Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

[Rawley]

She doesn't give a shit about politics, just the law. Trump doesn't have to run for POTUS. It's a hobby, not a job. He's doing it because he wants to, not because he has to. It's no different than telling the judge he can't make those trial dates because he needs to practice to try out for the PGA Senior Tour.

Biden thanks you for swallowing what ever integrity you ever had. Good grief.

 

[Oldestyle]

And so your solution for a president who committed crimes is to place them above the law and not face justice?

The solution for a President that has committed crimes is to impeach them. It's right there in the Constitution! The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening right now.

 

[Rawley]

I like blunt. Blunt implies no BS. Let's see.

I can't speak for all the left but I will speak for myself. I believe Trump is a danger to Democracy. So anything that happens to him so he doesn't become president is a good thing. That's why I would like it to happen before he possibly gets elected. Much like you I presume don't want it to happen before the election.

Now let's think those 2 facts through. I'm willing to risk 1 juror saying not guilty, something that will undoubtedly help Trump's cause. While you are unwilling to risk that 12 jurors unanimously decide he's guilty.

Doesn't that kind of imply that neither of us believe Trump is truly innocent?

People questioning a process doesn't make a person a conspiracy theorist. I question the process all the time. You become a conspiracy theorist when you are unwilling to contemplate being wrong even when all the evidence points to it.

In other words a conspiracy theorist is dogmatic.

Argue your point reasonably and I'll listen to it honestly.

First off. Investigations takes time. I would argue investigating a former president takes extra time, precisely because you want to be absolutely certain you can get a conviction.

Second, NARA asked for more than a year for the documents back before it turned into this.

This is what I would call a conspiracy.

Smith interviewed a witness AT the White House.

You simply assume it was for the purpose of coordination.

I'm not found of the precedent myself. On the other hand I believe in law and order. In my view he committed crimes.

So I have 2 competing precedents. Both are unpleasant.

I can choose the precedent that allows for a sitting president presiding over a DOJ that goes after his predecessor and future opponent. Or I can choose the precedent that would amount to immunity for previous presidents and front runner for the GOP and the Democratic party.

Both options suck so I'll choose the one that doesn't involve me trying to excuse crimes.


You question an election in court. He did so 65 times.

Distributing a false document in order to contest that election is not that. Pressuring the Vice-president to unilaterally reject the certification isn't that. Pressuring governors to find you votes isn't that. Breaking in to election offices and copying data from election machines isn't that.


He had documents in his possession that WHERE classified. Signalled by its CLASSIFICATION MARKINGS. And the contention isn't that he HAD documents. The contention is that he KEPT documents even though the government wanted them back and that in order to do so he both lied and tried to hide them.

GOod for you admitting these prosecutions are political

 

[Flash]

Banana Republics do Banana Republic shit, don't they?

 

[Curried Goats]

The solution for a President that has committed crimes is to impeach them. It's right there in the Constitution! The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening right now.

Who gives a shit how those mutant slavers felt about anything?

 

[Curried Goats]

Who determines that a former President has committed a "crime"? The President in power who will be running against said former President? Do you not grasp how allowing that would lead to election interference, Fork? What's happening right now poses the biggest threat to democracy in our country that I've seen in my lifetime. It's not even close! But you think that a former President having some documents in his possession that the National Archive wants is a bigger crisis than THAT? Seriously?

The Justice system and a jury of your peers determine it.

 

[Faun]

The solution for a President that has committed crimes is to impeach them. It's right there in the Constitution! The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening right now.

Impeachment is merely a political procedure to get an officer out of office. They can then face legal consequences. Trump is now out of office. He can face legal consequences. Running for office is not a 'get out of jail" card.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I find it highly ironic that the judge is indulging in election interference while purporting to run a trial about it.

 

[schmidlap]

Trump’s Federal Trial on Election Interference Set to Start March 4, 2024 — The Wall Street Journal

Trial date one day before Super Tuesday primaries heightens clash between GOP front-runner’s legal and campaign schedules

apple.news

It is unlikely in the extreme that a massive trial of this magnitude (Constitutionally, politically, historically and legally) will be “ready” for trial that soon. But the judge’s very biased agenda is crystal clear. And it’s unacceptable.

(Since this trial is far more about politics than justice, I chose the politics forum).

I appreciate Judge Chutkan' compromise scheduling. While it rejects the Special Counsel's expeditious proposal, it respects Americans' right to swift justice. It also defers to the innocent-until-proven-guilty perp while ignoring his outlandish insistence that justice be deferred and denied for years.

His Sixth Amendment right to confront the documented evidence and sworn testimony of so many Republicans must be honored in timely fashion.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.​

 

[L.K.Eder]

Fanni has to prove beyond reasonable doubt with evidence. Trump is presumed innocent. Of course its going to take her longer to build her case.

And what is he going to have to be prepped for? The 'truth'?

trump was ready last monday to present his irrefutable evidence. surely, he will remain ready. lol

 

[forkup]

GOod for you admitting these prosecutions are political

Who said that. I was asked the question why I personally would like Trump be tried before the election. I said nothing why the legal system does it.

I can personally want something that the justice system doesn't do or for that matter should do.

For instance, I would personally like the documents case to be tried before the election. Yet, I don't think it would be a good idea to do so. Not because the case isn't solid but because the amount of classified material that needs to be processed and the clearances required for it to be actually presented in court are likely not going to be finished before the election.

So, the justice system and I personally, wants aside have no problem for it to take time. It takes how long it takes.

The Georgia case is complex, has multiple defendants all deserving the chance to file whatever motion they deem fit. So, chances are, not before the election. Again, not a problem.

One can distinguish something you prefer from something that is right.

 

[Synthaholic]

The solution for a President that has committed crimes is to impeach them. It's right there in the Constitution! The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening right now.

Mitch McConnell disagrees. His remarks on the Senate floor after voting not to convict in Trump's 2nd impeachment:

Put anther way, in the language of today: President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, unless the statute of limitations has run, still liable for everything he did while in office, didn't get away with anything yet – yet.

We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us.

And the Senate was right not to entertain some light-speed sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal

 

[forkup]

Who determines that a former President has committed a "crime"? The President in power who will be running against said former President? Do you not grasp how allowing that would lead to election interference, Fork? What's happening right now poses the biggest threat to democracy in our country that I've seen in my lifetime. It's not even close! But you think that a former President having some documents in his possession that the National Archive wants is a bigger crisis than THAT? Seriously?

Who determines that a former President has committed a "crime"?

A jury of his peers. Because a special counsel, who's acting outside the normal prosecutorial system to prevent conflict will start his work.

He's tasked with determining if crimes were committed. If he does determine that, he is tasked with trying to prosecute the case. After which a randomly selected judge in the jurisdiction the crimes took place will instruct 12 randomly selected citizens in exactly what they need to determine in order for each criminal statue to be valid. Then those 12 people need to unanimously decide that indeed those conditions were fulfilled, and Trump is indeed guilty. If even one dissents Trump is of the hook.

The legal system takes great care of stacking the deck for defendants of crimes, as they should. Trump has other advantages born from both his financial and political status.

Advocating to treat him better than any random defendant even after those, frankly huge advantages is unconscionable in my opinion.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nope. The law has essentially not a damn thing to do with what the Brandon DOJ and Bragg and Fani are doing.

It is against the law to launch an insurrection against the United States of America! Asshole!

 

[Skylar]

Trump should be prepared. He's spent $56 million dollars on legal fees since January.

He has the means to review the discovery. If he chooses not to, that's on him.

 

[Skylar]

First of all a US President is the ultimate authority on classification of documents.

While he's president, sure. But Trump was quite clear that while he could have declassified the docs in question, he didn't.

“As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript."

Trump admitted the obvious: As citizen Trump, he can't declassify shit.

Trump has the same rights as any other President. Joe Biden on the other hand took classified documents when he was a Senator and while he was Vice President...something that you can't even begin to argue he was legally able to do.

As for what Trump admitted to? He held up some papers that we have no way of knowing what they were. Can you prove that those papers contained national defense information? Can Jack Smith? I'd like to know how.

Save of course that;

1) The documents that Trump was referring to were recovered by Jack Smith.

2) The multiple witnesses who Trump showed the maps.....who have already testified on the matter.

And of course, its irrelevant if it was classified. Trump is charged with the willful retention of national defense information. Classified, unclassified, it doesn't matter. If its national defense info that Trump willful retained and refused to return....he's fucked.

And the evidence is very, very strong that he did exactly that. Not only did they seize buckets of classified docs from Trump, they took many of them from a box in his office. He knew that he had them. His lawyer testified that Trump tried to convince him to lie to authorities and withhold docs.

Then there is the attempt to destroy evidence. With Trump's IT guy flipping and recanting his false testimony that Trump hadn't ordered the erasure of the videos federal authorities were after.

Which opens up a whole new can of worms......as its highly unlikely that the IT just spontaneously decided to lie to the grand jury. Which means witness tampering and conspiracy. More felonies.

This is a layer cake of fucked for Trump.

 

[d0gbreath]

The solution for a President that has committed crimes is to impeach them. It's right there in the Constitution! The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what is happening right now.

Does not apply. The guy with 91 felony charges against him, is not a president.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Does not apply. The guy with 91 felony charges against him, is not a president.

You're a good Stalinist.
Gooood booooy

 

[d0gbreath]

You're a good Stalinist.
Gooood booooy

I quit Stalin.

 

[toobfreak]

What part of NAME THEM do you not get idiot?

What part of "I don't keep a list of names for you-- do your own fucking research asshole" don't you get? Geesh, totally fucking stupid, ignorant and useless you are. Are you aware of anything out side of your own ass and the bullshit MSNBC feeds you???

Lets have a specific name to discuss a specific case

Fine, pick a name and case of one of the J6 detainees held for years without bail, without charges, and without a court date and we will get started.

Here's a link to one place I know which actively tries to keep in touch with and interviews J6 detainees and makes their plight public and I've caught a few of their interviews with them on weekends. They are all clearly marked. Pick the one you want to discuss:

Cowboy Logic

Browse the most recent videos from channel "Cowboy Logic" uploaded to Rumble.com

rumble.com

Then tell me again why the government took years to bring these to trial for one simple tiny act yet expects Trump to go to trial in just a few months with 91 charges and a million pages of documents hanging over his head?