Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

[Rawley]

Half the American people believe there was.

Half the country is pretending that Biden is not corrupt, competent, and cognitively compromised.

 

[Arlette]

You’re an asshole. I didn’t say it wasn’t the judge’s decision. In fact, I started off by noting that she has selected the trial date.
Are you always this retarded?

The point is that she selected a trial date for partisan political purposes. As you know and as you hoped for.

Chutkan moves on Trump like a bitch.

 

[Donald H]

Half the country is pretending that Biden is not corrupt, in competent, and cognitively compromised.

My bolding.

And the other half says the same about Trump.

You're avoiding the issue.

 

[BULLDOG]

You're allowing your country and everything else with it to be risked on Biden being able to walk and talk in public until the election!

I don't warn you with political bias, I speak as a foreigner.

You speak as a dumbass that believes all the crazy conspiracy theories. Remember when Hillary was supposed to have Parkinsons? Your silly claims about Biden's health are nothing more than a repeat of that

 

[BackAgain]

Half the American people believe there was.

I'm not saying either way. I as a Canadian can shirk the responsibility, with no risk involved that I can clearly define.

You already made the claim, you babbling butt rash. Gfy. There was no attempted coup.

 

[Rawley]

My bolding.

And the other half says the same about Trump.

You're avoiding the issue.

What's the issue Canuck?

 

[Zincwarrior]

No trial should be scheduled prior to the election.

His running is voluntary. The court doesn't wait on the Defendant's non court issues. Welcome to the real world.

 

[BULLDOG]

False. The trial is all about trying to prevent the GOP from choosing a President of their choice.

Trump broke no laws. The election wasn’t fair. And he had a right to seek to challenge it.

He's not being tried for challenging the election. He's being tried for the laws he broke while challenging the election.

 

[Curried Goats]

You’re an asshole. I didn’t say it wasn’t the judge’s decision. In fact, I started off by noting that she has selected the trial date.
Are you always this retarded?

The point is that she selected a trial date for partisan political purposes. As you know and as you hoped for.

Just because you feel like she set a date for partisan political reasons doesn't actually make it so. She isn't responsible for Donald Trump running for political office. She's responsible for seeking swift justice for both the defendant and the we the people, who have an interest in the outcome of this case.

 

[BackAgain]

His running is voluntary. The court doesn't wait on the Defendant's non court issues. Welcome to the real world.

Judges do generally set trial dates. Glad you figured that much out.

But they should take into account that this political persecution affects the entire republic. That’s part of the “real world” even though your partisan agenda may not like it.

 

[BackAgain]

He's not being tried for challenging the election. He's being tried for the laws he broke while challenging the election.

False. He is being tried for purely partisan political reasons, thereby abusing the legal system as the tool for accomplishing that agenda.

And he didn’t break any laws at all.

 

[BULLDOG]

False. He is being tried for purely partisan political reasons, thereby abusing the legal system as the tool for accomplishing that agenda.

And he didn’t break any laws at all.

You should go tell it to the jury.

 

[Donald H]

He's not being tried for challenging the election. He's being tried for the laws he broke while challenging the election.

To the other side's POV, breaking existing laws is a necessary part of an attempted coup.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes. Really.


Wrong. Of course they can also be addressed on appeal. But Constitutionally based arguments are also directed to the trial court.


False. Such arguments can be made prior to trial to the trial judge.

False. They can be raised immediately. And ought to be.


The square /peg round hole application of laws that have no true applicability to claims are absolutely legal questions. You could be more wrong, but it’s difficult to imagine how you’d accomplish that.

You should stop trying to discuss all of this stuff which is mikes over your head. You just make yourself more clearly a stupid lump of crap.

I assumed you meant Constitutional Questions that hadn’t been decided before. Those take years to even consider. And those appeals don’t begin until after the trial ends.

As far as the decided issues, with clear precedence, those questions are easy to decide. If this then that essentially. And you are right those are decided at the trial level. But there isn’t anything new there.

Your square peg argument is that it is unheard of to Try a Former President. It is also unheard of for a Former President to behave in the way Trump has.

The only Constitutional Question remaining is if a President is immune to prosecution. And the answer is yes, if he is acting in his official capacity. It is not in his official capacity to overturn elections. It is not in his capacity to encourage violence. It is not in his official capacity to instruct people to break the law for his personal gain.

Those questions were decided during Nixon’s administration. So the remaining question are the same as every other criminal case. Did Trump do what he is alleged to have done, and is that action illegal. The answer is the Jury decides.

But if it is “obvious” Trump has done nothing wrong, why the objection to a trial? Federal Prosecutors only win about 2/3 of the cases they take to court. Nearly ten percent are dismissed before the trial goes. As OJ proved, a dream team of defense lawyers, which Trump can afford, and an aggressive defense strategy, which I’m sure they will follow, can lead to an acquittal.

 

[candycorn]

Judges don't set the trial date around the accused's schedule.

This is true.

But lets say that the jury is in the deliberation room in late October or early November of next year. Is it reasonable to think that the jury would be able to divorce themselves from what is going on outside of the room with Election Day coming up? I don’t think it’s reasonable.

 

[BackAgain]

Just because you feel like she set a date for partisan political reasons doesn't actually make it so.

Just because you feel compelled to defend her judicial behavior, doesn’t mean you’re right.

She isn't responsible for Donald Trump running for political office.

Nor is that a relevant observation.

She's responsible for seeking swift justice for both the defendant and the we the people,

She has no such obligation. Her job is to preside fairly and squarely. And if that means delaying the trial for the sake of American citizens, then that’s how she ought to rule.

who have an interest in the outcome of this case.

We all have a major interest in this miscarriage of Justice.

 

[Donald H]

You already made the claim, you babbling butt rash. Gfy. There was no attempted coup.

Then there was no attempted coup, and half of the American people say so too!

 

[toobfreak]

Derp

 

[BackAgain]

You should go tell it to the jury.

Not my place. But we should all want a fair trial if there has to be any trial at all.

I realize that you disagree — because you’re a part of the politically partisan mob actively seeking to interfere with this election.

 

[toobfreak]

Republicans should just stay home and not bother voting ...

The one sure way for Biddum to win reelection.