Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

[Skylar]

Yea. That is the question.

It really isn't. The constitution requires it. And Chutkan has also noted a public interest in the resolution of the case.

The “public interest” has nothing at all to do with a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

Nor did I ever say it did. I said that the constitution requires a speedy trial AND that Judge Chutkan ALSO cited the public's interest in the resolution of the case.

But keep swinging at those strawmen.

It is the right of the person accused. It is NOT the “right” of the prosecutor, the court or any non party.

According to you. Again.

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

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.

And he has the means to review almost 13 million documents. And the time to do it in. These aren't paper stored in a warehouse. These are overwhelmingly digitized and searchable.

Says who? Says the presiding judge.

So where's the due process violation again? You saying 'uh-huh' doesn't establish a constitutional conflict or the violation of anyone's rights.

 

[BackAgain]

It really isn't. The constitution requires it. And Chutkan has also noted a public interest in the resolution of the case.



Nor did I ever say it did. I said that the constitution requires a speedy trial AND that Judge Chutkan ALSO cited the public's interest in the resolution of the case.

But keep swinging at those strawmen.




And he has the means to review almost 13 million documents. And the time to do it in.

Says who? Says the presiding judge.

So where's the due process violation again? You saying 'uh-huh' doesn't establish a constitutional conflict or the violation of anyone's rights.

You remain stubborn and ignorant and wrong.

You’re very resistant to actual facts, logic and the law. Your bias is insurmountable.

 

[Skylar]

You remain stubborn and ignorant and wrong.

You’re very resistant to actual facts, logic and the law. Your bias is insurmountable.

And by 'stubborn and wrong', you mean I put more weight in to the findings of the presiding federal judge on the case rather than some random dude on the internet who insists he knows better.

You disagreeing with the judge isn't logic, facts or the law. Its just you having an opinion.

Which establishes no violation of anyone's rights under the law. Nor demonstrates any violation of due process.

Again, this isn't massive piles of crates of paper documents in a warehouse. The discovery is overwhelmingly digitized and searchable. Trump clearly has the resources to review all of it in the time allotted. Y'all have gone on and on about his vast fortunes. And he's raising hundreds of millions of PAC money. He can hire the folks needed to review the discovery for him.

So using logic, facts and the law.....where is the due process violation? You're not making any sense.

 

[kaz]

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.

Huh, Democrats say you didn't steal the election.. Well, there you go then, that's good enough for me

 

[Skylar]

Huh, Democrats say you didn't steal the election.. Well, there you go then, that's good enough for me

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting every count, recount, hand count, machine count, certificate of ascertainment, officially tally, electoral vote, law enforcement investigation (state or federal) and court ruling on the matter (again, state or federal).

Any one of which make a far, far better source on the matter than you citing yourself.

 

[kaz]

Don't hit cops with flagpoles!

That's so funny coming from a leftist. The one time you weren't in favor of hitting cops with flagpoles.

You got those mean old protesters back shooting the unarmed woman. Which you were for.

Then there's the video of all the white leftist protesters screaming "racist" at black cops.

Up is down, night it day and Democrats are smart, LOL

 

[BackAgain]

And by 'stubborn and wrong', you mean I put more weight in to the findings of the presiding federal judge on the case rather than some random dude on the internet who insists he knows better.

Wrong. You’re citing the very judge who made the ruling under discussion. I am sure you don’t grasp how ridiculous your position is.

You disagreeing with the judge isn't logic, facts or the law. It’s just you having an opinion.

Your agreement with the idiotic biased ruling of the judge is just you repeating your own vapid opinion.

Which establishes no violation of anyone's rights under the law.

Your agreement doesn’t establish its validity, either. Are you beginning to see how this works? Nah. Probably not.

Or demonstrates any violation of due process.

Your agreement doesn’t establish that it isn’t a violation of due process.

Again, this isn't massive piles of crates of paper documents in a warehouse. The discovery is overwhelmingly digitized and searchable.

You don’t seem to grasp that your last “point” is utterly meritless. The problem has nothing to do with the ability to digitize the documents. You dolt. The problem is trying to read and fully understand all that voluminous material while also putting together the other things which need to be attended to — and to do all of that in such a short time frame.

Trump clearly has the resources to review all of it in the time allotted

Wrong. It’s not clear. It’s not true, either. That’s just you citing you. Sound familiar?

Y'all have gone on and on about his vast fortunes. And he's raising hundreds of millions of PAC money. He can hire the folks needed to review the discovery for him.

So using logic, facts and the law.....where is the due process violation? You're not making any sense.

Your inability to grasp or admit the problem is now highlighted by you numerous vapid posts.

Assume a conviction. This will be one of the many points on appeal. And it is (to steal some tennis jargon) an unforced error by the judge.

 

[kaz]

I'm not quoting me. I'm quoting every count, recount, hand count, machine count, certificate of ascertainment, officially tally, electoral vote, law enforcement investigation (state or federal) and court ruling on the matter (again, state or federal).

Any one of which make a far, far better source on the matter than you citing yourself.

Yes, when they recounted the fraudulent ballots they kept being for the Democrat. Funny how that works

 

[Faun]

Yes, when they recounted the fraudulent ballots they kept being for the Democrat. Funny how that works

What fraudulent ballots?

 

[Skylar]

Wrong. You’re citing the very judge who made the ruling under discussion im sure you don’t grasp how ridiculous your position is.

Its the same contest each time: You, citing yourself vs a federal judge presiding over the case. And you're nobody.

Your opinion is that she's wrong. But your opinion isn't a legal standard, establishes no constitutional violations under the law, or any violation of due process.

So why would I ignore a federal judge and instead believe some random guy on the internet who insists he knows better? I can't think of a single reason

Your agreement with the idiotic biased ruling of the judge is just you repeating your own vapid opinion.

Your agreement doesn’t establish its validity, either. Are you beginning to see how this works? Nah. Probably not.

Your agreement doesn’t establish that it isn’t a violation of due process.


You don’t seem to grasp that your last “point” is utterly meritless. The problem has nothing to do with the ability to digitize the documents. You dolt. The problem is trying to read and fully understand all that voluminous material while also putting together the other things which need to be attended to — and tondo all of that in such a short time frame.

The digitization of the documents is immediately relevant. It makes them much more accessible, sharable and searchable.

You won't need to photocopy 13 million pieces of paper for a second person to help review the documents. You can just forward them a series of PDFs. You can do this with a third, a fourth, a 50th. All with the click of a button. You can search for individual terms at the click of a button and compile whatever documents contain that info. You oreganize by source, you can organize by date.

All with a single button click each.

Thus requiring less time to review.

Trump's lawyers called for about 950 days to review documents. Judge Chutkan gave them about 190, or about 1/5th.

Trump can just hire 5 times the number of people was planning on having review the documents and get the same job done. Trump absolutely has the means to do this.

Where is the violation of due process? You're not making any sense.

 

[BackAgain]

Its the same contest each time: You, citing yourself vs a federal judge presiding over the case. And you're nobody.

Your opinion is that she's wrong. But your opinion isn't a legal standard, establishes no constitutional violations under the law, or any violation of due process.

So why would I ignore a federal judge and instead believe some random guy on the internet who insists he knows better? I can't think of a single reason




The digitization of the documents is immediately relevant. It makes them much more accessible, sharable and searchable.

You won't need to photocopy 13 million pieces of paper for a second person to help review the documents. You can just forward them a series of PDFs. You can do this with a third, a fourth, a 50th. All with the click of a button. You can search for individual terms at the click of a button and compile whatever documents contain that info. You oreganize by source, you can organize by date.

All with a single button click each.

Thus requiring less time to review.

Trump's lawyers called for about 950 days to review documents. Judge Chutkan gave them about 190, or about 1/5th.

Trump can just hire 5 times the number of people was planning on having review the documents and get the same job done. Trump absolutely has the means to do this.

Where is the violation of due process? You're not making any sense.

You already stand exposed as a dull hypocrite. Enough said.

But hurry back and cite yourself some more.

 

[Skylar]

You already stand exposed as a dull hypocrite. Enough said.

But hurry back and cite yourself some more.

So you can't think of a single reason why I should ignore the presiding federal judge on this case and instead believe some random dude on the internet who insists he knows better.

Yeah, neither could I.

And of course, if Trump can review the documents in 950 days, why can't he just hire 5 times the number of people and do the same job in 190? Its the same number of pages reviewed per person per day. And Trump clearly has the means. He's a billionaire with hundreds of millions raised in PAC money.

Again, where is the violation of due process? You're not making any sense.

 

[Oldestyle]

Trump didn't just dispute an election. Using illegal means, he tried to steal the election he lost. That's a crime.

He challenged the election. That isn't a crime. Or at least it's never been a crime before when Stacy Abrams did it...when Hillary Clinton did it...or when Al Gore did it.

Let's be quite clear here! If there ever was the possibility of Trump "stealing" the election? That possibility was dealt with by the courts. Our system worked. So why have you on the left suddenly decided that we need to set the very dangerous precedent of a sitting President using the DOJ that he controls to try and put his biggest political rival in jail! Do you all not grasp how this can be used against liberals somewhere down the line? It's wrong and it's disgusting that leaders in the Democratic Party didn't have enough spine to resist doing it!

 

[Oldestyle]

So you can't think of a single reason why I should ignore the presiding federal judge on this case and instead believe some random dude on the internet who insists he knows better.

Yeah, neither could I.

And of course, if Trump can review the documents in 950 days, why can't he just hire 5 times the number of people and do the same job in 190? Its the same number of pages reviewed per person per day. And Trump clearly has the means. He's a billionaire with hundreds of millions raised in PAC money.

Again, where is the violation of due process? You're not making any sense.

Simple question for you, Skylar...
Why do you think it's not allowed to bring criminal charges against a sitting President?

 

[Oldestyle]

Never had a President steal boxes of top secret docs, try to illegally overturn and election, or stage a coup.

Trump didn't "steal" those boxes. He challenged the election results...something that Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore did when they didn't win. Nobody staged a "coup"...it was a protest that turned violent because the Democrats in charge of security dropped the ball.

 

[Skylar]

Simple question for you, Skylar...
Why do you think it's not allowed to bring criminal charges against a sitting President?

If you want the legal reasoning, take a look at the Mueller report.

If you have a point to make, make it.

If you're going to try and insinuate an argument you can't factually support, I'm definitely going to point and laugh.

 

[Skylar]

Trump didn't "steal" those boxes. He challenged the election results...something that Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore did when they didn't win. Nobody staged a "coup"...it was a protest that turned violent because the Democrats in charge of security dropped the ball.

With forged election documents? No Clinton and Gore didn't.

 

[Oldestyle]

If you want the legal reasoning, take a look at the Mueller report.

If you have a point to make, make it.

If you're going to try and insinuate an argument you can't factually support, I'm definitely going to point and laugh.

I'm asking a simple question. Why do you think the President is off limits to criminal prosecution while he's in office?

 

[Skylar]

He challenged the election. That isn't a crime. Or at least it's never been a crime before when Stacy Abrams did it...when Hillary Clinton did it...or when Al Gore did it.

Conspiring to create forged election documents isn't legal.

Trying to pressure the VP to violate the law by halting an official election proceeding isn't legal.

Trying to rob people of their vote isn't legal.

Edited: And is accused Trump did all those things.

Eastman's emails make it cystal clear that they knew that what they were asking Pence to do was illegal.

 

[Skylar]

I'm asking a simple question. Why do you think the President is off limits to criminal prosecution while he's in office?

And I'm providing you with an excellent resource to look up the answer. The Mueller report goes into very specific detail.

The Mueller Report

Page 213, under Introduction to Volume 2, 4th paragraph.

If you refuse to look at the answer to the very question you asked, then you didn't really want the answer, did you?