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

Quote the comments made by her, the ones you believe are emotional.

 

Except that is not what the Judge said, is it.

 

At the very least, her comments were so bias'd that the idea that she was part of a 'random' selection for a judge is absolutely laughable.

https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...ps-new-jan-6-lawsuit/?slreturn=20230716022141

This is like if someone sued you for property damage and the judge presiding is a friend of the plantiff LMAO. @Bush Lawyer She should have been immediately disqualified from selection for this particular case. She of course, wasn't the only judge who made as you mentioned open remarks.

These open remarks are nominally not allowed in the American justice system because the judge should, for all intents and purposes(if not in reality as Alyssa has shown us well) be freaking neutral. A judge making an open comment about a potential case not on his or her docket is disqualifying.

If a judge cannot handle his or her bias about a potential case, what gives any confidence about the neutrality of the jury before hearing evidence?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/03/tanya-chutkan-trump-jan-6-case-judge

Impartiality is impossible for this judge, through previous cases involving the matter and her public comments on the defendant, were I Trump's lawyer I would file for a replacement of this judge. And anything short of that, and as counsel I would immediately, IMMEDIATELY file for a mistrial.

Someone with this animosity towards the defendant before a case, cannot preside over it.

 

Why...on what grounds and on what evidence?

 

I like a lot of what you have to say AN……but, there’s a conspiracy around every corner, isn’t there…?

 

What's the conspiracy? The judge's animosity is an open record. That animosity cannot help but be a part of a person's judgement. And heck that's not just me, even HRC made the argument about subjective bias that humans inherently have. Due to her bias, recorded for posterity before the case even reached her docket, makes her impartiality impossible.

She can swear up and down that her public comments will not affect her rulings, but we have no way of ascertaining that or believing with any degree of confidence.

 

Look no further than your opening sentence.

Not only do you charge the judge with obvious bias, but you also claim that there is a corrupt process in her selection. That’s virtually a definition of a conspiracy…

 

Touche! That clear irony is lost on this poster.

 

No, that's taking Her Honor at her words. She uttered them. Did she not mean them when she spoke them? More importantly and to the point: Why did she utter them at all? It's the very utterance that is disqualifying. A judge should not express publicly an opinion about a potential case that could go on his or her docket.

Imagine a world where every nominated judge makes a comment about every reported instance of a crime or situation. The prosecution then, wouldn't need to bother prosecuting the case as the public is rallied by the judge's comments(or insert authority figure here.)

Her comments make a fair and impartial trial impossible(and like I said, she's not the ONLY judge to have made such disparaging remarks.). For the defendant to be credibly given his presumption of innocence, a judge cannot and MUST NOT make comments inferring guilt or judgment on the defendant.

That's why she's given a summary statement AFTER THE FACT.(again, to reiterate the emphasis is on 'After the fact'.). Alot of these judges abused the summary statement to make statements about people who, albeit loosely related to their trials were NOT the subject of said trials to begin with.

This undeniably damages the defendant's right to a presumption of innocence. It is not a 'conspiracy', it is a failure of these judges to have made these remarks.

If you want a TLDR, I am holding this judge to the same standards as the protective order. What goes for the defendant, also goes for the judge. For her to preside, she should denounce her public comments as irrelevant to the case at hand, and that she has a fair and impartial view of the trial.

But even if she said all of this, the damage is so significant that it really can't be undone. Rather than a swearing that you can't really trust, I'd rather a judge who has made no such remarks on the record. Guilt might be the same, integrity would be vastly different.

 

It's lost because the point is not made. There was never a conspiracy. This is Common English Law. There is a need to maintain the image of neutrality, in order for trials to proceed. We used to have trials on authority and hearsay, it was called the Salem Witch Hunts. Alot of our modern reforms, was to avoid the very scenario we have today.

Where judges made impugning comments on potential would-be defendants, and now said defendants sit in the same court room. Apparently 'coincidentally' but that's the same coincidence as getting struck by lightning.

Try being in a scenario where a judge impugns on your character pre-trial, tell me if you actually come out of that on the other side.

Let's give a direct comparison: The judge everyone loved to dunk on, Judge Cannon. She's never once actually said anything in defense or praise of the defendant. Quite the contrary, the judge had never fully granted any such orders(seriously, lost in the DOJ's whining and the court's expressed permission of said whining, is that it was a PARTIAL grant.)

Who do we think is more neutral? The Judge who made no such unsavory comments or favorable ones, or the judge who abused the summary judgment portion to make her remarks?

Were a case like this to have occurred, 20 years ago, Chutkin would have been demoted from the judge seat by the Senate Judiciary Committee(the only such check on judges in the United States.). But today, judges are given expressed liberties that the judge herself ruled shouldn't belong to the defendant.

It's nuts.

 

What Trumpists don't what you to know is that, when you are indicted on criminal charges, there are often conditions on your release. As there were here. No, that isn't a 1st Amendment violation. Never has been. Never will be. Most kids who have passed civics classes in junior high understand this.

 

Conditions of pretrial release must be reasonable and tailored. This judge hasn't imposed a free speech restriction on Trump. She just told him that if he engages in speech she doesn't like she will accelerate the trial to reduce his ability to mount a proper defense to the case the government spent years preparing. Even while detained he has a right to speech and to get his message out publicly. So you're not making any sense. You think that if Trump ends up in jail there won't be public statements released? Trump is a leading presidential candidate, he has a right to fight his case in the court of public opinion.

 

Ummmm....you've addressed (not very effectively) only HALF of my point. Where is your defence of your insinuation that this judge was corruptly appointed? You scoff at the 'random' nature of of her selection, but offer no 'meat' to that claim...

And I say "not very effectively" because you don't make it clear WHICH of her recent utterances you take issue with..?? I have seen several comments by the judge in reference to this upcoming case.....please quote the one/s which have placed such a large burr under your saddle....

 

Oh...and I don't have the inclination search your previous posts AN, but would I find you just as damning in your comments of Judge Cannon continuing to sit on the other case, given her rulings to date...?

 

Wait...I just found this above...

"The judge everyone loved to dunk on, Judge Cannon. She's never once actually said anything in defense or praise of the defendant."

She has, however, been roundly smacked down by the appeals court for (attempting) to make rulings clearly in favour of one of the parties in that case. Do not 'actions speak louder than words'...? Where is your outrage there....??

To further quote you..."There is a need to maintain the image of neutrality, in order for trials to proceed." But Judge Cannon is just fine.....right??

 

See, the rulings in question didn't actually again favor the defendant(as I pointed out, it was a partial granting. A partial stay.) But that wasn't good enough for the DOJ, they wanted to deny it completely and if you hear their arguments(both the written arguments, and by the 'experts' opinioning) it was that the defendant didn't have the right or entitlement to said relief(which the 11th circuit also concurred with, with a ridiculous ruling that basically amounted to: We trust government bro)

We have lost so much understanding of English tradition, that it's insane to explain this but the system is meant to be antagonistic! The prosecutors should be against the defense lawyer, the defense lawyer should be against the prosecutor, and the judge while neutral, shouldn't be for/or against either side, and whose rulings ideally should reflect that neutral positioning.

But that's not where we are, relative to this case or perhaps in the judicial field at all(as I note our 95% conviction rate) and given the verbose language of the government's lawyers, we are closer and closer to the Russian Federation, where the judiciary reflects the will of the government, rather than the 'will' of the law.(Law's not supposed to have 'will', but there's not a good word for it.)

Either the antagonistic system has failed to assure the neutrality of trials, or the people within the system have failed to maintain their antagonistic roles, or more likely BOTH. The DOJ's desire for curried favor with the court, shows that the health of the judiciary is completely and totally broken.

And that isn't just seen in this particularly highly polarized defendant. It's also seen in Schumer's 'winds like a hurricane'. The very function of the judiciary, is in significant question when lobbying the courts is an option.

The only way to restore the judiciary at this point, is to have an entirely new review system. Indeed, akin to a review court where instead of a prosecutor, the police would submit the evidence, neutral observers would look into the evidence(without oral arguments) and through evidence alone, we can determine the facts without muddying the water.

Essentially, arbitration is preferable to prosecution, as the prosecuting system is broken beyond repair.

But to your point, she has made many such remarks and google's search system SUCKS. But I don't have to point out an offending comment. The fact that she made them AT ALL, is again, disqualifying. Were I an actual lawyer, I wouldn't need google's search system but instead I could get access to the court record, refer to said comments and proceed with the litigation: Why should we be confident that she lacks bias in this case, and should preside?

And frankly, given her aggressive remarks there isn't a good answer. And you know that as well, which is why you didn't bring them up either. This judge, realistically should have turned down the appointment, allowing someone who didn't make any remarks on the record to preside.

 

[antagonistic stance] Yes you do counsellor...! YOU made the claim that her comments are out of order...YOU produce them...! If you are referring to her scathing comments towards the Jan 6 rioters that have been convicted, nothing she said there crosses a line. Many, many judges will offer a comment concerning the actions of criminals, once they have been found guilty...

And you STILL fail to offer any evidence of your insinuation that her appointment was corruptly manipulated...why are you hiding from that one...?

[/antagonistic stance]

 

Well, if you are concerned about honesty, how about being honest about your evidence, none of which is conclusive proof that Joe Biden did anything illegal other than cheerleading his son.

Yes, Hunter used his dad as a prop, he admits to trading off of his famous surname, and his dad, who loved his son so much he allowed him to do it, knowing that it would be problematic for his career, which is, of course, not illegal. Hunter lost a brother, drove him to drugs, he recovered and became successful. Joe lost a son, and was empathetic/sympathetic to Hunter's plight and helped him all he could. Both Hunter and Joe are law grads they know what is criminal and what isn't, and they knew better than to cross that line.

I seemed to recall a time when, if a Republican and scammed some Russian fat cats and chinese communists out of millions, Repubs would have applauded him, Trump would have given him a medal if he were in office when it happened. But, of course, not if you are a democrat, ooh, then it's a problem, and nevermind that Hunter, unlike Ivanka and Jared, is a private citizen during the entire period of allegations being made, and still is, and has no intention of holding public office.

But, while Repubs are ignoring the corruption of Ivanka and Jared leveraging their positions as senior WH advisors to the tune of millions, including a $2 billion score from the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman in which Jared earned a tidy $25,000,000 per year management fee, they are busy being obsessed with Hunter, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, noting that, after 5 years, 3 years under Trump, 2 years under Biden, the Republican requested US Attorney David Weiss brought no charges, and NO, as in NONE, NADA in the way of criminal referrals on Joe.

In the mean time, you have provided

Not one financial document has Joe Biden as beneficiary or signatory.

Not one LLC lists Joe Biden as an officer in a Shell.

Not one LLC has been proven to be established for a corrupt purpose as none of the 10 or so legitimate reasons have been excluded.

Not one taped phone call implicates joe in any wrong doing.

Not one testimony against Joe is backed by hard evidence.

No testimony given by Joe's staff against him.

No testimony by Joe's sons and daughters are made against him

Note that Every email and text presented do not have Joe Biden as a participant in the conversation and third party mentions of Joe is hearsay and some have been established as fake.

And that The chain of custody of the laptop is not clear cut, and has the potential for corruption.

IN short, the House Republicans and those in the Senate have failed to produce sufficient predication for a criminal investigation.

In fact, all of the evidence thus far produced, only proves that Hunter Biden did business abroad, that that business is not against the law, plus the fact that he generously shared his profits with other family members, but notably except his father. There might be a FARA violation but that is not proof of wrongdoing beyond that fact.

SARs are not proof of wrongdoing, says so right on the Gov website.

FBI FD-1023 reports are not evidence, they need to be corroborated, and none have been, to date.

The IRS agents are not, by definition, true whistleblowers, their testimony is merely a disagreement with the prosecutors prosecutorial decisions, in which such disagreements are common, and not only that, their testimony was impeached by Weiss.

That Yelena Baturina was not sanctioned is not a damning fact at all, as alleged, given that some 50 Russian/Ukrainian billionaires haven't been sanctioned, either, and she is merely one of many.

What I've been finding is that for every issue put forth by Republicans, regarding the Bidens, there is an innocent explanation. Oh, some things might look bad, but looking bad is not illegal.

All of the 'evidence' thus far is suggestive in nature, and not conclusive. While that 'might' have some value in a civil suit, it falls way short of the mark to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe committed any crimes, given that NOTHING implicates him, it only hints at it, suggests it, seems like it, looks bad, well, none of that is illegal and I explained how it all happened, which is rather innocent, when the truth comes to full light.

What you need to do is produce conclusive evidence, which would be required in order for a prosecutor wanting to indict a US President because no one is going to deprive a US Presidents liberty short of that mark.

 

We concur to the existence of these remarks. You acknowledge them, Bush Lawyer acknowledged them and I clearly acknowledge them.

https://secondnexus.com/trump-chutkan-order-january-6

There are other remarks(again, it's hard to find them precisely because articles that are outdated get flushed out by more recent articles. I don't know why I have to be held to this standard, when other posters have concurred that these comments were made.)

It's not like we're discussing something that hadn't happened and i'm making it up. We're discussing something that happened on public record. The question is, whether or not she should remain in the post given the remarks.

"It’s blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

This is disqualifying. In fact, prior to Trump I can't imagine a single would-be defendant called out blatantly in such a way. She may think avoiding using his name does not draw our ire, but it does. We can ask her under oath, who that 'one person' is, your honor. It is not her job to parade as the arbitrator of justice. She is the arbitrator only of those defendants who are guilty. She, like Trump is entitled to her opinions, and just like she bound Trump, she is not entitled to inflammatory remarks that would hinder, as she put it 'the administration of justice'.

This isn't hard at all. Judges should not make comments like this(and there were others, I'm paraphrasing here, but she made other similar remarks implying Trump's significance on January 6th, and again this is before the case is on her docket.)

Her outspoken statements towards my client, are disqualifying. No judge in the country should make those remarks.

She's free to make them during sentencing(the summary statement.) she's not free to make them anytime before hand.

Otherwise, again, we have appeal to authority and Salem Witch trials. Even if actually guilty, the presumption of innocence in the lead up to trial, the administration of justice is hampered, in a way that cannot be healed or recovered.

 

I’m looking forward to the trial being moved up to early December. The Orange Stain is incapable of keeping his mouth shut or submitting to the authority of another , even a just authority.

Santa, all I want for Christmas is a verdict !

 

CNN is reporting that this judge is being threatened. As is her family.

Only in "American politics" has this garage behavior become prominent.

(more specifically, this behavior is favored by the trump fanatics. Violence is a viable option to them .

 

A GUILTY verdict???

This promises to be a crazy period between campaigning and attending FOUR trials. GEEZ.
Gobsmacked !!

 

So you are going against the US Constitution in which the right to a speedy trial is not granted?

A speedy trial is a misnomer. But the judge is the one who sets the trial date no matter what the prosecution, the defense team, or even the defendant thinks. And with criminal trials, any delay is not indefinite because the defendant is "too busy."

 

Both sides of the aisle have people who favor violence to solve problems. However, certain Trump loyalists, some of whom are in prison now because of January 6th, have proven they are willing to go beyond talk and into action, which makes these threats more dangerous.

 

And your argument is that of letting a five-year-old run the nuclear reactor because you don't trust those scientists who have spent years of education, training, and experience to do so.

the rules are there. Violation of those rules may lead to criminal charges, disbarment or loss of license to practice, and so forth.

Second, how is the judiciary betraying the US Constitution? The US Constitution, if you ever read it in detail, provides certain rights, such as no cruel and inhumane punishment, a right to a speedy trial, and so forth. In criminal trials, you just don't get a permanent pause because you are "too busy" with whatever. The sensationalism of these indictments is that Trump is running, but that does not give him a free pass or avoid accountability. Trump has several options. First, he can obey the judge's warning and conditions, not say a damn word, and let his attorneys do the arguing for him. 99.9% of the defendants do this. But not Trump it appears. And what he does not realize is that anything he says publicly may be used against him if he testifies such as that "report" he is waving around. The second option is for Trump to not seek reelection right now and concentrate on these charges. But that would mean he has to pay the legal bills, not the RNC as they are doing now, along with his PAC. And of course, the third option is for Trump to admit publicly and in court of his actions. I know he won't do this, but it is an option as will all criminal defendants. And if one goes to trial, we have an adversarial system of justice. The defense, using the rules of evidence and court procedure, as well as the state or federal laws, can present any evidence they so choose. However, that evidence has to be about the charges at hand and in the opinion of the defense lawyer, is the best chance at acquittal. Lawyers, if they go to a really good law school, get this practice on what is called moot court, and is based on an actual trial. The students are the defense, the jurors, the judge, the prosecutor, and the witnesses for both the defense and the prosecution. Only one student, or the law professor is the judge. So, I think you get the point. Furthermore, prosecutors don't like to lose. It is very competitive if you know what you are looking for. That is why we have prosecutorial discretion in this country if there is not enough evidence to warrant a trial. But the evidence in all four Trump indictments is daunting. It is up to the jury, and how both the prosecution and defense connect the dots, to determine whether Trump, when he goes to trial is found guilty, acquitted, or a hung jury on any and all of the charges.

Finally, lawyers, at least prosecutors and defense attorneys do not benefit from rulings per se. They may use a ruling to advance their career, such as Lion Law here, which is an ambulance lawyer. But most lawyers don't do this. Very few are like Alan Dershowitz, a political TV lawyer who is paid to state his opinion on a constant basis usually with the political ideology that is paying the bills. You can also see this with certain attorneys who exaggerate a lot on the cases. Nancy Grace was generally good, but occasionally, she was overenthusiastic in which on one case somewhat convinced a young girl to commit suicide. She apologized and took a break.