Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
January 6th - what will happen? (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maik Jeaunz
- Start date
- Status
squistion
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
From The Senate Judiciary Committee is confirmation hearing for attorney general
Merrick Garland:
"If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 -- a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government."
Merrick Garland:
"If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 -- a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government."
That is the exact answer you do not want from an attorney general. It illustrates gross prejudice on a case prior to having all the facts and before the case is judge. The idea Garland was passed off as a moderate is proving to be a joke. You would think someone of Garland's background would be familar with ABA rules. Garland is just a political tool who has no business being the AG.
squistion
Footballguy
We have all the facts from the words, tweets, Facebook posts and videos from the white supremacist participants in the insurrection. This is what as known as a slam dunk prosecution.
The Commish
Footballguy
The hundreds of federal cases being made from the January 6th protests. It is about as clear cut of a violation of ABA rules as there is.
The Commish
Footballguy
Can you explain further your position here? What specific rules are being violated in your view?
tri-man 47
Footballguy
"If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who ..." committed a crime. What's the ABA rule violation here?
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
Using language such as white supremist, heinous attack, and projecting motives are all extrajudicial statements which will prejudice cases that are pending and/or still being investigated.
You have a tendency in your ever snarky responses to speak out of the wrong orifice.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
There were white supremicists that attacked the Capitol.
It was a heinous attack that sought to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power
It was a heinous attack that sought to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power
massraider
Footballguy
"Hey nobody asked, but imma REALLY gonna prosecute those dum dums who thought Hillary was sucking baby blood in a pizza parlor basement, then interestingly did a LIVE FACEBOOK FEED as they stormed the Capitol, thought they were part of a revolution, but had a RETURN FLIGHT booked the next day...."
I wish he had said that.
I wish he had said that.
Insein
Footballguy
So the confirmed members of Antifa and BLM that were there were white supremacists?
Btw is John Sullivan even getting prosecuted or is the blood money he received from the news networks the last we'll hear from him?
Last edited by a moderator:
tri-man 47
Footballguy
Fair enough. I believe you're saying he should have - and could have - stopped with something like "If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of
The Commish
Footballguy
This goes back to my original question. "Which case?" I understand the need to refrain from extrajudicial statements. Problem here is that this is a general statement and not in reference to any one of the specific cases. I'd probably be a bit more sympathetic to this argument if he were speaking of a specific case against a specific individual. That's not the case here.
If we go by their rules (not the law...the rules) and follow:
If we go by their rules (not the law...the rules) and follow:
in order to be violating the rule, he'd have to be speaking of a specific case. He may have, I don't know. He didn't in the quote you provided jon. He's talking, in general terms, about any and all of those things where they are found which we logically assume are "found" during discovery and trial. If he said "Joe Shmoo is a white supremacist who I plan on going after because he forced his way into the Capitol yelling racist slang while spraying bear spray on any officer he saw" before ever setting foot in a courtroom or even starting the process of discovery, I'd probably be in agreement. Not close to what happened with the quote you provided.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is a specific reference to over a hundred cases. He is absolutely making prejudicial statements impacting each of those individual cases. You are making exceptions which simply are not there.
The Commish
Footballguy
And by the way....the bar for this is now so incredibly low, I'm not sure how one takes the time/effort to even throw it out there anymore. For all intents and purposes, this ship has officially sailed.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sorry...this does not compute. He didn't claim that ALL these cases included white supremacists or that ALL of them were xyz. Had he, you'd have a point. He wasn't using a broad brush that I can see....maybe there are other comments you can provide that I am unaware of?
Your response makes no sense. The principle is being grossly violated in principle, spirit and specific wording.
But I do agree that this has been the case for many recent AG's, but that does not mean it is not the standard we should ignore. AG's who act in a political manner have absolutely no place in a fair judicial system.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
Can you acknowledge that there were in fact some white supremacists that were inside the capitol?
Insein
Footballguy
Probably. I don't know them personally. Were all the people there white supremacists? Most likely not.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
zoonation
Footballguy
How is what he said political? So far as I am aware, prosecuting the insurrectionists has bipartisan support.
The Commish
Footballguy
This was the comment and response I was responding too. Garland made no mention of a case at all. He mentioned the events of Jan 6 and that he believed those to be "heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy....." He also mentioned he would prosecute white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol. In my view the only real problem I have with his words is "all" should have been used where he used "white supremacists and others". Anyone storming the Capitol that day attempting to disrupt our democracy should be held accountable in court. If you disagree, I'd like to know why.
And if you feel there is context I am missing, please include so I can get a better picture of where you're coming from.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
His statements are alledgations and not fact and will be viewed as broadly applying to numerous defendants prejuducing public opinion. Nothing he said was appropriate or should have been said. You are wrong and it is pointless to continue.
Would you vote to confirm based on the totality of the hearing thus far and Garland's record?
The Commish
Footballguy
This is part of the point.....they can't be fact at the moment. The cases haven't been heard yet. Your assertion seems to be, but for his words, these people who stormed the Capitol will likely be seen impartially. I think that is woefully inaccurate.
As for the "allegation" part that statement doesn't come close to sniffing the commonly used definition of the term...not how you're using it:
Proof requires evidence. Evidence will be presented at each trial. His statements are far from "allegations". To put it another way, if he was asked about a bank robbery and said "All those who are found to have been part of the bank robbery will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" you'd find that a remarkably boring comment. A "no duh....I should hope that would be the case" response would be completely appropriate and you certainly wouldn't label those comments allegations.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Interesting... I'm not going to go all #whatabout here, but I agree that recent AGs have acted very politically lately.
dawgtrails
Footballguy
43 states elect their attorney generals. The US AG needs to be senate confirmed. It is very much a political position
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Nothing Garland said in that statement is violative of ABA model rule 3.8 or the connections it makes to 3.6 either as far as I can tell.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I didn't think so either, but I am not a lawyer to am open to a rational explanation as to why I was/am wrong. When it just went immediately to "you're wrong" I figured it was over and I'm confident we'll just be dismissed as "leftist" radical types.
The Commish
Footballguy
Don't know what's going on today, but I did get a good chuckle out of Cruz' "concern" that he felt it necessary to ask if Garland understood he wasn't "the President's lawyer" yesterday
I guess "law and order" is becoming important again after being the least of their concerns the last four years.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
It ultimately lies with the President. It's completely his jurisdiction. That said it's been traditionally delegated to Sec of Defense or Sec of Army.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Does anybody have a good timeline of the violence outside the capitol?
It seems a tale of two riots. Like on one side police were being attacked and fighting with them and on the other side of the building it was all high fives and selfies.
Was this happening concurrently? Was this a before and after?
Is there any good documentation of this?
I’ll see if I can find a link but there was journalist who has covered Trump rallies extensively in the crowds. She was in the ‘high-five’ crowd and didn’t even know about anything else that was happening until hearing the reports later.
I think it will come out in next weeks investigation.
at the risk of going partisan, it’s being reported mike Flynn’s brother works for pentagon and was on the incoming call for assistance
Last edited by a moderator:
Insein
Footballguy
Just to bring more madness to the story, the family of Officer Sicknick has still not been told the cause of death. It's almost been 2 months now. How is it the family themselves have not been told officially how he died?
____________________________________________
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9275449/Mom-Capitol-police-officer-Brian-Sicknick-believes-died-stroke.html
"Speaking exclusively to DailyMail.com Gladys Sicknick, 74, was unequivocal in her assertion that Officer Brian Sicknick was not struck on the head and that as far as the family knows her son had a fatal stroke.
She said, ‘He wasn’t hit on the head no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure.
‘We’d love to know what happened.'"
__________________________________________
And we still have congressman using the lie of his death in hearings to prove whatever BS points they have.
____________________________________________
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9275449/Mom-Capitol-police-officer-Brian-Sicknick-believes-died-stroke.html
"Speaking exclusively to DailyMail.com Gladys Sicknick, 74, was unequivocal in her assertion that Officer Brian Sicknick was not struck on the head and that as far as the family knows her son had a fatal stroke.
She said, ‘He wasn’t hit on the head no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure.
‘We’d love to know what happened.'"
__________________________________________
And we still have congressman using the lie of his death in hearings to prove whatever BS points they have.
Insein
Footballguy
- Status
