Trump FINALLY indicted: "We are living in a Police State" say Fox Commentators

[basballguy]

(04-03-2023, 01:18 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: I feel it was murder b/c officer Sicknick did die due to the direct and proximate results of the injuries he sustained during the insurrection on January 6th.  You do understand homicide and murder are two different things?

Homicide means only an act or omission that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm.


So it's not the medical examiner's responsibility to determine if it was a cause of death or not, it his job to determine the cause of death and in this case it was a stroke due to injuries sustained from the attack on our Capitol on January 6th.   The language from the link you provide meets the definition of homicide b/c Officer Sicknick's death occurred due to the direct and proximate result of another's actions.  


"This does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol."

I'm definitely not gonna claim to be an expert here.  Here's what I think I know:

Medical Examiners do determine if the cause of death is a homicide or something else.  A quick google seems to make this true

If there's no homicide then there's no murder.  

You are now expressing an opinion that. from your point of view, there was a murder.  You were previously commenting to where it sounded like you were presenting it as a fact.  If that's not the case, sorry.  

[Dill]

(03-31-2023, 03:42 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We like to think that our politicians are more heavily scrutinized and held to a "higher ethical standard" than business people in the U.S. But if there is any truth to that, it is only because the rival party vets opponents and demands accountability through media platforms, eh.

So, you always have the opposing parties looking for 'dirt' on each other. But sometimes, that search for dirt reveals what the opposition might consider a 'gold nugget': a potential prosecutable violation of the law (i.e. a mudslingers wet dream). If that happens, the opposition can turn it over to the justice department to investigate and follow up on. The opposition loves this because they can now sling mud from the sideline while a supposedly unaligned third party takes the field and makes a determination if there is sufficient evidence to pursue charges and to follow up/not follow up as the situation requires in their determination. I write 'supposedly unaligned third party' in reference to the Justice Department because 1) it is a large bureaucratic department with many lawyers and judges who support one party or another to some degree or another (i.e. results may vary depending on who, when, and where); and 2) as a massive bureaucratic department reflecting many views, the overall effect nationwide is to appear unbiased. But that said, criminal charges are criminal charges and even the most blatantly partisan judges cannot totally ignore or white wash them. If someone apparently broke the law and the charges make it to a docket, they will get consideration.

So, yeah, the case doesn't see the light of day if not for a political motivation (I believe the official 2020's response is, "Yeah... so what?"). But at the same time, a court finding finding sufficient evidence of violation of a law to indict is generally not politically motivated.

B, you'd have made a good political scientist! 

Your analysis here works in the opposite direction of a conspiracy theory. Where you see complexity and fracture, which in part prevents one party or group from controlling a gov. bureaucracy, conspiracists see only monoliths--often directed by "Soros" or the DNC or some such entity.  For them there is no "friction" in bureaucracies.  (e.g., Bush orders people to bring down the twin towers and shoot down a passenger jet over PA, a conspiracy which would commit hundreds of U.S. military and intel members to murdering their own countrymen (and possibly family members), and of course they follow orders and all keep the secret for 20 years. Just so Bush can go after Saddam, though of course he has to invade A-stan first, falsely blaming Al Qaeda, whom he tricked into taking credit for 9/11.)  

In the case of the DOJ and the FBI, actions must often be reviewed by different people at different levels--e.g., an application for a warrant must be approved by supervisers and a judge independent of the FBI or whomever.  Very hard to get people on board an investigation of high level politicians without evidence to which laws can clearly apply--it's only the quality of evidence that saves them from dishonor and investigation themselves.

When it comes to legal issues like those Trump is facing, it is always possible for a small coterie of people to hide or manufacture evidence (say a policemen who invents a story to cover an illegal shooting and his buddies back him up, or a president who replaces DOJ personnel who won't do his bidding with people who will). But when you are talking about charges which have to be confirmed by multiple bureaucracies from accountants and investigators to defense lawyers to judges, and which have to align with law, it is very difficult to "politicize" in such cases, because all elements will eventually become transparent, and none of those involved wants errors or mistrials on his record, let alone criminal charges. 

Nothing expresses the current political dysfunction in the U.S. like all these RW Politicians and celebrities complaining the gov. has been "weaponized" because the guy who used the DOJ and other bureaucracies to favor friends and punish enemies--and to retain power illegally--is now to be arraigned himself on charges that 23 U.S. citizens thought warranted indictment. Their news organizations and blogs work 24/7 disinforming people about the nature of the charges and why they were brought. The monolithic DEEP STATE is after Trump because he is such a threat to "the Swamp" or the "elite" who always get away with crimes. 

Instead of urging people to consider why this ex-president calls so many investigations upon himself, they instead express faux outrage over the "unprecedented" action against an ex-president. MUST be political because no ex-president has been indicted before! It's as if Trump's 3,500 lawsuits over the course of 40 years, the current investigations over charges from rape to stealing classified documents to sedition, have all been thrown down Orwell's memory hole. Of course its going to be THIS PRESIDENT who finally breaks the precedent.

The "unprecedented" angle would be framed very differently if the FBI could ever actually muster some evidence against Biden that a prosecutor could feel confident bringing to court. As the Clinton impeachment demonstrates, they are all for "unprecedented" charges when it's the other party in dock, even as a sitting president. 

[GMDino]

(04-03-2023, 01:26 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm definitely not gonna claim to be an expert here.  Here's what I think I know:

Medical Examiners do determine if the cause of death is a homicide or something else.  A quick google seems to make this true

If there's no homicide then there's no murder.  

You are now expressing an opinion that. from your point of view, there was a murder.  You were previously commenting to where it sounded like you were presenting it as a fact.  If that's not the case, sorry.  

So if someone gets beaten severely but lives for a few days...then dies...the attacker won't get charged with murder?

Big if true.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(04-03-2023, 01:26 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm definitely not gonna claim to be an expert here.  Here's what I think I know:

Medical Examiners do determine if the cause of death is a homicide or something else.  A quick google seems to make this true

If there's no homicide then there's no murder.  

You are now expressing an opinion that. from your point of view, there was a murder.  You were previously commenting to where it sounded like you were presenting it as a fact.  If that's not the case, sorry.  

So what you want us all to believe is,  that after Officer Sicknick defended our Capitol from a Trump-incited insurrection after he was beaten profusely, hit with bear-strength pepper spray, and inhaled said spray---- an otherwise healthy 42-yr old man that passed all his prior police physical fitness tests--- just goes home and has a stroke, and it was all just natural causes b/c that's what happens to 42-yr old physically fit otherwise healthy people all the time, eh? 

[Dill]

(04-03-2023, 01:10 PM)basballguy Wrote: Sounds like Gatesville (or thereabouts)

Lived in Copperas Cove near Forth Hood until college then moved to Dallas.  

I know where that's at.  Our family homestead was a few miles from Star Texas, a crossroads with a gas station, diner, and school.
It's between Evant and Goldthwaite (One uncle was for many years mayor of Goldthwaite). That's only about 30 miles from CC, I think.

I was born in Brownwood. 

[basballguy]

(04-03-2023, 01:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: So if someone gets beaten severely but lives for a few days...then dies...the attacker won't get charged with murder?

Big if true.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but probably they still would?  

The ME ruled natural causes
The DA decided to not pursue charges in the death of the poor man.  

I would imagine, in your scenario, the ME would just rule that death a homicide if the medical evidence lined up for a homicide.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(04-03-2023, 01:49 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm not a lawyer so I don't know but probably they still would?  

The ME ruled natural causes
The DA decided to not pursue charges in the death of the poor man.  

I would imagine, in your scenario, the ME would just rule that death a homicide if the medical evidence lined up for a homicide.

You say you use CNN as a news source. Check this out.  Also, concerning the DA, there isn't a statute of limitations regarding murder.  Manslaughter is 20-yrs,  and yes,  manslaughter is a homicide. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/20/health/sicknick-death-natural-strokes/index.html

[samhain]

(04-03-2023, 01:48 PM)Dill Wrote: I know where that's at.  Our family homestead was a few miles from Star Texas, a crossroads with a gas station, diner, and school.
It's between Evant and Goldthwaite (One uncle was for many years mayor of Goldthwaite). That's only about 30 miles from CC, I think.

I was born in Brownwood. 

I never knew they named a town after Bobcat Goldthwaite.  Guy's an absolute legend.  That town is way ahead of it's time.

[Bengalzona]

(04-03-2023, 01:39 PM)Dill Wrote: B, you'd have made a good political scientist! 

Your analysis here works in the opposite direction of a conspiracy theory. Where you see complexity and fracture, which in part prevents one party or group from controlling a gov. bureaucracy, conspiracists see only monoliths--often directed by "Soros" or the DNC or some such entity.  For them there is no "friction" in bureaucracies.  (e.g., Bush orders people to bring down the twin towers and shoot down a passenger jet over PA, a conspiracy which would commit hundreds of U.S. military and intel members to murdering their own countrymen (and possibly family members), and of course they follow orders and all keep the secret for 20 years. Just so Bush can go after Saddam, though of course he has to invade A-stan first, falsely blaming Al Qaeda, whom he tricked into taking credit for 9/11.)  

In the case of the DOJ and the FBI, actions must often be reviewed by different people at different levels--e.g., an application for a warrant must be approved by supervisers and a judge independent of the FBI or whomever.  Very hard to get people on board an investigation of high level politicians without evidence to which laws can clearly apply--it's only the quality of evidence that saves them from dishonor and investigation themselves.

When it comes to legal issues like those Trump is facing, it is always possible for a small coterie of people to hide or manufacture evidence (say a policemen who invents a story to cover an illegal shooting and his buddies back him up, or a president who replaces DOJ personnel who won't do his bidding with people who will). But when you are talking about charges which have to be confirmed by multiple bureaucracies from accountants and investigators to defense lawyers to judges, and which have to align with law, it is very difficult to "politicize" in such cases, because all elements will eventually become transparent, and none of those involved wants errors or mistrials on his record, let alone criminal charges. 

Nothing expresses the current political dysfunction in the U.S. like all these RW Politicians and celebrities complaining the gov. has been "weaponized" because the guy who used the DOJ and other bureaucracies to favor friends and punish enemies--and to retain power illegally--is now to be arraigned himself on charges that 23 U.S. citizens thought warranted indictment. Their news organizations and blogs work 24/7 disinforming people about the nature of the charges and why they were brought. The monolithic DEEP STATE is after Trump because he is such a threat to "the Swamp" or the "elite" who always get away with crimes. 

Instead of urging people to consider why this ex-president calls so many investigations upon himself, they instead express faux outrage over the "unprecedented" action against an ex-president. MUST be political because no ex-president has been indicted before! It's as if Trump's 3,500 lawsuits over the course of 40 years, the current investigations over charges from rape to stealing classified documents to sedition, have all been thrown down Orwell's memory hole. Of course its going to be THIS PRESIDENT who finally breaks the precedent.

The "unprecedented" angle would be framed very differently if the FBI could ever actually muster some evidence against Biden that a prosecutor could feel confident bringing to court. As the Clinton impeachment demonstrates, they are all for "unprecedented" charges when it's the other party in dock, even as a sitting president. 

One of the great things about living in this country is that despite what conspiracy notions are running around or people's political views, etc., if 23 peoples on a grand jury find there is sufficient evidence that you have broken the law and that you should be indicted and go to court, your ass is still going to court to explain/defend/admit regardless.

[Luvnit2]

(04-03-2023, 12:39 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Did you stop reading after the first sentence?  Yes, Officer Sicknick died from a stroke, and that happens to be a natural cause; however, the injuries he sustained by defending our nation's Capitol from a Trump-incited insurrection caused the stroke of an otherwise healthy 42 yr old police officer who had passed all his prior physicals.

From the link you posted:
"The USCP accepts the findings from the District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Medical Examiner that Officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes. This does not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol."

The Department continues to mourn the loss of our beloved colleague. The attack on our officers, including Brian, was an attack on our democracy."

So let me explain the logic in this for you.  If you recklessly or by force cause someone injuries and they die as a direct or proximate result of your actions, therefore you will be charged accordingly with the death of another human and will be guilty of manslaughter at the very least.   It doesn't matter if the death is the next day, a week, or a month later, you still will be held responsible for the death of the person you injured. 

Please provide scientific evidence a stroke was 100% caused by a riot started by ATIFA and Democrats. I will await your doctor's statement claiming this or else aybe let it go as propaganda and BS.The whole think was preventable, Trump asked Pelosi for troops to protect DC days prior to Jan. 6 (fact), so in your logic I guess Pelosi is responsible for a stroke that killed officer Sicknick.

Sorry, you are full of crap to damage the former POTUS.

But as I have stated, Bragg and Democrats will look smart IF TRUMP IS CONVICTED on this indictment, or will look like political arms of the DNC and a corrupt government if Trump is not convicted.

[Luvnit2]

(04-03-2023, 11:56 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: One of the great things about living in this country is that despite what conspiracy notions are running around or people's political views, etc., if 23 peoples on a grand jury find there is sufficient evidence that you have broken the law and that you should be indicted and go to court, your ass is still going to court to explain/defend/admit regardless.

I hope you feel the exact same way when a prosecutor in California, NY, Texas, Florida goes after a high profile Democrat. You know, campaigns on going after Democrats, wins elections and then starts looking for crimes on the individual versus finding a crime and then finding out who did it.

NYC is a cesspool of a city, rats are everywhere. Bragg is the king rat, let's see how this turns out for him. I would not be shocked if a far left liberal killed Bragg and tried to frame a white supremest. That seems to be their stye.

[*Nately120*]

(04-04-2023, 01:04 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: But as I have stated, Bragg and Democrats will look smart IF TRUMP IS CONVICTED on this indictment, or will look like political arms of the DNC and a corrupt government if Trump is not convicted.

There is absolutely no way you'll admit Bragg "and the democrats" were right or smart if Trump is convicted.  You are going to say it was rigged and a lie or that ANTIFA threatened the judge/jury to convict.


Wait, has anyone proposed that Trump being sent to Rikers Island could be part of an inside job to further his undercover work exposing the deep state sex trafficking of children that he started by hanging out with Jeffery Epstein? Trump supporters who are trying to keep him out of jail might need to realize Trump and Bragg are working together to get him on the inside.

[GMDino]

This thread is further proof that all those people who said the "learned their lesson" about Trump, who said "Trump needs to go away", "Trump isn't the leader of the republican party", "I'll never vote for him again",  all those people will still defend him as the leader of their cult and not even bat an eye about it.

The difference between Jim Jones and Donald Trump is Trump would charge you for the Kool-Aid/flavor aid. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-04-2023, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: This thread is further proof that all those people who said the "learned their lesson" about Trump, who said "Trump needs to go away", "Trump isn't the leader of the republican party", "I'll never vote for him again",  all those people will still defend him as the leader of their cult and not even bat an eye about it.

The difference between Jim Jones and Donald Trump is Trump would charge you for the Kool-Aid/flavor aid. 

It's funny how DeSantis won Florida by like 20 points and conservatives were like WOOOOOOWWW this is our guy!  Buuuttt on the other hand, Trump is getting arrested, so let's go with him.

Poor Ron, he's like the kid who gets straight A's on his report card, but his parents can't take him to Chuck E. Cheese as a reward because they're too busy putting out fires and showing up in court for their other kid.  Sorry good kid, you're on your own because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. 

[masonbengals fan]

Quite funny getting lessons on who should be the conservative candidates from the same people whose last 2 include one in depends & the other just released from a mental hospital. LOL

Folks you can't make this shit up. We are living in crazy town.

[*Nately120*]

(04-04-2023, 11:18 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Quite funny getting lessons on who should be the conservative candidates from the same people whose last 2 include one in depends & the other just released from a mental hospital. LOL

Folks you can't make this shit up. We are living in crazy town.

I assume you're talking about John Fetterman.  I'd argue that a person attempting to work through medical issues and depression represents the American people better than a guy who is lavished with applause and showered with millions of dollars for being arrested. 

And I'm not laying this on you specifically (I know I'm guilty of it, too), but it's a bit interesting we claim that we have a huge mental health crisis in this country (the kind that makes people go on killing sprees, mostly), but when someone seeks mental health treatment we go into "HA, look at the nut in the nuthouse!  Quick, someone fire his crazy ass from his job!"  It's no wonder people don't actually seek treatment for mental issues.

Anyways, I just clicked out of this topic and saw the 8 pages of the latest shooting and figured I'd add this to my post.  I feel nuts now.

[Bengalzona]

(04-04-2023, 01:09 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I hope you feel the exact same way when a prosecutor in California, NY, Texas, Florida goes after a high profile Democrat. You know, campaigns on going after Democrats, wins elections and then starts looking for crimes on the individual versus finding a crime and then finding out who did it.

NYC is a cesspool of a city, rats are everywhere. Bragg is the king rat, let's see how this turns out for him. I would not be shocked if a far left liberal killed Bragg and tried to frame a white supremest. That seems to be their stye.

Of course I feel that way, regardless of the politics of the person involved. That is why the Judicial Branch was created as a separate branch of government. Partisan bullshit can only go so far in the face of logic and facts. And biased judges and prosecutors are limited when a jury of peers is called to render a decision. A prosecutor or sheriff's office can run all the investigations they want (well, at least until the tax payers get fed up with funding investigations that continuously lead no where... a.k.a. Sheriff Joe), but if the evidence cannot convince a judge or grand jury to go forward with it (i.e. that laws were broken), it means nothing.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(04-04-2023, 01:04 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Please provide scientific evidence a stroke was 100% caused by a riot started by ATIFA and Democrats. I will await your doctor's statement claiming this or else aybe let it go as propaganda and BS.The whole think was preventable, Trump asked Pelosi for troops to protect DC days prior to Jan. 6 (fact), so in your logic I guess Pelosi is responsible for a stroke that killed officer Sicknick.

Sorry, you are full of crap to damage the former POTUS.

But as I have stated, Bragg and Democrats will look smart IF TRUMP IS CONVICTED on this indictment, or will look like political arms of the DNC and a corrupt government if Trump is not convicted.

Boy oh boy, you're so far down the QAnon Rabbit hole you don't know which end is up.  I guess you think 42-year-olds that have passed all their prior police physicals just go home and have strokes all the time.  There's video evidence that Officer Sicknick was hit with bear-strength pepper spray (By Trump supporters), inhaled said spray, and was beaten severely by a Trump-incited insurrection.  Read the medical examiner's report it was a stroke caused by a direct and proximate result of Trump's actions of promoting his Big Lie on January 6th.  Do your research! 

Nancy Pelosi did contact Mitch McConnell who was in charge of Senate security and he's on record saying he believed Trump's mob would be non-violent.  So if you're going to blame Pelosi then you also have to blame Mitch McConnell. Pelosi nor McConnell told a mob to leave the morning rally go to the Capitol and "Fight like hell, and hang Mike Pence," then get into their motorcade like a coward and go the other way.   I'm not even going to address the riot that was started by ANTIFA b/c that is so ludicrous it's not even work debating and would seriously lower my IQ-- Ya know b/c all the democrats--they all dressed up as pro-Trump supporters some in QAnon garb just to make Trump look bad, eh?  But nice try.    Read some of the pleadings after these idiots were sent to prison for attacking our Capitol.   

Sorry for you a federal judge just found FOX guilty by way of summary judgment for Trump's Big Lie they promoted after Joe Biden won the election. The judge told the jury just to decide how many $Billions Fox will have to pay Dominion.  So I guess you're just going to have to find another tabloid entertainment source to justify the lies of Benedict Donald.    

Here's a place to start for Officer Sicknick

https://dcist.com/story/21/04/19/d-c-medical-examiner-rules-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-had-two-strokes-died-of-natural-causes/

[GMDino]

(04-04-2023, 11:18 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Quite funny getting lessons on who should be the conservative candidates from the same people whose last 2 include one in depends & the other just released from a mental hospital. LOL

Folks you can't make this shit up. We are living in crazy town.

At least you finally admit Trump wears depends. 

But I can understand your vitriol toward a man admitting he needs help and getting it.  The right only wants alpha males who have no problems and never ask for help.  Like asking for money when they are a "self-made multi-millionaire".  

All seriousness aside I, personally, find the reference to a "mental hospital. LOL" pretty hateful.  I hope no one in your family ever has true mental issues that they need helped for.

[*Nately120*]

(04-04-2023, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: At least you finally admit Trump wears depends. 

But I can understand your vitriol toward a man admitting he needs help and getting it.  The right only wants alpha males who have no problems and never ask for help.  Like asking for money when they are a "self-made multi-millionaire".  

All seriousness aside I, personally, find the reference to a "mental hospital. LOL" pretty hateful.  I hope no one in your family ever has true mental issues that they need helped for.

I wouldn't call it hateful, I have to admit my mind goes to "nut house alert" when stuff like that comes up.  Our society really has it drilled into our heads that people who need help are beyond help and need to be in exile.  This stuff is hard to undo.

Even as someone who voted for Fetterman, as soon as I saw he was hospitalized for depression I had an "Aw crap moment" before realizing that getting help is a good thing and takes some gumption and I still didn't think Dr. Oz meddling in PA women's vajayjays was a preferable alternative.