I suppose that language used by attorneys in their court filings should stick with words like 'may have' or 'allegedly' until after the case goes before a jury to decide if the wording gets changed to 'convicted of' or 'has been acquitted'."...may have..."
"The facts we've gathered strongly suggest that Dr. Eastman's emails may show that he helped Donald Trump advance a corrupt scheme to obstruct the counting of electoral college ballots and a conspiracy to impede the transfer of power,"
The new filing marks the first time the committee has formally accused Trump of specific criminal activities
Enabling Career CriminalsYou got him now!
Court filings are allegations and, as such, do not have to be completely "conditional".I suppose that language used by attorneys in their court filings should stick with words like 'may have' or 'allegedly' until after the case goes before a jury to decide if the wording gets changed to 'convicted of' or 'has been acquitted'.
I suppose that language used by attorneys in their court filings should stick with words like 'may have' or 'allegedly' until after the case goes before a jury to decide if the wording gets changed to 'convicted of' or 'has been acquitted'.
That doesn't work for you?Can you quote the words of a formal accusation by the Committee? There is nothing formal about "may have". The Committe is requesting for docs, not formally accusing Trump of anything.
What you are looking at is the "Search Warrant Standard" which is "reasonable and probable grounds to believe". That standard does NOT have to rise to the "on the balance of probabilities" level, let alone the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level."If" is another one.
"The new filing marks the first time the committee has formally accused Trump of specific criminal activities"
Can you quote the words of a formal accusation by the Committee? There is nothing formal about "may have". The Committe is requesting for docs, not formally accusing Trump of anything.
There is no legal requirement for Eastman to give the Committee what they ask, unless required by the courts. The court is being asked, supported by what evidence the Committe produces to the courts, that Eastman be compelled to turn over documents that "may" prove something. They can't describe what is in those docs that "may" find criminal activity by Trump. Perhaps that will be in the court filing. But based on what little is revealed in the article, it looks pretty squishy to me.
That doesn't work for you?
"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.
and this
"As the courts were overwhelmingly ruling against President Trump's claims of election misconduct, he and his associates began to plan extra-judicial efforts to overturn the results of the election and prevent the president-elect from assuming office," the committee wrote in its filing.
"At the heart of these efforts was an aggressive public misinformation campaign to persuade millions of Americans that the election had in fact been stolen. The president and his associates persisted in making 'stolen election' claims even after the president's own appointees at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, along with his own campaign staff, had informed the president that his claims were wrong."
That's for a judge to decide based on the exact wording, and, or any mentioning of evidence or promised findings of evidence included in their filing. If the judge refuses to proceed further, then we'll be able to agree that there wasn't enough material in the Committee's filing that may result in a detrimental blow to their investigation.What "evidence" is the committee speaking of that supports the inference? Is it evidence being presented in the filing?
Is evidence incl in the filing of Trump planning '..."extra-judicial efforts to overturn the results of the election and prevent the president-elect from assuming office," '?
What, exactly, in the last paragraph of your post is a criminal wrongdoing?
What you are looking at is the "Search Warrant Standard" which is "reasonable and probable grounds to believe". That standard does NOT have to rise to the "on the balance of probabilities" level, let alone the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.
That's for a judge to decide based on the exact wording, and, or any mentioning of evidence or promised findings of evidence included in their filing. If the judge refuses to proceed further, then we'll be able to agree that there wasn't enough material in the Committee's filing that may result in a detrimental blow to their investigation.
They're still in the middle of the investigation. This filing is only about the request for documents from Eastman. When they have the evidence, the tone will change. They need his documents to show the evidence.Did you read anything that constitutes a formal accusation? There is no filing of a formal accusation. Merely a filing to obtain information that is said to exist, with only evidence that it does exist. Like unicorns. It's not necessarily evidence of fact, which is part of what you say. The judge will decide if the evidence is of fact that thus the information pursued by the DOJ should be provided. Then there's the wait involved in getting it. This is all a long roll of the dice that is likely to peter out before hitting the backboard. Time is on the side of the accused to actually avoid a speedy "trial" and delay justice. It's a joke.
The bad precedent was set when Nixon was let off scott free. It was his pardon that formulated the DOJ opinion that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime. Well, two things. IMHO, the opinion is wrong. And Trump isn't president anymore. He's fair game. If he's innocent along with all his allies, a jury needs to make that determination. Not a bunch of partisan fools complaining about investigating him.Prosecuting your political enemies just seems very banana republic and wrong, even if the target in this case is someone as annoying as Donald Trump.
Just sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Then again, that damage has already been done, so might as well see it through.
Here's a Real Helpful hint for you frustrated people!The rubber is finally meeting the road. Justice is the most important function of our land of laws. It must proceed on and thoroughly complete its work.
View attachment 67378033
The panel argued that the records should not be protected by attorney-client privilege under the crime fraud exception, given that Eastman's legal advice may have helped Trump commit multiple crimes.
While lawmakers on the panel cannot formally charge Trump with a crime, they have suggested their investigation would result in a criminal referral to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to prosecute the former president.
"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.
I cannot make a judememt on criminallity (NOT a lawyer), that is up to courts, but I would say former Pres Trump is one of the most immoral bleeps ever.The rubber is finally meeting the road. Justice is the most important function of our land of laws. It must proceed on and thoroughly complete its work.
View attachment 67378033
The panel argued that the records should not be protected by attorney-client privilege under the crime fraud exception, given that Eastman's legal advice may have helped Trump commit multiple crimes.
While lawmakers on the panel cannot formally charge Trump with a crime, they have suggested their investigation would result in a criminal referral to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to prosecute the former president.
"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, plaintiff and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort," the committee wrote in the filing.
My God, Trump attempted to set aside the American election to remain in power. That is a coup. Investigating what happened and who was in on it is not political, its imperative. Do you not get the threat this was to America? Have you no sense of decency?Prosecuting your political enemies just seems very banana republic and wrong, even if the target in this case is someone as annoying as Donald Trump.
Just sets a bad precedent in my opinion. Then again, that damage has already been done, so might as well see it through.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?