• 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!

Surprise, surprise, Trump judge acquits January 6th defendant!!!

A Trump appointed judge acquits a defendant who entered the capital building on January 6th, there is a picture of him in the building, of all charges. This should surprise no one as this is the reason that the Federalist and Trump appointed these judges. The judge's excuse was that the defendant said he did not know he could not enter the building and that the government did not prove he knew it violated the law. First, as anyone with a brain knows, it is impossible to prove a negative, but even more, the police trying to keep you out might just be a sign that it is not legal to enter. I am sure all of the January 6th defendants will be lining up to get with this judge and receive their get out of jail free cards. Sometimes I wonder what this country is coming to, and then I see the right wing bringing on autocratic rules and shudder.

I mean, this is done and dusted now, but since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?
 
He was surrounded by violent protestors in action.......... what did he think was happening? I would imagine the verdict will be appealed.... maybe a new charge will be introduced?

Prosecution can't 'appeal' an acquittal, accept for judicial corruption. Prosecutors would have to prove the judge is corrupt, which is a very, very, heavy lift.

But, it did once occur in Chicago:

 
Prosecution can't 'appeal' an acquittal, accept for judicial corruption. Prosecutors would have to prove the judge is corrupt, which is a very, very, heavy lift.

But, it did once occur in Chicago:

That depends. In Martin's case he was found not guilty. Martin stood trial, the judge did not simply dismiss his case. Therefore, there will be no appeal by the prosecutor unless he can demonstrate a fault with the trial.

When a judge dismisses a charge then it depends on whether he did so "with prejudice." If the charge was dismissed with prejudice the defendant cannot be recharged with the same crime. If the charge was dismissed by the judge without prejudice, then the prosecutor can recharge the defendant and bring them in for a subsequent trial.

This doesn't pertain to just judges either. Anyone who brings a case before the court can have their case dismissed with, or without, prejudice. However, that only pertains to those who actually file charges. Only judges are allowed to dismiss the charges, with or without prejudice, brought by another.
 
During the summer of love Democrats were doing exactly that on a nightly basis. Is it your conclusion the Democrats are not normal people?
Huh? People identified as democrats illegally entered buildings in 1967?
 
Actually, it is called reality. A concept you clearly do not comprehend.
Today has been full of right wing projections. It's boring.
 
That depends. In Martin's case he was found not guilty. Martin stood trial, the judge did not simply dismiss his case. Therefore, there will be no appeal by the prosecutor unless he can demonstrate a fault with the trial.

When a judge dismisses a charge then it depends on whether he did so "with prejudice." If the charge was dismissed with prejudice the defendant cannot be recharged with the same crime. If the charge was dismissed by the judge without prejudice, then the prosecutor can recharge the defendant and bring them in for a subsequent trial.

This doesn't pertain to just judges either. Anyone who brings a case before the court can have their case dismissed with, or without, prejudice. However, that only pertains to those who actually file charges. Only judges are allowed to dismiss the charges, with or without prejudice, brought by another.

Thank you for your insight.

Yes, this case had a finding of 'not guilty', which is why I proffered my statement.

The other scenarios you so graciously clarified do not apply.
 
The summer of love was 1967, right? What's your point? What happened then that I missed?
I will give you 1 hint because you're a sweetie.

1967 wasn't the only summer of love
 
March 24, 2022
"The reason we can be absolutely certain that McFadden rewarded Cudd because she doubled down on the glee with which she interfered with the vote certification (aside from his repeated explicit promises to sentence January 6 defendants lightly) is because we can compare her sentence with that of her co-defendant Eliel Rosa, who is different from Cudd in five ways: Rosa is an immigrant from Brazil, he pled guilty to a less serious misdemeanor than Cudd (parading versus entering restricted grounds), he not only fully cooperated with the investigation but actually turned himself in, unlike Cudd he was not in communication with the Proud Boys, and unlike Cudd, he is not known to have endorsed revolution the night before the riot.

McFadden sentenced Rosa to a longer period of probation than he did Cudd.

As the government has repeatedly described, after Cudd went to the rally on January 5, she came back to her hotel room at the Willard Hotel and endorsed a revolution..."

If you draw Judge McFadden as your January 6 charges defense attorney.... whoops! I mean, judge...

December 30, 2021

"..DC District’s Trumpiest judge here uses diversions most likely necessitated by the legal abuses and bureaucratic incompetence of the Trump Administration to claim that Jan6ers are being treated poorly. He focuses on arrests made, in very significant part, to fulfill Barr’s priority on such prosecutions in summer 2020, while ignoring the legally suspect circumstances created by Barr’s effort to gin up arrests. And he does so even as he refuses discovery that might confirm this most obvious of explanations.

The proper comparison to the cases McFadden focuses on would be to examine the arrests on January 5 and 6 in DC made by Federal officers away from the Capitol, such as Freedom Square. Yet in that case (particularly at the Washington Monument before the riot kicked off), the evidence suggests that Federal officers were far too lenient on Jan 6, even in the nation’s Capitol on Federal land. At least in the three cases as the center of this dispute, the disparate treatment in Portland appears to have come in the arrests outside of Federal property, not the prosecutorial diversions of those arrests later. Such a comparison would make it clear that Federal authorities treated Trump’s supporters far too lightly, not the opposite..."
This was the part that from the article that most of the mainstream news media failed to report:

"The crux of Martin’s defense was that, in his own words, he was “let in” by two US Capitol Police officers who were standing in the doorway when he entered and made no attempt to stop him. He argued that one of the officers waved him through, and his lawyer showed a zoomed in video that appeared to show the officer making gestures with his hands; from the vantage point of the courtroom gallery, it wasn’t clear who the officer was gesturing to or why."

I'm sorry, but you can't prosecute someone when there's video of the police waiving them in the building. I realize the left thinks he should be locked up for life, but that's what the left thinks should happen to anyone that doesn't march in lock step with their beliefs.

.
 
-snip- If you draw Judge McFadden as your January 6 charges defense attorney.... whoops! I mean, judge...

December 30, 2021

"..DC District’s Trumpiest judge here uses diversions most likely necessitated by the legal abuses and bureaucratic incompetence of the Trump Administration to claim that Jan6ers are being treated poorly. He focuses on arrests made, in very significant part, to fulfill Barr’s priority on such prosecutions in summer 2020, while ignoring the legally suspect circumstances created by Barr’s effort to gin up arrests. And he does so even as he refuses discovery that might confirm this most obvious of explanations.

The proper comparison to the cases McFadden focuses on would be to examine the arrests on January 5 and 6 in DC made by Federal officers away from the Capitol, such as Freedom Square. Yet in that case (particularly at the Washington Monument before the riot kicked off), the evidence suggests that Federal officers were far too lenient on Jan 6, even in the nation’s Capitol on Federal land. At least in the three cases as the center of this dispute, the disparate treatment in Portland appears to have come in the arrests outside of Federal property, not the prosecutorial diversions of those arrests later. Such a comparison would make it clear that Federal authorities treated Trump’s supporters far too lightly, not the opposite..."
March 31, 2022
"A federal judge in Washington, D.C., complained last week that prosecutors seem to be seeking disproportionate sentences for nonviolent offenders who entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia complained that prosecutors recommended more jail time for nonviolent Jan. 6 defendants than for a protester who disrupted the confirmation hearing for then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

The Washington Post has the story.

McFadden spoke last Wednesday as he sentenced 37-year-old florist Jenny Cudd of Midland, Texas, to two months of probation and a $5,000 fine. She has also paid $500 in restitution. Courthouse News Service and WUSA9 also have stories on Cudd’s sentencing.
Cudd had worn a bulletproof sweatshirt to the Capitol and had declared on a Facebook livestream, “Hell yes, I am proud of my actions.”

The federal government had sought a sentence of 75 days in jail after Cudd agreed to plead guilty to entering and remaining in a restricted area or building.nThe government had recommended 10 days in prison for the Kavanaugh protester, even though he had 14 prior arrests and accidentally knocked a chair into a bystander during his arrest, McFadden said... The average sentence sought by prosecutors was a two-month jail term. Eight of the defendants got a prison sentence, and in half the cases, the sentence was 30 days or less.
Before the Capitol breach, McFadden said, he couldn’t remember seeing a nonviolent, misdemeanor defendant “sentenced to serious jail time … regardless of their race, gender or political affiliation.” McFadden said it feels like the government has had two different standards, “and I can’t abide by that.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Hill had argued that Jan. 6 was “unlike anything in American history,” and there was “a vast amount of violence and destruction.” In response to arguments by Cudd’s lawyer, Hill said the Kavanaugh protesters were escorted out of the Capitol, nobody had to evacuate the building, and the hearing was able to continue.."
 
Last edited:
Democrat drama queens are exaggerating and fainting like they did down at the border when Trump was POTUS.
 
Mr. Martin lives 2,000 miles away-- in New Mexico. As the trial showed, he walked around the Rotunda for about 10 minutes AFTER the Capitol had been stormed, did nothing, and left.
So how did they find him? Well, somebody reported to the FBI that he was a Trump supporter who was not at work on the Jan 6 (the usual predicate of initiating an investigation...) They were able to track him using his cellphone and of course the video. Then they brought him 2000 miles for this trial.

So let me ask you this: Would it be reasonable for the government to do all that for non-violent 10 minute tresspasser into your house?
Yep. But of course, how reasonable the efforts to track down a criminal has absolutely nothing to do with whether the person is or is not guilty of a crime. You supposed "law and order" conservatives can't have it both ways.
 
During the summer of love Democrats were doing exactly that on a nightly basis. Is it your conclusion the Democrats are not normal people?
Always whataboutism
 
Yep. But of course, how reasonable the efforts to track down a criminal has absolutely nothing to do with whether the person is or is not guilty of a crime. You supposed "law and order" conservatives can't have it both ways.

Ok-- and the judge said he wasn't guilty of the crime because, in part, the police said he could come in.
 
March 31, 2022
"A federal judge in Washington, D.C., complained last week that prosecutors seem to be seeking disproportionate sentences for nonviolent offenders who entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia complained that prosecutors recommended more jail time for nonviolent Jan. 6 defendants than for a protester who disrupted the confirmation hearing for then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

The Washington Post has the story.

McFadden spoke last Wednesday as he sentenced 37-year-old florist Jenny Cudd of Midland, Texas, to two months of probation and a $5,000 fine. She has also paid $500 in restitution. Courthouse News Service and WUSA9 also have stories on Cudd’s sentencing.
Cudd had worn a bulletproof sweatshirt to the Capitol and had declared on a Facebook livestream, “Hell yes, I am proud of my actions.”

The federal government had sought a sentence of 75 days in jail after Cudd agreed to plead guilty to entering and remaining in a restricted area or building.nThe government had recommended 10 days in prison for the Kavanaugh protester, even though he had 14 prior arrests and accidentally knocked a chair into a bystander during his arrest, McFadden said... The average sentence sought by prosecutors was a two-month jail term. Eight of the defendants got a prison sentence, and in half the cases, the sentence was 30 days or less.
Before the Capitol breach, McFadden said, he couldn’t remember seeing a nonviolent, misdemeanor defendant “sentenced to serious jail time … regardless of their race, gender or political affiliation.” McFadden said it feels like the government has had two different standards, “and I can’t abide by that.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Hill had argued that Jan. 6 was “unlike anything in American history,” and there was “a vast amount of violence and destruction.” In response to arguments by Cudd’s lawyer, Hill said the Kavanaugh protesters were escorted out of the Capitol, nobody had to evacuate the building, and the hearing was able to continue.."

Well, thats the job of a judge-- impartial application of the law.
The law doesn't distinguish between interrupting a Congressional action for a SCOTUS nominee and one for counting electoral votes.
Nor for declaring National Pizza Day.
Legally-- i suppose the 'worse' would be interrupting the Kavanaugh hearings followed declaring national pizza day as they are both substantive action of Congress.
Unlike Jan 6 and counting of electoral votes.
 
A Trump appointed judge acquits a defendant who entered the capital building on January 6th, there is a picture of him in the building, of all charges. This should surprise no one as this is the reason that the Federalist and Trump appointed these judges.
It's not a surprise to me but a guy that was trespassing months ago off the only reason not to do that is your interested in some sort of crazy vendetta.
The judge's excuse was that the defendant said he did not know he could not enter the building and that the government did not prove he knew it violated the law.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me I saw the videos that seemed like it was a guided tour.
First, as anyone with a brain knows, it is impossible to prove a negative, but even more, the police trying to keep you out might just be a sign that it is not legal to enter.
In this country you have to prove guilt if you can't the charges must be dropped that's in the Constitution and this is really simple stuff you should have learned in grade school.
I am sure all of the January 6th defendants will be lining up to get with this judge and receive their get out of jail free cards. Sometimes I wonder what this country is coming to, and then I see the right wing bringing on autocratic rules and shudder.
Good I want you people shuddering maybe you'll leave. Try Canada.
 
It's not a surprise to me but a guy that was trespassing months ago off the only reason not to do that is your interested in some sort of crazy vendetta.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me I saw the videos that seemed like it was a guided tour.

In this country you have to prove guilt if you can't the charges must be dropped that's in the Constitution and this is really simple stuff you should have learned in grade school.

Good I want you people shuddering maybe you'll leave. Try Canada.

He was trespassing.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The judge is corrupt or incompetent.
 
Well, thats the job of a judge-- impartial application of the law.
The law doesn't distinguish between interrupting a Congressional action for a SCOTUS nominee and one for counting electoral votes.
Nor for declaring National Pizza Day.
Legally-- i suppose the 'worse' would be interrupting the Kavanaugh hearings followed declaring national pizza day as they are both substantive action of Congress.
Unlike Jan 6 and counting of electoral votes.
LOL !
 
I'm just curious about all the hub bub over at judge dropping trespassing charges what is that like a $50 fine?

Jan 6 was the worse thing evahhhh-- democracy almost died-- the fascists are on the march.

An acquittal doesn't fit the political narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom