There is no way Judge Chutkan can objectively oversee Jack Smith's J6 case against Trump.

[MAGA Macho Man]

Article II., Sect. 3 of the Constitution and the SCOTUS state that the President can say or do what he deems necessary to achieve an agreement or consensus of decisions without recourse. Subject matter is not specified. Judge Chutkan is wrong and she needs to be recused from the case.

 

[Esdraelon]

They've demonstrated their lack of concern for following the law. He has asked for her recusal and for a change of venue. Unless SCOTUS steps in and grants them, he will have to stand for a Soviet-style show trial and guaranteed conviction. THEN they'll try to claim he is disqualified from holding the office again. This trial will be a bad joke but if SCOTUS refuses to correct the constitutional issues, it will spell the end of freedom without a revolution.

 

[multivita-man]

Article II., Sect. 3 of the Constitution and the SCOTUS state that the President can say or do what he deems necessary to achieve an agreement or consensus of decisions without recourse. Subject matter is not specified. Judge Chutkan is wrong and she needs to be recused from the case.

Mmmm, something tells me that you and your source lack the expertise needed to comment credibly on the matter.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Article II., Sect. 3 of the Constitution and the SCOTUS state that the President can say or do what he deems necessary to achieve an agreement or consensus of decisions without recourse. Subject matter is not specified. Judge Chutkan is wrong and she needs to be recused from the case.

She can and she will...and unless you've been asleep, Trump is no longer President. He is a private citizen. Therefore subject to any ruling the judge lays down.
He keeps his mouth shut about his pending issues, the people involved in them, and stop issuing threats whether specific or vague.

He's free and clear to campaign, smear his Democrat opponent (even though he hasn't paid a lick of attention to the people he actually has to run against to get there), and outline his vision for America in his next possible presidency.

 

[multivita-man]

They've demonstrated their lack of concern for following the law. He has asked for her recusal and for a change of venue.

No basis for either request. The judge has no apparent conflict of interest and there is no reason to believe that the voir dire process can't be used to find 12 jurors across Washington, DC who can judge Trump impartially. You all say bullshit like there's no way he can get a fair trial in diverse, multi-ethnic Washington, DC so let's move this case to rural West Virginia -- like we don't know what you're implying when you all bat that kind of bullshit around.

But whatever, it is unlikely to happen. If the case does get moved to a different venue, I seriously doubt it would be West Virginia but more likely Northern Virginia or Maryland. But I doubt it gets moved at all, so brace yourselves.

Unless SCOTUS steps in and grants them, he will have to stand for a Soviet-style show trial and guaranteed conviction.

This case probably won't happen until at least a year from now and I would bet it wouldn't actually happen until after the election. I'm just basing that on other high-profile federal criminal trials such as the trial of Jeff Skilling and Tim McVeigh, both of which weren't resolved for nearly 2 years after the indictment. The Pittsburgh guy who killed those Jews committed his crimes almost 5 years ago and was just recently convicted and sentenced. So we're a long way from done. You will likely get your election in before he is tried and convicted, and if he wins, then it'll never happen.

The bigger issue, IMO, is can he keep his mouth shut and not get his sorry ass thrown in jail for contempt of court.

THEN they'll try to claim he is disqualified from holding the office again. This trial will be a bad joke but if SCOTUS refuses to correct the constitutional issues, it will spell the end of freedom without a revolution.

Dude, chill out and pour yourself a bourbon. You're losing it.

 

[dudmuck]

Article II., Sect. 3 of the Constitution and the SCOTUS state that the President can say or do what he deems necessary to achieve an agreement or consensus of decisions without recourse. Subject matter is not specified. Judge Chutkan is wrong and she needs to be recused from the case.

Article 2, section 3 also says

At a minimum, the Clause means that the President may neither breach federal law nor order his or her subordinates to do so, for defiance cannot be considered faithful execution.


Trump was saying he had unlimited power back in 2019, so this was all hashed out then.

 

[Clipper]

She can and she will...and unless you've been asleep, Trump is no longer President. He is a private citizen. Therefore subject to any ruling the judge lays down.
He keeps his mouth shut about his pending issues, the people involved in them, and stop issuing threats whether specific or vague.

He's free and clear to campaign, smear his Democrat opponent (even though he hasn't paid a lick of attention to the people he actually has to run against to get there), and outline his vision for America in his next possible presidency.

Trump has no "vision" because he's a criminal psychopath looking for revenge.

 

[Blaster]

Move the trial to West Virginia for an impartial jury.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Article II., Sect. 3 of the Constitution and the SCOTUS state that the President can say or do what he deems necessary to achieve an agreement or consensus of decisions without recourse. Subject matter is not specified. Judge Chutkan is wrong and she needs to be recused from the case.

This is not going to be a good time for you.

 

[Clipper]

They've demonstrated their lack of concern for following the law. He has asked for her recusal and for a change of venue. Unless SCOTUS steps in and grants them, he will have to stand for a Soviet-style show trial and guaranteed conviction. THEN they'll try to claim he is disqualified from holding the office again. This trial will be a bad joke but if SCOTUS refuses to correct the constitutional issues, it will spell the end of freedom without a revolution.

He has no grounds to demand this Judge's recusal. Trump is scared shitless of this Judge because he knows she won't put up with any of his deranged psycho horseshit. I'll tell you one thing. Any other defendant who behaves the way fuckface Trump has would have their bail revoked & locked up till trial, which is what Trump deserves. He's a domestic terrorist.

Why isn't that no good fuck asking for judge Cannon's recusal?

 

[Doc7505]

Trum has no "vision" because he's a criminal psychopath looking for revenge.

~~~~~~
Retribution and revenge are both related to the concept of justice, but they have different meanings. Retribution refers to the act of punishing someone for their wrongdoing, usually in a formal and legal context. Revenge, on the other hand, is more personal and emotional, and refers to the act of seeking retaliation or retribution against someone who has wronged you.
There`s no doubt in the minds of Americans that retribution for the wrongs heaped those incarcerated for protesting on Jan 6th and president Trump is necessary.

 

[Lesh]

Article 2, section 3 also says

At a minimum, the Clause means that the President may neither breach federal law nor order his or her subordinates to do so, for defiance cannot be considered faithful execution.


Trump was saying he had unlimited power back in 2019, so this was all hashed out then.

All of this concerns actions that occurred AFTER he was no longer President

Oops

 

[Clipper]

~~~~~~
Retribution and revenge are both related to the concept of justice, but they have different meanings. Retribution refers to the act of punishing someone for their wrongdoing, usually in a formal and legal context. Revenge, on the other hand, is more personal and emotional, and refers to the act of seeking retaliation or retribution against someone who has wronged you.
There`s no doubt in the minds of Americans that retribution for the wrongs heaped those incarcerated for protesting on Jan 6th and president Trump is necessary.

I don't give a shit what Trump's MAGA cult bleeeeeves. Those incarcerated for J6 are in prison because they were found guilty by a jury or they pled guilty. Which is what Trump is headed for.

We are a Country of laws. Don't like it? Tough shit.

 

[MinTrut]

They've demonstrated their lack of concern for following the law. He has asked for her recusal and for a change of venue. Unless SCOTUS steps in and grants them, he will have to stand for a Soviet-style show trial and guaranteed conviction. THEN they'll try to claim he is disqualified from holding the office again. This trial will be a bad joke but if SCOTUS refuses to correct the constitutional issues, it will spell the end of freedom without a revolution.

This country is in serious fucking trouble.

The Democrats/liberals want that trouble and much, much worse - they’re Nazi psychopaths.

Decent conservatives, Republicans, independents and the left do not want to see this country go up, and then down, in flames..

May God help us.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Article II., Sect. 3 of the Constitution and the SCOTUS state that the President can say or do what he deems necessary to achieve an agreement or consensus of decisions without recourse. Subject matter is not specified. Judge Chutkan is wrong and she needs to be recused from the case.

Trump's legal team has called for recusal...

The court filing cites a remark Chutkan made at a 2022 sentencing hearing for a Capitol riot defendant in which she suggested that the rioter was motivated by 'blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.'

Judge is supposed to be impartial.

Trump files motion to DISQUALIFY Judge Chutkan from election case

Trump argued that Chutkan's prior statements appearing to refer to Trump's role in influencing the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters raise questions about her impartiality.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[multivita-man]

Judge Chutkan has been more than fair.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Trump's legal team has called for recusal...

And? That means two things: Jack and Shit.

Legally, Trump ain't in Kansas any more.

 

[MinTrut]

Trump's legal team has called for recusal...

The court filing cites a remark Chutkan made at a 2022 sentencing hearing for a Capitol riot defendant in which she suggested that the rioter was motivated by 'blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.'

Judge is supposed to be impartial.

Trump files motion to DISQUALIFY Judge Chutkan from election case

Trump argued that Chutkan's prior statements appearing to refer to Trump's role in influencing the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters raise questions about her impartiality.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Yup.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Yup.

Too bad.

 

[Votar Roja]

Article II., Sect. 3 of the Constitution and the SCOTUS state that the President can say or do what he deems necessary to achieve an agreement or consensus of decisions without recourse. Subject matter is not specified. Judge Chutkan is wrong and she needs to be recused from the case.

Agreed.