Trump is now full on Q'Anon

Post Reply New Topic

Oh this is a civil proceeding as in for a lawsuit towards Trump then?

It’s not a lawsuit, I don’t think. It’s a congressional hearing.. the January 6th committee's hearings. They’re not criminal court proceedings, so I guess they’re considered civil hearings in the eyes of American law. That’s why this difference has been yapped about in the news lately.. pointing out that of trump pleads the fifth they’re not obligated to ignore it like in criminal court; they’re allowed to interpret it as an admission of probable guilt. (But it’s not the same as coming clean and admitting guilt.) Sounds like a bit of a grey area.. but basically it looks WAY worse for someone pleading the 5th in a civil hearing than a criminal one because they’re allowed to use it against you.

I'm still going to support Trump, because anyone who gets the last Nazi war criminal out of America can't be that bad.

^Even bad people can do good things. It's not as if trump has never done anything good, it's that he does SO MANY bad things.

Good: He had some amazing buildings built in very tight timelines!
Bad: He didn't pay MANY of the workers that designed and built the building(s).

etc

Just because someone does a good thing doesn't mean all the bad things they've done should be overlooked.

Oh I see. But if it's not a criminal proceeding, what good will it do to use it against him if you will receive no criminal penalty for taking the fifth?

Again, it's obvious you haven't watched any of the hearings and have no idea what's going on.

In the end, the congressional committee is expected to make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice who they're sharing their evidence and witness interviews with. The DOJ then may indict trumplestilstskin on criminal offences.

The other MAJOR purpose of it all is to present the facts to the American people so they Know wtf happened and who did what. Public opinion counts for a lot. People who are waking up to the fact that trump is a criminal dirtbag are no longer supporting him - which is good for the country if they want to keep their system of government/Democracy in general.

Oh I see. If any of the evidence cannot be used for a crime charge later what's the point of getting it?

like if they make him incriminate himself then they can charge him but they cannot use any of the evidence he used to incriminate himself in the charge because I can only be used in a civil hearing.

1. They can use it afaik. That's why they're sharing evidence with the DOJ.

2. I just explained above what the point was.. to share the truth of what trump and his gangsters were up to in trying to overturn the results of the election and get rid of voting in the USA and just install trump as dictator. The hope is that enough people tune in and watch the hearings and have a moment of realization that all of this was/is very VERY bad and trump should be in jail, not the white house.

Sorry for not understanding I'm just trying to understand how the legal system works. But if you can subpoena a defendant to incriminate themselves in a civil hearing how come the justice department doesn't do that with other crime suspects as well? Like for example how come they didn't do it with Jeffrey Epstein or OJ Simpson and televise it if it means they can't take the fifth in that case? Why is Trump an exception?

Yahoo!, attributed to Daily Beast:

"Pro-Trump Tour Flies Off The Rails Over ‘Demonic Satellites’ and ‘Deep State’ McDonald’s"

This can't be real...this can't be real... ^{Somebody pinch me}

I have a limited understanding of the US legal system - only what I've read about, heard about, or seen on TV. I'm not a lawyer and am Canadian like you.

I suppose they don't subpoena people in civil proceedings to incriminate themselves if they plead the 5th because they can't if it's a Criminal proceeding. Most of the time people go to court because they've been charged with a Crime. These hearings aren't in a court of law. They're being conducted by a special Congressional Committee to share with the public what really happened. Congress has the power to subpoena and interview people, but they're not police or district attorneys or whoever else can press criminal charges. They're just gathering the info and presenting it publicly for all to see and then will likely make recommendations to the DOJ for criminal charges that they believe there's rock solid evidence to charge people for.

Epstein and Simpson were in criminal court after being charged with crimes. trump hasn't been charged with a crime over this (yet) so it's a different type of hearing with different rules as to how things work.

That makes sense. But if they recommend charges of the doj because of something Trump was subpoenad to testify to, the doj can't even use any of the testimony is evidence so wouldn't the doj just react like "well thanks for saying we should prosecute him when you have no evidence that we can use. Go pat yourself on the back". When did doj think it was a futile effort?

Why can't they use any of the evidence?

Everything I've read says the J6 committee is forwarding all their evidence and interviews to the DOJ for them to use. There have been several articles in the news about them sharing evidence, including some debate about whether they should forward evidence as they get it or wait and forward it all in one big package. Pros and cons to either approach. But there has definitely been news media chatter about the J6 committee forwarding evidence to the DOJ for them to use.

Oh I thought that if right to the 5th does not count in a civil hearing than the testimony cannot be used in a criminal proceeding, unless I am wrong.

The right still counts in a civil trial - they have the right to do it.. but in a civil trial the judge and jury are allowed to make the interpretation that pleading the 5th is basically an admission of guilt and can be used against them when deciding an outcome vs. must be ignored in a criminal trial. They're Allowed to interpret it as that, but not Obligated to.

It seems from what I've read that the interviews are all getting forwarded to the DOJ in full.. and the committee interviewed over 1,000 people so there's a lot of potential evidence in there.

I think you may be confusing some of this for the rule of double jeopardy where someone can't be tried for the same crime twice in the USA, but in this case (and many others) it's not because civil proceedings aren't criminal trials, so people can be made to testify in a civil proceeding and Then made to face criminal charges for the same offence. Or the other way around - someone can be in a criminal trial and get let off, but then face a civil court proceeding later and potentially found at fault and made to pay $$$$. (Crimes get jail time, civil people get sued/made to pay fines or restitution etc.)

oh I see. But what's the point of getting someone to testify of all that does is show that they're guilty?

For example, in the case of Epstein and OJ they didn't have to make them testify in civil hearings before charging them. Why don't they just get real evidence to charge Trump instead?