Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

[Billo_Really]

I have no need to talk my way out of anything you’ve ever said. You’re not what people consider a “reliable reporter.”

Insurrection is not the same as sedition. Your fail is perpetual.

You're playing semantics.

 

[kaz]

3 guys are going to jail for 30 years this week because of that day.

Yep, Democrats are serious about putting your opposition in jail. Then you'll be free and wealthy, like the citizens of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela after they elected Marxists. That's the reality when you win. You'll be as poor and unfree as we are. Then you want to eat zoo animals so Nancy can make millions, huh?

 

[BackAgain]

You're playing semantics.

No. You were trying to do that. Different words often have different meanings, you dishonest moron.

Insurrection =/= sedition.

I am happy to have educated you. You’re welcome.

 

[BackAgain]

Due process?

Trump has the means to review discovery by the court date. Easily.

Because Skyp says so. That’s why.

 

[Skylar]

Yep, Democrats are serious about putting your opposition in jail. Then you'll be free and wealthy, like the citizens of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela after they elected Marxists. That's the reality when you win. You'll be as poor and unfree as we are. Then you want to eat zoo animals so Nancy can make millions, huh?

Or the evidence justified charges against Trump.

You know which it is, as demonstrated by your ilk's fastidious avoidance of the evidence that Trump committed very serious crimes.

If the evidence in the indictments were weak, your ilk would tear it apart. Instead, you run from the indictments like they are on fire, refuse to discuss any of it, or pretend there is no evidence.

With 4 indictments and 91 felony charges......how's that working out for you?

 

[BackAgain]

Or the evidence justified charges against Trump.

You know which it is, as demonstrated by your ilk's fastidious avoidance of the evidence that Trump committed very serious crimes.

If the evidence in the indictments were weak, your ilk would tear it apart. Instead, you run from the indictments like they are on fire, refuse to discuss any of it, or pretend there is no evidence.

With 4 indictments and 91 felony charges......how's that working out for you?

You fail to change your stale lines. And you look more and more retarded each time.
How’s that working out for you?

 

[Skylar]

Because Skyp says so. That’s why.

Or the judges that issues the warrants, the prosecutors that delivered the evidence to the grand jury, the grand jury who issued the indictments.

And of course, your stark refusal to acknowledge the mountains of evidence against Trump even exists. Demonstrating elegantly that you know the charges were utterly justified.

Why would I ignore the warrants, the evidence, and the grand juries and instead believe you, citing yourself?

 

[kaz]

Or the evidence justified charges against Trump

A logical alternative but not what happened since Trump was right, Democrats stole the election

 

[Skylar]

You fail to change your stale lines. And you look more and more retarded each time.
How’s that working out for you?

The evidence doesn't change just because you close your eyes. As the 91 felony charges demonstrate elegantly.

• Recordings of Trump admitting that the docs he was showing off had never been declassified.
• Trump's IT guy recanting his testimony defending Trump. Many in a box by his desk.
• Classified docs galore being found in Trump's residence.
• Trump's lawyer testifying that Trump tried to convince him to lie to authorities and withhold evidence.
• Testimony that Trump's campaign orchestrated the forged election document scheme.
• Eastman admitting in Emails that he knew that their scheme to delay the January 6th counting of votes as a legal violation.
• And Trump personally trying to pressure Pence to commit that legal violation to halt an official election proceeding....no less than 6 times.
• And so, so much more.

Call me whatever names make you feel less impotent. Ignore whatever makes you comfortable.

Smiling......it won't matter. The evidence still exists.

 

[Skylar]

A logical alternative but not what happened since Trump was right, Democrats stole the election

The evidence says otherwise.

Every count, recount, hand count, machine count, audit, foreinsic audit, law enforcement investigation (state or federal), official vote tally, state tally, certificate of ascertainment, and electoral vote show the same outcome:

A landslide Biden victory.

While every Big Lie court case has been laughed out of court. Every single case, every single time. Your record of failure is absolutely perfect.

And yet you cling to your indoctrinated fantasy of a stolen election in an awkward and pointless attempt to ignore the mountains of evidence against Trump.

• Recordings of Trump admitting that the docs he was showing off had never been declassified.
• Trump's IT guy recanting his testimony defending Trump. Many in a box by his desk.
• Classified docs galore being found in Trump's residence.
• Trump's lawyer testifying that Trump tried to convince him to lie to authorities and withhold evidence.
• Testimony that Trump's campaign orchestrated the forged election document scheme.
• Eastman admitting in Emails that he knew that their scheme to delay the January 6th counting of votes as a legal violation.
• And Trump personally trying to pressure Pence to commit that legal violation to halt an official election proceeding....no less than 6 times.

Your denial won't matter. Your willful ignorance won't matter. And you demonstrate for us that you KNOW the evidence justifies the charges against Trump every time you run from the evidence like it was on fire.

 

[BackAgain]

Or the judges that issues the warrants, the prosecutors that delivered the evidence to the grand jury, the grand jury who issued the indictments.

What on Earth any of that has to do with team Trump having time to review all of the evidence is — unknowable. Skyp is in full babble mode.

And of course, your stark refusal to acknowledge the mountains of evidence against Trump even exists.

Again. No evidence. Stuff that is purported to be evidence isn’t the same thing. Why were you born retarded is a mystery. But the asking of “why?” doesn’t change anything. You’re still a retard.

Demonstrating elegantly that you know the charges were utterly justified.

No charges are justified. You’re still just babbling.

Why would I ignore the warrants, the evidence, and the grand juries and instead believe you, citing yourself?

They have not a damn thing to do with the present question: the limited time frame being given to Trump to wade through the massive sewer of so called “evidence.”

 

[beautress]

I hope it happens. As long as jurors don’t have a case around Election Day. I’m okay with any calendar that comes up with that.

I prefer all this stuff just take place after Election Day but if they can get it started March of next year. Sure.

My gut says that it gets delayed until the cows come home.

I think there should be someone insuring that this malicious weaponizing of the justice system be banned. Can the Supreme Court discipline judges? Somebody needs to. They're calling a rival party's President on things he didn't do 100% of the time, and the American Public is getting fed up with it, unless they belong to the narcissists forever club.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yep, Democrats are serious about putting your opposition in jail. Then you'll be free and wealthy, like the citizens of Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela after they elected Marxists. That's the reality when you win. You'll be as poor and unfree as we are. Then you want to eat zoo animals so Nancy can make millions, huh?

Don't hit cops with flagpoles!

 

[Skylar]

What on Earth any of that has to do with team Trump having time to review all of the evidence is — unknowable.

Its all evidence of due process. And that the evidence justified the charges against Trump.

And Trump has more than adequate resources to review all the discovery. And more than adequate time to do it in.

 

[BackAgain]

Its all evidence of due process.

You and I weren’t discussing due process. We were discussing the unnecessary speed the judge is imposing. That, by the way, is one of the components of due process. In this case, the denial of due process.

And that the evidence justified the charges against Trump.

False. There is no legitimate evidence warranting any charges.

And Trump has more than adequate resources to review all the discovery.

Not that you’d know if that claim is true or not. And not that you’d care.

And more than adequate time to do it in.

False. The time frame isn’t designed for any such thing. It is designed to further the goals of this miscarriage of Justice.

 

[Skylar]

You and I weren’t discussing due process.

Uh-huh.

We were discussing the unnecessary speed the judge is imposing. That, by the way, is one of the components of due process. In this case, the denial of due process.

And unnecessary....according to who? Trump absolutely has the means to review all the discovery and has plenty of time to do it.

 

[BackAgain]

You're playing semantics.

Nope. You’re simply now caught in your lie.

 

[BackAgain]

Uh-huh.

View attachment 822890

And unnecessary....according to who?

Why would it be “necessary?” It isn’t. And you know it.

Trump absolutely has the means to review all the discovery and has plenty of time to do it.

According to you. But once again, you’re far from a reliable reporter.

 

[Skylar]

Why would it be “necessary?” It isn’t. And you know it.

Why would a speedy trial be necessary?

You may want to check the constitution on that one. Judge Chutkan also cited the public interest in this case's resolution.

Again, Trump has the means to review the evidence in question. And more than enough time to do it.

Where's the violation of 'due process'?

According to you. But once again, you’re far from a reliable reporter.

I'm not the one that said that Trump's legal team can review the discovery docs in the time alotted.

Judge Chutkan did.

Your source that this violates due process, however, is you citing yourself.

Our sources are not equal. Mine is the presiding federal judge in this case. And yours is some random dude on the internet who says he knows better. Good luck with that.

 

[BackAgain]

Why would a speedy trial be necessary?

Yea. That is the question.

You may want to check the constitution on that one.

No need. Unlike you, I already know the right answer.

Judge Chutkan also cited the public interest in this case's resolution.

The “public interest” has nothing at all to do with a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. It is the right of the person accused. It is NOT the “right” of the prosecutor, the court or any non party.

Again, Trump has the means to review the evidence in question.

According to you. Again.

And more than enough time to do it.

Thats nonsense. The you keep making that empty claim, but you have no way to support it. Which is why you don’t.

Where's the violation of 'due process'?

Due process, you ignorant chump, includes different things. If a defendant is facing very serious charges and (among other things) a need to review almost 13 MILLION documents, he has an urgent need to do so fully. A fair trial demands that he get nothing less.

I'm not the one that said that Trump's legal team can review the discovery docs in the time alotted.

Yes you are. You’ve said that shit repeatedly.

Judge Chutkan did.

Yes. She did say it. It’s flatly false. And that is evidence of her rabid bias.

Your source that this violates due process, however, is you citing yourself.

Ironic coming from you. But the proof is obvious to any thinking person. That category excludes you, naturally. Simple test:

YOU are accused of multiple felonies. You get a partial document dump (so far) of almost 13 MILLION pages. You don’t personally Wade through them. Yiur lawyer(s) do. Because of the massive volume of just documents (not even yet considering all the other trial preparation requires to do a professional job) your lawyers tell you and the court that a March trial date doesn’t give them adequate time.

Suddenly you’d recognize the unfairness of what this partisan judge has ruled.

Our sources are not equal. Mine is the presiding federal judge in this case.

You cite the biased decision as evidence of authority? Bwahaha. Great argument.

And yours is some random dude on the internet who says he knows better. Good luck with that.

Buy a new line. Yours is still a fail and very much stale.