Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge rules Trump ‘likely’ tried to obstruct Congress on Jan. 6
Nypost ^ | 03/28/2022 | Callie Patteson

Posted on 03/28/2022 10:12:28 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: Little Ray

I think I have been corrected in that this is only a ruling on whether a case can be pursued, ie documents subpoenaed, not a ruling on the charge.


21 posted on 03/28/2022 10:28:52 AM PDT by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Just what is a California federal district judge doing ruling on a supposed action by a President then resident in Washington? This is political interference by a Clinton appointed judge.


22 posted on 03/28/2022 10:29:23 AM PDT by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Road apples.

President Trump could have had the 82nd and 101st “drop” into the “insurrection,” party but didn’t.

Too bad Liz Cheney. It would have been glorious.

5.56mm


23 posted on 03/28/2022 10:35:15 AM PDT by M Kehoe (Quid Pro Joe and the Ho need to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikelets456

Change the statute of limitations on insider trading from 5 years to no limitations.


24 posted on 03/28/2022 10:36:00 AM PDT by cnsmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

“more likely than not”

are you friggin kiddin me???


25 posted on 03/28/2022 10:37:14 AM PDT by Chode (there is no fall back position, there's no rally point, there is no LZ... we're on our own. #FJB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

i would never accept any jurist’s decision, based on ‘most likely’!!


26 posted on 03/28/2022 10:37:27 AM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Thank you. I’m thinking this leaves Trump exposed Civil but not Criminal, yes?


27 posted on 03/28/2022 10:39:10 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Only a Leftist hack could find that the President exercising core First Amendment rights by speaking at a rally, wherein he did not call for breaking any laws, likely amounted to obstruction of Congress.


28 posted on 03/28/2022 10:41:59 AM PDT by Stingray51 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laconic

Eastman is a California lawyer.


29 posted on 03/28/2022 10:42:01 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gibsonguy

This was solely about attorney-client privilege. It has nothing to do with Trump’s liability. Only whether the documents at issue are subject to be released to the Jan 6. committee.

The news media framing of this case is wrong, as is the quick-take knee jerk reaction among the non-lawyers.


30 posted on 03/28/2022 10:43:28 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

Our judicial system is 90% political. There may be 10% honest judges.


31 posted on 03/28/2022 10:44:09 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry L Smith

Yes you would. Virtually every single civil case is decided on a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) standard.


32 posted on 03/28/2022 10:44:26 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44

Okay. So he just said “go ahead with the case?”


33 posted on 03/28/2022 10:48:02 AM PDT by Little Ray (Civilization runs on a narrow margin. What sustains it is not magic, but hard work. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

I think. As I was reminded, I’m not the person I recommend you get legal advice from. 😉


34 posted on 03/28/2022 10:50:51 AM PDT by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

What kind of a ruling is “more likely than not”?


35 posted on 03/28/2022 10:51:09 AM PDT by gunsequalfreedom (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27
Judge was appointed by Clinton. All I need to know.

Yep!

36 posted on 03/28/2022 10:54:00 AM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (BOYCOTT The NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR & Faux Snooze! Molon Labe! Oathkeeper! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laconic

A true Californicator judge.


37 posted on 03/28/2022 10:58:53 AM PDT by budj (Combat vet, 2nd of three generations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

In other words the Judge is giving the rats a fishing pole?


38 posted on 03/28/2022 10:59:04 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoConservative27

IIRC, Trump does not use email


39 posted on 03/28/2022 11:02:33 AM PDT by Freee-dame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

The judge is “Likely” a commie!


40 posted on 03/28/2022 11:23:27 AM PDT by gr8eman (When you're bought and paid for by commies...you're a commie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson