Jump to content

Judge: Trump Could Be Partially Responsible for Jan. 6 Riot Despite Lack of Direct Order


Social Media

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You don't know this. There is actually very little evidence of what was going on after the Secret Service moved Trump away to the WH, only hearsay, like the testimonial "evidence" that the J6 committee tried to use which was later shown up to be false. Other evidence offered by the Capitol Police and FBI was not heard at all.  

 

 

Lol! There were several converging testimonies showing that Trump watched TV and did nothing to stop the assault.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/point-7-evidence-during-attack-trump-ignored-requests-speak-out-and-failed-act-quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lopburikid said:

Couldn't the Judge be partly responsible for some of the crimes that were committed after she acquitted or ve too light a sentence to criminals who then go on to  reoffend???? 

Not so  sure about that.. Maybe the prison system itself should be responsible since they allow gangs and drugs and crimes to be done while you are incarcerated... haha..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You don't know this. There is actually very little evidence of what was going on after the Secret Service moved Trump away to the WH, only hearsay, like the testimonial "evidence" that the J6 committee tried to use which was later shown up to be false. Other evidence offered by the Capitol Police and FBI was not heard at all.  

 

 

The words of an accused person are NOT hearsay and any individual who personally heard those words can testify to that fact. Hearsay covers when A tries to testify on the basis that B told A what the accused said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

You seem to be staggeringly naive.....

 

A U.S. judge can use the term “could” when considering a ruling. Judges often consider hypothetical outcomes or possibilities when analyzing a case. For example, when reviewing evidence or legal arguments, a judge might use “could” to refer to potential interpretations, consequences, or outcomes:

 

In legal reasoning: A judge might say, “This evidence could support a finding of guilt” or “The law could be interpreted in this way.” Here, “could” signals that there is a possibility without definitively making a conclusion.

In hypothetical reasoning: A judge might use “could” to discuss what might happen under certain conditions, such as “This ruling could set a precedent” or “The defendant’s actions could have led to harm.”

 

 

But it's not evidential i.e. lacking any evidence/proof. Apart from this it's a district court. Probably one of the junior partners or someone lower in the chain of the legal firm dealing with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, thesetat2013 said:

There is no question for you... Because that is what you choose to think or feel. but facts choose responsibilities. The facts do not support what you choose to think. 

And you can only believe and embrace that nonsense due the hypnotic spell of the Shaman huckster. Truth does not support lies. 

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
×
×
  • Create New...