Posted on 03/28/2022 10:12:28 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Former President Donald Trump “more likely than not” attempted to illegally obstruct Congress on the day of last year’s Capitol riot, a California federal judge ruled Monday.
“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” US District Judge David Carter wrote in a ruling ordering attorney and Trump ally John Eastman to turn over more than 100 emails to the House select committee investigating the riot.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I thought that Judges were to be impartial.
‘More likely than not’ is not a legal finding. This judge speaks nonsense.
I thought judges were to rule based upon the law, not likelyhood. Oh, foolish me.
We are not a nation of laws.
We are a nation of lawyers.
Don’t be impressed by their veneer of respectability. They are traitors through and through.
I can’t believe this will stand, but the msm will have something to talk about for the next couple of months while the appeal takes place.
This is the same Scumbag Lawyer in a Dress that did everything he could to STOP Orange County from dealing with the Homeless population.
“more likely than not”
—
He could have ruled “Could be, who knows?”.
Some of us didn’t realize that the determination of guilt in a court of law is now determined by a judge deciding that what the perpetrator “more likely than not” did the crime.
Unrealized gains and Unrealized crimes. Loving the direction of the Lieden administration.
“He had transgressed ‘The Unwritten Law’”
Like most reporting on legal matters, the article is not very informative. Sounds like it was discovery or injunctive proceedings requiring the production of the emails. Articulation of the standard for ruling on these interim orders is correct. In CA state court the formulation would be “reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.”
that’s more or less the point. instead of spending 98% of the news cycle on talking about quid-pro-joe-biden and his corrupt son, they will talk endlessly about this.
More likely than not = Preponderance of the evidence.
It absolutely is a legal standard.
It’s also what was at issue regarding the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege at issue here with the e-mails.
It’s fine to disagree with the ruling, but making up nonsense like “’more likely than not’ is not a legal finding” isn’t helpful.
What happened to “Beyond a reasonable doubt?”
I’m “okay” with this ruling IF (Only) they throw all Democrats and politicians in jail for insider trading. Throw all Democrats and certain Republicans in Jail for treason. Throw all Democrats and certain Republicans in jail for not upholding their oath to the Constitution. Throw them all in jail for illegal laws, etc......
Do that first, then maybe....just maybe, I will listen to you!
I appreciate your reply. I am not a lawyer.
....and throw them all in jail for the lies and obstruction of Trump’s presidency!
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.