion that's what we have. Police almost universally do their jobs, and do so under very difficult conditions. Some make mistakes, some do more than that. When it happens they are held accountable. 

In principle I agree with everything you wrote. In practice I know that there are some assumptions built into your world view that are simply not assumed in mine and therefore functionally I don't think you and I are on the same page. The fact that you have put rioting down to people who have run out of ways to peacefully protest demonstrates one such assumption. It's part of our core values that won't change, so we will forever be at odds on this point unless you can show the actual racist laws that are holding these people back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

In my opinion that's what we have. Police almost universally do their jobs, and do so under very difficult conditions. Some make mistakes, some do more than that. When it happens they are held accountable. 

Maybe in Australia.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

In my opinion that's what we have. Police almost universally do their jobs, and do so under very difficult conditions. Some make mistakes, some do more than that. When it happens they are held accountable. 

In principle I agree with everything you wrote. In practice I know that there are some assumptions built into your world view that are simply not assumed in mine and therefore functionally I don't think you and I are on the same page. The fact that you have put rioting down to people who have run out of ways to peacefully protest demonstrates one such assumption. It's part of our core values that won't change, so we will forever be at odds on this point unless you can show the actual racist laws that are holding these people back. 

Using traffic tickets as a way to fund police and city governments - Ferguson, Missouri.  And many little towns throughout the USA.  We've all been caught in these, so much that it has become cliche'.

Civil forfeiture - a legal way for police to rob people.  Whatever happened to due process of law?

That's just two.  There are lots more.

Doug

  • Like 1
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.