Rep. McIver indicted on federal charges after incident at NJ ICE detention facility

Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.

 

Really. What do you know about her?

 

Lawfare! Did I do that right?

 

You have to ask with this poster's history of racist/sexist remarks?

 

Heard someone say that Trump's superpower is to get his enemies to show the worst side of themselves and go all in on the 20 side of an 80-20 issue. McIver probably does not need to be charged but she did take actions during that scrum that show she could be. If you do that with the second Trump Admin, they are going to charge anyone trying to prevent them from their immigration agenda.

 

It's nothing more than a political stunt. If the case ever goes to trial she will almost certainly be found not guilty. Keep in mind that the standard for issuing an indictment is probable cause not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and quoting the esteemed legal scholar Joseph diGenova a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if requested. I suspect that the evidence against McIver included an edited video of the scrum involving the members of Congress and the ICE agents and maybe the testimony of one or more the agents keeping in mind that the grand jury convened in secret and that the witnesses against her weren't subject to cross examination. Not remotely close to an actual trial.

 

They went after a union leader similarly in LA:

SEIU leader David Huerta released after being charged with impeding ICE officers

 

Absolutely correct that a grand jury indictment is not a trial, nor even close to a conviction. She will have the opportunity to defend herself. Unfortunately for her, there are a number of videos of the relevant events. To paraphrase the judge in Good Will Hunting, "you hit a cop, you're going inside." (Not an invitation for the "what about Trump/etc." stuff. We know and we've all covered that in many other posts. This is a simple assault charge on LEO's. Not sure how prosecuting an assault charge is lawfare, but I'm sure some will try to make that argument.)

 

I reviewed the video; it's inconclusive insofar as showing that she intentionally struck the ICE officer(s). Remember if the case ever goes to trial she will be tried in Newark before a jury predisposed to believe her side of the story. Also keep in mind that her attorneys just have to convince a single juror. In the event that there is a hung jury do you think that the Blondi (misspelling intended) will try her a second time? Venue does matter.

 

A bold and blatant admission that jury nullification is appropriate, especially along racial and political lines. The KKK of the 1930's may ask for a royalty payment for stealing that tactic. Is the irony and hatred not evident to you? Of course, you have the confidence to predict these outcomes because like-minded political and judicial hacks have succeeded in the game of forum shopping. Merits, values, equality, etc. all be damned, right?

 

"Although there's a good chance that Trump will pardon you, if you did it on his behalf. "

^ Is that how the quote ends?

 

Haven't re-watched the movie in a while, but pretty sure that isn't how the quote ends. Next.

 

I'm not sure either. But it seemed like you were trying to pretend to be all hard-ass, like you really support the police.

Obviously that's not the case, because you support Trump. Next.

 

So you have a problem with jury nullification? What do you think about nullification by the President through his abuse of the pardon, January 6th coming immediately to mind although there are multiple other examples. If you're going to raise Hunter Biden as a rebuttal keep in mind that tax evasion is seldom prosecuted when a taxpayer voluntarily pays all past due taxes with interest and penalties as did Hunter and that misrepresentation on the federal firearms purchase form is very seldom prosecuted as a standalone crime. A reasonable argument could be made the Hunter was the victim of selective prosecution by a Republican special counsel. By the way being predisposed to believe a defendant is not jury nullification.

 

Start at the 2:40 part of the video. It is pretty clear that she intentionally made physical contact with a couple of officers.

 

So much to untangle from such a brief post. First, it doesn't appear that you've seen Good Will Hunting or you are incapable of appreciating the judge's statement. Second, in what sense or imagination was I "pretending to be all hard-ass." Third, is there some universe in which my posts provide any question or ambiguity regarding support for the police or law and order in general? Finally, in what way does support for the Trump administration contradict support for the police or law and order? Truly, your post is baffling.

 

It does not appear that you understand the vast difference between jury nullification and the constitutional power of a President to issue pardons. Following you down the rabbit hole on your twisted narrative about specific pardons would be a futile effort as a response/discussion of nullification. In that regard, your final statement is telling - "being predisposed to believe a defendant is not jury nullification." Actually, that is the definition of jury nullification - and the ultimate point you seem to be making that certain races/political friends should be able to absolve/forgive "their own" for alleged crimes simply because of their race/politics. Again, the 1930s KKK grand masters are cheering you on.

 

To answer the last question: because the President's supporters, urged on by him "to fight" engaged in a lawless action in which multiple cops were beaten, some severely injured, as they tried to maintain "law and order." Then, upon being put back into office, Trump pardoned all of them.

And yes, to the third question, you would often post vague insinuations that somehow what they did was not too serious of a crime and that people just didn't know the context and about how you had a job the showed you how it wasn't really that bad or something along those lines.

 

Uhh, no, that is not the definition of jury nullification. Jury nullification is when a jury believes that the law is wrong in some way and decides to change the law to fit their needs. A jury could be pre-disposed to believe that a person did not intend to do something (lowering or eliminating their criminal culpability) without having to think that the law itself is wrong. The KKK cases that you keep mentioning in an attempt to use race as a cudgel were more purely jury nullification as the law that juries found wrong was that it was against the law to lynch somebody or terrorize somebody of a particular race.