January 6 Coup Attempt

[Bootstrap]

Trump has a very Trump-friendly judge in this case, he can try to make that argument in court and exclude the evidence. I doubt he would succeed. Regardless, I think that judge is unlikely to act quickly on this case. If Trump is re-eleected, I bet he will pardon himself for all federal crimes.

Interesting that you seem to be admitting here that the American justice system has biased judges in its system. Or is it only those judges who have been appointed by Republican presidents that have this problem?

I don't understand your question. Of course individual judges have their biases and make mistakes. Your odds are better before one judge than before another. Which is a major reason that the appeals process is important. Even then, no system of human beings is perfect.

Judge Aileen Canon has already been rebuked fairly clearly by the 11th Circuit for a prior decision:

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.

Here's their decision:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -12-01.pdf

The same Judge Aileen Canon is now in charge of the Mar-a-lago case. She chose not to recuse herself, despite the earlier rebuke. And she doesn't have to.

[Bootstrap]

Here's another pattern: whenever myself, or others, cite experts or facts, you impeach our experts, or claim our facts aren't good enough, or else say we just need to wait for time for courts and your chosen experts to prove things. This happens invariably.

I don't think so.

I think I usually ask what facts you have to show that a given opinion is true. Seriously, I think turning toward facts is important. And being skeptical of "expert opinion" that seems to want to rile us up but doesn't offer a lot of verifiable fact is also important.

So let's measure by verifiable fact. And let's assume a HUGE percent of what you here in the political realm is simply false. So before we get too upset, let's start by asking if it's true. Critical thinking is actually a good thing.

[GaryK]

Trump has a very Trump-friendly judge in this case, he can try to make that argument in court and exclude the evidence. I doubt he would succeed. Regardless, I think that judge is unlikely to act quickly on this case. If Trump is re-eleected, I bet he will pardon himself for all federal crimes.

Interesting that you seem to be admitting here that the American justice system has biased judges in its system. Or is it only those judges who have been appointed by Republican presidents that have this problem?

I don't understand your question. Of course individual judges have their biases and make mistakes. Your odds are better before one judge than before another. Which is a major reason that the appeals process is important. Even then, no system of human beings is perfect.

Judge Aileen Canon has already been rebuked fairly clearly by the 11th Circuit for a prior decision:

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.

Here's their decision:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... -12-01.pdf

The same Judge Aileen Canon is now in charge of the Mar-a-lago case. She chose not to recuse herself, despite the earlier rebuke. And she doesn't have to.

If it's possible for Trump to have a very Trump-friendly judge, then it's also possible for him to have a very Trump-unfriendly judge. This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the American justice system that you seem to hold in pretty high regard. That is, unless it's a Trump-friendly judge. Then it's okay to criticize. Seems like some bias seeping through, IMO.

[temporal1]

Is it true that Liz Cheney has been nominated for SOURPUSS OF THE YEAR?

[Bootstrap]

If it's possible for Trump to have a very Trump-friendly judge, then it's also possible for him to have a very Trump-unfriendly judge.

Of course. We're talking about human beings here.

Of course, we are also human beings, with the same flaws.

This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the American justice system that you seem to hold in pretty high regard. That is, unless it's a Trump-friendly judge. Then it's okay to criticize. Seems like some bias seeping through, IMO.

It's certainly reasonable to criticize judges. And that's why we have appeals. And even then, the system is certainly not perfect. But when it comes to truth, I have a lot more confidence in a system with checks and balances and rules of evidence and representation for both sides than I do in, say, internet forums.

And there's a huge difference between criticizing one judge and criticizing basically every single election board and the outcome of every single court case in the election. Even Republican election boards. Even Republican governors. Even Trump-appointed judges. If every election board and every court says Trump lost, I think that says something. If juries are finding a whole lot of January 6th defendants guilty, I think that says something.

Trump has a very Trump-friendly judge in Florida. His judge in DC is not as Trump-friendly. Would anyone here dispute that? When the 11th Circuit overruled Aileen Cannon, they were unusually blunt about how badly she had gotten it wrong. Would anyone here dispute that?

But I think the big picture question in this thread is this: is Donald Trump subject to the law or not? Some people seem to be saying the answer is "no". It's an outrage for him to be tried. I disagree with that strongly. Let him have his day in court. One judge will be more Trump-friendly than the other, that probably means the Florida case won't come to trial for a very, very long time. Another judge is less Trump-friendly, and that particularly affects the schedule, that judge will try to make sure a trial happens. I think we see that happening in the decisions they make.

It's not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than pitchforks and torches. And a lot better than what they have in Russia under Putin. Or what they have in most countries. Or the fighting in countries without the rule of law.

[Josh]

It turns out the judge in Trump’s civil case has a documented history of engaging in anti-Trump political activity, as was documented today. So it turns out Trump was right along.

Part of a fair justice system is having judges who don’t have a personal political stake in the cases in front of them.

[GaryK]

If it's possible for Trump to have a very Trump-friendly judge, then it's also possible for him to have a very Trump-unfriendly judge.

Of course. We're talking about human beings here.

Of course, we are also human beings, with the same flaws.

This doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the American justice system that you seem to hold in pretty high regard. That is, unless it's a Trump-friendly judge. Then it's okay to criticize. Seems like some bias seeping through, IMO.

It's certainly reasonable to criticize judges. And that's why we have appeals. And even then, the system is certainly not perfect. But when it comes to truth, I have a lot more confidence in a system with checks and balances and rules of evidence and representation for both sides than I do in, say, internet forums.

And there's a huge difference between criticizing one judge and criticizing basically every single election board and the outcome of every single court case in the election. Even Republican election boards. Even Republican governors. Even Trump-appointed judges. If every election board and every court says Trump lost, I think that says something. If juries are finding a whole lot of January 6th defendants guilty, I think that says something.

Trump has a very Trump-friendly judge in Florida. His judge in DC is not as Trump-friendly. Would anyone here dispute that? When the 11th Circuit overruled Aileen Cannon, they were unusually blunt about how badly she had gotten it wrong. Would anyone here dispute that?

But I think the big picture question in this thread is this: is Donald Trump subject to the law or not? Some people seem to be saying the answer is "no". It's an outrage for him to be tried. I disagree with that strongly. Let him have his day in court. One judge will be more Trump-friendly than the other, that probably means the Florida case won't come to trial for a very, very long time. Another judge is less Trump-friendly, and that particularly affects the schedule, that judge will try to make sure a trial happens. I think we see that happening in the decisions they make.

It's not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than pitchforks and torches. And a lot better than what they have in Russia under Putin. Or what they have in most countries. Or the fighting in countries without the rule of law.

I don't recall any criticism or skepticism about the less Trump-friendly judge in DC or the AG and judge in NY's fraud trial against Trump.

I remember your thoughts on John Durham's report. I remember your thoughts on the Republican clown show investigating the Bidens. I remember your thoughts on Bill Barr and the way he handled the Mueller report. For some reason it seems it's okay on MN to criticize what happens on the right but whenever there is criticism concerning the other side, it's part of the political outrage machine and not part of the Kingdom of God.

[Robert]

I do think this should be questioned. Why did the Capitol Police do this?

First question: Did the Capitol Police do what the tweet claims? If so, when and where? How did you verify the video? And his description of the video?

Does the handle "DC Draino" imply anything about who the poster is?

I care less about the person who posted it. One can see int he video that no one was pressing the police line and they fired into the crowd. Why?

[Bootstrap]

I do think this should be questioned. Why did the Capitol Police do this?

First question: Did the Capitol Police do what the tweet claims? If so, when and where? How did you verify the video? And his description of the video?

Does the handle "DC Draino" imply anything about who the poster is?

I care less about the person who posted it. One can see int he video that no one was pressing the police line and they fired into the crowd. Why?

Without context, I have no idea what that video is, what it shows, etc. Random angry Twitter videos aren't exactly useful for understanding what actually happened. That's why there are investigations.

Can you provide the information needed to verify that video and verify that it actually shows what DC Draino claims?