• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Due process in the US

Hercules56 said:
Not really.

I never said he was guilty, never would before the actual verdict.

Bad news? Yeah, he's bad news.
Click to expand...
Based on how hard the Trump Administration's been flailing about trying to find something, anything to badmouth him with and how you've been parroting them over and over, nearly no matter how unreasonable?
 
Hercules56 said:
We shall see.
Click to expand...
We've already seen.

You're just doing something like selective Bayesianism here. If a fact would make you more confient that Garcia is guilty, you accept it and adjust your beliefs accordingly. If a fact would make you less confident, you ignore it or defer consideration of that fact.

This is not a good faith way to go about evaluating the likelihood of his guilt.
 
Hercules56 said:
We shall see.
Click to expand...
As Mumblethrax just said, we've already seen.

We've seen you continually parrot the Trump Administration and effectively push the idea that the Trump Administration is totally right about everything. At best, you've agreed that they shouldn't have worked to deny him due process... but even then, you pushed the ideas that he should get virtually no due process anyways, that he had already received due process previously, so it could be ignored now (seriously, WTF?), and that the Trump Administration could have done nothing about the state of affairs where they were literally paying El Salvador to imprison him.

Sure, it's entirely possible that he's guilty of something, but you've seemed quite invested in condemning the man all along, regardless of reasonability or whether your flailing about had you pushing BS that is decidedly anti-due process.
 
Last edited:
abcnews.go.com

Kilmar Abrego Garcia brought back to US, appears in court on charges of smuggling migrants

Kilmar Abrego Garcia appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Friday, hours after he was brought back to the U.S. to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com


From this article posted earlier in the thread, this seems like a pretty big deal and damning indictment (sorry for the bad pun) of the government's case :

"The decision to pursue the indictment against Abrego Garcia led to the abrupt departure of Ben Schrader, a high-ranking federal prosecutor in Tennessee, sources briefed on Schrader's decision told ABC News. Schrader's resignation was prompted by concerns that the case was being pursued for political reasons, the sources said.

Schrader, who spent 15 years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Nashville and was most recently the chief of the criminal division, declined to comment when contacted by ABC News."
 
Hercules56 said:
Never said it did.

Grand Juries dont decide guilt, they decide if there is enough evidence to justify going to trial.
Click to expand...

Then I’m not sure why you brought it up. We’re talking about your decision to assume guilt when guilt hasn’t been proven and the only people agreeing with you are are MAGA and the criminals they elected.

Furthermore, your reliance on the grand jury indictment as an indicator of guilt reveals a profound ignorance of how grand jury indictments work and what they mean.

You should pay very close attention to what JayUtah has posted in this thread recently and ask yourself what it tells you about your assumptions.
 
JayUtah said:
Oops.

bsky.app

Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw.bsky.social)

Bondi DOJ has a problem. On left: DOJ Indictment and Detention Memo allege Abrego Garcia lied to officer by not revealing he was coming from Texas On right: DHS Referral Report: "Subject stated he was driving 'three days ago' (11/27/2022) from Houston, TX to Temple Hills, MD (via St Louis, MO)"
bsky.app bsky.app
Click to expand...
Comments there suggest the charges are not intended to stand more than cursory scrutiny, but they're only a temporary figleaf to cover their embarrassment at having to bring Garcia back to avoid facing consequences for their previous contempt of court. So now he's back they can be discarded.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Comments there suggest the charges are not intended to stand more than cursory scrutiny, but they're only a temporary figleaf to cover their embarrassment at having to bring Garcia back to avoid facing consequences for their previous contempt of court. So now he's back they can be discarded.
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound like the Trump administration which is known for its petty vindictiveness. I expect Garcia to be prosecuted to (and likely beyond IMO) the maximum extent allowed by law.

The goal is to get him convicted so he can be deported to El Salvador and the Trump administration and right wingers can say "told you so".
 
The Don said:
That doesn't sound like the Trump administration which is known for its petty vindictiveness. I expect Garcia to be prosecuted to (and likely beyond IMO) the maximum extent allowed by law.

The goal is to get him convicted so he can be deported to El Salvador and the Trump administration and right wingers can say "told you so".
Click to expand...

Yeah, but once the spotlight is off they can drop the fake charges see if they can get enough footage from the Home Depot video cameras to deport him on a littering conviction.
 
Abrego Garcia is likely to attract some skilled criminal defense attorneys to argue on his behalf. And Pam Bondi is not the brightest penny in the jar. As I said previously, a 7-page cursory fly-by of an indictment is a far cry from the 60-page speaking indictment against Donald Trump in the Florida documents case. I would not be surprised to see a superseding indictment fairly soon based on initial motions and hearings. And also here's the daily reminder that this is the due process Abrego Garcia should have had. His factual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The government has always wanted to distract from their lawlessness in this case by shifting blame to the victim.
 
The Don said:
That doesn't sound like the Trump administration which is known for its petty vindictiveness. I expect Garcia to be prosecuted to (and likely beyond IMO) the maximum extent allowed by law.

The goal is to get him convicted so he can be deported to El Salvador and the Trump administration and right wingers can say "told you so".
Click to expand...
Sure. They had to bring him back or be in contempt of court so they did, but pretended they had their own reason so they wouldn't look weak. That dealt with the immediate problem and now they just have to flail around to find something else to charge Garcia with to try to look tough.

Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area during the hours of darness is always a good one.
 
JayUtah said:
Abrego Garcia is likely to attract some skilled criminal defense attorneys to argue on his behalf. And Pam Bondi is not the brightest penny in the jar. As I said previously, a 7-page cursory fly-by of an indictment is a far cry from the 60-page speaking indictment against Donald Trump in the Florida documents case. I would not be surprised to see a superseding indictment fairly soon based on initial motions and hearings. And also here's the daily reminder that this is the due process Abrego Garcia should have had. His factual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The government has always wanted to distract from their lawlessness in this case by shifting blame to the victim.
Click to expand...
No, Garcia's guilt or Innocence of being a human trafficker and gun runner is very relevant.
 
@herc: Garcia is bad news? What does that phrase mean to you?
I ask because I heard it used admiringly, back in my mudsill youth.
But I assume that you mean it to imply criminality, with a high degree of certainty, almost equivalent to conviction in a court of law.
Equivalent enough to satisfy the Klan? Yeah, hell, why not.
 
sackett said:
@herc: Garcia is bad news? What does that phrase mean to you?
I ask because I heard it used admiringly, back in my mudsill youth.
But I assume that you mean it to imply criminality, with a high degree of certainty, almost equivalent to conviction in a court of law.
Equivalent enough to satisfy the Klan? Yeah, hell, why not.
Click to expand...
LOL!!!!

:big:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom