Chaos at the Capitol: New thread edition

[SunnySide]

On average, Democratic presidents grew the economy 4.4% each year versus 2.5% for Republicans.

A study by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found that the economy performs better when the president is a Democrat. They report that “by many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large.” Between Truman and Obama, growth was 1.8% higher under Democrats than Republicans.

https://www.thebalance.com/democrats...conomy-4771839

Always the Democrats who have to clean up after Republicans make a mess of things with their "spend, spend, spend" philosophy.

Thankfully there are adults in charge during this international crisis.

Hell, some Republicans wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare to pay for all the Republican spending under Trump.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

On average, Democratic presidents grew the economy 4.4% each year versus 2.5% for Republicans.

A study by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found that the economy performs better when the president is a Democrat. They report that “by many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large.” Between Truman and Obama, growth was 1.8% higher under Democrats than Republicans.

https://www.thebalance.com/democrats...conomy-4771839

Always the Democrats who have to clean up after Republicans make a mess of things with their "spend, spend, spend" philosophy.

Thankfully there are adults in charge during this international crisis.

Hell, some Republicans wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare to pay for all the Republican spending under Trump.

Damn, I can't even bash the source, because I like that website. LOL. Nicely played.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Damn, I can't even bash the source, because I like that website. LOL. Nicely played.

it was a troll post meant for Chico.

Take some numbers without context ... then attach broad brush blame to your political enemy.

I should have added, "Why do Republicans hate America so much?"

[BaltimoreSkins]

First acquittal in a trial case for a rioter.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/10913...riot-acquittal

I have a hard time with the judge's logic that it was reasonable to believe Martin was allowed to storm the Capitol.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

First acquittal in a trial case for a rioter.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/10913...riot-acquittal

I have a hard time with the judge's logic that it was reasonable to believe Martin was allowed to storm the Capitol.

McFadden, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, acquitted Martin of all four counts for which he was charged.

McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge also said Martin's actions were "about as minimal and non-serious" as anyone who was at the Capitol that day.

-------------------

Sounds like the judge skewed his "neutral fact finder" role in a non-jury case to reach the pre destined outcome the judge wanted.

I dont know the federal trespassing on the Capitol code or statute but it sounds like a "reasonable person" standard. "Would a reasonable person under the circumstances believe they were allowed to enter the Capitol?" ... theres no way in hell the judge actually thought a reasonable person would believe they were allowed to do what they did.

If the guy just walked into the Capitol, didnt hit any officers, then left .. I dont really care. Probably did a few days or more in pre trial detention.

Criminal defendants have a right to be tried by a judge and not a jury, their choice to waive jury trial.

Smart move. Get in front of a trump judge.

-------------

You want to talk about rogue judges applying their own bias and not the law .... but whatever just wouldnt trust this judge.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

McFadden, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, acquitted Martin of all four counts for which he was charged.

McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge also said Martin's actions were "about as minimal and non-serious" as anyone who was at the Capitol that day.

-------------------

Sounds like the judge skewed his "neutral fact finder" role in a non-jury case to reach the pre destined outcome the judge wanted.

I dont know the federal trespassing on the Capitol code or statute but it sounds like a "reasonable person" standard. "Would a reasonable person under the circumstances believe they were allowed to enter the Capitol?" ... theres no way in hell the judge actually thought a reasonable person would believe they were allowed to do what they did.

If the guy just walked into the Capitol, didnt hit any officers, then left .. I dont really care. Probably did a few days or more in pre trial detention.

Criminal defendants have a right to be tried by a judge and not a jury, their choice to waive jury trial.

Smart move. Get in front of a trump judge.

-------------

You want to talk about rogue judges applying their own bias and not the law .... but whatever just wouldnt trust this judge.

The Prosecutor should file an appeal but with so many people it's useless.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

The Prosecutor should file an appeal but with so many people it's useless.

Lolololol

Yes G1 let’s set fire to Constitutional rights

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Lolololol

Yes G1 let’s set fire to Constitutional rights

You’re such a good little Trumper using the constitution as a shiny object.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Lolololol

Yes G1 let’s set fire to Constitutional rights

Acquitted vs. Not Guilty – Is There a Difference?
Posted on August 17, 2020

While an acquittal is a general term for a not guilty verdict, there is a subtle difference between the two terms under criminal law. Not guilty means that a defendant is not legally answerable for the criminal charge filed against him/her. An acquittal is a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

Note that an acquittal does not mean that the defendant is innocent in a criminal case. Rather, it means that the prosecutor failed to prove that the defendant was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Note too that an acquittal is not the same thing as when charges get dismissed. A dismissal comes before a jury trial and usually takes place because:

the prosecutor does not believe there is enough evidence to support the case, or
the judge decides a case lacks credibility.
In a dismissal, the case against the defendant ends and he/she does not have to stand trial.

If a judge or jury acquits a defendant, then double jeopardy attaches and the defendant has a complete defense to an additional prosecution for the same offense in the same jurisdiction

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Giantone

The Prosecutor should file an appeal but with so many people it's useless.

Appeals based on factual determinations are near impossible as review courts defer to the fact finder who actually heard the evidence at trial vs superimposing their own view from reading a record. Courts give trials deference.

Appeals based on misapplication of law or judicial error .. those have legs. Standard is lower.

This judge (and every judge, even your district court county judge) knows that if they want an appeal proof judgment to try and base decision on a finding of fact.
---------

Had a bench trial 2 weeks ago, hit and run car accident, small case. Defense stipulated to liability in the hopes it would be inadmissible to introduce evidence of the hit and run. I had my client testify as to hit and run. defense objects and puts their "objection on the record" which indicates you are going to appeal. Defense moved for mistrial. judge denied.

Judge clearly stated on the record that he would not consider the hit and run testimony in reaching his verdict.

Judge gave me 3 times my specials (i was expecting 2) ... he took the hit and run into account but made an appeal proof record that he wouldnt.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Appeals based on factual determinations are near impossible as review courts defer to the fact finder who actually heard the evidence at trial vs superimposing their own view from reading a record. Courts give trials deference.

Appeals based on misapplication of law or judicial error .. those have legs. Standard is lower.

This judge (and every judge, even your district court county judge) knows that if they want an appeal proof judgment to try and base decision on a finding of fact.
---------

Had a bench trial 2 weeks ago, hit and run car accident, small case. Defense stipulated to liability in the hopes it would be inadmissible to introduce evidence of the hit and run. I had my client testify as to hit and run. defense objects and puts their "objection on the record" which indicates you are going to appeal. Defense moved for mistrial. judge denied.

Judge clearly stated on the record that he would not consider the hit and run testimony in reaching his verdict.

Judge gave me 3 times my specials (i was expecting 2) ... he took the hit and run into account but made an appeal proof record that he wouldnt.

So after a prosecution and the defendant has been acquitted, can the prosecution file an appeal of a jury or judge decision? Seems like that might be a problem

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Appeals based on factual determinations are near impossible as review courts defer to the fact finder who actually heard the evidence at trial vs superimposing their own view from reading a record. Courts give trials deference.

Appeals based on misapplication of law or judicial error .. those have legs. Standard is lower.

This judge (and every judge, even your district court county judge) knows that if they want an appeal proof judgment to try and base decision on a finding of fact.
---------

Had a bench trial 2 weeks ago, hit and run car accident, small case. Defense stipulated to liability in the hopes it would be inadmissible to introduce evidence of the hit and run. I had my client testify as to hit and run. defense objects and puts their "objection on the record" which indicates you are going to appeal. Defense moved for mistrial. judge denied.

Judge clearly stated on the record that he would not consider the hit and run testimony in reaching his verdict.

Judge gave me 3 times my specials (i was expecting 2) ... he took the hit and run into account but made an appeal proof record that he wouldnt.

judicial error. The man had no right to be in the building, it was closed to the public. Had the MOB not broken in there is reasonable expectation he would not have been allowed in. If after being broken into a Capital Police Officer was trying to calm the situation by not attempting to remove the mob does not or can not be assumed permission of entrance.

[punch it in]

Can you imagine what Chico and the rest of the Trumpers would be saying if BLM had done this to make a statement about racial inequality instead of a lie about a stolen election?. Omg.

I mean Trump would have had them all killed but if they somehow managed to get away with it to this point? Chico would have had a mental breakdown a long time ago. Instead its just white people adhering to the constitution. Lol. Ok.

[mooby]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...M31?li=BBnb7Kz

"My sweet, supple, perky, innocent daughter doesn't understand these highly complex elections and how the dingleberry Dems with their pea-brains could mastermind such a dastardly assault on democracy. But we won't let them! Trump 2020!"

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by mooby

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...M31?li=BBnb7Kz

"My sweet, supple, perky, innocent daughter doesn't understand these highly complex elections and how the dingleberry Dems with their pea-brains could mastermind such a dastardly assault on democracy. But we won't let them! Trump 2020!"

Donald Trump and Dan Snyder must be great friends. They have so much in common.