-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Judge finds that Trump likely committed felony obstruction of Congress on January 6th, 2021
- Thread starter E_i
- Start date
Trump will never let this happen.
He owns the GOP... The party is his to do with what he wishes. The only way Trump isn't the nominee is if he doesn't want it.
I could see DeSantis snatching it from Trump because he is acting like Trump and his support is growing.
I don't know why people think this is "not enough" from the judge
The judge was asked to rule on breaking client-attorney privilege to release documents because the client and attorney were most likely committing crimes together.
The judge said yeah, they most likely were committing crimes and they can't hide behind client-attorney privilege so you can have the documents
This outcome couldn't be any better?
The judge was asked to rule on breaking client-attorney privilege to release documents because the client and attorney were most likely committing crimes together.
The judge said yeah, they most likely were committing crimes and they can't hide behind client-attorney privilege so you can have the documents
This outcome couldn't be any better?
Last edited:
If DeSantis is smart (and he is) he'll just wait his turn.
Trump only has one more run in him, if even that. DeSantis is going to be president one day no reason to fuck that up by messing with the king of his party.
This is the first time I was able to post this gif. I had to take it.
It's a "ruling" in as far as the judge is determining whether it would be legal for a subpoena to breach attorney-client privilege for an ongoing investigation. They weighed the existing evidence presented by the investigative committee that suggests criminal activity, and ruled that the attorney must respond to the legal subpoena.
As the article notes, Congress has no legal prosecution authority, so any evidence they gather would be referred to the DOJ to do with as they would.
Edit: Beaten a million times.
Last edited:
It sounds like, then, your problem isn't with the news threads but the people posting the same things in every one.
or maybe people could just stop ripping their hair out in despair every time the headline isn't "Trump Literally Dragged into Prison with Rusty Iron Chains"
It's ridiculous, at this point. And I don't blame people who think it's in bad faith.
"More than likely not" is like writing a criminal defense's 'reasonable doubt' argument for them.
Well hopefully there are a couple steps between now and the jury verdict to investigate!
You flipped the words around, but actually it favors the prosecutors since more likely than not is essentially the definition for probable cause as the standard for criminal changes. This is what a grand jury indictment is based on, whether it is more likely than not the accused actually committed a crime, and therefore the court can move forward with their case.
Not that this will probably ever get there though.
This is just a reading by the judge based on just the communique. If you include all the stuff Jan 6th committee has, I'm certain that likely will go to beyond reasonable doubt.
Oh shit I totally flubbed the word order in my mind. Yeah that is my mistake and totally changes things.
Thanks for pointing that error out for me. I have a disability that causes these slip ups sometimes.
Probable cause is even less of a burden of proof than that. As a practical matter, though, prosecutors usually don't proceed unless they think it's likely that their evidence will produce a conviction. (And prosecutors certainly won't to prosecute the highly political cases here unless they're very certain)
No worries. Others were asking what it meant anyway and it's easy to not equate it with something that makes more sense.
It's the same verbiage that the Supreme Court has used for the standard of proof required for charges many times before.
I think you're confusing reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is far less. Probable cause is about 51%
Nope, preponderance of the evidence is 50+. Probable cause is a "fair probability that a crime has been committed."
Yep you're right... probable cause isn't given numerical value by the courts. My bad
For real. Any actual attempt at discussion surrounding these developments is DROWNED by this shit. We heard you guys the first 50 threads... We really did. Thanks for your input.
Jesus Christ
This is laying even more ammo to when the results of the committee are released. Hopefully DeSantis forces the GOP's hand and splits that vote right down the middle come primary season. Queue Trump then telling his idiot base to vote for him third party because of the "corrupt" GOP.
Never having any more threads on it ever is not conducive to discussion either.
I don't recall Kushner having been mentioned at all up to this point, would he have anything useful to add?
Not at this time. The ruling allowed the January 6th committee to get more documents from Trump and Eastman. As for why the judge ruled that Trump more likely than not committed a crime:
Trump claims that the document the Jan. 6th committee wanted were protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege. Normally, the government cannot force a party to turn over documents covered by one of these privileges. The judge found that the work product privilege covers the documents, so they had to find an exception. One exception is that the documents were produced to help commit a crime. The judge found that Trump and Eastman more likely than not were trying to illegally obstruct a congressional proceeding (a crime), which allowed the Jan 6th. committee to obtain the documents.
As for why this would not lead to any charges immediately:
More likely than not is legal jargon for a standard of proof. It means more or less what you think it means through a plain reading: more than 50%. That is the standard for compelling Trump to release the documents. But for convicting Trump of a crime, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is much tougher. Which is why a prosecutor might look at the same set of evidence as the judge and decide there is not enough to prosecute Trump.
I mean, I'll be more than happy to see the opposite happen.
Thanks for the explanation! Well hopefully whatever they find in this makes them confident enough that they can rise to the level of reasonable doubt
