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

only within the law. It cannot be "I am too busy" or "come back to me after the presidential election." If there is a reason for the delay, it must be within the court rules and regulations, and is not an open delay.

 

How is getting a different judge looking for a technical way out? As I mentioned time and again(and from now on, I might have to insist that for people to respond, they should actually look at and understand what they're responding to), I am holding the Judge to the standards SHE set. Not Trump, she set those standards.

And those standards, are based on Common English Law. And those Common English Laws were set not by Donald Trump, but hundreds of years of classical English government, both in the UK and the US

Trump is not an exceptional defendant that deserves special privileges, or unique disadvantages in trial. And the comments made by the Judge, and allowing her to preside after having made them, is a unique disadvantage.

None of you have made the argument as to why the judge should be the lone exception to the demands of Common English Law. And again, the answer is that no such answer exists.

The whole system exists based on the idea that judges do not make public comments. I flagged these comments, a whole year and a half BECAUSE I knew this was going to be a problem.

With these public comments, Trump has a legitimate gripe that any defendant would have, and such a gripe is legitimate. It is hard to claim neutrality when you have such a stated position otherwise, as does Her Honor(and others who made similar comments.)

 

Again, the issue concerns not the defendant. That's why I excluded him.(people are REALLY having a hard time reading this, such that I have to say it AGAIN). She was well within her rights to chatise the defendant in that case, when he was declared guilty by trial. What she was NOT allowed to do, was put guilt onto another party, when that party was not present in trial as either a witness or as a defendant.

She is not allowed to use the summary judgment to finger another individual, who at that moment in time was not under trial. Or at least, in Common English traditions, she shouldn't be allowed.

If this country were any interested in upholding the norms, the Senate Judiciary Committee would insist on her taking back her words. She should have addressed her comments before this very trial were to take place. Say nothing of the other judges who made the same violating remarks.

So since I'm not the person of interest here, It's time to challenge you, all of you to actually answer the question or submit that there is no answer: What is the basis on which the judge can throw away hundreds of years of Classical English Law, infringe upon the rights of the accused to be presumed innocent until declared guilty and have it be okay?

According to Classical English law, there is no answer.

 

....and....she didn't.

 

And yet your post is that of a 7th grader. YOu think the indictments is about the left. The grand jury indicted Trump four different times, in four different jurisdictions: NYC, Washington DC, Miami, and Altlanta, Georgia. The rights "hate the left" has been going on since Newt Gingrich's time. It is used primarily for political donations and to get them in front of Fox or Conservative radio shows. That's it. It has no bearing on the serious charges that Trump is facing. Trump has chosen, as it is his right, to have his day in court instead of plea barganing the charges. And only a court of law will determine if he is guilty, no one else and no amount of posting on this forum or on social media will change that.

That being said, the only reason why the "hate the left" mantra of the GOP is to distract and sensationalize the indictments towards Trump and his codefendants. And that is the only reason why we have this discussion right now.

 

But you are using the defendant's situation in which the Trial judge gave her "personal opinion" after the fact, not beforehand. It is that difference in why she will not be excluded. YOu have gone after the ethics, you have gone after the professionals, and you have gone after the system in general to no avail and no results. Most people, and including those on this forum have no clue what the Judicial system is or how it operates. To me, that is good news because your only encounter with the judicial system might be a speeding ticket along with dozens of others that day. But that does not compare if you have to go before a county court of law or a district court on the state level or a federal trial court if you are so charged with serious offenses.

There is also something called ex parte communication. In essence, no one can talk about the details of the case. One lawyer can ask the judge how the trial is going and the judge will give a general answer, but that does not violate ex parte communication rules. The judge can discuss the case with their subordinates at the office, but nowhere else. That is called the need-to-know exception under ex parte communication.

So basically, you are arguing against something that you know little about in an effort to protect DJT. You make it clever by not specifically including his name, and my guess you only recently started this argument because of one DJT has been indicted four different times.

 

To be accused of ignorance, and yet to ignore the ENTIRE post. Amazing. Give yourself a round of applause for that one. I don't even know if I should bother, it's not like you're reading any of it. i'll tldr: She was perfectly within her rights to call THAT defendant, whatever she wanted after the trial concluded. She would've been even fine with the whole 'fidelity' to a single individual.

Where her comments violated the right of the individual, was mentioning that 'he's still free' as though there were some violation. Judges should never make those comments.

You believe they should, and that's fine: In the Russian Federation.

Where the judge becomes the statesperson of the government, that's when it's over. Presidents may not be Kings, but apparently Judges have become kings(I am tongue in cheek,referencing her j6 committee comments.)

 

Right the whole "and he's still free" comment totally did not give a shadow of guilt to a potential future defendant. (Of course it did, as a professional lawyer, you know damn well it did and if it were your client, you'd be pissed.)

(well, being fair, I don't know if Australia is governed by the same trial rules as the English are.) But in this country, we expect judges not to make these infringing remarks, as they violate the neutrality of the trial.

In fact, let me make this even simpler for everybody: Find me some other publicized case, wherein a future defendant was flagged before that defendant would be arranged for trial?

So one public trial I can think of: The Charles Manson case(this is where Manson had a cult commit serial murders on his behalf.). It's a bit old, but that's a trial case to start with, to see if judges made remarks on Manson's status prior to Manson actually being held trial for his actions.

 

It's a observable fact. Humpty is free (assuming she was talking about Humpty.)

 

Yes, it's an observable fact but context can change what facts mean. In this case, she points out that he's still free implying(even if not saying) that just "perhaps" he shouldn't be. In our English language, context is inferring and we all know what she inferred when she made the remarks.

No other Judge would use such an inference, because again it implies that it isn't so neutral, that she has a view on a potential future case that lo and behold, went across her docket.

Again, I want you to imagine a world where judges would make these comments freely. The 'presumption' of innocence would no longer exist.
We would return to the days of the Salem Witch hunt trials, aka inquisition. And before you jump, i'm not saying that this is an inquisition, but it gives all the appearance of one, when a judge makes such pointed remarks and is still yet given this case to preside over.

And I even say repeatedly, she's not the only one to have made these comments. I'm saying as a whole, these comments are problematic and unprofessional for judges to make.

Again, I reference to the embattled judge Cannon: Despite everyone screaming holy hell, she's never made a public comment on the record for or against the defendant, prior to the case coming across her desk. in fact, it actually appears the problem with her is not kissing the bootstraps of the DOJ which is actually what she's supposed to be doing. She is not an ally of the DOJ(or of the defendant) nor she should be.

What Trump's legal issues are exposing is that apparently the DOJ no longer wants to abide by an adversary system, and instead prefers a system of executive punishment. In which case, there is no legal defense.

Welcome to the Russian Federation.

 

And when an army of his lawyers say they told him he was in danger of exposing himself legally, youlll still refuse to admit it.

 

Nor have they said that nor was that the judges position. Her position was purely a “don’t piss me off” position. That’s corruption at its worst.

 

Did she actually refer to Humpty?

 

I have never ever known a Judge not to have exactly the same attitude. It's never smart to piss off any Judge. On your logic, ergo...all Judges are corrupt, yes?

 

I know that 'asking a question to answer a question' can be seen in foul taste, but I assure you it's not in foul taste in this case, but rather pushing the conversation forward: Who else could she have referred to as 'one man'?

I mean, you can kind of squint and say. 'Eastman' or 'Giuliani' or some other, but none of those guys had the kind of pull or significance that would make people want to storm the capital.

I'll make it perfectly clear: What Trump did was a moral wrong, absolutely reprehensible and he should never be POTUS ever again. But is what he did(well, there's a lot he's alleged with doing, but specifically related to the Fake Electors thing) criminal per se?

I don't want to follow the European Union in criminalizing political(even unethical) acts. Throughout Europe's history, we've seen where its led them. No one with even an inkling of history could call Europe a non-violent continent. The untold secret is that Europe is very narrowly in 2nd place to the Middle East in extremism and violence.

To me, the Trump case involves more than just Trump, it's what the post-US order looks like after he's incarcerated.

 

Reality is that scary to you?

Trump was a tough businessman in a tough game. He wasn't a "nice guy", but he wasn't a crook either- except to those who were crooks trying to outfox him. Trump built his real rep by getting things done- and that always pisses off those who can't cut it. When weak people and poor players lose, they always claim they were cheated and the other guy was a crook. Weak people hate successful people, even though those are the people that do the most for them. You probably think that should take the form of free money, and of course, you would be wrong again.

I don't expect you to grasp this. Nothing you have said indicates you have the background or savvy to do so.
I've founded 9 companies over 53 years as a businessman. I'm the CEO of two active corporations as well owner of another unincorporated one. I don't take a dime I haven't earned, absolutely keep my word- and
I've been called all kinds of things too- and it's always by people doing their best to get something for nothing, to take advantage. While the left is chasing free money and promoting dependency, literally creating a class of people that can't cut it and expects to live off the system- I'm turning down the covid checks and subsidies and calling for personal responsibility and performance at all levels. Trump did that too, but no doubt that offended you. Many here seem to love the bickering and squabble, but never give a thought to solving the nation's problems, creating an environment where people can thrive.
That's the difference. Those are my goals. And unlike those on your side of the table, I'm putting action and money where my mouth is everyday.

What are you going to do for your country? Call Trump names?

 

Trump was a con man and a thief in a tough business. He was a failure and had 7 or 8 bankruptcies before the financial world caught on, stopped lending him money and shunned him. That is not a success story. He may have had good advertising, but most con men do. I seriously doubt your fairy story about your business career. It’s not verifiable so you can claim anything you like on an anonymous Internet forum. As for solving problems, bully for you. Liberals and Democrats, my side of the table, solve more problems than Republicans, conservatives, MAGA types and Trump wannabes. They build, not divide and destroy. They create opportunities. They don’t hold people down.

Consider: Trump’s contributions have been:

“fake News”
“Alternative facts”
Normalization of hate, racism, misogynistic behavior
Promoting criminal behavior as something to aspire to
Widening the partisan schism

Yes, your boy has single handedly corrupted the entire Republican Party and subordinated whatever
good and useful ideals they stood for to his personal lust for power.

I pity you and all who stand by his side. But that won’t stop me from opposing him and your ilk at every turn.
He must be punished and severely so others do not follow in his footsteps and try and repeat the same behavior. The idea that he might have succeeded at stealing the presidency after losing a free, fair and secure election is repulsive. For that alone he needs to go down hard.

 

I’m glad you’re here. We’ve been waiting for years for a pro Trump person to prove he won the election. Maybe you can come forward with proof.

The appeals process would quickly reverse a decision that was so biased as to be an obvious and complete mistrial. The appeals court is separate from the judge trying the case. A judge who gets overturned frequently becomes known. There are checks and balances all over the judicial branch.

The process for selecting judges has been explained ad nauseum. It's out there for anyone to see.

 

I linked to a site explaining it, and well there's not much to the explanation. It's some random draw, who knows exactly how randomly they do it and frankly I don't really care. Rather than say 'welp, there's an appeals court' we should strive to not need one in the first place. IE: Making sure a judge that's appointed hasn't made such remarks.

I do find it curious, again, that no one, not a single individual was willing to answer the question: Were you the defendant, would you find such an arrangement acceptable?

Although I know the answer: No one's willing to answer because obviously, it's an inappropriate arrangement.

 

Judges recuse themselves. As has been shown with Thomas, recently, judges are not required to recuse themselves, even when someone they are involved with has a vested interest in the outcome.

I heard the entire explanation as to how the next judge is pulled, and it seems perfectly fair. Were it unfair, right leaning judges would be saying something.

I'm willing to let the process play out. His bigger worry is in Georgia, anyway. All devoted republicans want him convicted for messing around in their elections. Crying partisan just rings hollow. Most of those coming forward are Trump appointees.

As to me; I wouldn't get a blip on a corner of an ad page on print newspaper, were it to happen to me, so, it's not a fair comparison.

 

IF you had done your own homework instead of swallowing the party line, you would know you have used and conned.
Takes a smart person and a strong person to have the courage to do that.

Because one of my businesses has been involved with teaching those abilities for 40 years, I know well how hard that is to do- and how few can cut it.
The biggest losers are always people who can't. And I don't feel sorry for them, because their limits are self imposed. They CHOOSE to be weak.
They whine and complain and throw insults. It's sad, but mostly for them. Choosing to fail, pretending it's winning. You can't teach a loser to be a winner.

If Trump wasn't here, the republican party would be looking for a candidate with the same values. Do what's best for the nation. Best for the American people.
Amazing how Make America Great Again" offended so many.

MACH1 is coming.

 

I say Biden and his mob stole it. I say there's so much reason to believe that it's overwhelming.
Prove they didn't.

 

Trump is for Trump, not the American people. The presidency, to him, is like one of his real estate con jobs: all he wants is his percentage and to hell with the outcome of the project.

I’m willing to be he has a negative net worth. That’s why he has been so desperately concealing his finances. Luckily for him, he pulled the ultimate con and got elected. I bet all the money he received selling influence almost got him back in the black. Now he has his sheep forking over bales of money.
Such ignorant, desperate, weak people

Well, one outcome is to keep him court for the rest of his life. Sooner or later he’ll run out of donors or supporters.

 

The left loves you- the crime and corruption couldn't continue without your support.

As Elon Musk said-
"It's easy to fool people.....
but nearly impossible to convince them they have been fooled".

If the damage they do fell only on them, I'd not even try.

 

The right loves you - the crime and corruption couldn’t continue without your support.

As PT Barnum said -
“The common man, no matter how sharp and tough, actually enjoys having the wool pulled over his eyes, and makes it easier for the puller.”

If the damage they did only fell on them, as the minority, I’d let them learn the hard way.