Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The President told MAGA to do it MAGA said they were going to do it MAGA filmed themselves doing it Afterwards, MAGA bragged about it Clearly, it was ANTIFA’s fault

So they're finally following the CDC guidelines for the pandemic?

One is an ugly, decrepit wasteland ruled by an assortment of villains hoping to impose their will on peace-loving people everywhere who otherwise just want to be left alone to tend to their gardens.

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."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, squistion said:

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."

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.

Two questions:

1.  How?
2.  Which case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, squistion said:

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. 

He should not be making prejudicial public comments period.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Two questions:

1.  How?
2.  Which case?

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

Can you explain further your position here?  What specific rules are being violated in your view?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tri-man 47 said:

"If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who ..." committed a crime.  What's the ABA rule violation here?

I suspect it is only a jon_mx rule violation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

"If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who ..." committed a crime.  What's the ABA rule violation here?

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor

Quote

 

A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice, that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special precautions are taken to prevent and to rectify the conviction of innocent persons........

paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused.

 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

There were white supremicists that attacked the Capitol.

It was a heinous attack that sought to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power

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?

Edited by Insein
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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. 

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 white supremacists and others those who stormed the Capitol on January 6."

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Quote

a lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

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.  

Edited by The Commish
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

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 white supremacists and others those who stormed the Capitol on January 6."

Or the typical statement, I will not comment on a pending case or investigation.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

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:

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.  I'd probably be more sympathetic here 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.  Not close to what happened with the quote you provided.  

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Garland is just a political tool who has no business being the AG.

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.  :shrug: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dawgtrails said:

Can you acknowledge that there were in fact some white supremacists that were inside the capitol?

Probably. I don't know them personally. Were all the people there white supremacists? Most likely not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

How is what he said political?  So far as I am aware, prosecuting the insurrectionists has bipartisan support.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:
2 hours ago, squistion said:

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."

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.

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.

Edited by The Commish
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

There were white supremicists that attacked the Capitol.

It was a heinous attack that sought to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power

Don't try to confuse him with the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

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.  

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:

Quote

a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

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.

Interesting...  I'm not going to go all #whatabout here, but I agree that recent AGs have acted very politically lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Interesting...  I'm not going to go all #whatabout here, but I agree that recent AGs have acted very politically lately.

43 states elect their attorney generals. The US AG needs to be senate confirmed. It is very much a political position

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, The Commish said:

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.  

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWC said:

what is being said at this hearing so far is pretty sickening to listen to take that to the bank bromigos 

It sounds exactly like when millions of people across the nation marched for racial justice last summer.  The two are almost entirely identical events in our nation's history.

 

 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

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.

:thanks:

 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWC said:

what is being said at this hearing so far is pretty sickening to listen to take that to the bank bromigos 

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 :lmao:  :lmao: 

I guess "law and order" is becoming important again after being the least of their concerns the last four years.

Edited by The Commish
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Dude said:

Need to get to the bottom of the delay in deploying the national guard.  And somebody’s head might roll.

Not watching any Congressional hearings.  Who has the authority to make that call?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Not watching any Congressional hearings.  Who has the authority to make that call?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Dude said:

Need to get to the bottom of the delay in deploying the national guard.  And somebody’s head might roll.

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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

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 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 

Edited by The Dude
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Insein said:

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. 

The riot is still responsible for his death.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...