Judge overseeing Trump classified documents case deals blows to special counsel Jack Smith

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The passage of the NPV will invalidate the Electoral College.

 

[Rawley]

the public has a right to a speedy trial as well.

Where did you get that one from?

 

[Rawley]

The passage of the NPV will invalidate the Electoral College.

Good luck with that.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Haha says the guy that was unaware of a defendant right to a speedy trial

Haha

No....I know about that...

You tried to argue that it meant a defendant could opt for a trial at his/her leisure.


Ask me why.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Haha he just answered it! Are you that ducking stupid that you don’t know our president is elected via the electoral college? Haha not surprised, it’s in the text above the bill of rights that you were unaware of

Why the need to qual8fy it?

 

[Marener]

Where did you get that one from?

The SCOTUS case I cited earlier in the thread.

It’s pretty obvious that the public has an interest in preventing unreasonable delays in court cases.

 

[struth]

Why the need to qual8fy it?

How’s that qualifying it? That’s literally how it’s won

 

[struth]

No....I know about that...

You tried to argue that it meant a defendant could opt for a trial at his/her leisure.


Ask me why.

Well now you do, you didn’t before i educated you

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

struth lost the discussion with the Horseman and now he is tantruming.

 

[struth]

I disagree with this.

I didn’t say Trump doesn’t have a right to a speedy trial. I said that the right doesn’t solely belong to Trump and that the public has a right to a speedy trial as well.

Haha yoj literally said SCOTUS disagrees, while incorrectly understanding the case you cited

We can all see your post on this thread

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Marener is right according to Bing AI chat.

"
Yes, both the public and the defendant have a right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial for the accused in all criminal prosecutions12. The right to a speedy trial is intended to protect individuals from prolonged pretrial detention and ensure that justice is served promptly1. However, it is important to note that the concept of a “speedy trial” is not defined by a specific time frame and can vary depending on the circumstances of each case1.

The Supreme Court has established a balancing test to determine whether a delay between accusation and conviction violates the defendant’s right to a speedy trial1. The test takes into account factors such as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the defendant asserted their right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice caused by the delay1. Additionally, statutory protections, such as the federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974, set clear time limits for initiating criminal proceedings and beginning trials1.

 

[struth]

Marener is right according to Bing AI chat.

"
Yes, both the public and the defendant have a right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial for the accused in all criminal prosecutions12. The right to a speedy trial is intended to protect individuals from prolonged pretrial detention and ensure that justice is served promptly1. However, it is important to note that the concept of a “speedy trial” is not defined by a specific time frame and can vary depending on the circumstances of each case1.

The Supreme Court has established a balancing test to determine whether a delay between accusation and conviction violates the defendant’s right to a speedy trial1. The test takes into account factors such as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the defendant asserted their right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice caused by the delay1. Additionally, statutory protections, such as the federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974, set clear time limits for initiating criminal proceedings and beginning trials1.

Haha I said it gives the defendant a right to a speedy trial he said he and the court disagreed! Haha

 

[Marener]

Haha yoj literally said SCOTUS disagrees, while incorrectly understanding the case you cited

We can all see your post on this thread

They do disagree. You claim because Trump waived his right to a speedy trial, he gets to delay the trial if he wants.

That ignores that the right to a speedy trial does not belong to the defendant alone.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Marener is right according to Bing AI chat.

"
Yes, both the public and the defendant have a right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial for the accused in all criminal prosecutions12. The right to a speedy trial is intended to protect individuals from prolonged pretrial detention and ensure that justice is served promptly1. However, it is important to note that the concept of a “speedy trial” is not defined by a specific time frame and can vary depending on the circumstances of each case1.

The Supreme Court has established a balancing test to determine whether a delay between accusation and conviction violates the defendant’s right to a speedy trial1. The test takes into account factors such as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the defendant asserted their right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice caused by the delay1. Additionally, statutory protections, such as the federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974, set clear time limits for initiating criminal proceedings and beginning trials1.

Bing AI Chat?

As another poster said, y'all go ahead and file your motions for the speedy trial of Donald Trump that you are entitled to. I'm sure that judge Cannon will give it the attention that it deserves. At least the next time that nature calls, she will.

 

[Marener]

Bing AI Chat?

As another poster said, y'all go ahead and file your motions for the speedy trial of Donald Trump that you are entitled to. I'm sure that judge Cannon will give it the attention that it deserves. At least the next time that nature calls, she will.

We don’t have to. The government is arguing on behalf of the public.

If Cannon knows anything about the law, she will be giving it consideration. But then again, she has shown a significant knowledge deficit in that department.

 

[nomadic5]

Let's see if we can get back to discussing the topic, instead of letting it continue to devolve into childish insults.

ha ha... Good luck with that (albeit great) advice

 

[Seymour Flops]

We don’t have to. The government is arguing on behalf of the public.

If Cannon knows anything about the law, she will be giving it consideration. But then again, she has shown a significant knowledge deficit in that department.

How can the government argue that the public has a right to a speedy trial, when they themselves have been dragging out these investigations and phony prosecutions for more than 8 years now?

Don't try to answer on your own. Let Bing AI do your thinking for you! Or, am I preaching to the choir on that one?

 

[Marener]

T

How can the government argue that the public has a right to a speedy trial, when they themselves have been dragging out these investigations and phony prosecutions for more than 8 years now?

Don't try to answer on your own. Let Bing AI do your thinking for you! Or, am I preaching to the choir on that one?

You’re not making any sense.

Trump is being indicted for crimes committed in 2022. That’s less than a year from crime to prosecution.

And it doesn’t have any relevance on the matter anyway.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Bing AI Chat?

As another poster said, y'all go ahead and file your motions for the speedy trial of Donald Trump that you are entitled to. I'm sure that judge Cannon will give it the attention that it deserves. At least the next time that nature calls, she will.

Those who pit their opinion against demonstrated factual research are fools like you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

How can the government argue that the public has a right to a speedy trial, when they themselves have been dragging out these investigations and phony prosecutions for more than 8 years now?

Don't try to answer on your own. Let Bing AI do your thinking for you! Or, am I preaching to the choir on that one?

J6 was three years ago. The docs were last year. You are stoned.