• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge in Trump's Jan. 6 case rules additional evidence will be unsealed Friday

WorldWatcher said:
Didn't say you did.
Click to expand...

WorldWatcher said:
The Judge had no obligation or reason to delay the case because of SCOTUS might rule one way or another in an unrelated case.

WW
Click to expand...

Didn't say he does.

But the predicament he presently is finds himself- of his permitting unlawful evidence into his court-- is on him.
 
Plasmaball said:
its evidence that something happened.
You are nitpicking just to nitpick
Click to expand...

It's evidence that the government says something happened.
The defense has the right to challenge that evidence, and to offer its own.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Too ****ing bad.

His rights aren't being violated. This is normal procedure.


Trump isn't special. He's just another defendant.
Click to expand...
The bar has changed for Trump. Apparently we are not supposed to consider the felon a felon until all of his appeals are complete. ;) But of course - that only applies to him. :ROFLMAO:
 
year2late said:
The bar has changed for Trump. Apparently we are not supposed to consider the felon a felon until all of his appeals are complete. ;) But of course - that only applies to him. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

People are free to consider Trump a felon.
Technically, however, that isn't true, a 'felon' isn't a 'felon' until the judge actually enters the guilty verdict.

Judge Merchan will supposedly not be doing this until the end of November.

But, we all understand the shorthand, even if it technically spreads "misinformation.'
 
Athanasius68 said:
People are free to consider Trump a felon.
Technically, however, that isn't true, a 'felon' isn't a 'felon' until the judge actually enters the guilty verdict.

Judge Merchan will supposedly not be doing this until the end of November.

But, we all understand the shorthand, even if it technically spreads "misinformation.'
Click to expand...
Interesting. Kind of like Biden is not President until......well.....you remember January 6th. ;)
 
The AntiDonald said:
abcnews.go.com

Judge in Trump's Jan. 6 case rules additional evidence will be unsealed Friday

The judge in Donald Trump's election interference case has ordered that a filing containing additional evidence gathered by the special counsel be released on Friday.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's federal election interference case, in an order late Thursday, denied the former president's last-minute request to block the release of additional evidence gathered by special counsel Jack Smith.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said that the court will unseal, on Friday, the redacted appendix from the immunity motion filed earlier this month by Smith that included new details about Trump and his allies' actions leading up to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

In ruling that the evidence would be publicly released, Chutkan pushed back on Trump's argument that the release was politically motivated to influence the 2024 presidential election.

Rumor is this is some 1200 more pages of bad news for The Donald.
Click to expand...
If I found it strange to see that those who are most vociferous in decrying the release of the information in the brief were NOT the most vocerifous in maintaining that "The American people have a RIGHT TO KNOW." when the allegations didn't affect Mr Trump, I'd say so.

I don't.
 
The AntiDonald said:
abcnews.go.com

Judge in Trump's Jan. 6 case rules additional evidence will be unsealed Friday

The judge in Donald Trump's election interference case has ordered that a filing containing additional evidence gathered by the special counsel be released on Friday.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's federal election interference case, in an order late Thursday, denied the former president's last-minute request to block the release of additional evidence gathered by special counsel Jack Smith.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said that the court will unseal, on Friday, the redacted appendix from the immunity motion filed earlier this month by Smith that included new details about Trump and his allies' actions leading up to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

In ruling that the evidence would be publicly released, Chutkan pushed back on Trump's argument that the release was politically motivated to influence the 2024 presidential election.

Rumor is this is some 1200 more pages of bad news for The Donald.
Click to expand...
Trump is guilty. Just look:

 
Athanasius68 said:
People are free to consider Trump a felon.
Technically, however, that isn't true, a 'felon' isn't a 'felon' until the judge actually enters the guilty verdict.

Judge Merchan will supposedly not be doing this until the end of November.

But, we all understand the shorthand, even if it technically spreads "misinformation.'
Click to expand...
I see. So procedurally, he's not a felon?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Since a defendant has a right to fair trial, prejudicing a jury by releasing a lot of information that:
1. Shows only one side of the story.
2. May not be relevant to the actual charges.
3. May be refuted with better evidence

Runs the risk of denying a defendant the right to a fair trial.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but your feelings just really don't move the needle when the standard is the LAW. You had the opportunity to read her ruling and address the LAW. Oh well... :rolleyes: 😵‍💫
 
Athanasius68 said:
Didn't say he does.

But the predicament he presently is finds himself- of his permitting unlawful evidence into his court-- is on him.
Click to expand...
Please do cite your authority for "permitting unlawful evidence into his court." Thanks in advance!

For starters you'll need to explain "unlawful evidence." That sounds suspiciously like a term you made up.
 
JasperL said:
Please do cite your authority for "permitting unlawful evidence into his court." Thanks in advance!

For starters you'll need to explain "unlawful evidence." That sounds suspiciously like a term you made up.
Click to expand...

Unlawful evidence might be admitting a confession to the court that was obtained after beating a defendant with a rubber hose.

The SCOTUS immunity decision also said that official acts of a president CANNOT be used as evidence in another trial.

Judge Merchan permitted testimony from WH officials about how Trump works.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
Unlawful evidence might be admitting a confession to the court that was obtained after beating a defendant with a rubber hose.

The SCOTUS immunity decision also said that official acts of a president CANNOT be used as evidence in another trial.
Click to expand...
You really should read the actual filing. You're just admitting you're completely ignorant of what it contains. It's funny how confidently you assert stuff that's just laughably ridiculous, given the content of the filing on which you're asserting your baseless feelings, and that you've clearly not read.
Athanasius68 said:
Judge Merchan permitted testimony from WH officials about how Trump works.
Click to expand...
More of your feelings.... If you want to assert Merchan 'permitted' inadmissible testimony, you'll need to cite your work. Cite the law. Cite anything. Here's a start - which specific person's testimony that the judge "admitted" is "unlawful" [sic]? A name would help, so we can read the filing and see if you're correct!!
 
JasperL said:
You really should read the actual filing. You're just admitting you're completely ignorant of what it contains. It's funny how confidently you assert stuff that's just laughably ridiculous, given the content of the filing on which you're asserting your baseless feelings, and that you've clearly not read.

More of your feelings.... If you want to assert Merchan 'permitted' inadmissible testimony, you'll need to cite your work. Cite the law. Cite anything. Here's a start - which specific person's testimony that the judge "admitted" is "unlawful" [sic]? A name would help, so we can read the filing and see if you're correct!!
Click to expand...

Fair enough-

Below is the immunity decision-- page 7 can be found that evidence from official acts cannot be used in another trial.

Also below is an article the Judge Merchan ordering the sentencing until after the election. It notes the testimony of Hope Hicks and tweets from President Trump-- evidence which cannot lawfully be used as per the SCOTUS immunity decision.




 
Athanasius68 said:
Fair enough-

Below is the immunity decision-- page 7 can be found that evidence from official acts cannot be used in another trial.

Also below is an article the Judge Merchan ordering the sentencing until after the election. It notes the testimony of Hope Hicks and tweets from President Trump-- evidence which cannot lawfully be used as per the SCOTUS immunity decision.




Click to expand...
You're at times talking about the filing, which is the subject of the OP and this thread, and now you appear to be bringing the fraud case into discussion for some reason. But your claims above aren't backed up by the cites or the case. On page 7 the court indeed notes that "most" of Trump's communications likely fall in the official acts category, but that if he speaks as a CANDIDATE or PARTY LEADER they might not be. The court has to decide.

As you know if you read the immunity joke of a decision where SCOTUS invented a new principle of king-like immunity for POTUS from thin air, even that decision acknowledges that not everything done by POTUS is an 'official act' and so each act must be analyzed. That's not been done so there is no 'illegal' evidence so far even in your new whack a mole....

That's the reason for Jack Smith's most recent filings.... The court tasked Smith with making his case for why those communications and others are not subject to immunity. Or if they're presumptively immune, why Trump's actions violate that presumption.

But again, you've moved the goal posts to another case because you've failed to prove your point about the subject of this thread and the OP, which is the most recent filing by Jack Smith. You're playing whack a mole. I don't know why I expected anything different.... Fool me once and all that...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Fair enough-

Below is the immunity decision-- page 7 can be found that evidence from official acts cannot be used in another trial.

Also below is an article the Judge Merchan ordering the sentencing until after the election. It notes the testimony of Hope Hicks and tweets from President Trump-- evidence which cannot lawfully be used as per the SCOTUS immunity decision.




Click to expand...

That's not quite true.

Judge Merchan has to determine if the tweets fall under core Presidential Immunity and whether the jury would have reached they same outcome of the evidence was not presented. If he finds they were made as a candidate and not the President the evidence stays in. If he finds the jury would have convicted if the evidence had not been presented, then the conviction can stand. Then it will be addressed on appeal.

It's not quite as black/white as you claim.

WW
 
tosca1 said:
Aren't you paying any attention?

Why are these evidence being released....................JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION?
Click to expand...
If Mr Trump hadn't done everything possible to hinder, defeat, and delay the trial process, this information would have been public knowledge months ago.

Since the remainder of your post is footed on the postulate that the trial process has not been delayed one little bit by Mr Trump, I won't dignify it with a response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom