Explain how her conversation with the man's defense lawyer just before the two left the court to flee is categorized "circumstantial."  We can assume she told the lawyer the agents were in the courthouse, that they had a warrant for their client, and that they could leave the courtroom through a private route.

I doubt they were discussing golf and their grandkids.   

If the defense lawyer tells investigators the truth about what the judge said, that's not circumstantial.  That's direct evidence based on statements made by the robe-wearing Liberal activist.

I don't recall seeing a mention of what specifically the judge said to the defense attorney. Are you assuming what they spoke about or is there an account of what was said?

If the defense attorney did say what the judge told him then that would not be circumstantial.

I don't recall seeing a mention of what specifically the judge said to the defense attorney. Are you assuming what they spoke about or is there an account of what was said?

If the defense attorney did say what the judge told him then that would not be circumstantial.

Explain how her conversation with the man's defense lawyer just before the two left the court to flee is categorized "circumstantial."  We can assume she told the lawyer the agents were in the courthouse, that they had a warrant for their client, and that they could leave the courtroom through a private route.

I doubt they were discussing golf and their grandkids.   

If the defense lawyer tells investigators the truth about what the judge said, that's not circumstantial.  That's direct evidence based on statements made by the robe-wearing Liberal activist.

More evidence that you're illiterate. 

English comprehension classes are available.  Just ask at your local community college (cheaper than most 4-yr schools).  Or you can go online, but I feel you might need "special" attention.

The left and weaponized DOJ has shown that "the process is the punishment" can be used.  And with this judge, there is more evidence that she's guilty than the others who the DOJ tried/did prosecute.

So good for her, let her stress out about this.

More evidence that you're illiterate. 

English comprehension classes are available.  Just ask at your local community college (cheaper than most 4-yr schools).  Or you can go online, but I feel you might need "special" attention.

Hahaha, thank you for making my point. You are making a hypothetical argument about what you assume the judge said to dispute my statement that the case is circumstantial. You can't point to evidence you assume exists as proof not all the evidence is circumstantial. If we actually knew the judge said something THEN the case would have non-circumstantial evidence.

Hahaha, thank you for making my point. You are making a hypothetical argument about what you assume the judge said to dispute my statement that the case is circumstantial. You can't point to evidence you assume exists as proof not all the evidence is circumstantial. If we actually knew the judge said something THEN the case would have non-circumstantial evidence.

There's been no trial and no confession.  but you want to ignore the events that transpired in the courtroom as if they can have more than one reason for unfolding as they did.

"Useful idiot" doesn't even begin to describe....

Well, now .... isn't that special?!

Well, now .... isn't that special?!

They were talking about like u said, grandchildren and fishing. #objective

They were talking about like u said, grandchildren and fishing. #objective

The main facts I see --

- He had a scheduled court appearance that he showed up for.
- His case was not called before or after he fled.
- His lawyer had a conversation with the judge AFTER the judge got rid of the agents waiting for him.  Turned out not all were distracted by the diversion.
- Immediately after the judge talked to his lawyer, the lawyer and Ruiz exited the courtroom via the jury door -- again his case was never called.
- The prosecuting attorney wasn't aware of anything happening with Ruiz.  The judge never talked to the prosecutor, which has to be because nothing the judge was doing had to do with the case before this court that day.
- The man and his lawyer exited the courthouse and the man took off running.  How did either of them know agents were there to arrest him unless the judge told them?

This is all circumstantial the same way evidence of gravity is circumstantial.

There's been no trial and no confession.  but you want to ignore the events that transpired in the courtroom as if they can have more than one reason for unfolding as they did.

"Useful idiot" doesn't even begin to describe....

No trial and confession but you seem to be trying to show guilt based on your assumptions of what the judge must have told the attorney... Are you arguing hypotheticals?

Do you understand how the presumption of innocence works? Do you know how to build a criminal case?

No trial and confession but you seem to be trying to show guilt based on your assumptions of what the judge must have told the attorney... Are you arguing hypotheticals?

Do you understand how the presumption of innocence works? Do you know how to build a criminal case?

Not assumptions.  Facts.

God gave man intelligence for a reason.  Do you always need 100% concrete proof before you believe what's in front of your eyes?

Not assumptions.  Facts.

God gave man intelligence for a reason.  Do you always need 100% concrete proof before you believe what's in front of your eyes?

Not assumptions? You literally said it was an assumption earlier, but now it is not an assumption of what was said? Make up your mind.

Not assumptions? You literally said it was an assumption earlier, but now it is not an assumption of what was said? Make up your mind.

That was before the video evidence was released.  Now we have a recorded timeline of what took place.

I might have assumed what she told the defense lawyer, but there's no need to assume that what she said directly resulted in the lawyer and defendant attempting to elude the agents serving a warrant.

Just stop arguing.  You've lost.

BTW, the judge never denied what she did.  She's instead claiming qualified immunity shields her against prosecution.

A Federal Grand Jury indicted her, meaning they believed they had probable cause.

The video backs up the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to reasonable minds).

She was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court until the case is decided because "it is in the public interest to relieve her of her duties as she faces two federal charges."

The only way the defense can win is if the video is lost or excluded from trial.  Juries love to see video when they can.  It paints a picture of reality instead of trying to picture in their minds the description being given by the lawyers and witnesses.

No trial and confession but you seem to be trying to show guilt based on your assumptions of what the judge must have told the attorney... Are you arguing hypotheticals?

Do you understand how the presumption of innocence works? Do you know how to build a criminal case?

U dont undersrand what a hypothetical is.

U dont understand no one here is a judge or part of a jury over there.

U dont understand logic.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, might be a horse until a judge rules so.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

U dont undersrand what a hypothetical is.

U dont understand no one here is a judge or part of a jury over there.

U dont understand logic.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, might be a horse until a judge rules so.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

He doesn't understand how to read.  The video evidence is now proof the judge misdirected the agents to another judge's chambers then took that opportunity to speak to the defense attorney without actually calling Ruiz's case.  The judge then directed them both to leave out the non-public exit (jury door) after which the two used an elevator further from the courtroom, then went out of the building, at which time Ruiz took off running but was still caught.

The story of what happened when is captured as evidence against the judge.  She's not even denying she did it.  She's invoking qualified immunity which wouldn't apply because (1) she knowingly broke the law and (2) she wasn't rendering a verdict or deciding on a motion or objection.  Nothing about her actions had anything to do with the case before her in that courtroom, so immunity has no bearing.

That was before the video evidence was released.  Now we have a recorded timeline of what took place.

I might have assumed what she told the defense lawyer, but there's no need to assume that what she said directly resulted in the lawyer and defendant attempting to elude the agents serving a warrant.

Just stop arguing.  You've lost.

BTW, the judge never denied what she did.  She's instead claiming qualified immunity shields her against prosecution.

A Federal Grand Jury indicted her, meaning they believed they had probable cause.

The video backs up the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to reasonable minds).

She was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court until the case is decided because "it is in the public interest to relieve her of her duties as she faces two federal charges."

The only way the defense can win is if the video is lost or excluded from trial.  Juries love to see video when they can.  It paints a picture of reality instead of trying to picture in their minds the description being given by the lawyers and witnesses.

Such dishonesty. I pointed out the case was circumstantial and you couldn't admit that it was so you had to point to what you assumed was said to suggest otherwise. Now you point to the video as if it proves I was wrong when clearly my comment was made within the time frame of what was known to us at the time. You have to play a time travel game to try and be right.

Now you make an argument as to her guilt as if I had asserted her innocence (I didn't). Sounds kind of like another Flapp strawman argument.

Such dishonesty. I pointed out the case was circumstantial and you couldn't admit that it was so you had to point to what you assumed was said to suggest otherwise. Now you point to the video as if it proves I was wrong when clearly my comment was made within the time frame of what was known to us at the time. You have to play a time travel game to try and be right.

Now you make an argument as to her guilt as if I had asserted her innocence (I didn't). Sounds kind of like another Flapp strawman argument.

Video evidence is not circumstantial.

Video evidence is not circumstantial.

Video evidence can be circumstantial.

Video evidence can be circumstantial.

And here's the goal post moving and deflection.

And here's the goal post moving and deflection.

Queue the attack lap dog.