Scoreboard: “my judges”

cannabineer said:

The ultimate “my judge” is on course to make the documents trial fail from simple disuse.

How one judge is slowing down one of Trump’s biggest criminal cases

The May 2024 trial in Trump's classified documents case appears headed for a politically precarious postponement.

www.politico.com

Click to expand...

Jack figured her out and shifted focus to DC and she has become a legal side show. When he does appear in her court, he will be a convicted felon in federal custody. She will end up sentencing him according to the guidelines and the death threats will never end, she chose her side, and her side will turn on her when she does what she must. Maybe that is why Jack isn't that eager to get rid of her, she will end up punishing herself and Trump will be gone for life anyway over the DC charges anyway.

Judge Carl J. Nichols was appointed by three guesses; two don’t count.


18 USC Code 1512 c

(c) Whoever corruptly--

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;  or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

(emphasis mine) Interpreting this as Juj Nickels did, deciding that the “or” means something other than “or” is



This is now going before the Extreme Court, who just might dawdle this out until June.

Will be wild.

Raskin slams Trump attorney comment about Kavanaugh as ‘New York mobsters’ mentality
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) slammed a comment by former President Trump’s lawyer where she insinuated Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh will “step up” when it comes to the the former president’s ballot cases, claiming it shows a “New York mobsters” mentality.

“Well, this is the way that New York mobsters think about judges,” Raskin told MSNBC Friday. “‘Yeah, we own that one. We own that one. Get in that court. That guy’s in our pocket.’ And for fascists and authoritarian parties and movements, the law is really not what you know, but it’s who you know. And it’s always better for them to know the judge than to know the law.”

“But to know the law here is to understand that Donald Trump is disqualified,” he added in the interview highlighted by Mediaite, just hours after the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled in December that Trump was disqualified from the state’s primary ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause. The court affirmed that the former president violated the clause — which prohibits those that take an oath of office from rebelling against the government — by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud and directing them to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump’s campaign appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, setting up what will likely be a fiery battle running parallel to the 2024 election.

“I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them,” Trump attorney Alina Habba told Fox News’s Sean Hannity a day before the high court agreed to hear the case. “You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the President went through how to get into place, he’ll step up.”

Raskin also blasted Republicans that have called the Colorado and subsequent Maine decisions to remove Trump from the ballot “undemocratic.”

“There’s nothing undemocratic about it, which is what I keep hearing from, you know, the far precincts of the right,” he argued Friday.

“It’s no more undemocratic than saying that you’ve gotta be 35 years old to be president, which means that there are a lot of qualified Democrats and Republicans and independents who simply can’t run because they’re not qualified under the Constitution — just like a lot of people born abroad don’t meet the native birth qualification,” he added.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the Colorado case on Feb. 8.

Dozens of other states have also challenged Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment though many have been rejected by lower courts.

Trump: 'Big Trouble' if SCOTUS Rules Against Ballot Access
Former President Donald Trump is warning there will be "big trouble" for the United States if the Supreme Court doesn't treat him fairly and rule that he's eligible for the 2024 presidential primary ballots.

"I just hope we get fair treatment," Trump said during a rally in Sioux City, Iowa, Friday, reported The Hill. "Because if we don't, our country's in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I'm saying?"

The Supreme Court earlier on Friday said it will hear Trump's case stemming from the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to keep him off the state's primary ballot because of his alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Trump remains in Iowa on Saturday, where he plans to be in Newton, in the central part of the state, before heading to Clinton for a rally later in the day. Friday, he held a pair of commit-to-caucus events in Iowa, one in the far northwestern corner of the state on the border with South Dakota and one in north-central Mason City.

Trump Friday also claimed Democrats are casting doubt on the Supreme Court because he appointed three of its justices.

"They're saying, 'Oh, Trump owns the Supreme Court; he owns it. He owns it. If they make a decision for him, it will be terrible. It'll ruin their reputations,'" he said. "'He owns the Supreme Court. He put on three judges. He owns the Supreme Court. If they rule in his favor, it will be horrible for them. And we'll protest at their houses.'"

But such pressure is pushing "people to do the wrong thing," Trump added.

"What they're doing is no different than Bobby Knight," he said, making a reference to the late basketball coach who became famous for his arguments with referees.

In Colorado, the justices ruled that Trump's actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol protests came under the "insurrection clause" of the 14th Amendment, a Civil War-era provision disqualifying people who have committed insurrection against the country from holding office.

Trump has been removed from Maine's ballot under the same argument, and challenges are being discussed in more than a dozen states, meaning a ruling by the Supreme Court in his favor could end such arguments about his qualifications for the ballots.

printer said:

Trump: 'Big Trouble' if SCOTUS Rules Against Ballot Access
Former President Donald Trump is warning there will be "big trouble" for the United States if the Supreme Court doesn't treat him fairly and rule that he's eligible for the 2024 presidential primary ballots.

"I just hope we get fair treatment," Trump said during a rally in Sioux City, Iowa, Friday, reported The Hill. "Because if we don't, our country's in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I'm saying?"

The Supreme Court earlier on Friday said it will hear Trump's case stemming from the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to keep him off the state's primary ballot because of his alleged efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Trump remains in Iowa on Saturday, where he plans to be in Newton, in the central part of the state, before heading to Clinton for a rally later in the day. Friday, he held a pair of commit-to-caucus events in Iowa, one in the far northwestern corner of the state on the border with South Dakota and one in north-central Mason City.

Trump Friday also claimed Democrats are casting doubt on the Supreme Court because he appointed three of its justices.

"They're saying, 'Oh, Trump owns the Supreme Court; he owns it. He owns it. If they make a decision for him, it will be terrible. It'll ruin their reputations,'" he said. "'He owns the Supreme Court. He put on three judges. He owns the Supreme Court. If they rule in his favor, it will be horrible for them. And we'll protest at their houses.'"

But such pressure is pushing "people to do the wrong thing," Trump added.

"What they're doing is no different than Bobby Knight," he said, making a reference to the late basketball coach who became famous for his arguments with referees.

In Colorado, the justices ruled that Trump's actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol protests came under the "insurrection clause" of the 14th Amendment, a Civil War-era provision disqualifying people who have committed insurrection against the country from holding office.

Trump has been removed from Maine's ballot under the same argument, and challenges are being discussed in more than a dozen states, meaning a ruling by the Supreme Court in his favor could end such arguments about his qualifications for the ballots.

Click to expand...

We are in big trouble if we don't follow the constitution too.

Fogdog said:

We are in big trouble if we don't follow the constitution too.

Click to expand...

“Do you understand what I’m saying?”

For someone as unintelligent as he is, he sure is good at “saying it without saying it.”

That is an obvious bugle call to his loyalists, but not by judicial standards. smh

cannabineer said:

“Do you understand what I’m saying?”

For someone as unintelligent as he is, he sure is good at “saying it without saying it.”

That is an obvious bugle call to his loyalists, but not by judicial standards. smh

Click to expand...

"If they rule in his favor, it will be horrible for them. And we'll protest at their houses.'"

Fogdog said:

We are in big trouble if we don't follow the constitution too.

Click to expand...

So, Taylor Swift and Obama are disqualified, even if they are popular, is America to clearly violate the 14th because someone is popular? The same argument is used if he is criminally prosecuted, so just put him above the law because he has so many fans? If he ran and lost, he would just say he was cheated anyway, and you would be back right where you started only worse. If he ran and won, he would say he was cheated and should have won by more. Just disqualify and convict the fuck and put him and America out of its misery. His disqualification and criminal conviction would destroy the republican's chances in 24, he would go nuts on them if he was disqualified and they picked another candidate and mount a write in campaign while endorsing his own candidates. If he wasn't on the ballot many of his fans might stay home on election day, large numbers of them think the system is rigged and their vote doesn't count anyway.

DIY-HP-LED said:

So, Taylor Swift and Obama are disqualified, even if they are popular, is America to clearly violate the 14th because someone is popular? The same argument is used if he is criminally prosecuted, so just put him above the law because he has so many fans? If he ran and lost, he would just say he was cheated anyway, and you would be back right where you started only worse. If he ran and won, he would say he was cheated and should have won by more. Just disqualify and convict the fuck and put him and America out of its misery. His disqualification and criminal conviction would destroy the republican's chances in 24, he would go nuts on them if he was disqualified and they picked another candidate and mount a write in campaign while endorsing his own candidates. If he wasn't on the ballot many of his fans might stay home on election day, large numbers of them think the system is rigged and their vote doesn't count anyway.

Click to expand...

That word. "Just". It is often used as you did in your post. I've had some very high level managers use that word to describe what they wanted me to do. Never mind that physics or economics prevented "just" doing what they said.

We are in the middle of a large change in our society. Trump's MAGA represent a counter revolution by people who were satisfied with the status quo before the change began. Or they represent a group who are dissatisfied with their current situation and have been convinced that the "America" that they refer to when they say "Again" was an era of peace and prosperity for all that liberals have somehow taken away. We are in the middle of a demographic shift away from White Power that existed since this country's inception in the late 1700's. We've never been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy and with few exceptions like Canada, there never has been one. Even Canada is thrashing out their own problems while this change happens.

So, no, my friend. We can't "just" disqualify and convict the fuck. We can't without first carefully plodding through the legal proceedings that will set precedents and write the rule books for what this country does when people who are leading the government refuse to follow the Constitution, laws written by Congress and established norms. They were all written during the early status quo and developed to ensure our government runs smoothly, if not best. We aren't done with this change and much that is old will be replaced with something new.

This is not "just" something that's going to happen with a wave of the hand.

Fogdog said:

That word. "Just". It is often used as you did in your post. I've had some very high level managers use that word to describe what they wanted me to do. Never mind that physics or economics prevented "just" doing what they said.

We are in the middle of a large change in our society. Trump's MAGA represent a counter revolution by people who were satisfied with the status quo before the change began. Or they represent a group who are dissatisfied with their current situation and have been convinced that the "America" that they refer to when they say "Again" was an era of peace and prosperity for all that liberals have somehow taken away. We are in the middle of a demographic shift away from White Power that existed since this country's inception in the late 1700's. We've never been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy and with few exceptions like Canada, there never has been one. Even Canada is thrashing out their own problems while this change happens.

So, no, my friend. We can't "just" disqualify and convict the fuck. We can't without first carefully plodding through the legal proceedings that will set precedents and write the rule books for what this country does when people who are leading the government refuse to follow the Constitution, laws written by Congress and established norms. They were all written during the early status quo and developed to ensure our government runs smoothly, if not best. We aren't done with this change and much that is old will be replaced with something new.

This is not "just" something that's going to happen with a wave of the hand.

Click to expand...

It is vital to show that being extremely rich andor powerful does not put one beyond the rule of law. We The People means everybody.
I patiently await that outcome. I’d like to see a banker or two get prosecuted; that profession never seems to be held to account. (How to do it without taking shortcuts fascist style — ~slow shrug~)

cannabineer said:

It is vital to show that being extremely rich andor powerful does not put one beyond the rule of law. We The People means everybody.
I patiently await that outcome. I’d like to see a banker or two get prosecuted; that profession never seems to be held to account. (How to do it without taking shortcuts fascist style — ~slow shrug~)

Click to expand...

I agree that Trump should face consequences for all that he has done. I think rule of law is being applied to Trump and his co-conspirators with deliberate speed. There are what now? Three or Four AGs pressing civil and criminal charges in courts against Trump? They are doing a great job.

My greatest fear is that obviously guilty people will be let off the hook because of sloppy prosecutors. Like what happened in the trial following the Malheur Occupation.

Anyway, I was objecting to the word "just" when it comes to putting Trump away, not the effort to put Trump away. There is no "just" about it. There can be only justice, which takes time.

Fogdog said:

That word. "Just". It is often used as you did in your post. I've had some very high level managers use that word to describe what they wanted me to do. Never mind that physics or economics prevented "just" doing what they said.

We are in the middle of a large change in our society. Trump's MAGA represent a counter revolution by people who were satisfied with the status quo before the change began. Or they represent a group who are dissatisfied with their current situation and have been convinced that the "America" that they refer to when they say "Again" was an era of peace and prosperity for all that liberals have somehow taken away. We are in the middle of a demographic shift away from White Power that existed since this country's inception in the late 1700's. We've never been a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy and with few exceptions like Canada, there never has been one. Even Canada is thrashing out their own problems while this change happens.

So, no, my friend. We can't "just" disqualify and convict the fuck. We can't without first carefully plodding through the legal proceedings that will set precedents and write the rule books for what this country does when people who are leading the government refuse to follow the Constitution, laws written by Congress and established norms. They were all written during the early status quo and developed to ensure our government runs smoothly, if not best. We aren't done with this change and much that is old will be replaced with something new.

This is not "just" something that's going to happen with a wave of the hand.

Click to expand...

Looking back, MAGA is literally what the Ku Klux Klan was at its height, in the 1920's. Compare the rhetoric used by MAGA, it's literally the same thing the Klan used to gain its highest membership in history. Important to note that it was not race based hatred that caused them to gain so many members (their largest target was Catholics), although they still promoted hatred against non-white people, Jews, and people that weren't white enough. Using all the same tricks as before, trying to take over school curricula, using displays of violence, etc., but applying lessons learned from the past, hence the rhetoric against the IRS.

During the 1920s, cultural conflict and modernization helped resuscitate the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Whereas the original KKK was a violent, racist organization born in the post Civil War South, the modern Klan was driven by somewhat different concerns. Many white, lower middle-class, Protestant Americans in the North and Midwest were fearful that immigrants were changing traditional American culture, and they responded with anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism.
...
This “second” Klan could easily be as violent as its Reconstruction Era ancestor, but it was more fraternal and social, though its brand of socializing was restricted to native-born, Protestant whites. It supported the recently enacted national prohibition on alcoholic beverages and opposed labor unions, immigration, and foreign entanglements such as the League of Nations. Klan members and leadership disliked Wall Street and big business in general, and chain stores in particular. Said national Klan leader Hiram Evans, “Increasing economic inequalities threaten the very stability of society.” The rise of industrialism and consumerism presented bewildering changes that the Klan blamed on stereotyped Jewish bankers on Wall Street.
...
The Klan also opposed and disparaged Jews, painting them alternately as predatory capitalists and dangerous radicals. But its main focus was against America’s rising Catholic population. Catholic immigrants from Ireland, Italy, eastern Europe, French Canada, and southern Germany had poured into the country by the millions in the previous decades, competing with native-born American workers for jobs and driving down wages. Worse for the Klan was that immigrants voted, particularly in the big cities where they supposedly supported crooked political machines, most prominently New York City’s notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall. The Klan also associated immigrants with drunkenness and saloons (in an era of Prohibition), as well as with being un-American because of their languages, foods, and customs.


This leads me to believe that the MAGA movement is not so much caused by a demographic shift that is happening, it is a hate movement that is putting lessons learned from past experience into practice. The chance of this ending anytime soon is slim IMHO.

cannabineer said:

It is vital to show that being extremely rich andor powerful does not put one beyond the rule of law. We The People means everybody.
I patiently await that outcome. I’d like to see a banker or two get prosecuted; that profession never seems to be held to account. (How to do it without taking shortcuts fascist style — ~slow shrug~)

Click to expand...

Do you really believe that to be true? I agree that it is the correct guiding principle, but how many times do we have to see situations like Purdue Pharma or 2008 Wall Street to actually understand that it is not?

Isn't putting trump away and most likely disqualifying him "Just" what is happening now and likely to be settled in a month? I like many sane Americans want Trump gone from the public arena and society by any legal and constitutional means possible. It is time to get on with important questions of policy and law and not waste time on this drama queen and miscreant. The only ones I see who are concerned about policy, the citizens and the country are democrats, call me biased but facts are facts and soon convictions will be facts too.

Fogdog said:

I agree that Trump should face consequences for all that he has done. I think rule of law is being applied to Trump and his co-conspirators with deliberate speed. There are what now? Three or Four AGs pressing civil and criminal charges in courts against Trump? They are doing a great job.

My greatest fear is that obviously guilty people will be let off the hook because of sloppy prosecutors. Like what happened in the trial following the Malheur Occupation.

Anyway, I was objecting to the word "just" when it comes to putting Trump away, not the effort to put Trump away. There is no "just" about it. There can be only justice, which takes time.

Click to expand...

I fully agree about “just”. As you said, senior managers use it as a passive-aggressive way to conceal a difficult or impossible request. (and raise a psychological barrier against the employee correctly complaining)

In this instance, I agree that the process needs to rigidly adhere to the law, as we are breaking new ground in terms of precedent. Smith, Chutkan and McAfee are taking on matters that will cast long shadows over all three branches of government.
“Ya want this done quick, or right?”
-select option B-

CANON_Grow said:

Do you really believe that to be true? I agree that it is the correct guiding principle, but how many times do we have to see situations like Purdue Pharma or 2008 Wall Street to actually understand that it is not?

Click to expand...

I was thinking about the Wall Street event while writing that.

I believe that applying the rule and consequences of law to the richest is a necessary part of having a republic. The instances you cite where they got away with massive crimes aggrieve me.

Damn the Federalist Society to the deepest depths. A pox on “libertarians” who rape society and the environment for a few dollars more.

Appointed by (three guesses two don’t count)

Now that man wants to fire a Cannon at DC.


Excerpts; emphasis mine.

A primary aim for Trump’s legal team, according to people familiar with the strategy, is to put the judge in DC overseeing the 2020 federal election obstruction case, Tanya Chutkan, in a position where she can’t start a trial before Election Day.

“Meaning, ice her,” said a person familiar with Trump’s trial schedule strategy. “Making it impossible for her to jam a trial down before the election, by things that are out of her control.”

…

“That’s the one that has the least consequence. He doesn’t face jail time even if convicted,” one person familiar with Trump’s legal approach told CNN.

Sounds like one of that man’s Attorneys At Lie.

More of the same

Luttig on the court’s “stunning overreach”.

Loose setting up a get-out-of-jail-free card for Darth Evader.