+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: Jan 6 Hearings (/Thread-Jan-6-Hearings)
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Belsnickel - 06-19-2022
So, I was listening to a federal judiciary commenter discuss the hearings and it was very interesting. Here are some points that I thought might be fun to bring up.
First, the hearings are not about convincing the public of the seriousness of the events on January 6th. As we can see from this thread, minds are already made up in that regard. The act of sedition that was attempted (people have actually pled guilty to it, so I feel comfortable calling it this) occurred publicly. If people are hiding from the facts on this, these hearings aren't going to change their minds. These hearings are more about convincing the DoJ that there is enough evidence to bring charges.
Second, they aren't trying to convince the DoJ to bring charges for inciting the violence on January 6th. Instead, they are focusing on the idea that Trump had corrupt intent in attempting to undermine the democratic processes and defraud the government. What does this mean? Simply put, that Trump knew he was wrong (or had enough evidence presented to him to know he was wrong) yet continued efforts that were unlawful to undermine the electoral system. This is why they are bringing forth people that are saying they told him he had lost and all that. It's like the malice test in a defamation suit.
The commentator is a former federal prosecutor and stated that he thinks they make a strong enough case to bring charges. However, even in DC he doesn't think there is a high likelihood of a jury conviction. Plus, it would likely see an appeals court and SCOTUS review before it even reached trial, which is extraordinary but this would be an extraordinary case.
The defense, and it would be a strong one that would likely sway at least one juror, would be that Trump genuinely thought there had been fraud and that he won the election. Now, whether that was a disregard for the evidence or delusion on his part, hard to say. That difference is enough to throw reasonable doubt into the mix, though.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - hollodero - 06-19-2022
(06-19-2022, 06:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I was listening to a federal judiciary commenter discuss the hearings and it was very interesting. Here are some points that I thought might be fun to bring up.
First, the hearings are not about convincing the public of the seriousness of the events on January 6th. As we can see from this thread, minds are already made up in that regard. The act of sedition that was attempted (people have actually pled guilty to it, so I feel comfortable calling it this) occurred publicly. If people are hiding from the facts on this, these hearings aren't going to change their minds. These hearings are more about convincing the DoJ that there is enough evidence to bring charges.
Second, they aren't trying to convince the DoJ to bring charges for inciting the violence on January 6th. Instead, they are focusing on the idea that Trump had corrupt intent in attempting to undermine the democratic processes and defraud the government. What does this mean? Simply put, that Trump knew he was wrong (or had enough evidence presented to him to know he was wrong) yet continued efforts that were unlawful to undermine the electoral system. This is why they are bringing forth people that are saying they told him he had lost and all that. It's like the malice test in a defamation suit.
The commentator is a former federal prosecutor and stated that he thinks they make a strong enough case to bring charges. However, even in DC he doesn't think there is a high likelihood of a jury conviction. Plus, it would likely see an appeals court and SCOTUS review before it even reached trial, which is extraordinary but this would be an extraordinary case.
The defense, and it would be a strong one that would likely sway at least one juror, would be that Trump genuinely thought there had been fraud and that he won the election. Now, whether that was a disregard for the evidence or delusion on his part, hard to say. That difference is enough to throw reasonable doubt into the mix, though.
So, one can commit crimes and get away with it just as long as one credibly believes he had to right a wrong by doing said crime, no matter how nonsenisical that belief is.
I have to wonder about that criteria, or that logic. It doesn't seem to apply in everyday cases. Eg. I imagine tax fraud is still pursued to the full extent of the law, even if I full-heartedly believe I was unfairly overburdened with too much taxes.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Belsnickel - 06-19-2022
(06-19-2022, 10:32 AM)hollodero Wrote: So, one can commit crimes and get away with it just as long as one credibly believes he had to right a wrong by doing said crime, no matter how nonsenisical that belief is.
I have to wonder about that criteria, or that logic. It doesn't seem to apply in everyday cases. Eg. I imagine tax fraud is still pursued to the full extent of the law, even if I full-heartedly believe I was unfairly overburdened with too much taxes.
It wouldn't apply in everyday cases because this wouldn't be an everyday case. That being said, the case law surrounding this is also extremely thin because, well, it is unprecedented. So some of the theorizing on it is understandably presumptuous.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Dill - 06-19-2022
(06-18-2022, 07:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m not sure what you are talking about. I’ll have to look it up, but I’m guessing if something should happen to them the US Attorney’s office is in charge of that.
There is a thread on the topic:
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-The-Green-Bay-Sweep-One-Year-Later?highlight=sweep
Hopefully the DOJ will be prosecuting the "Sweepers," but for the moment the plot and its alleged perpetrators are part of the 1/6 hearings because it looks like pushing Trump's mob to and into the Capitol was coordinated with the Sweep to pressure Pence as he received the illegitimate "alternative" state certifications.
The hope was that Pence would send the certifications back to the states to "clarify" a problem which only existed because some RNC operatives, coordinating with the WH, created it.
Then MAYBE the ensuing Constitutional crisis could enable Trump to stay in power, e.g., by throwing the vote to the House, or allowing the Republican legislatures in the "contested" states to vote on electors, thereby circumventing the will of the voters, or perhaps by declaring martial law and requiring new elections.
If you have been following the hearings, you'll know Pence referred to the presumption he actually had the power to decertify votes and chose the president himself as "rubber room stuff." This is partly why Barr resigned and Devos discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to stop Trump before she resigned. Even to his own cabinet this was clearly illegal.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Dill - 06-19-2022
(06-15-2022, 10:20 AM)hollodero Wrote: Overall, yeah "I" knew and that's why "I" left out the hearings and kept to a summary. Doesn't mean I also don't care about democracy. You paint it as though everyone not watching the hearings in length doesn't care about any of that, but that imho is a faulty conclusion.
Somewhat late, but yesterday's news drove me back to your post.
A quick note on the above:
I don't think you care less about democracy than I do.
And I suspect you agree with me that the Trump presidency was uniquely degraded and dangerous,
and that its legacy continues in "election integrity" laws and the media wars over the significance of 1/6. It's not over.
So I know you understand my concern that lack of interest in the hearings may in fact indicate lack of interest in
the current crisis of democracy. Early attempts to assess that tendency don't commit to the claim that "everyone not watching . . . doesn't care."
Last night Brian Stelter referred to polls showing that Fox ratings went DOWN when that network broadcast the hearing and ratings for MSM outlets went UP when they did. (Remember what I have said in the past about the ASYMMETRY of MSM and RWM.) So that doesn't leave me entirely hopeless.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Dill - 06-19-2022
(06-19-2022, 06:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The commentator is a former federal prosecutor and stated that he thinks they make a strong enough case to bring charges. However, even in DC he doesn't think there is a high likelihood of a jury conviction. Plus, it would likely see an appeals court and SCOTUS review before it even reached trial, which is extraordinary but this would be an extraordinary case.
The defense, and it would be a strong one that would likely sway at least one juror, would be that Trump genuinely thought there had been fraud and that he won the election. Now, whether that was a disregard for the evidence or delusion on his part, hard to say. That difference is enough to throw reasonable doubt into the mix, though.
Trump could have genuinely thought his foundation was an actual philanthropy too, but that did not stop a court from dissolving it and ordering Trump to return millions to those he had grifted. My concern about a jury trial in this case is not so much that intent will be a difficult bar to meet, but that one or two fanatics could find their way in to nullify an otherwise solid legal case.
(06-19-2022, 06:45 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I was listening to a federal judiciary commenter discuss the hearings and it was very interesting. Here are some points that I thought might be fun to bring up.
First, the hearings are not about convincing the public of the seriousness of the events on January 6th. As we can see from this thread, minds are already made up in that regard. The act of sedition that was attempted (people have actually pled guilty to it, so I feel comfortable calling it this) occurred publicly. If people are hiding from the facts on this, these hearings aren't going to change their minds. These hearings are more about convincing the DoJ that there is enough evidence to bring charges.
Second, they aren't trying to convince the DoJ to bring charges for inciting the violence on January 6th. Instead, they are focusing on the idea that Trump had corrupt intent in attempting to undermine the democratic processes and defraud the government. What does this mean? Simply put, that Trump knew he was wrong (or had enough evidence presented to him to know he was wrong) yet continued efforts that were unlawful to undermine the electoral system. This is why they are bringing forth people that are saying they told him he had lost and all that. It's like the malice test in a defamation suit.
I can't agree with the first bolded--in this sense: Convincing the public might not be a PRIORITY, but it has to be part of what the committee is attempting. Or perhaps replace "convincing" with "informing." The RWM is a machine set up to convert every criminal investigation into Trump team criminality a "hoax." This does affect "independents" and anti-anti Trumpers too, who can be seduced and/or paralyzed by the blizzard of alternative facts, viewing angles and false equivalences they create, making the country nearly ungovernable now. A strong and consistent, fact- and testimony-based presentation renders attempts to "hoaxify" Trump's actions rather less successful.
I totally agree that those "hiding from the facts" aren't going to change their minds, at least in the short term. But such hiding does take work, and usually indicates a secret fear that one's alternative facts have to be protected from the other kind, and an oblique respect for the latter's truth value. In 1941, the majority of Japanese believed their government's version of the Pacific War, but by '44, even the most fanatical supporters of empire had to notice that their "victories" were getting closer and closer to the homeland. The string of Trump's closest advisors, one after another breaking against the lie, might create similar discomfort in those who assumed a Trump team consensus regarding the big lie. This is somewhat manageable by constantly casting them has "traitors" who "failed the president," but you can't very well write off the President's daughter as a fake news RINO without offending the Dear Leader. If he finds out, indirectly, that there never was a "Stop the Steal" fund, even a committed Trumper might hesitate a moment before sending off yet another 20$ to the next "Trump Needs your Help to Drain the Swamp" appeal.
Regarding the second bolded, I find it also interesting that the Committee is going after Meadows in a similar fashion. E.g., he KNEW that the Pence nullification was based on a faulty reading of the Constitution, one that even Federalist Society judges could not support.
I don't mind repeating it--I'm hearing a lot for the first time, e.g., that Pence would not get into a limousine sent to whisk him from the Capitol, apparently in fear that it might have been ordered to keep him away and prevent the certification (gosh! who would have the power to give an order like that?). And after what amounted to an attempt on his life by someone calling him a "wimp" for not breaking the law and throwing the nation into a constitutional crisis, he still had praise for what he and Trump had accomplished and some good words for Trump's golf game.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - hollodero - 06-19-2022
(06-19-2022, 02:38 PM)Dill Wrote: So I know you understand my concern that lack of interest in the hearings may in fact indicate lack of interest in
the current crisis of democracy. Early attempts to assess that tendency don't commit to the claim that "everyone not watching . . . doesn't care."
OK, fair enough.
As insinuated, I would not use the ratings as a sign that everything is hopeless. I see dozens of more concerning developments that make me think everything actually is hopeless.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Leon - 06-20-2022
the jan 6 protest was a civil statement from patriots trying to make sure their voives were heard by a government trying to supress them and paint them as extremist. a handful got out of hand and did stupid shit but 99% were exercising their right to peaceful protest. i love how the left is trying to act like this was an insurrection attempt based on the stupid actions of like a dozen people.
the left is all for protest until the protest is against them.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Leon - 06-20-2022
(06-19-2022, 04:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, fair enough.
As insinuated, I would not use the ratings as a sign that everything is hopeless. I see dozens of more concerning developments that make me think everything actually is hopeless.
americans have real problems to deal with. they don't have time for an obvious one sided narrative that's only meant to divide people.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Nately120 - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 01:59 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: americans have real problems to deal with. they don't have time for an obvious one sided narrative that's only meant to divide people.
I like how a one-sided narrative against Trump includes his daughter, his son-in law, and numerous republicans from his own staff.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Leon - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 02:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I like how a one-sided narrative against Trump includes his daughter, his son-in law, and numerous republicans from his own staff.
those republicans are disgruntled and won't be a part of trumps next term for good reason. the ivanka and jared stuf has been overblown. like trump said, they weren't even in the loop at that point in time and didn't really know what was going on. more false narratives to get clicks and views.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Nately120 - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 02:56 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: those republicans are disgruntled and won't be a part of trumps next term for good reason. the ivanka and jared stuf has been overblown. like trump said, they weren't even in the loop at that point in time and didn't really know what was going on. more false narratives to get clicks and views.
So as long as we decide that republicans that Trump hired and worked with don't count, we can consider this a one-sided thing? Interesting logic there.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - jason - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 01:57 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: the jan 6 protest was a civil statement from patriots trying to make sure their voives were heard by a government trying to supress them and paint them as extremist. a handful got out of hand and did stupid shit but 99% were exercising their right to peaceful protest. i love how the left is trying to act like this was an insurrection attempt based on the stupid actions of like a dozen people.
the left is all for protest until the protest is against them.
A dozen?
840 people have been arrested.... 70 have been convicted, and 31 currently incarcerated... I'll just go ahead and head you off on that pass that I'm a Democrat. I'm not a Republican either.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Leon - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 03:33 PM)jason Wrote: A dozen?
840 people have been arrested.... 70 have been convicted, and 31 currently incarcerated... I'll just go ahead and head you off on that pass that I'm a Democrat. I'm not a Republican either.
is every person that gets arrested or convicted really guilty? are you saying no innocent people have ever been charged by the legal system, especially one with an agenda trying to sale a narrative?
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Leon - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 03:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh. So declaring time and again against all evidence that an election was fraudulent and the current president is illegitimate is not dividing people, but addressing these claims as wrong is? That makes zero sense, in fact so little sense that I cannot believe you're not just trolling.
you can't honestly believe there is no election fraud at all? just because those in power wanting to protect the "system" say there's no fraud, does that actually mean it's true or does it mean they are protecting themselves?
you say it makes zero sense, but i still know many liberals who think the 2000 election was stolen. are they all trolls too?
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - hollodero - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 03:41 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: you can't honestly believe there is no election fraud at all? just because those in power wanting to protect the "system" say there's no fraud, does that actually mean it's true or does it mean they are protecting themselves?
I believe you can't just nilly-willy run around and claim fraud whenever your side loses. If one can prove it, ok. If one can not (and Trump can not, there's not a single shred of hard evidence about this alleged wide-spread election fraud in multiple states), it is a cheap trick, that also is dangerous.
(06-20-2022, 03:41 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: you say it makes zero sense, but i still know many liberals who think the 2000 election was stolen. are they all trolls too?
That's comparing apples to oranges. Most democrats didn't argue against the facts, but against the interpretation and especially the SC ruling. That being said. Whoever claimed or still claims that Bush was an illegitimate president and that Gore had actually unarguably won that election is a troll as well.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Leon - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 03:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: I believe you can't just nilly-willy run around and claim fraud whenever your side loses. If one can prove it, ok. If one can not (and Trump can not, there's not a single shred of hard evidence about this alleged wide-spread election fraud in multiple states), it is a cheap trick, that also is dangerous.
That's comparing apples to oranges. Most democrats didn't argue against the facts, but against the interpretation and especially the SC ruling. That being said. Whoever claimed or still claims that Bush was an illegitimate president and that Gore had actually unarguably won that election is a troll as well.
do you agree that just because something can't be proved today doesn't mean it won't be approved eventually? oj was found not gulity but that didn't mean he was innocent. there's a big difference buddy.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - hollodero - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 03:57 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: do you agree that just because something can't be proved today doesn't mean it won't be approved eventually? oj was found not gulity but that didn't mean he was innocent. there's a big difference buddy.
Well, when using this standard I can claim just about anything, on the basis that what I say might be proven eventually.
I can declare you to be a criminal, for example. Do I have any proof, no, I do not. But according to your logic that doesn't matter. That I don't have a shred of evidence to support my claim doesn't mean there never could be, right? So what's there to stop me when claiming you belong in jail.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - Leon - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 04:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, when using this standard I can claim just about anything, on the basis that what I say might be proven eventually.
I can declare you to be a criminal, for example. Do I have any proof, no, I do not. But according to your logic that doesn't matter. That I don't have a shred of evidence to support my claim doesn't mean there never could be, right? So what's there to stop me when claiming you belong in jail.
no offense buddy, but kind of a crappy comparison. you can't present any actual evidence that i'm a criminal besides what you invent.
with the election fraud, all kinds of evidence has been presented and millions of people believe it. just because you chose not to don't mean it's wrong. just because those protecting the system deny it don't make it wrong.
i believe all the people saying there is no election fraud are going to look very bad in time.
RE: Jan 6 Hearings - hollodero - 06-20-2022
(06-20-2022, 05:08 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: no offense buddy, but kind of a crappy comparison. you can't present any actual evidence that i'm a criminal besides what you invent.
And the same is true for election fraud claims. You can't present any actual evidence for that either. The courts gave Trump plenty opportunity to present such evidence, and his team failed to do so.
(06-20-2022, 05:08 PM)Tiger Blood Wrote: with the election fraud, all kinds of evidence has been presented and millions of people believe it.
No evidence was presented. Just rumors and stories, dismissed by everyone involved in the matter, including Bill Barr and other stauch conservatives.
That millions of people believe it isn't proof of anything. Millions of people believe in UFOs, in God, in true love or the power of the spirit over matter. What people believe is no indication of truth.