ADVERTISEMENT

It’s indictment time again….

  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Bowlmania, dbmhoosier and Joe_Hoopsier
DANC said:
Just a reminder about good 'ol Judge Chutkan

www.snopes.com

Did Judge in Trump Jan. 6 Case Work at Same Burisma-Linked Law Firm as Hunter Biden?

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan worked for 12 years at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, leaving the firm in 2014.
www.snopes.com www.snopes.com

Oh, and what a coincidence she was selected as judge. It appears that there's no end to these types of coincidences.

View embedded media


View embedded media
Click to expand...
The Clerk assigns the judges. See p. 47:


There are 11 judges to pick from in the D.C. Circuit.

There are three judges on each panel.

www.law.cornell.edu

28 U.S. Code § 46 - Assignment of judges; panels; hearings; quorum

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Let's see -- 11 divided by 3 means each judge has a good chance (just a little less than a 1/3 chance) of being assigned to any particular case that comes in the door.

Maybe those conspiracy theories should be saved for Ancient Aliens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cosmickid, Bowlmania, Aloha Hoosier and 1 other person
DANC said:
Just a reminder about good 'ol Judge Chutkan

www.snopes.com

Did Judge in Trump Jan. 6 Case Work at Same Burisma-Linked Law Firm as Hunter Biden?

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan worked for 12 years at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, leaving the firm in 2014.
www.snopes.com www.snopes.com

Oh, and what a coincidence she was selected as judge. It appears that there's no end to these types of coincidences.

View embedded media


View embedded media
Click to expand...
Those judges are applying the law the way they see it. It's not driven by political party affiliation any more than the ones appointed by Republican Presidents are driven by Rep. political party concerns. Hell, that very tweet shows a 3 judge, all "Dem" panel stayed the gag order on Trump. How is that them acting politically?

This kind of delegitimization of our courts needs to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge and UncleMark
BradStevens said:
Those judges are applying the law the way they see it. It's not driven by political party affiliation any more than the ones appointed by Republican Presidents are driven by Rep. political party concerns. Hell, that very tweet shows a 3 judge, all "Dem" panel stayed the gag order on Trump. How is that them acting politically?

This kind of delegitimization of our courts needs to stop.
Click to expand...
Well, the one judge's husband works for the ACLU, so there's a lot of nepotism in DC.

But that wasn't my point, which I'm surprised you missed - it's that these judges are the ones who keep being selected, even though there are many other judges available. Don't you find that even a bit curious?

As to your contention that they're not driving by party affiliation, maybe not. (Would you say the same about the Supreme Court Justices that ruled against Roe?)

But I'll tell you one thing I"m convinced of - they won't give Trump a fair shake. Just look at the New York judge and that travesty.

What do you think of the judge who worked with Hunter? I think she should be dismissed for that prior association. Do you see why I would think that?

The courts would get a lot more respect if they would quit locking grandmothers up for walking through the Capitol. Don't act like all rioters are treated the same after the Summer of Love participants didn't get anything like the J6 rioters.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: dbmhoosier, Bowlmania and Joe_Hoopsier
DANC said:
Well, the one judge's husband works for the ACLU, so there's a lot of nepotism in DC.

But that wasn't my point, which I'm surprised you missed - it's that these judges are the ones who keep being selected, even though there are many other judges available. Don't you find that even a bit curious?

As to your contention that they're not driving by party affiliation, maybe not. (Would you say the same about the Supreme Court Justices that ruled against Roe?)

But I'll tell you one thing I"m convinced of - they won't give Trump a fair shake. Just look at the New York judge and that travesty.

What do you think of the judge who worked with Hunter? I think she should be dismissed for that prior association. Do you see why I would think that?

The courts would get a lot more respect if they would quit locking grandmothers up for walking through the Capitol. Don't act like all rioters are treated the same after the Summer of Love participants didn't get anything like the J6 rioters.
Click to expand...
Yes I believe that about Roe and have said it before. Those judges didn’t vote that way to satisfy the party—they voted that way because they believed it was right under the law. (And the last three, at least, were selected with the hope/belief they thought that way.)

Re the judges and panels, it’s probably a coincidence but I don’t know how that court operates.

Re your last paragraph, judges don’t operate in a vacuum. They have to apply the law, have to rely on prosecutors and defense lawyers. Comparing different judges in different jurisdictions dealing with different defendants and lawyers and then saying “the courts” as if it’s one unified, consistent entity is a mistake. Courts don’t work that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
DANC said:
Well, the one judge's husband works for the ACLU, so there's a lot of nepotism in DC.

But that wasn't my point, which I'm surprised you missed - it's that these judges are the ones who keep being selected, even though there are many other judges available. Don't you find that even a bit curious?

As to your contention that they're not driving by party affiliation, maybe not. (Would you say the same about the Supreme Court Justices that ruled against Roe?)

But I'll tell you one thing I"m convinced of - they won't give Trump a fair shake. Just look at the New York judge and that travesty.

What do you think of the judge who worked with Hunter? I think she should be dismissed for that prior association. Do you see why I would think that?

The courts would get a lot more respect if they would quit locking grandmothers up for walking through the Capitol. Don't act like all rioters are treated the same after the Summer of Love participants didn't get anything like the J6 rioters.
Click to expand...
I believe Griselda Blanco was a grandmother, too.

Do you think all grandmothers should get a free pass or just some of them?
 
Last edited:
BradStevens said:
Yes I believe that about Roe and have said it before. Those judges didn’t vote that way to satisfy the party—they voted that way because they believed it was right under the law. (And the last three, at least, were selected with the hope/belief they thought that way.)

Re the judges and panels, it’s probably a coincidence but I don’t know how that court operates.

Re your last paragraph, judges don’t operate in a vacuum. They have to apply the law, have to rely on prosecutors and defense lawyers. Comparing different judges in different jurisdictions dealing with different defendants and lawyers and then saying “the courts” as if it’s one unified, consistent entity is a mistake. Courts don’t work that way.
Click to expand...
"Comparing different judges in different jurisdictions dealing with different defendants and lawyers and then saying “the courts” as if it’s one unified, consistent entity is a mistake. Courts don’t work that way."

But they should.

Saying "well all courts are different" is the reason people are losing faith in the justice system.

There should be one law for everyone and not a different one, based on a 'jurisdiction'.

You're a lawyer and used to such discrepancies and can easily accept it. You wouldn't be so quick to accept it if it was you on trial.
 
From the article below:

“A new court filing from Smith’s team this week reveals that the mob that stormed Congress in Trump’s name will be the centerpiece of his trial, scheduled to begin on March 4. It wasn’t just an unfortunate reaction to Trump’s incendiary remarks that day, prosecutors contend. It was a tool that Trump used to launch one last desperate bid to cling to Trump’s criminal conspiracies “culminated and converged” on Jan. 6, when he attempted to prevent Congress from finalizing Joe Biden’s victory, argued senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston.”

The filing is linked below the article. Here’s part of it:

“[T]he defendant here is charged with four related criminal counts, including conspiring to obstruct and obstructing the official certification proceeding on January 6,” Gaston wrote. “Essential to those charges are factual allegations and evidence that the proceeding was in fact impeded — namely, by a large crowd, including individuals whom the defendant had directed at the Capitol, that violently advanced on the Capitol building to create ‘a catastrophic security risk.”

www.politico.com

Echoes of Jan. 6 committee as Jack Smith foreshadows plan to tie Trump to Capitol riot

Donald Trump doesn’t want prosecutors to talk about Jan. 6. They want to make it central to their case.
www.politico.com www.politico.com


I think a conviction is extremely likely. The documents case is probably more of a slam dunk.

The hypocrisy on that one among the diehard “lock her up” Trumpsters is really something to behold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing, anon_mya1phvcpf5x4 and UncleMark
Indianaftw said:
Excellent watch. Something we knew that again was confirmed. Thanks for sharing. This Atlanta sh*t...you see the 2 attorneys that stepped down? And the 150,000 ballots that were supposed to be examined years ago may have mysteriously vanished. What a joke. It's all comical at this point.
Click to expand...
If they destroyed the evidence which would completely exonerate Trump the Georgia and Washington DC cases should be tossed immediately. They're BS already.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4, Indianaftw and DANC
DANC said:
He makes a good point about Qanon being a media obsession before Jan 6. That's all leftists talked about. Now.... zip.

I think he's wrong about Pence having Constitutional authority to reject electors, but I'd be curious to learn more about what happened in the Jefferson and Adams cases that he cites as precedent.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was arguing that Pence could reject the Biden electors, count the alternate ones, and declare Trump the winner. Moreso that Pence could send them back to the states and demand a full forensic audit of say those Fulton Co ballots first before agreeing to count them. If the election was legit why would anyone have a problem with an audit?

And if Pence didn't have the authority why did they go and change the law afterwards?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4 and Bulk VanderHuge
dbmhoosier said:
I don't think he was arguing that Pence could reject the Biden electors, count the alternate ones, and declare Trump the winner. Moreso that Pence could send them back to the states and demand a full forensic audit of say those Fulton Co ballots first before agreeing to count them. If the election was legit why would anyone have a problem with an audit?

And if Pence didn't have the authority why did they go and change the law afterwards?
Click to expand...
They didn't change the law. They just made it more specific.

I'm saying 'Constitutionally', which isn't actually the 'law'. A law is based on the Constitution. And the Constitution doesn't give the VP - or President of the Senate - authority to do that.

I would have preferred they hold off on the electoral count while doing an audit also, but that's now provided for in the Constitution. I don't know why Republicans aren't pushing for a law that would withhold election results in this type of situation.
 
dbmhoosier said:
I don't think he was arguing that Pence could reject the Biden electors, count the alternate ones, and declare Trump the winner. Moreso that Pence could send them back to the states and demand a full forensic audit of say those Fulton Co ballots first before agreeing to count them. If the election was legit why would anyone have a problem with an audit?

And if Pence didn't have the authority why did they go and change the law afterwards?
Click to expand...
You don't get the concept of criminal investigations or law enforcement. If the is no evidence of wrongdoing or a crime, and there is none, the is no need for an investigation (or audit). I'm struck by how the Republican run state of Georgia just isn't onboard the Trump Train and how much Trumpsters hate that.

Trump lost. Move on.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: MrBing and dbmhoosier
dbmhoosier said:
I don't think he was arguing that Pence could reject the Biden electors, count the alternate ones, and declare Trump the winner. Moreso that Pence could send them back to the states and demand a full forensic audit of say those Fulton Co ballots first before agreeing to count them. If the election was legit why would anyone have a problem with an audit?

And if Pence didn't have the authority why did they go and change the law afterwards?
Click to expand...
Ahhhh you mean transparency...That does not happen in an authoritarian left regime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier and DANC
dbmhoosier said:
I don't think he was arguing that Pence could reject the Biden electors, count the alternate ones, and declare Trump the winner. Moreso that Pence could send them back to the states and demand a full forensic audit of say those Fulton Co ballots first before agreeing to count them. If the election was legit why would anyone have a problem with an audit?

And if Pence didn't have the authority why did they go and change the law afterwards?
Click to expand...

why would you need the fake electors if that was the plan?
 
zeke4ahs said:
Of course they will. The RNC doesn’t care if he’s a criminal running from jail. They have never had the testicular fortitude to stand up to him. The cowards have ruined their party. Nothing but a clown show.
Click to expand...
You support Biden.
 
Indianaftw said:
Excellent watch. Something we knew that again was confirmed. Thanks for sharing. This Atlanta sh*t...you see the 2 attorneys that stepped down? And the 150,000 ballots that were supposed to be examined years ago may have mysteriously vanished. What a joke. It's all comical at this point.
Click to expand...

DANC said:
He makes a good point about Qanon being a media obsession before Jan 6. That's all leftists talked about. Now.... zip.

I think he's wrong about Pence having Constitutional authority to reject electors, but I'd be curious to learn more about what happened in the Jefferson and Adams cases that he cites as precedent.
Click to expand...
Trump has been pushing for the DC trial to be televised. Jack Smith is terrified of that. Why does everyone think that is? 🤔

 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: DANC and Indianaftw
dbmhoosier said:
Trump has been pushing for the DC trial to be televised. Jack Smith is terrified of that. Why does everyone think that is? 🤔

View embedded media
Click to expand...
The side that would benefit from televising the trial is the prosecution. Trump is bluffing and has no desire for it to be televised. I'm certain that Trump's lawyers really wouldn't want it to happen. Smith isn't terrified and he's going through the motions. In the end his prosecutors would probably do cartwheels if cameras would be allowed and another Trump lawyer or two would probably quit.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: MrBing, Indianaftw, dbmhoosier and 1 other person
DANC said:
They couldn't wait to have cameras in New York, but not in DC...... what does that tell you?

It's obvious these traitors want to do their business in the shadows.
Click to expand...

There are no cameras televising the NY trial. They take some pictures when everyone gathers, but that's it.

It's a black and white Federal Courts rule against cameras in fed courts. Judge Chutkin would have to overrule that rule. IIUC, the prosecution has said they have no objection.

As much as I'd love to see the proceedings, we all know it is a ploy for Trump to make them an extension of his campaign, and to put witnesses and prosecutors in danger. Televising this trial would be a bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
UncleMark said:
There are no cameras televising the NY trial. They take some pictures when everyone gathers, but that's it.

It's a black and white Federal Courts rule against cameras in fed courts. Judge Chutkin would have to overrule that rule. IIUC, the prosecution has said they have no objection.

As much as I'd love to see the proceedings, we all know it is a ploy for Trump to make them an extension of his campaign, and to put witnesses and prosecutors in danger. Televising this trial would be a bad idea.
Click to expand...
You're right - no video, but there are cameras, which the judge was mugging for.

It should tell you something that Trump thinks the public will see how he's being railroaded if it's televised. Why doesn't the prosecution want it?
 
DANC said:
It should tell you something that Trump thinks the public will see how he's being railroaded if it's televised. Why doesn't the prosecution want it?
Click to expand...

IIUC, the prosecution has not objected. It's all on Chutkin. But she would have to be willing to break the hard and fast rule against it, and be on very firm ground for doing so.
 
DANC said:
You're right - no video, but there are cameras, which the judge was mugging for.

It should tell you something that Trump thinks the public will see how he's being railroaded if it's televised. Why doesn't the prosecution want it?
Click to expand...
Ohhhh yes there was video. Camera pans to Jr. sitting calm, camera pans to Latitia who had a freaking smirk on her face. Disgusting. Every damn time they showed her she was smirking? What AG does that? Corrupt AF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Indianaftw said:
Ohhhh yes there was video. Camera pans to Jr. sitting calm, camera pans to Latitia who had a freaking smirk on her face. Disgusting. Every damn time they showed her she was smirking? What AG does that? Corrupt AF.
Click to expand...
Link the video.
 
UncleMark said:
IIUC, the prosecution has not objected. It's all on Chutkin. But she would have to be willing to break the hard and fast rule against it, and be on very firm ground for doing so.
Click to expand...
The prosecution isn't objecting because they know Chutkan would never allow the public to see the farce.

When I used the term 'traitor', that includes the judge. She threw people in jail for non-violent actions on J6 and excuses rioting during the Summer of Love.

“To compare the actions of people around the country protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and downplays the very real danger that the crowd on January 6 posed to our democracy,” she said."

lmao

 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S

Cuban

Replies
196
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
BradStevens
BradStevens
stollcpa

We’re told this is no big deal

Replies
20
Views
772
The Water Cooler
ChicagoFineForNow
C
stollcpa

Ceasefire

Replies
12
Views
488
The Water Cooler
mcmurtry66
M
IUclover
  • Poll

Poll: Fascist vs Progressive

Replies
133
Views
3K
The Water Cooler
sweetsilence
S
outside shooter

RFK Jr. as health czar--- he wants to eliminate all "toxins", starting with fluoride

Replies
31
Views
965
The Water Cooler
outside shooter
outside shooter
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back