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

Answer the question.
And I don't wonder why , because not many are.

 

Don't expect a takeover of you electoral system to be pretty. It's always the fools at the front.

 

Boo ****ing Hoo, MAGA person

Hey! Something else Republicans don't have in bold...

You are on a roll...

 

Ahh, the old, tired and very cynical trope that we are Russia now, totalitarian, blah blah blah.

Of course, if the courts were in your side's favor, oh how you would be singing it's praises.

Google isn't the only search engine, by the way.

Yeah, fat chance of that.

Team Trump: We need time to read it all.
Judge: You said you were a billionaire, so hire more people.

 

Funny from the election denier squad

 

My point, which was glossed over is that there shouldn't be a side. Let's take Trump, election denial, etc all out of the case and presume that you were ticketed for a ticket violation. The judge who was randomly assigned just so happens to hate your guts, and made statements that allude to their views on you personally.

Would you feel such a person is neutral? Could you even be confident in it? If the judge never made statements, you'd never know but the judge felt so insulated, they DID make statements.

Such is the state of the judiciary today.

 

In your premise, if I was guilty of the offense I was ticketed for, I would have to admit my own fooishness for being in that situation.
If I was innocent, then the judge wouldn't have an influence on the facts that determined my guilt or innocence.
That's sort of the interesting part about this. What does the evidence show?
Keep it simple. Shouldn't be that hard. The evidence hasn't really been presented, but because official charges have been brought it will. That's when the rubber meets the road, as they say.
We're all just pissing in the wind until then.

 

The left sees this blatant corruption from the judge and cheer. Fascists gonna fascist.

 

Except that's not really what happens at all. Even if ergo you are aware of your guilt, the judge could in fact pursue a harsher punishment against you because of the motivations to do so(in fact, in this case it's wholly expected, isn't it?). So no, it's not a matter of 'I'm okay with their impropriety because I myself am guilty'.

Even a guilty party is entitled to said impartial trial. They are entitled to someone presiding that doesn't have animus. These judges made nakedly open remarks about an individual and in some instances, speculated about a case that wasn't on their docket!

(remember the judge in the Eastman case making remarks that Trump likely committed crimes?)

These comments are so inappropriate, I want to turn the 'dares' around: I dare someone to find me a separate, different case and defendant in which a judge made remarks about the future defendant before the case was actually filed.

You won't find it, because it used to be understood that such remarks poison the jury and the public against the defendant, and in fact this came up during the Mueller saga: The defendant cannot defend against a grand jury, thus shouldn't be named!

In ignoring the comments made pre-trial, and the ugly optics of having such a judge presiding, we have thrown out Common English Law. If people wanted Alito and Thomas to recuse due their wives connection, then what is this?

 

I think the claim of Trump corruption exists solely to distract attention and focus from the real corruption. Accusations such as Hillary's Dossier. The legal vendetta by Biden to reduce the impact of his own criminal organization, which is growing exponentially.

The real question is why you don't see that- but since I have no doubt you do.... why it is acceptable to you.

 

Rember this phrase: "MACH1"
It will become a political message soon, and it's not about aircraft.
You heard it here first.

 

I think the claim of Trump corruption exists because................Trump is corrupt. We now have 4 trials in progress that will make this finding a fact.

Your "real question" is solely to distract attention and focus from the real corruption, the Orange Stain.

The real question is why you don't see that- but since I have no doubt you do.... why it is acceptable to you.

 

Your position requires the assumption that judges can't disassociate their personal feelings from their jobs. Most judges at the level we are talking about (far above traffic court) have long since trained themselves to do just that. Therefore, you are, in essence, positing a loaded question, and, as such, I cannot engage.

No, it isn't.

 

I understand. You don't get it. You just can't figure it out.
That's your choice because all you need to know to get it straight is all over the media. It's an internal problem that only you can fix.

 

The same can be said about you. You just listen exclusively to pro-Trump media and believe them.
It's an internal problem that only you can fix.

 

Of course, that is what you want to believe, and it's total BS.

Remember that when you do anything, you are setting a precedent, saying it's acceptable- and that means it can be used on you.
Honorable people are going to reject dishonorable behavior because it violates their values. But thrown into a situation where the game is rigged, you have every right to fight fire with fire.
Cheaters only have advantage when they are allowed to play in an honest game. We either kick them out, or kick their ass. Biden is watching his scheme backfire right now- and it is going to get ugly.
Don't take my word for it, just watch it happen.

 

So because you believe in a 'just trust me bro' concept, you think they shouldn't be judged as other mortals. I'm sorry, but to be human is to error, to be human is to folly. You should know these concepts because they're among the earliest taught in philosophical lectures and books.

The fact is, the judge in this case has the motivation and the opportunity to carry out that motivation in her role as a judge. That's unacceptable. And you know it's unacceptable, precisely because you don't address it. Because it can't be addressed, other than her recusal.

We can't have judges with personal opinions presiding. No matter how righteous or just she thinks those thoughts are. Hell, she could've had those personal opinions as long as she didn't utter them.

Again, I reference the same 'administration of justice'. I am holding her, to her own standards. Her comments before any such case came to her desk are as problematic for the same reason as Trump's in her reasoning. Her comments interfere with the administration of justice.

 

I’m fine setting the precedent that ex-presidents are not above the law.

So you’re saying two wrongs make a right ?
And who made you and your ilk the arbiter of what is and isn’t a rigged game ?

You’re not getting the idea: put a cheater into an honest game and he loses . He can’t cheat anymore. That’s why the Orange Stain is going down. All he knows how to do is cheat.

 

An honest game? What drugs are you on?

I agree with the idea, but you seem to have your eyeballs in upside down. Hillary started the cheat game, and it's not stopped since- and that is the left, from start to finish.
Now- you know that. Face up to it, deal with reality.

 

I don't do drugs. You seem to on some really potent ones. Like Right wing Kool Aid.

Hillary ? LMAO The Orange Stain was a professional cheat all his life and makes Hillary look like Mother Teresa.

 

You haven't really refuted my comment. Judges in the higher courts have, indeed, trained themselves to dissociate their personal beliefs with the facts of a case. Of course, some Judges will not be as high-minded as others, but on the whole, that is what I'm saying. Will personal experience shape their political philosophy? I don't doubt that at all, but that isn't really what you are implying. You view clearly appears to be on the cynical side of things, and I reject anything and everything that a cynic typically upholds. Now, that doesn't mean I take the opposite view, which would be seeing the world through rose colored glasses, but the truth is in neither extreme, and, as I am asserting here, better than any cynical view.

This is a highly nuanced subject, and it requires nuanced, robust, and thoughtful examination, devoid of simplistic aphorisms and partisan
one - liners and, more importantly, devoid broad sweeping simplistic generalizations, the kind which are cheaply delivered behind anonymous computers on internet forums by individuals who really haven't thought it through that well, or researched the subject, that well.

Therefore, as to your last sentence, I reject it entirely..

 

I have refuted it, or rather history has refuted it. This idea that they have "trained themselves to dissociate their personal beliefs with the facts of a case" is presumed, not established. You wanna know why we presume it? Because most judges have the common sense to not comment on cases before they reach their docket!

But not in this case(and not merely the judge presiding, as I point to the example of the Eastman judge, and a few others.). In this case, the defendant has had his right to a fair and neutral trial violated(like I expected prior to any such criminal accusations) by the publicizing of opinions from those in 'high rank' to whom the public will attach great value to their words.

It is not a cynical view, it is what is expected and demanded of our judges of the high(and yes, even lower) courts. It's the only way the system can survive.
It's stupidly simple: Don't be a daft **** to potential future defendants, to avoid a conflict of interest.

She had one job.

 

Neither you nor history has refuted anything related to this case.

Still looking for a technical way out for the Orange Stain? Not going to happen.
He needs to face the music and be judged by a jury of his peers.
Whatever the outcome, due process and justice will have been served.

 

Touche'!

 

that is not a disqualification. Judges do this all the time no matter who the defendant is or the crime they were found guilty of. And once the defendant is found guilty, that person is no longer a defendant, that person is now the offender. And in prison, that is what COs call their prisoners, offenders.

there have been plenty of answers to your question. I think the problem is you don't like the answers you are getting and dismissing them for purely political reasons and not logic.