Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,646 posts, read 12,569,566 times
Reputation: 10514
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Merrick Garland has demonstrated that his DOJ doesn't leak. He knows full well that he may end up taking the results of his investigation and the one the the 1/6 Committee to court, and the burden of proof will be on him to prove not only that people were involved in crimes, but their intent to participate in them.
Whether Garland leaks or not is not what my post was about. Perhaps you should read it again, and maybe pay attention this time.
Quote:
If you give a couple of guys a lift and they ask you to stop, and they walk into a bank and rob it, unless you knew their intent was to rob the bank you are not guilty. The prosecutor's job is to determine if you were telling the truth about not knowing. You may not have robbed the bank, but if you had knowledge they were going to do it, you are just as guilty as if you were holding a shotgun in one hand and a bag in the other. If you are innocent, you will be found innocent. The jury is the fuse that protects the accused. They have to be convinced.
The "leaking of information" happened a number of times in court filings, which are public and open to examination by the media. I would imagine that whatever you see in the televised hearings has been fully discussed and approved by Garland, and is also the tip of the iceberg.
Highly doubtful. Garland probably wouldn't feel the need to publicly correct them if he actually approved of how they're handling things.
What other side? We are hearing from Trump's White House staff and campaign staff. We are hearing from people who were there. Who are on the other side that you want to hear from?
I feel that this intentional diversion will continue on, but I digress.
My point is, was, and has been... why are you all so adamant on only pushing back against Trump and the capitol issue and completely avoiding that BLM has done much worse, and the left has yet to condemn them... actually, some on the left have praised them.
How does that not raise a curious eyebrow to you? How does that not make this appear to be even more of a witch hunt than anything else? They are attempting to condemn a man when they months earlier praised entire groups for literally destroying cities.
Are you also willing to overlook what the left has done? Do you not question why the rules were different for BLM than they are for capitol protestors and Trump?
You don't state what it is "the left has done." There is no way to answer your question, even if you had posted it in the correct thread.
You accuse the other poster of deflecting and now you are deflecting. This thread is about Jan 6. Let's try to stay on topic. There are plenty of other threads about BLM and those riots 2 years ago.
Nope, not deflecting. The two are related.
January 6th hearing is happening when they completely ignored the exact same thing happening on their side months prior. The two issues should be tied together and should have been addressed the same way.
My point is to bring to light that they are only going after Trump because he does not support their agenda. Not because of anything that happened on January 6.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,646 posts, read 12,569,566 times
Reputation: 10514
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
Actually if it is similar to the testimony of Barr on Monday that I saw, it is snippets of parts of different sentences artificially put together to prove a point. We have no idea what words were deleted from his conversation with the investigators as we were not privy to it. So what we are seeing is a highly edited version of the testimony.
We argue here ad nauseum about parts of a speech being used to prove a point that it was taken out of context from the whole speech. With the way Barr's testimony was chopped up so much, it is right to wonder what was eliminated from his testimony.
Again, a court case where the witness answers questions in full, presented live without editing, and stands up to questioning by prosecutors and defense attorneys is the gold standard in this country to finding guilt.
If you say the committee is not court and is more like the grand jury to "find information", then the question is why arent grand juries routinely televised and why isnt the DOJ's grand jury on this being televised? One could also wonder why the House Committee is being televised while the Senate's is not.
Personally I think this televised committee hearings are going to backfire. If they feel Trump should be charged his defense lawyers can now argue that due to the hearings the jury pool is tainted and he can't get a fair trial. No other cases gets the general public to see grand jury testimony until the trial starts.
I said it before and will say it again: let the prosecutors handle it.
You don't state what it is "the left has done." There is no way to answer your question, even if you had posted it in the correct thread.
The rules are the same for all.
Fair game. I'll play along. Every one of the mentions below do tie to the January 6th hearings. Not directly, but indirectly in that the rules are in fact not the same and does not help the case that argues that this hearing is not much more than a witch hunt. If Trump is guilty, so be it. But to have a fair hearing with fair rules, they would have had to address this hearing with the same fairness and neutral point of view as these items below. Did they do it?
BLM riots. What hearings have been held by the left to condemn and try to convict and criminalize all who participated? Supposedly the capitol riots were the same type of thing... so.....
Russian collusion. The left claimed to have hard evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. When Adam Schiff was finally asked to produce the evidence, it was found that he had none. The evidence vanished. What happened after that? Nothing.
Hunter Biden's laptop. Remember this one? It was brought up during the election and quickly silenced. Biden won, and now a year or more later it has resurfaced and has been proven that there were indeed things on that laptop that might have condemned Joe Biden during the election. What investigation has been held by the left? None.
Hillary Clinton emails. Do I even need to go into that one? Has the left performed any kind of investigations? I'll wait for the response.
Yet.... they find it "fair" to hold a hearing to try and impale someone who actually said on video and in tweets to peacefully protest the election results, because some took it upon themselves to resort to violence at the capitol. Though I still don't see any efforts to find out WHY the police were seen on video opening the gates and doors and ushering these same violent protestors into the building.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well said!