Trump Can Be Sued For Inciting Jan. 6, Appeals Court Rules

[Ana the Ist]

I meant what I said. We all have our biases. I made no mention of any applications of the law.

So you dodged the question.

This, from The Crime Museum:

Ness found Capone’s ability to evade justice infuriating and developed a personal vendetta against him. Ness would intentionally antagonize Capone; he once repossessed all of Capone’s expensive cars and parading them down the street for all of Chicago to see. This only angered Capone.​

Oh a website. I thought you meant real people.

Please note that, in every example I proposed, I never claimed the evidence was false or planted. That's an entirely different scenario than we've been discussing.

How would you know? You never question motive if you believe there's evidence to indict.

Quite possible. That's not illegal. I haven't slandered anyone, though, nor have I committed libel.

You wouldn't object to political persecution though.

With a large body of evidence to support it. But, Trump will get due process and can defend himself in court.

Yeah...funny thing about that. There's some evidence that perhaps the GA case and January 6th case were coordinated to destroy his ability to campaign....that's going to be looked into as a violation of due process. On top of that, the GA case just requested DOJ help and has basically no possibility of ending....maybe even beginning before election day.
.

Take this, for example: is it true that Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election?

Best guess? No.

The tools they used and number of people investigated and agents dedicated to this sort of rule that out. Trump would have to have been communicating by carrier pigeon or something....and that seems unlikely.

No, it was a biased witchhunt from the start.

Sure, it can't be proven in court, so he's presumed to be innocent...but there is evidence that strongly suggests some form of cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign.

No there isn't. You won't be citing any....so we can just let it go.

You'll say that convictions were made....I'll point out that they mostly centered on refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Since the FBI was fishing...that's reasonable.

Another example: previously, you made a big deal about Trump only being tried in civil court for the E. Jean Carroll case, and that him being found liable for sexual assault didn't mean the same as him being convicted of the crime. Even though the court found he did sexually assault her.

It found him liable for defamation. Saying it found him guilty of sexual assault is like say OJ was found guilty of murder. It's dumb. I don't think she had a chance of convicting had she pressed criminal charges when possible.

Does it matter to you if Trump did it or not? How much does truth matter in that case?

In that case? Very little. My life isn't affected by E Jean Carroll although clearly people are.

I'll believe it when the articles of impeachment are passed.

Ok.

You keep claiming to have solid evidence, but the House still hasn't impeached President Biden. I wonder if your evidence is as inconclusive, or imaginary, as theirs seems to be.

Well since the people who are supposed to be investigating aren't....the GOP has to step up.

Well, they are presumed innocent.

Well Hunter has been indicted on 9 new charges. Something you must surely believe shows his guilt.

The truth of whether or not they did the thing hasn't been shown yet. And truth matters, right? Isn't that what you keep saying?

Right but I look at evidence. I don't trust media narratives. I don't trust biased authority figures.

If a certain dictator wannabe gets elected next year, I very well might be. Who knows?

Why?

I never referred to her directly. I said: "I tend to apply Hanlon's Razor to cases like this."

Another dodge.

Truth matters, doesn't it?

It does.

Nope. There would need to be a guilty verdict before I would consider them guilty.

Then why object when I stated that Trump is innocent of any crimes?

That's the truth.

I don't care if you can't tell the difference between a civil and criminal case.

-- A2SG, but, as I've said, everyone has their biases...you're perfectly entitled to it....

Remember that if the dictator returns.

 

[A2SG]

So you dodged the question.

Not at all. You asked about a " 'neutral' pursuit of justice" and I simply remarked that we all have our biases. I'm not sure how that dodged anything.

Oh a website. I thought you meant real people.

Well, someone had to write that. I don't think it was AI generated.

How would you know? You never question motive if you believe there's evidence to indict.

Because criminal trials are based on the evidence, not the motivations of the investigator. Granted, if those motivations are relevant in some way, that may be part of the defense, but not the prosecution.

You wouldn't object to political persecution though.

Who says?

You really don't know me very well, do you?

Yeah...funny thing about that. There's some evidence that perhaps the GA case and January 6th case were coordinated to destroy his ability to campaign....that's going to be looked into as a violation of due process. On top of that, the GA case just requested DOJ help and has basically no possibility of ending....maybe even beginning before election day.

That's what defense counsels are for. They seem to be doing their job.

Best guess? No.

The tools they used and number of people investigated and agents dedicated to this sort of rule that out. Trump would have to have been communicating by carrier pigeon or something....and that seems unlikely.

No, it was a biased witchhunt from the start.

So long as you're not biased.

No there isn't. You won't be citing any....so we can just let it go.

Okay, if you insist.

We know there was Russian interference in the 2016 election. Multiple Russian intelligence officers were indicted for this. And we know that there were multiple links between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign.

Granted, we don't know the extent of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, and this is likely why prosecution has not been pursued....but you can't say there is NO evidence.

Truth matters, doesn't it?

You'll say that convictions were made....I'll point out that they mostly centered on refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Since the FBI was fishing...that's reasonable.

I didn't even get into that. I focused on evidence linking the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence, and the latter's attempt to interfere with the 2016 election.

It found him liable for defamation. Saying it found him guilty of sexual assault is like say OJ was found guilty of murder. It's dumb. I don't think she had a chance of convicting had she pressed criminal charges when possible.

But...truth matters, doesn't it? The court found that Trump did sexually assault her. That's the truth.

In that case? Very little. My life isn't affected by E Jean Carroll although clearly people are.

Yeah, that's about what I figured. Truth matters, but only when it's the truth you agree with.

Well since the people who are supposed to be investigating aren't....the GOP has to step up.

And a bang up job they're doing of it, too.

Well Hunter has been indicted on 9 new charges. Something you must surely believe shows his guilt.

Indictments don't show guilt. Convictions do.

I thought you knew that.

Right but I look at evidence. I don't trust media narratives. I don't trust biased authority figures.

Right.

Another dodge.

No dodge, just referring to the exact words I used, not your biased interpretation of what you think I meant.

Truth matters, right?

It does.

Apparently, only sometimes. When Trump is involved, he's given every benefit of the doubt...but when President Biden is involved, he's guilty! guilty! guilty!

Then why object when I stated that Trump is innocent of any crimes?

I didn't. I concurred that he is presumed innocent.

That's the truth.

Yup. Presumption of innocence.

I don't care if you can't tell the difference between a civil and criminal case.

I have no problem at all. You seem unclear, though.

Remember that if the dictator returns.

Let's hope not. After what happened the last time he lost an election, I'd hate to see how unhinged he gets when he loses this time.

-- A2SG, will be wild.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not at all.

Yup.

You asked about a " 'neutral' pursuit of justice"

When I said that...

and I simply remarked that we all have our biases. I'm not sure how that dodged anything.

And you replied with this....were you referring to biases in the pursuit of justice or not?

 

[A2SG]

Yup.




When I said that...





And you replied with this....were you referring to biases in the pursuit of justice or not?

Not just there, but that would be an example of bias.

Were you going for a point here or something?

-- A2SG, you seem to think you've got one, but I don't think you do...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not just there, but that would be an example of bias.

Is it a problem in application of justice?

Were you going for a point here or something?

Yeah for a guy who dodges a lot of questions, I was surprised to see you didn't know you were doing it. I figured I'd help you focus.

 

[A2SG]

Is it a problem in application of justice?

It can be, sure. But even if the prosecution is biased, the case will be decided on the evidence.

Yeah for a guy who dodges a lot of questions, I was surprised to see you didn't know you were doing it. I figured I'd help you focus.

I'm not dodging anything.

-- A2SG, though, I'm still not sure you've got a point in there somewhere...

 

[Ana the Ist]

It can be, sure. But even if the prosecution is biased, the case will be decided on the evidence.

What if the jury is biased?

 

[A2SG]

What if the jury is biased?

The judge can throw out their verdict.

-- A2SG, and to anticipate your next question, that's why appeals courts exist....

 

[Ana the Ist]

The judge can throw out their verdict.

-- A2SG, and to anticipate your next question, that's why appeals courts exist....

Which shouldn't happen. Judges have a chance to dismiss charges if there's no possibility of guilt. That means they found the possibility of guilt at least plausible enough to pursue charges...but when the jury believed the defense innocent....the judge throws it out.

The very act is a violation of due process and undermines the entire trial.

 

[A2SG]

Which shouldn't happen. Judges have a chance to dismiss charges if there's no possibility of guilt. That means they found the possibility of guilt at least plausible enough to pursue charges...but when the jury believed the defense innocent....the judge throws it out.

If they find the jury ignored the law, or didn't apply it, that option exists. Probably to safeguard against the very bias you're concerned about.

The specific provisions vary state by state, though; and in criminal cases, I don't think a judge can throw out an acquittal, only a guilty verdict that was reached if the facts don't warrant it.

The very act is a violation of due process and undermines the entire trial.

Not really. Since the jury are laymen, they aren't as knowledgeable or experienced in the law as the judge. They can make mistakes, or misapply the law. If the judge sees that happening, he can intervene. Granted, as I understand it, this happens mostly in civil cases.

As I see it, it ensures due process, protecting the defendant from a biased jury.

-- A2SG. and isn't that what you're concerned about?

 

[Bradskii]

Not really. Since the jury are laymen, they aren't as knowledgeable or experienced in the law as the judge. They can make mistakes, or misapply the law. If the judge sees that happening, he can intervene. Granted, as I understand it, this happens mostly in civil cases.

As I see it, it ensures due process, protecting the defendant from a biased jury.

Don't know about the US, but in the UK a judge can recommend a verdict. There was a celebrated case regarding government paper re the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands war. A civil servant, Clive Ponting, released the papers, which were covered by the Official Secrets Act, to journalists. He was charged and the judge said he 'might direct the jury to convict'. That comment was reported in the papers, jury members became aware of it and returned a verdict of not guilty.

Clive Ponting obituary

Senior civil servant who became a whistleblower over the Falklands war

www.theguardian.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

‘Bears no inherent connection’: Trump can’t use presidency to dodge Capitol Police officer lawsuits, appeals court says​

For the second time in a month, the appeals court in Washington, D.C., has ruled once again that Donald Trump is not immune from lawsuits brought against him by police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

[The first was the OP]

Now, in a ruling released Friday, the appeals court echoed those same sentiments and concluded that a different lawsuit first brought in August 2021 by USCP Officer Conrad Smith and seven of his colleagues, was virtually “indistinguishable” from the Blassingame case.