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

[animalmagic]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

To which claim you added your link, which was more about Hutchinson's flawed hearsay than Trump watching TV.

 

Like the J6 sham committee, you ignore anything that doesn't suit your narrative. 

A person testifying under oath is allowed to recount any experience they have relevant to the investigation and prosecution.  Should that person utter hearsay evidence during their testimony it is up to the opposing legal party to object on the basis that it is hearsay.  Even if upheld by the Judge then only that hearsay part of the witness' testimony is classified as inadmissible; it does not taint all other testimony given.  When a witness/accused lies under oath it does not automatically prove that all other testimony is a lie but is a fact that can be relied upon by the opposing legal team to reduce the value of all other evidence given as it can no longer be trusted.  Hearsay evidence does not devalue all other testimony given.

 

[G_Money]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Absolutely not. I am far behind your your nonsensical false equivalence! 😃

You’ve earned that credit.  Be proud of your accomplishment.

[G_Money]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

Thank god….low unemployment stellar stockmarket inflation tamed excellent GDP meaningful legislation accomplished benefitting our people and the environment…now you were saying?

Left out unprecedented crime, wide open borders allowing gang bangers, Chinese, Middle Easterners to freely enter without being vetted.

 

Add in decaying cities, most notably those with a record of Democratic leaders.

 

Meaningful legislation?  I suppose if you’re an illegal alien.  Freebies in exchange for votes and representation..

 

Just to name a few.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Left out unprecedented crime, wide open borders allowing gang bangers, Chinese, Middle Easterners to freely enter without being vetted.

 

Add in decaying cities, most notably those with a record of Democratic leaders.

 

Meaningful legislation?  I suppose if you’re an illegal alien.  Freebies in exchange for votes and representation..

 

Just to name a few.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/18/2024 at 5:59 PM, spidermike007 said:

Some people just don't understand how powerful words are, there's no question that when Trump utters absolute foolishness and incites his devotees toward madness, that all kinds of problems are going to take place. There's no question that this goombah was complicit, there's no question that he incited his followers, there is no question that he has blood on his hands.

 

Lock him up. 

 

 

LOL. You make Trump sound like a rock star or something that can convince people just by his words to do crazy things. IMO that's an insult to the people that support Trump that you imply they are gullible teenagers that swallow any BS their hero utters without any thoughts of their own.

They don't need convincing that Harris/ Biden etc are the worst thing that have and could happen to the US. They are living the proof that Biden is useless and that Harris will be just as useless, IMO. Most of them are entirely able to decide for themselves if he speaks truth or not.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. You make Trump sound like a rock star or something that can convince people just by his words to do crazy things. IMO that's an insult to the people that support Trump that you imply they are gullible teenagers that swallow any BS their hero utters without any thoughts of their own.

They don't need convincing that Harris/ Biden etc are the worst thing that have and could happen to the US. They are living the proof that Biden is useless and that Harris will be just as useless, IMO. Most of them are entirely able to decide for themselves if he speaks truth or not.

It is interesting how the left claim Thump's words are so dangerous, yet they also claim that their words, that Trump is Hitler, end of democracy and all that have no influence on why someone might want to kill him. How typical is that? 

 

I heard that ~25% of Democrats polled (whatever that's worth) thought it would be good if someone assassinated Trump, and another 25% did not know if it would be good or not.

 

Clearly the party of love and tolerance. 

[stevenl]

Not only is he at least partly responsible, he also could have ended it easily.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It is interesting how the left claim Thump's words are so dangerous, yet they also claim that their words, that Trump is Hitler, end of democracy and all that have no influence on why someone might want to kill him. How typical is that? 

 

I heard that ~25% of Democrats polled (whatever that's worth) thought it would be good if someone assassinated Trump, and another 25% did not know if it would be good or not.

 

Clearly the party of love and tolerance. 

Yes it is interesting but not surprising. I expect no less from anti Trump people.

To listen to them, everything bad in the world is directly due to Trump, the most evil man the world has ever seen. Worse than Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Mao, and all the Kims put together.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Not only is he at least partly responsible, he also could have ended it easily.

How? It's a simple question, and you should be able to answer it easily.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Wait until the other shoe drops and they add all the unemployed "newcomers" to the numbers in the available labor pool.

 

The number of full time jobs has gone up 2 million or so above pre-Covid, while the number of illegals has gone up by 10+ million.  Yet, unemployment numbers (and your labor participation rates) don't reflect that.  Because they're not being counted as "available labor".  Yet.

 

They're waiting until after the election (and probably after Trump's inauguration) to add them to the labor pool, resulting in much higher unemployment and much lower labor participation numbers.  That they can then blame on Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

How? It's a simple question, and you should be able to answer it easily.

Too obvious to answer. You're trolling.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Too obvious to answer. You're trolling.

You are evading, probably because you don't know how he could have stopped it.

I have no idea how he could have stopped it, and his secret service detail would never have let him get anywhere near it to try.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Too obvious to answer. You're trolling.

This reminds me of the "too many to list" excuse for a leftist not being able to come up with a single example. 

[candide]

1 hour ago, G_Money said:

You’ve earned that credit.  Be proud of your accomplishment.

Yawn....

[candide]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How? It's a simple question, and you should be able to answer it easily.

Easy. Tell them to stop it and go out of the Capitol ASAP?

[BigStar]

On 10/18/2024 at 4:39 AM, Tug said:

Ahh you do know us AMERICANS witnessed his speech us Americans heard his words ALL predicated on his big lie ……a lie he KNOWS is a lie.

 

It'll be a sad day when libs when they finally realize that average voters don't care about Jan 6 and the hoax they've spun around it.

 

And Dem lawfare, at great cost to voters, hasn't produced the happy results anticipated.

 

It’s stunning how much of a failure the lawfare against Trump ended up being. Zero negative effect on his electoral chances, and if anything, precisely the opposite - if he wins in November, a case could be made the lawfare is to thank for it.

     --https://x.com/SteveKrak/status/1847404710116081847

 

So it is with this latest desperate little burp as the election looms and Harris has fallen in the polls.

 

 

Edited October 20 by BigStar

[Will B Good]

12 hours ago, G_Money said:

And you believe it.  No wonder the country is in the state it is under the Democratic leadership.

 

Believe what......?

[G_Money]

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Believe what......?

 The content of your post.  Forgot already?

[Will B Good]

5 minutes ago, G_Money said:

 The content of your post.  Forgot already?

 

Why do you think I believed any of it?

 

And which bit?

 

The attorney saying what he said, if Trump is trying to throw money at her or the fact he didn't sleep with her?

[animalmagic]

On 10/18/2024 at 12:40 PM, jvs said:

If a gang decides to rob a bank(criminal act) and they do end up killing someone

then also the driver in the get away car (who did not enter the bank) will end up being just as guilty as the shooter!

Same thing?

Guilty by association.

I'm not convinced the driver could be found guilty or charged of murder/homicide (whatever degree) in these circumstances.  Depending on the jurisdiction the driver would be guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of armed robbery as it is reasonably obvious what the intended crime was by the actions and preparations of the robbers who he transported to the bank and then waited to help them escape with their ill-gotten gains.  Although it may reasonably be inferred that the robbers may use their weapons and kill someone it would be difficult to prove that the getaway driver knew beforehand that they would in fact do so.  Even after the shooting occurred the level of criminality committed by the getaway driver does not reach that of culpability for the murder as that has already occurred and he is helping his accomplices to escape.

Guilt by association cannot really be used in these circumstances as any prosecution needs to prove the defendant knew or believed that the offence of murder would be committed during the robbery.  A driver transporting a criminal to an assassination/drive by shooting however could be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a murder in this case.

In your scenario above the driver is not present during the commission of the crime (murder) but in my scenario quoted above he is either present during the commission of the crime (drive by shooting), or knew the assassination was the intent of the passenger when transporting him to, and escaping from, the crime.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

I'm not convinced the driver could be found guilty or charged of murder/homicide (whatever degree) in these circumstances.  Depending on the jurisdiction the driver would be guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of armed robbery as it is reasonably obvious what the intended crime was by the actions and preparations of the robbers who he transported to the bank and then waited to help them escape with their ill-gotten gains.  Although it may reasonably be inferred that the robbers may use their weapons and kill someone it would be difficult to prove that the getaway driver knew beforehand that they would in fact do so.  Even after the shooting occurred the level of criminality committed by the getaway driver does not reach that of culpability for the murder as that has already occurred and he is helping his accomplices to escape.

Guilt by association cannot really be used in these circumstances as any prosecution needs to prove the defendant knew or believed that the offence of murder would be committed during the robbery.  A driver transporting a criminal to an assassination/drive by shooting however could be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a murder in this case.

In your scenario above the driver is not present during the commission of the crime (murder) but in my scenario quoted above he is either present during the commission of the crime (drive by shooting), or knew the assassination was the intent of the passenger when transporting him to, and escaping from, the crime.

If your argument that: "Although it may reasonably be inferred that the robbers may use their weapons and kill someone it would be difficult to prove that the getaway driver knew beforehand that they would in fact do so." is valid for the driver, why is it not also valid for the gunman? 

 

The gunmen were hoping to get in and out with the dough and had no way of knowing beforehand things would go awry, and that they would end up killing someone. 

 

No different than the driver.

 

 

[thesetat2013]

On 10/18/2024 at 3:30 PM, BangkokReady said:

Looking forward to when they do the same for left-wing politicians with the BLM riots and looting.  Any day now I'm sure...  🙄

Becoming famous or even infamous means payment on 10fold from the customers who will hire them next. 

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, animalmagic said:

A person testifying under oath is allowed to recount any experience they have relevant to the investigation and prosecution.  Should that person utter hearsay evidence during their testimony it is up to the opposing legal party to object on the basis that it is hearsay.  Even if upheld by the Judge then only that hearsay part of the witness' testimony is classified as inadmissible; it does not taint all other testimony given.  When a witness/accused lies under oath it does not automatically prove that all other testimony is a lie but is a fact that can be relied upon by the opposing legal team to reduce the value of all other evidence given as it can no longer be trusted.  Hearsay evidence does not devalue all other testimony given.

 

 

I didn't say that but she admitted that pretty much all her testimony was what she had heard from others, not personally, one way or another. She was not in The Beast with Trump and the Secret Service and this was a "hearing", not a legal trial. 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Not only is he at least partly responsible, he also could have ended it easily.

 

How?

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Wait until the other shoe drops and they add all the unemployed "newcomers" to the numbers in the available labor pool.

 

The number of full time jobs has gone up 2 million or so above pre-Covid, while the number of illegals has gone up by 10+ million.  Yet, unemployment numbers (and your labor participation rates) don't reflect that.  Because they're not being counted as "available labor".  Yet.

 

They're waiting until after the election (and probably after Trump's inauguration) to add them to the labor pool, resulting in much higher unemployment and much lower labor participation numbers.  That they can then blame on Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It looks like ever more economic numbers are being fudged than usual for the election build-up.

 

Maybe Donald could keep the 10+ million as "unavailable labor"? At least on paper anyway. 

[G_Money]

3 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

Why do you think I believed any of it?

 

And which bit?

 

The attorney saying what he said, if Trump is trying to throw money at her or the fact he didn't sleep with her?

Take your pick 

[Yellowtail]

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

It looks like ever more economic numbers are being fudged than usual for the election build-up.

 

Maybe Donald could keep the 10+ million as "unavailable labor"? At least on paper anyway. 

If only the stupid Trump supporters had IQs high enough, they would see how great the economy is and how millions of illegals flooding across the border is really improving their lives. 

 

The fools! 

[Yellowtail]

Just now, G_Money said:

Take your pick 

You'll never get fatty to discuss anything honestly, don't waste your time. 

[G_Money]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

You'll never get fatty to discuss anything honestly, don't waste your time. 

I was unaware Will B Good was a fatty.

[Inderpland]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You'll never get fatty to discuss anything honestly, don't waste your time. 

And just who exactly are you talking about? Is it Trump? Because surely you didn't call a fellow poster 'fatty', did you?