Judge warns Trump: ‘Inflammatory’ statements about election case could speed trial

And yet, from all of your links, nothing on the comments about the current charges. If she made those comments, it was when she sentenced the defendant. I just think you don't like a "hanging judge" so to speak. I though conservatives like you wanted that in a judge to any and all defendants, except for the American Fuhrer, DJT I guess.

 

that is not going to happen in Georgia.

 

As elaborated previously with another poster, yes she made those comments in defendant sentencing, aka the summary statements. And that would've been fine if she kept it to the defendant. She did not, she made adverse comments directly stating and fingering the future defendant on a case, that was not on her docket.

That. IS. NOT. ACCEPTABLE. Not for any criminal defendant, or any trial. Again, neither you nor anyone else has answered how one can remedy a situation in which a judge, a figure of appearance of law makes statements against a non-indicted person and how the integrity of the trial can be maintained.

The reason no one has answered, is because the answer is obvious: It can't. There's nothing this judge can do to remedy the injury she gave the defendant with her open sourced remarks about matters that she didn't have on her docket.

And whether the judge recognizes her own injury to the defendant or not is irrelevant, the defendant need not require the recognition of the injury by her Honor to register it.(Much like in any other matter, otherwise we could simply avail any prosecution or civil suit, by saying we don't recognize the pain or injury we cause a victim.)

Ideally, the judge would resign and the case reassigned to someone who is far more neutral, having made no such remarks. At mimimum, as I said she'd have to denounce her public remarks and swear under oath they have no baring on her view of the trial she's currently presiding over.

But that minimum, is really really hard to believe in.

 

Mate, I've learnt over the years to be suspicious when someone quotes me only PART of someone else's speech....here's the complete statement that the judge made in summing up the sentencing for Priola, the Jan 6 rioter...

"The people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy, It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

I see that statement, in its entirety, as being completely appropriate. She was giving a dressing-down of a convicted criminal, pointing out their misplaced loyalty in which the fealty to country, law and constitution had been sacrificed to the fealty of a man. The last 9 words seem to be the ones that create a rock in your shoe, but to me they act as a stark reminder to this person and her ilk that, unlike their cult leader, they will be spending some time behind bars...."he will remain free, but you will not" is the message I glean...

 

Regardless of it being in its entirety or not, it still references specifically to my client, furthermore the statement "remains free to this day" is by far the most impunging. He remains free, but now *I* can change that.

There's no way you'd want a judge like that if it were your case, or anyone's case. Her comment in this regard is utterly disqualifying. There's no way someone personally motivated like that can impartially preside over the trial.

And the comment in full 'context' is not any better because she has no reason to mention that he 'remains free to this day'. What reason, other than her feelings regarding that day would she make those comments?

She is entitled to those feelings, she is not entitled to them being known in this capacity. I am holding her, to her own standards.

 

Methinks he doth complain too much...

"I can change that" is entirely in your own imagination. Again, I see that comment as part of a dressing down of the convicted Jan 6 rioter, something along the lines of...." You foolish, foolish person. You trashed your allegiance to your country in favour of allegiance to your cult leader. Well, he remains free, but you will be going to jail for your foolishness...!"

Oh...and where is that evidence of the conspiracy you alluded to, regarding the appointment of this judge to the case...or have you dropped that bogus claim...?

 

Right, Joe took the train home to Delaware on weekends for thirty years because he was playing the long con.

 

So you think Joe just stuck it out in the sweatshop until he could get in the position to make $5M by threatening the government of Ukraine by blocking tax dollar aid.
Poor Joe. Kind of like he deserves the right to use his position for illegal gains because he's worked so hard- despite the fact that virtually all the reviews of his Congressional career say he produced nothing of consequence during those years. Now with power, he still deserves our sympathy- despite the border disaster that's far from over. Despite the incredibly inept withdrawal from Afghanistan that cost many lives, left billions in armaments for terrorists, and made America look like fools on the world stage. Despite the fact America is in grave danger from corruption in his government. Now as he moves from one vacation beach to the next (except Maui) while Rome burns, we need to remember and appreciate that.
The American people are so ungrateful.

 

It was never a claim(in your own words, it was entirely in your own imagination.) I simply noted it to be a 'happy coincidence' that a judge who has made disparging remarks, is presiding over this case. I have no idea how the 'random' process plays out, and I nor anyone else has any guarantee that it's random. Do they pull it out of a hat? Is it a straw poll?



https://www.iand.uscourts.gov/content/how-are-federal-judges-assigned-cases

So it actually IS some random straw/hat poll LMAO. Yeah, we have no way of verifying it either. I mean, we can guess/hope the prosecution/defense are aware of how it's random but given the scant detail, let's not get our hopes up. It says they have a system in place to check bias, but again there's no way for us to verify the accuracy of said system either.

But regarding that the "I can change that" is my 'imagination', no, not at all. She wouldn't make strong remarks like that, without fancying at least once in her head about how a trial would go if she were 'lucky' enough to be awarded the case, and would you look at that!

Yeah, it's definitely a charade. Or at the least, it has the opportunity to become a charade, and it shouldn't be one. We need a judge presiding over the case who doesn't even have the remote appearance of bias. This judge fails the sniff test on that.

 

Note that I said "a verdict".
A guilty verdict, even 1, on a felony would be nice. A "not guilty" verdict would be tragic , but it would be a resolution and would be accepted.
The worst would be a mistrial or hung jury. That would just stretch out the drama and histrionics.

 

Consider the possibility that the Orange Stain might have succeeded in stealing the election after he lost it. He DID lose the election and using the power of his office to change the result of a general election and retain power for his corrupt crime family and to use taxpayer dollars to extort bribes from foreign interests to benefit his own family (like the $2 Billion from the Saudis) would sanction this behavior for future occupants of the White House.

Do you think that defending the Orange Stain's corruption and evil is worth the effect of future governments here in the US ?

I don't wonder at all how much manure the right will swallow in their absurd pursuit of power to which, as a minority, they have no right to wield. They've shown
how low they will sink and how eagerly they lap up the leavings of their corrupt icon.

 

Hate is your answer?

Hillary has been proven to have concocted and carried out an elaborate fraud to steal the 2016 election, and you don't see her getting indicted.
"Orange stain". Compared to the stench coming from the Biden admin and the people trying to kill America that he supports,
I have to say- Your deodorant ain't cutting it.

To think that people willing to do the things Biden and Hillary have done would not be happy to rig an election you would need gulliblity same at the level of those who believe the magician really did saw the lady in half and then magically rejoin her....

 

Where is "hate" mentioned in my post ?

"Hillary has been proven" ? False. That's your opinion, not a fact. As you pointed out, she's still walking around un-indicted, so your fraud accusation doesn't look so good. Your fantasies about election rigging against the Orange Stain don't look credible at all, three years after the election. Nothing new has surfaced to support this fantasy and only the most gullible MAGA types keep repeating the Big Lie about election fraud.

 

The judge is supposed to allow for as much time as needed. This corrupt judge has made clear it will be shortened at the whim of emotion. Pure corruption.

 

I think when you have to call a man who has been elected to the office of president "The Orange Stain", you have demonstrated the extent of your embracing the hate.
And if you are so gullible to think that a person willing to use his office and taxpayer dollars to extort bribes is above rigging an election- I won't even say it.

Even right now- Trump looks a hell of a lot more credible than Biden

"A new poll suggest that ex- President Donald Trump would beat President Joe Biden in the next presidential race if it were held today.

In the latest sign of Americans' growing disapproval of Biden just 37 percent of likely US voters would back him in an election right now.

Trump would score 43 percent of the vote, and 14 percent of people would pick 'some other candidate' - but the survey doesn't specify which."

( https://www.albawaba.com/news/if-us-election-was-held-today-whod-win-trump-or-biden-1443249 )

Also reported at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-poll-says.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Rasmussen poll- highly reliable. It's amazing to learn that 37% of Americans still haven't figured out what's going on.

 

Let me clarify: "Orange Stain" is a term of disgust. He is a disgusting lower life form. What he did when he lost the race needs to be punished in the strongest possible manner. This is NOT the American way.

And , yes, I do believe Trump has used his office and taxpayer dollars to extort bribes. That's another reason to lock him up.

 

Huh?

 

That's an impressive bike you have there mate...it back-pedals really well...!

Those were your words. You clearly insinuate that the 'fix is in' with regard to court appointments.

Oh, your skill set includes mind-reading...! Combined with your back-pedalling bicycle, there's probably an opening for some kind of circus act in your future....

 

Strange; we have proof that Biden did this repeatedly, none that says Trump did- but you chose to accuse Trump and ignore Biden.
That IS disgusting. Hate over-rides values, common sense, everything.

 

You'll appreciate this cheese.... Jack asked for an early January trial date.... early January 2024, which will become relevant in about 5 seconds

Be sitting down and have no liquids in your mouth

Trump proposes April 2026 trial in federal election subversion case

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-proposes-2026-trial-federal-election-case/index.html

 

How would you know, since Trump supporters have none?

 

You have innuendo and a bunch of rabid Republicans making propaganda to try and divert attention from the Orange Stain’s trials .
Yes, that is disgusting .

And I didn’t accuse Trump, 4 grand juries indicted him.

 

I insinuate that the coincidence is too good of a coincidence. I don't know how the proceedings go, and if you read what you quoted, you'd know I said as such. You're the one making insinuations and then responding to those. That's an Ad hoc fallacy.

And it's not mind reading, it's obvious stuff. This might stun you, but the judge is still a human. A human who was disgusted about 1/6/2020 and now has the opportunity to do something about it.

And it's fine to be disgusted, a judge just can't show it pre-trial. That's an issue, that you're defending this issue shows how corrupted the court system has become.

We aren't against bias'd judges, just ones bias'd against us apparently.

 

Shame on you. You think this is the 7th grade or something? That juvenile remarks win you points?
If you actually wonder why so many are critical of the left- that's a big part of it.
They can't do the job because they don't have what it takes. The best they can do is throw trash at those who can.

 

The left has been hanging trash on Trump and planning his impeachment before he won the election. That is hate; baseless juvenile hate. Truth has nothing to do with hate.
You think Hillary's fake dossier was republican propaganda? Of course you do. You need to consider changing positions so a little sunshine can get through.