Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

This thread is giving me flashbacks to my dumb ass in 2010 just watching GG and GDGD shit the bed for an entire season and then idiotically think everything is gonna just magically fix itself. 

America is gonna be going down a worse path than Texas Football has for the last decade-plus. Rudderless, feckless, and incapable of fixing it's shit because there's ALWAYS a reason why it won't work. 

DOJ is just scared to death of the opponents this week, maybe we should give out some orange slices and cookies to get em over the hump! We surely won't look like dickless fucking idiots for a generation 

the doj is killing themselves in florida?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2023 at 10:37 PM, TwiceHorn said:

We're not talking about admissibility.

We're talking about persuading a juror, who is to the extent possible, not informed about the events and is neither pro- or anti-Trump.

We, who are the opposite of those people, all verily know that he wanted Raffy to fucking burn ballots or create new ones or do whatever sinister shit he needed to to "find" the requisite number of votes.

A more neutral person, given evidence of the statement alone and argument that Trump runs his mouth all the time without really meaning or even understanding what he says, could pretty easily find doubt there. 

So, if you are a federal prosecutor, in an organization with an 85+^% conviction rate, contemplating the biggest criminal indictment and trial in US history, you are not going to go at that without turning over every stone you can get to and carefully evaluating what can be done with all of the evidence, both by you and by the defense.

From the rule of law standpoint, and we love to bark about the rule of law, bringing an indictment against Trump that results in an acquittal, while always a possibility, would be a gigantic disaster for the DOJ.  I might expect this to be the most carefully and meticulously developed criminal case ever, and for good reason.

This notion that "we've got the call on tape," easy-peasy conviction city is facile.

Further to this point, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, no fan of Trumpworld, acquitted a 1/6 defendant on obstruction of an official proceeding because his mental state and intentions were unclear.  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/13/judge-finds-jan-6-defendant-who-breached-senate-chamber-not-guilty-of-obstruction-00077971


After a weeklong bench trial, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Joshua Black had a “unique stew in his mind” that left her uncertain whether he was aware that his actions were unlawful. Black is the first Jan. 6 defendant who reached the Senate floor to be acquitted of the obstruction charge.

* * *


For prosecutors to secure a conviction for “obstruction of an official proceeding,” — a felony that carries a maximum 20-year sentence — they must show that a defendant had “corrupt” intent. But Jackson said prosecutors failed to support the charge with evidence proving Black’s intent. Evidence that Black intended to block Congress — or even was familiar with the congressional proceedings occurring that day — was “absent from the government’s case,” Jackson said.

This is a somewhat different kettle of fish than Trump, but the sumbitch was there on the Capitol grounds and even on the Senate floor, but it was still insufficiently clear that he corruptly intended to obstruct the proceeding.

And it demonstrates that going to trial on "the words/actions speak for themselves" is risky as fuck when that sort of specific intent is required by the statute.

It should also be noted that where the article says "aware that his actions were unlawful," that's typical shitty reporting.  That's not the standard here as set forth in greater detail in the article.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...