"What people need to know is that a trial hinges on what evidence and arguments are allowed by the presiding judge." Having served on a couple of juries and watched my husband testify in injury cases, this fact had frustrated me for decades. What I don't understand is why judges and prosecutors believe they are on the side of right when they behave this way. Where is the truth? Where is the justice?
I was a paralegal for over 2 decades, but never worked in criminal law so I never had that type of exposure to what went on. I served once on a jury for a murder trial, which was mostly circumstantial but everything pointed to the defendant. We did convict him, but learning more about how trials can go makes me wonder if that sort of thing happens often, or just more when it's political.
Until we can start charging the judges with conduct depicting the egregious nature of their courtroom antics, the sooner we will return to rule of law and not having judges making law from the bench, let alone protecting a political party's whim.
When I taught introduction to Political Science, I would show my students to film clips from historical reenactment of a Stasi interrogation of a suspect and also the Gestapo interrogation of Dietrich Boenhoffer. In both cases, the suspects ask what is what they’re being accused of an in both cases, they are told that for for daring to suggest that the all benevolent socialist (or National Socialist) state would be prosecuting them for no reason was in itself a reason for their prosecution. Then I would ask my students what was procedurally suspect about each interrogation. Now how many crime dramas have typical American children or young adult seen enacted involving misapplied Miranda rights or violation of due process involving the presentation of indictments? Very oddly very few of these students ever noted that in the Stasi and Boenhoffer cases that no charges ever were told to those being interrogated. I imagine a DC jury composed of nothing but federal employees would be even more obtuse!
I follow Barbie as well, but had missed this. What she recapped was my understanding of how these "trials" went, or even the type of thing that happened before a trial was even held, with the overcharging and, most likely, many threats to coerce a guilty plea.
At first, I was a little disappointed that President Trump pardoned those who did commit violence, especially against LEOs. Then I read somewhere that many were fighting back in defense as the police attacked them first. I've also read that smoke bombs or some such things helped to start the whole mess. I'm not sure we'll ever know the full truth, but I'm easing up on that initial disappointment.
And I was glad to see Enrique Tarrio pardoned. Beyond the fact that he wasn't even there, I doubt he coordinated that kind of violence.
I kind of wish Trump really did have the Magic Amendment By Tweet power that Biden thought he had.
I'd want a new amendment: hiding exculpatory evidence, witness tampering, etc. shall carry a penalty of no less than: disbarment, loss of employment, fine 2x what the defendant has paid, and other legal penalties 2x the maximum that the defendant would have faced.
While the Kafka-esque nature of the outrageous January 6th show trials would make Josef Stalin proud, my conclusion goes a bit beyond yours. Based on the clearly politically compromised nature of the presiding judges’ behavior I question whether any appointee by a Progressive president should be counted on to administer equal justice under the law.
That observation extends to the two seemingly under qualified and highly politicized Democrat appointed Supreme Court justices Jackson and Sotomayor. When I read the opinions and comments made by the two Justices I find their thinking to be consistently political rather than legal and their knowledge of and application of the Constitution to be purely tangential. If this is the best the Progressive Democrats can do I have serious concerns regarding the future of jurisprudence in our Republic. CDE
This had a name in Soviet Russia- Troika tribunals. We are not quite there, next step are show trials and backyard executions. And quotas for everything.
And add to that the North Korean practice of attainder of blood for entire families (except for family members willing to rat out their parents or siblings or offspring.) and “struggle sessions” at work and at school.
Thought I'd see what "Copilot AI" thought: "Michael Smith from Unlicensed Punditry discusses the unfairness of the justice process in the context of Trump's J6 pardons.
They argue that legal proceedings are not about justice but about who tells the best story and that judges control what evidence is admissible.
They cite examples of judges' comments and decisions that indicate political bias.
An account called "Insurrection Barbie" reviewed a J6 case and found significant due process violations, including the use of a prejudicial video montage.
The defendant in the case was sentenced to 19 months in prison for walking through the Capitol, despite not being violent or causing damage.
Michael Smith from Unlicensed Punditry suggests that this case is an example of political persecution and criticizes the judges for rubber-stamping the prosecution's actions."
"What people need to know is that a trial hinges on what evidence and arguments are allowed by the presiding judge." Having served on a couple of juries and watched my husband testify in injury cases, this fact had frustrated me for decades. What I don't understand is why judges and prosecutors believe they are on the side of right when they behave this way. Where is the truth? Where is the justice?
I was a paralegal for over 2 decades, but never worked in criminal law so I never had that type of exposure to what went on. I served once on a jury for a murder trial, which was mostly circumstantial but everything pointed to the defendant. We did convict him, but learning more about how trials can go makes me wonder if that sort of thing happens often, or just more when it's political.
Until we can start charging the judges with conduct depicting the egregious nature of their courtroom antics, the sooner we will return to rule of law and not having judges making law from the bench, let alone protecting a political party's whim.
When I taught introduction to Political Science, I would show my students to film clips from historical reenactment of a Stasi interrogation of a suspect and also the Gestapo interrogation of Dietrich Boenhoffer. In both cases, the suspects ask what is what they’re being accused of an in both cases, they are told that for for daring to suggest that the all benevolent socialist (or National Socialist) state would be prosecuting them for no reason was in itself a reason for their prosecution. Then I would ask my students what was procedurally suspect about each interrogation. Now how many crime dramas have typical American children or young adult seen enacted involving misapplied Miranda rights or violation of due process involving the presentation of indictments? Very oddly very few of these students ever noted that in the Stasi and Boenhoffer cases that no charges ever were told to those being interrogated. I imagine a DC jury composed of nothing but federal employees would be even more obtuse!
I follow Barbie as well, but had missed this. What she recapped was my understanding of how these "trials" went, or even the type of thing that happened before a trial was even held, with the overcharging and, most likely, many threats to coerce a guilty plea.
At first, I was a little disappointed that President Trump pardoned those who did commit violence, especially against LEOs. Then I read somewhere that many were fighting back in defense as the police attacked them first. I've also read that smoke bombs or some such things helped to start the whole mess. I'm not sure we'll ever know the full truth, but I'm easing up on that initial disappointment.
And I was glad to see Enrique Tarrio pardoned. Beyond the fact that he wasn't even there, I doubt he coordinated that kind of violence.
I kind of wish Trump really did have the Magic Amendment By Tweet power that Biden thought he had.
I'd want a new amendment: hiding exculpatory evidence, witness tampering, etc. shall carry a penalty of no less than: disbarment, loss of employment, fine 2x what the defendant has paid, and other legal penalties 2x the maximum that the defendant would have faced.
While the Kafka-esque nature of the outrageous January 6th show trials would make Josef Stalin proud, my conclusion goes a bit beyond yours. Based on the clearly politically compromised nature of the presiding judges’ behavior I question whether any appointee by a Progressive president should be counted on to administer equal justice under the law.
That observation extends to the two seemingly under qualified and highly politicized Democrat appointed Supreme Court justices Jackson and Sotomayor. When I read the opinions and comments made by the two Justices I find their thinking to be consistently political rather than legal and their knowledge of and application of the Constitution to be purely tangential. If this is the best the Progressive Democrats can do I have serious concerns regarding the future of jurisprudence in our Republic. CDE
This had a name in Soviet Russia- Troika tribunals. We are not quite there, next step are show trials and backyard executions. And quotas for everything.
And add to that the North Korean practice of attainder of blood for entire families (except for family members willing to rat out their parents or siblings or offspring.) and “struggle sessions” at work and at school.
And this
https://youtu.be/XvGmOZ5T6_Y
Well that was depressing! 😆 And seemed much longer than two minutes!
Thought I'd see what "Copilot AI" thought: "Michael Smith from Unlicensed Punditry discusses the unfairness of the justice process in the context of Trump's J6 pardons.
They argue that legal proceedings are not about justice but about who tells the best story and that judges control what evidence is admissible.
They cite examples of judges' comments and decisions that indicate political bias.
An account called "Insurrection Barbie" reviewed a J6 case and found significant due process violations, including the use of a prejudicial video montage.
The defendant in the case was sentenced to 19 months in prison for walking through the Capitol, despite not being violent or causing damage.
Michael Smith from Unlicensed Punditry suggests that this case is an example of political persecution and criticizes the judges for rubber-stamping the prosecution's actions."