There is no way Judge Chutkan can objectively oversee Jack Smith's J6 case against Trump.

[bodecea]

I don't give a shit what Trump's MAGA cult bleeeeeves. Those incarcerated for J6 are in prison because they were found guilty by a jury or they pled guilty. Which is what Trump is headed for.

We are a Country of laws. Don't like it? Tough shit.

MAGAts are the ones who want this country to turn into a banana republic. Anyone paying attention knows that when they cry that we ARE a banana republic because laws are being enforced for ALL Americans, their accusations are truly just con-fessions.

 

[bodecea]

This country is in serious fucking trouble.

The Democrats/liberals want that trouble and much, much worse - they’re Nazi psychopaths.

Decent conservatives, Republicans, independents and the left do not want to see this country go up, and then down, in flames..

May God help us.

Your accusations are really con-fessions.

 

[Anomalism]

psychopath looking for revenge.

Projection?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

And? That means two things: Jack and Shit.

Legally, Trump ain't in Kansas any more.

Actually, it means a bit more than that.

"Should the judge decline to remove herself, legal experts said Trump could seek to have the decision reviewed and petition the US court of appeals for the DC circuit for a writ of mandamus, a judicial order to a lower-court judge compelling an action such as recusal.

The appeal could be accompanied with a motion to stay Chutkan’s rulings pending appeal, which could delay the pre-trial process and push back the current trial date set for March 2024 while that litigation continues."

Delays are particularly meaningful for these Trump trials.

 

[BluesLegend]

They've demonstrated their lack of concern for following the law.

Ah, Dems do that daily. The laws are a joke to them, they willfully ignore them whenever they want.

 

[BluesLegend]

Look for decades now Democrats have willfully disregarded the law and Constitution. Why? Because they can't muster the votes in Congress to change them. So they just ignore the law and say sue us in court. Meanwhile they get away with their lawless BS.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Actually, it means a bit more than that.

"Should the judge decline to remove herself, legal experts said Trump could seek to have the decision reviewed and petition the US court of appeals for the DC circuit for a writ of mandamus, a judicial order to a lower-court judge compelling an action such as recusal.

The appeal could be accompanied with a motion to stay Chutkan’s rulings pending appeal, which could delay the pre-trial process and push back the current trial date set for March 2024 while that litigation continues."

Delays are particularly meaningful for these Trump trials.

Blah blah blah, nothing dream on Secesh. Another day down.

 

[Lastamender]

Mmmm, something tells me that you and your source lack the expertise needed to comment credibly on the matter.

Mark Levine is one source. He tore her a new asshole. Her own quotes disqualify her.

 

[Lastamender]

Blah blah blah, nothing dream on Secesh. Another day down.

Nothing is your middle name.

 

[multivita-man]

Mark Levine is one source. He tore her a new asshole. Her own quotes disqualify her.

Mmm, nope.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Mmm, nope.

Yes, despite the Moses like knowledge of a talk show entertainer, its extremely hard to kick a judge.

 

[Arlette]

Actually, it means a bit more than that.

"Should the judge decline to remove herself, legal experts said Trump could seek to have the decision reviewed and petition the US court of appeals for the DC circuit for a writ of mandamus, a judicial order to a lower-court judge compelling an action such as recusal.

The appeal could be accompanied with a motion to stay Chutkan’s rulings pending appeal, which could delay the pre-trial process and push back the current trial date set for March 2024 while that litigation continues."

Delays are particularly meaningful for these Trump trials.

Trump will file for an appeal regardless.

 

[multivita-man]

Yes, despite the Moses like knowledge of a talk show entertainer, its extremely hard to kick a judge.

There's nothing inappropriate about what she said. Thousands of people participated in a criminal conspiracy, most of them as individual members of a mob that had been planned and organized by other people, which is what she was speaking to. She was speaking to that fact, and she was acknowledging that those who had planned, organized, and encouraged a violent mob to engage in insurrection had yet to be brought to justice.

A higher court would have to see evidence that she has some sort of conflict of interest or that she is so ridiculously biased against a defendant that there is serious doubt about her ability to perform her duties partially. Given that she has already been publicly insulted multiple times, despite the fact she has repeatedly admonished the accused not to, and has not done anything that would be even remotely called retribution or reprisal, is pretty solid evidence she can preside fairly.

I seriously, seriously doubt that the case gets moved or that she is forced to recuse - but then again, I qualify this by pointing out that there may not be a legal resolution to this case prior to the election, and Trump could win. And it goes without saying that if he does get back in the WH, there will be no trial against him - ever.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

There's nothing inappropriate about what she said.

Sure there is.

The court filing cites a remark Chutkan made at a 2022 sentencing hearing for a Capitol riot defendant in which she suggested that the rioter was motivated by 'blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.'

She's already convicted Trump in her own head, convinced he should be incarcerated, and he has not had a chance to defend himself.

 

[Arlette]

Sure there is.

The court filing cites a remark Chutkan made at a 2022 sentencing hearing for a Capitol riot defendant in which she suggested that the rioter was motivated by 'blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.'

She's already convicted Trump in her own head, convinced he should be incarcerated, and he has not had a chance to defend himself.

She's not gonna recuse herself. Move on

 

[Lastamender]

Mmm, nope.

Seems like you are not informed.

 

[multivita-man]

Sure there is.

The court filing cites a remark Chutkan made at a 2022 sentencing hearing for a Capitol riot defendant in which she suggested that the rioter was motivated by 'blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.'

She's already convicted Trump in her own head, convinced he should be incarcerated, and he has not had a chance to defend himself.

She can't convict anyone. That's what juries do.

Maybe learn about your criminal justice system before posting.

 

[multivita-man]

Seems like you are not informed.

Seems like you enjoy getting lied to.

 

[Lastamender]

Seems like you enjoy getting lied to.

The Twitter files and the Durham report told you who was lying. i never listened to them. you do.

 

[BackAgain]

I don’t buy for a moment that she can be objective or fair. But I also don’t anticipate a recusal.