Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 184
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    105,628

    Did President Trump obstruct justice?

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    the delays of the courts needs to end at some point.
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    And if people got **** counsel, well they had to die so the court could move faster…but tell me again how pro-life you are!
    I was told there would be pro-life! Not pro-death!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    105,628
    I’m trying to remember if Obama, Clinton, or Biden ever got accused of this by a judge.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    9,329
    And if the evidence presented shows that he did obstruct justice, he should be convicted of having done so.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    64,162
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    105,628
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    the delays of the courts needs to end at some point.
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    And if people got **** counsel, well they had to die so the court could move faster…but tell me again how pro-life you are!
    I was told there would be pro-life! Not pro-death!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    9,329
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    46,198


    "It is a grotesque parody of the bazaar at Marrakech, as if dumb animals had been granted only the amount of sentience required to mock humanity."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,719
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    9,329
    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."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    105,628
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    46,198
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    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.


    "It is a grotesque parody of the bazaar at Marrakech, as if dumb animals had been granted only the amount of sentience required to mock humanity."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    9,329
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    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?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,512
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    105,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    the delays of the courts needs to end at some point.
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    And if people got **** counsel, well they had to die so the court could move faster…but tell me again how pro-life you are!
    I was told there would be pro-life! Not pro-death!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    8,512
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    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???

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •