“An interesting article is this written and put in, curiously, the Denver Post:”
Took a look at the article. Most of it is over my head but here’s a tiny excerpt:
“[would] require a majority of the justices to say that they are legally convinced that Trump’s Jan. 6 conduct doesn’t fit the constitutional meaning of insurrection.”
I say the justices’ thinking will be the reverse:
They will say not guilty unless they are legally convinced that his Jan. 6 conduct was “insurrection”.
“They will say not guilty unless they are legally convinced that his Jan. 6 conduct was “insurrection”.
For a justice to make a decision, there are certain requirements that must be met to try a person in a court action. Witnesses, documents, and the privilege of the opportunity of the accused being faced by his accusers. The judges cannot be accusers but are there to hear the case presented that never was and evaluate the evidence. The only evidence that was presented to the justices was heresay from media outlets that have the ability of absence of malice (the opportunity to lie without fault) and not proven or even displayed. That’s not a hearing, that’s a kangaroo court created for the purpose of not giving the accused any chance to be right or wrong. Justice? Not a chance. They’re no different than vigilantges with a rope.
The minute they added the words “legally convinced,” it went out the window. My opinion can be possibly based upon gut feeling. As a judge, sworn in, their opinion has to be based upon facts. That’s what they are paid and sworn in to do. That didn’t happen.
wy69