Trump 'stoked' crowd on January 6 and should be held accountable, federal judge says

Trump 'stoked' crowd on January 6 and should be held accountable, federal judge says

(CNN) A federal judge suggested Wednesday that Donald Trump and others who spoke at the "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6 should be held accountable for the US Capitol riot that followed, saying the then-President "stoked" the crowd and "might've inspired what happened."

Though she did not refer to Trump by name, District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during a sentencing for riot defendant Russell Peterson that the former President and other speakers at the Ellipse riled the crowd and "explicitly encouraged them to go to the Capitol and fight for one reason and one reason only -- to make sure the certification of the election didn't happen."

"There may be others who bear greater responsibility and should be held accountable," Jackson said to Peterson. "But this is not their day in court. It's yours."

... https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/politics/donald-trump-january-6-amy-berman-jackson/index.html​

Very well stated. Trump and others who spoke at that rally whipped that crowd up to the point of violence. Trump's promising to march there with them no doubt encouraged them to think they were right to take action and "stop the steal" that day also, imagining that he would be there with them and it would all somehow be legal (since, in their minds, they were stopping something illegal).

 

A federal judge should not be commenting on the guilt or innocence of a case not yet adjudicated.

 

I recall several Democrat politicians openly calling for violence...

 

Good, lock all them up too. As long as Trump is part of the package, I am ok with it.

 

Precisely this. These are bias'd views that impugn upon the judge's ability and credibility of character to neutrally weigh the evidence. And we're seeing more and more judges run afloat of their responsibilities that they are obligated to fulfill.

 

Judge's comments are nothing by personal opinion and wild speculation. The judge should be ashamed

 

I agree 100% with the judge.

 

I absolutely do NOT believe or can't believe that ALL those people didn't have to take a Constitution test. I was in IL in elementary/middle school and we couldn't graduate to high unless we passed that test.

I fully expect Orange Jesus to not know the Constitution because he's a dumb@ss on practically every subject, but police officers, active and veteran military, even some people on his staff...? How is that even possible? Even IF they did not know or did not care about the Constitution, who, in their right mind thinks hanging the seated Vice-President would STOP the certification?

That doesn't make an ounce of sense. They probably have 14,870,643 contingency plans for anything that might happen to our seated law makers. Killing Pence wouldn't have changed the process or the outcome. All it would do is get them exactly what they're getting - 3 hots and a cot. Maybe that's a good thing. They will have the time to visit the prison library and read about how our Constitution works. Who am I kidding? Those people don't read. Their Lord and Savior is functionally illiterate so...just sayin'.

 

It's afoul. Judges are allowed to look at the evidence and make determinations based on it.

 

The judge might have an opinion which is 100% right. However, he should not be expressing it because it might influence a jury. The jury is only supposed to consider what is brought up in the trial.

 

The judge was speaking at the trial of one of those wayed by the rhetoric of Dirty Donald.

 

Which could affect the outcome of other trials.

 

Gus Freeman said definitely he did not incite the people on January 6

 

What they are not allowed to do is to make subjective statements infringing on the defendant's character that has no relation to the charges before them. If we allow judges to go off on tangents, then it's no longer a court of law but a revival of the salem witch trials. In these type of trials, there's no innocent or guilty, there's just guilty.

We do not want to go there, and I reprimand Jackson, Chutkin and all judges who are attempting to go there. Stick solely and only to what's on the docket.

 

District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during a sentencing for riot defendant Russell Peterson that the former President and other speakers at the Ellipse riled the crowd and "explicitly encouraged them to go to the Capitol and fight for one reason and one reason only -- to make sure the certification of the election didn't happen."​

She did not opine concerning the already convicted defendant's character. She did not accuse anyone else of a crime. She referenced documented, factual matters that were the context of well-established criminality.

Trump goons are still being brought to justice:

Michigan man accused of pepper-spraying police during Jan. 6 riot

A Michigan man who allegedly pepper-sprayed authorities during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and wrote on Facebook that his life hadn't "been the same since" was accused Wednesday of assaulting police with a dangerous weapon and other crimes.​

Tim Levon Boughner, 41, was taken into custody in Lapeer County, Michigan, north of Detroit, the Washington D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office said in a news release.

Boughner faces several other charges, including engaging in physical violence in a restricted building, disorderly conduct and civil disorder, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.

nvestigators reviewed videos posted on social media and captured by police-worn body camera that allegedly showed Boughner pepper spraying police officers, according to the documents.

In a Facebook post from that day, Boughner allegedly said: "That was wild. We made it to the senate floor till National guard started fight back."

On the same day, he used an expletive to describe what he had done to police, the documents say.

A little over a month later, Boughner allegedly wrote that his life hadn't "been the same since this day." He added: "I still don't know how I ended up on the capital steps having a pepper spray fight with the capital police."

After last year's presidential election, Boughner allegedly asserted on Facebook that then-President Donald Trump hadn't lost and a "war" was coming, according to a statement of facts filed in federal court.

"USA will be dealing with all the evils in the world," he allegedly wrote. "They tried to use the flu too steal our country."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/m...ing-jan-6-riot/ar-AARDoyW?ocid=BingNewsSearch​

If one disputes the result of a democratic election, there are ample legal recourses to redress alleged errors and frauds. Just because those remedies have been exhausted - after multiple recounts, audits, dozens of judicial appeals, and threats to poll workers, governors and secretaries of state and their families - does not license a Loser's goons to violently assault Congress and the outnumbered police defending democracy.

A year after the election, the weird worshipers of a Loser too feeble to honorably accept his defeat, keep whining about a vast conspiracy to steal a "Landslide!", but none bring legal challenges that demand credible evidence. Not a single suspect in the multitudinous caper can be named.

A year after the election, hundreds of Trump goons have been identified, apprehended, indicted, and continue to be convicted.

There is a stark contrast between fact and fantasy.

 

How do you write with a straight face that she didn't accuse anyone of a crime and then write in the FOLLOWING SENTENCE:
"She referenced documented, factual matters that were the context of well-established criminality." Clearly, it's not the criminality that was established in her particular trial.

Again, she should only judge what's on her docket. Imagine a jury member making unsolicited remarks or having a view before a case is deliberated. Said juror would be excluded from the jury pool. She is obligated to no less, in fact to an even greater standard than the otherwise anonymous jury member. These are her commitments, she swore to these commitments under oath.

Because she and other judges have, in my view tainted their commitments under oath what we now have is political trials, meant to establish a political point of consensus, and the criminality of which is secondary. As you would well put it: In your valiant fight to 'defend democracy'.

But were the courts truly valiant in this fight for democracy, it wouldn't have the slightest tint of political commentary by Her Honor. Instead, it looks like something out of Cuba or Venezuela.

 

Who, precisely, are you claiming that the judge accused of a crime? Of what crime?

Your citing Cuba or Venezuela evokes images of an anti-democratic spectacle - some demagogue lying to his goons and inciting them to attack parliament.

 

It also evokes images of mock trials. Which is what's happening essentially by taking what should be criminal elements and making a political spectacle of them.

 

So easy to ignore the other side of the coin, isn't it?
When a nation's system loses it's integrity to the point America's has today- there is no justice. As people try to work within a system that no longer works and is being run by people who don't want it to work. frustration and anger will grow. The people in DC were there in massive numbers to re-enforce a demand that the government abide by it's own rules, and not allow a radical movement to abuse those rules.

The same people who looked at riots that resulted in burned cities and tole us they were "peaceful protestors" to be tolerated, look at Jan 6th and scream insurrection. That alone tells us what kind of people they really are- and that no honorable man should tolerate that kind of total Bull-Puckey from them for a moment. If they continue on their current course, sooner or later- they will cause people to respond forcefully. The question of insurrection or revolt is not only one of if a law is violated- but of WHO is doing it. It's every bit as illegal and wrong for office holders in government to become criminal as it is for private people to do so. In fact- moreso. IF government cannot or will not discipline itself, trouble is on the way.

 

It WAS adjudicated. This is a sentencing!

 

Again, whom are you alleging that the judge is accusing of a crime? What crime?

Trump goons attacking Congress and injuring 140 police defending democracy is well-documented, and his goons are confessing and being convicted based upon the evidence.

 

Judges are PAID to be biased in favor of the law and against those who break it.

 

A trial against Trump for inciting the insurrection will be called "mock trial" by his faithful, but it would be anything but. I mean, it's not like he incited them in secret. He did it very PUBLICLY.

Keep in mind that strawman arguments (which is the only defense I have heard for his actions) won't help Trump with unbiased judges and unbiased jurors.

 

Typical of left wing judges.

 

Go in peace. So damning.