Judge Warns "Mr. Trump" Not Commit Any Offenses Or Have Release Revoked

Weaponized law enforcement in full force. Guess they're terrified Trump will win in 2024.
What was the "weaponized" part of the instructions? Which, if you are clueless, is given to all criminal suspects before being released from custody by a judge.
As far as the fear of trump winning in 2024, what do you based this prognostication? Do you bet on your soothsaying?
 
Weaponized law enforcement in full force. Guess they're terrified Trump will win in 2024.

I don't deny it, but my concerns have more to do with your average voter than with whom they vote for. If nearly half the country can consistently vote for someone so obviously unqualified, then I think that's indicative of an unqualified electorate. I'm sure my comments will be dismissed as elitism or communism or whatever - I don't care at this point. I'm trying to prepare for the ensuing shit-show that will arrive eventually, even if it doesn't come in 2024.
 
Misdirection and deflection, its all they have left.

Yeah, but that's a common sentiment, the idea that what really matters is the economy, not whether we're possibly electing someone who is dangerously unqualified to another 4-year term. We got lucky in his first term. He didn't know how to break everything. He had enough people around him who still cared about the country more than what they could get for themselves from being part of his presidency. I don't think we'll be so lucky next time, if there is one.
 
Generals
Doctors
Judges!
Presidents
and many many others are still addressed formally when they retire
Lib loons are such wishful wasteland
 
Generals
Doctors
Judges!
Presidents
and many many others are still addressed formally when they retire
Lib loons are such wishful wasteland

There is only ONE PRESIDENT. The Rapist and Traitor sure as fuck is NOT the President. He is private citizen. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Yanno.......................if I ever had to go to court, there is a very good chance that the judge would address me as "Mr. M.....".

But, I'm retired military, and have earned the right to be called by my military title. Matter of fact, in regular, as well as official correspondence, I can write "R..... M....., PO1, USN (Retired)", as that is now my official title since I've served long enough to have been officially retired from the Navy. Would I think it was wrong for a judge to address me as "Mr. M......." instead of "Petty Officer M........"? Not really, because I'm both.

It's silly to be upset at the judge for not calling Trump "President Trump". Matter of fact, that would be wrong of her to call him that because he's no longer the president. If she wanted to be formal and use his actual title, it should be FORMER President Trump.

Not losing sight of the fact this was a magistrate judge. Not the trial judge. The magistrate judge did her job. She confronted a defendant with a history of intimidating witnesses, and leaking classified information. Not to mention inciting violence. The fact that Trump even got bail in this case, and was released, was far and above any consideration another defendant would have got.

The fact she even used his name at all in any capacity was privilege for Trump, not an entitlement. He is just another defendant out on bail. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
I don't deny it, but my concerns have more to do with your average voter than with whom they vote for. If nearly half the country can consistently vote for someone so obviously unqualified, then I think that's indicative of an unqualified electorate. I'm sure my comments will be dismissed as elitism or communism or whatever - I don't care at this point. I'm trying to prepare for the ensuing shit-show that will arrive eventually, even if it doesn't come in 2024.
Not sure what you mean by unqualified. Trump did better than Biden has done. So, it looks like Biden is more unqualified than Trump.
 
Not losing sight of the fact this was a magistrate judge. Not the trial judge. The magistrate judge did her job. She confronted a defendant with a history of intimidating witnesses, and leaking classified information. Not to mention inciting violence. The fact that Trump even got bail in this case, and was released, was far and above any consideration another defendant would have got.

The fact she even used his name at all in any capacity was privilege for Trump, not an entitlement. He is just another defendant out on bail. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Priors are not admissible against a defendant
Stop repeating the lie that they are
 
Not losing sight of the fact this was a magistrate judge. Not the trial judge. The magistrate judge did her job. She confronted a defendant with a history of intimidating witnesses, and leaking classified information. Not to mention inciting violence. The fact that Trump even got bail in this case, and was released, was far and above any consideration another defendant would have got.

The fact she even used his name at all in any capacity was privilege for Trump, not an entitlement. He is just another defendant out on bail. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Judge Chutkin is under no obligation to call the Rapist and Traitor anything but "The Defendant". That she chose to use his sir name was and is NOT important.

She has every right to have the Rapist and Traitor put in an Orange Jump Suit with "Prisoner" in big bold black letters on his back if she wants. Personally, I would love that.
 
Priors are not admissible against a defendant
Stop repeating the lie that they are

You’re not real bright are you?

The orange stain faced a magistrate judge. Who’s only function is to decide if the defendant brought before her is eligible for bail. Is a flight risk. Is a further danger to society if released.

A magistrate can take everything into account deciding the potential release of a defendant after arrest.

As to admissions of evidence during the trial, of which is presided over by the trial judge. The judge has absolute power over what is and isn’t admissible.

You can now return to the ignorance that is your existence.
 
Priors are not admissible against a defendant
Stop repeating the lie that they are

It is up to the judge to determine if prior bad acts (which in your post you are admitting the Rapist and Traitor committed such bad acts) can be used in court. IF those prior bad acts demonstrate clear criminal behavior or caused a person or persons unknown to engage in criminal behavior, such bad acts can be used in court.

As the Rapist and Traitor had already been indicted and at the time of his court appearance for yet another indictment, prior bad acts prove that the Rapist and Traitor has s propensity for ongoing criminal behavior.
 
You’re not real bright are you?

The orange stain faced a magistrate judge. Who’s only function is to decide if the defendant brought before her is eligible for bail. Is a flight risk. Is a further danger to society if released.

A magistrate can take everything into account deciding the potential release of a defendant after arrest.

As to admissions of evidence during the trial, of which is presided over by the trial judge. The judge has absolute power over what is and isn’t admissible.

You can now return to the ignorance that is your existence.
Plenty bright
You simply lie about impartiality and assumption
Then you name call to try and cover your error.
 

Forum List

Back
Top