Did President Trump obstruct justice?

[dbroncos78087]

I'm sure some Trump supporters won't like this being discussed, but this is from a court finding by a judge, so it doesn't belong buried in another thread:

[dbroncos78087]

I’m trying to remember if Obama, Clinton, or Biden ever got accused of this by a judge.

[catman]

And if the evidence presented shows that he did obstruct justice, he should be convicted of having done so.

[spliff(TONE)]

And if the evidence presented shows that he did obstruct justice, he should be convicted of having done so.

....and if the sky is blue, the sky is blue.

[dbroncos78087]

And if the evidence presented shows that he did obstruct justice, he should be convicted of having done so.

Did you read the last sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph?

[catman]

Did you read the last sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph?

Yes I did. A judge simply saying that Trump is guilty is not the same as bringing him to trial. This judge will not serve as the judge for a Trump trial, however.
Judges are not supposed to sit in judgement when they cannot be objective, as this judge has shown that he cannot.
Also, "More likely than not" is not 100% guilty. Given that statement, Trump would likely not be convicted, given the current evidence. To be convicted, the jury is supposed to find that it is absolute that the party is guilty, not more likely than not.

[natepro]

[valade16]

Yes I did. A judge simply saying that Trump is guilty is not the same as bringing him to trial. This judge will not serve as the judge for a Trump trial, however.
Judges are not supposed to sit in judgement when they cannot be objective, as this judge has shown that he cannot.
Also, "More likely than not" is not 100% guilty. Given that statement, Trump would likely not be convicted, given the current evidence. To be convicted, the jury is supposed to find that it is absolute that the party is guilty, not more likely than not.

Why has this judge shown they cannot be objective?

[catman]

Perhaps I misspoke about that, Valade. That does not change the fact that this judge has said that "More likely than not" Trump obstructed justice. Is this grounds for conviction in your courtroom? I sincerely hope not. In a civil court, yes. The burden of proof in a criminal case is far greater than "More likely than not."

[dbroncos78087]

Yes I did. A judge simply saying that Trump is guilty is not the same as bringing him to trial. This judge will not serve as the judge for a Trump trial, however.
Judges are not supposed to sit in judgement when they cannot be objective, as this judge has shown that he cannot.
Also, "More likely than not" is not 100% guilty. Given that statement, Trump would likely not be convicted, given the current evidence. To be convicted, the jury is supposed to find that it is absolute that the party is guilty, not more likely than not.

Wait did someone tell the entire court system that “judges are not supposed to sit in judgment”? Because the root word of the word judgment is pretty clear.

[natepro]

Wait did someone tell the entire court system that “judges are not supposed to sit in judgment”? Because the root word of the word judgment is pretty clear.

He just says things sometimes. If they're not plainly obvious with no need to be stated ("A judge simply saying that Trump is guilty is not the same as bringing him to trial.") then they're just off the wall and bizarre.

[catman]

Wait did someone tell the entire court system that “judges are not supposed to sit in judgment”? Because the root word of the word judgment is pretty clear.

As I said to Valade, "More likely than not" does not equal guilty in a courtroom. In civil court it does, but criminal court has a much higher standard than civil court does.
Do you disagree?

[Sluggo1]

Wait did someone tell the entire court system that “judges are not supposed to sit in judgment”? Because the root word of the word judgment is pretty clear.

My understanding of the court system is that the judge pretty much has the final word in guilt or innocence. Most of the time this "final word"consists of the judge simply accepting the jury's guilty/not guilty verdict.

The judge does have the power to set aside the jury's "guilty" verdict but it is rare and he/she needs to have a very good reason to do so. (I think it is called a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict"). Changing a jury's verdict comes into play more with a judge changing the verdict on compensatory damages in a civil suit. The judge cannot set aside a "not guilty" verdict.

There may be more to it than that but that is my understanding of the process.

[dbroncos78087]

My understanding of the court system is that the judge pretty much has the final word in guilt or innocence. Most of the time this "final word"consists of the judge simply accepting the jury's guilty/not guilty verdict.

The judge does have the power to set aside the jury's "guilty" verdict but it is rare and he/she needs to have a very good reason to do so. (I think it is called a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict"). Changing a jury's verdict comes into play more with a judge changing the verdict on compensatory damages in a civil suit. The judge cannot set aside a "not guilty" verdict.

There may be more to it than that but that is my understanding of the process.

The way the statement was uttered was hilariously ridiculous. Stating that a judge shouldn't sit in judgment...I mean it's literally in the name. It's like saying a motor vehicle shouldn't have a motor or a teacher shouldn't teach.

[Sluggo1]

The way the statement was uttered was hilariously ridiculous. Stating that a judge shouldn't sit in judgment...I mean it's literally in the name. It's like saying a motor vehicle shouldn't have a motor or a teacher shouldn't teach.

No judge should ever give his opinion on a case that may be brought before the court.

Powerful public figures also should not do this. Didn't BO speak out of turn about Trayvon??? And Trump about a few people???