BREAKING: Trump's lawyers ask for Judge Tanya Chutkan to be removed from his DC J6 case

[BackAgain]

If there is a Statute of US CODE that is broken, then that's the crime allegedly broken and being indicted for.....

Not quite right. What we are seeing is an effort at force-fitting square pegs into round holes by these perfidious public persecutors.

Yes he is innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, by all 12 of the jury.

He is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. But it matters more that the persecutors cannot actually spell out any actual crimes. They can make insipid claims. But they are all missing the point.

The point is, as a partisan political public persecutor, you can’t simply claim “defendant” violated this law and that law by saying he did x, y and z without showing that x, y and z (even if performed by “defendant”) constitute a violation of this law or that law.

 

[Care4all]

You were most likely not dismissed because there was someone even more biased than you. The fact remains, this judge is heavily biased against Trump and should recuse herself or be removed. You don't really care about justice, you only care about persecuting your "Orange Man Bad!"

Yeah, yeah, yeah.....Every one is against trump and being unfair to him, the most persecuted man on earth, even more than Jesus Christ! ....that dog don't hunt anymore....

The boy cried wolf, one too many times....! Judge Curio, Alvin Bragg, the first Mara Lago Judge before Trump judge shopped for Judge Cannon, and a handful of others....

This was simply legal positioning....no one expects the judge to recuse herself.....

 

[Leo123]

Yes, I said that..... So, what does that have to do with a judge not determining guilt or innocence, and only the jury does?

She's made no unbiased moves, that any other judge would not have made. She's doing her job, of keeping the trial moving forward, of justice being completed and served, for both the defendant, and the victims.

Her biased moves were when she blabbed that she obviously thinks Trump is guilty. Why sit on a trial where you already proclaimed the Defendant guilty?

 

[okfine]

What triggered me was that she’s overseeing the case despite her documented bias

She’s free to have her bias, but shouldn’t be overseeing the case

Hah Ha Ha!

woulda shoulda coulda

Poor dear leader. Hah Ha Ha!

 

[BackAgain]

Hah Ha Ha!

woulda shoulda coulda

Poor dear leader. Hah Ha Ha!

Asslicker fume ^ is all-in on a miscarriage of Justice.

 

[Leo123]

Not quite right. What we are seeing is an effort at force-fitting square pegs into round holes by these perfidious public persecutors.

He is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. But it matters more that the persecutors cannot actually spell out any actual crimes. They can make insipid claims. But they are all missing the point.

The point is, as a partisan political public persecutor, you can’t simply claim “defendant” violated this law and that law by saying he did x, y and z without showing that x, y and z (even if performed by “defendant”) constitute a violation of this law or that law.

Fannie is trying to use RICO to take down Trump supporters in hopes they will 'flip' and agree Trump is guilty which may allow her to arrest Trump. It's a law that was used to get Mafia kingpins. She really has no precedent to use it like this except her own RICO prosecution of teachers faking test results. In Sept of 2022 this bitch (Willis) said Trump, Rudi and others should worry about getting prison time.

 

[okfine]

Asslicker fume ^ is all-in on a miscarriage of Justice.

TFB you can't save him, ass licker.

 

[BackAgain]

Fannie is trying to use RICO to take down Trump supporters in hopes they will 'flip' and agree Trump is guilty which may allow her to arrest Trump. It's a law that was used to get Mafia kingpins. She really has no precedent to use it like this except her own RICO prosecution of teachers faking test results.

Eventually, I’d expect a real judge to rein her dopey ass in.

 

[Leo123]

Eventually, I’d expect a real judge to rein her dopey ass in.

Yeah, the fat ass bitch flapped her fat lips too much.

 

[BackAgain]

TFB you can't save him,

Meh. He has good lawyers. And we have a generally credible appellate system.

You’re popping a boner for nothing. Once again, you’ll end up holding your own withered, diseased little pud.

 

[Synthaholic]

And none of the wingnuts will say shit about the refusal to recuse by Thomas and Alito in cases where there is proven conflict of interest.

 

[Leo123]

The more these cases against Trump come to light, the more it seems that Democrats never intended to actually prove anything. All they want to do bribe defendants with lighter prosecutions, make them flip on Trump so they have a negative nugget with which to stop Trump. If Trump were not running for POTUS, this would never happen. Democrats have become radical and corrupt.

 

[BackAgain]

And none of the wingnuts will say shit about the refusal to recuse by Thomas and Alito in cases where there is proven conflict of interest.

You’re the wingnut.

And there is no case of proven conflict of interest in the SCOTUS.

You remain a worthless hack bitch troll.

 

[okfine]

And none of the wingnuts will say shit about the refusal to recuse by Thomas and Alito in cases where there is proven conflict of interest.

New reporting about Leo, and the Thomas twins. Crooked mfr's.

 

[Synthaholic]

You’re the wingnut.

And there is no case of proven conflict of interest in the SCOTUS.

You remain a worthless hack bitch troll.

No one is surprised any longer at your complete ignorance.

 

[BackAgain]

No one is surprised any longer at your complete ignorance.

So. You’re still 0 for ever.

 

[Care4all]

Not quite right. What we are seeing is an effort at force-fitting square pegs into round holes by these perfidious public persecutors.

He is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. But it matters more that the persecutors cannot actually spell out any actual crimes. They can make insipid claims. But they are all missing the point.

The point is, as a partisan political public persecutor, you can’t simply claim “defendant” violated this law and that law by saying he did x, y and z without showing that x, y and z (even if performed by “defendant”) constitute a violation of this law or that law.

Nope! The GRAND JURY of 16-23 jurors decide by majority, if the US CODE Statute (Law) was broken or probable cause of being broken..... The grand jury was shown the x, y, and z in this case, for these alleged crimes.....and they indicted him, not the prosecutor.

 

[BackAgain]

Nope! The GRAND JURY of 16-23 jurors decide by majority, if the US CODE Statute (Law) was broken or probable cause of being broken.....

You’re in a dither. 12 out of the 16 to 23 grand jurors need to agree to indict. All that means is that they have concluded (based on their review of whatever evidence they have received and based on the law as explained by the prosecutor) whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and, if so, by the accused.

The grand jury was shown the x, y, and z in this case,

Were they? How would you know?

for these alleged crimes.....and they indicted him, not the prosecutor.

Of course they indicted. But that only means that based on the law — as explained to them by the prosecutors — they have found what they consider a reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed.

That doesn’t mean that there is — in reality — any real probable cause. That’s one of the reasons a grand jury presentment is supposed to be reviewed by the court.

Occasionally, a trial court will toss a flawed presentment and ensuing indictment. But when they don’t, if a trial jury convicts, such flaws can still get a conviction tossed on appeal.

 

[Synthaholic]

You’re in a dither. 12 out of the 16 to 23 grand jurors need to agree to indict. All that means is that they have concluded (based on their review of whatever evidence they have received and based on the law as explained by the prosecutor) whether there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and, if so, by the accused.

Were they? How would you know?

Of course they indicted. But that only means that based on the law — as explained to them by the prosecutors — they have found what they consider a reasonable cause to believe that a crime was committed.

That doesn’t mean that there is — in reality — any real probable cause. That’s one of the reasons a grand jury presentment is supposed to be reviewed by the court.

Occasionally, a trial court will toss a flawed presentment and ensuing indictment. But when they don’t, if a trial jury convicts, such flaws can still get a conviction tossed on appeal.

Give us a preview of the myriad excuses you will have when Trump is found guilty.

 

[Delldude]

Because he was of Hispanic decent....

Brings back fond memories of Miguel Estrada and Fat Ted.