Judge sets absurd trial date for Trump case

[Lisa558]

You know that on the start date, all there will be are a bunch of motions, right? Then there will be jury selection. I don't expect the actual trial to start until the summer.

It’s still a major distraction, set the day before Super Tuesday. This DA had more than two years to bring charges. Why did she only go forward after Trump declared his run?

Then, you say the actual trial will start in the summer - in the heat of the campaign? That makes the timing even more unacceptable.

This is all geared to keeping him from running an effective campaign, and to creating a distraction as to the corruption surrounding Biden.

 

[Toro]

 

[surada]

By targeting a trial date the day before elections, this further undermines all of the bullshit indictments and ultimately exposes the Democrats and their activist judiciary cronies as simply on a mission to prevent Trump from running.

All this should be settled before the election... Whether Trump is convicted or acquitted.

 

[surada]

It’s still a major distraction, set the day before Super Tuesday. This DA had more than two years to bring charges. Why did she only go forward after Trump declared his run?

Then, you say the actual trial will start in the summer - in the heat of the campaign? That makes the timing even more unacceptable.

This is all geared to keeping him from running an effective campaign, and to creating a distraction as to the corruption surrounding Biden.

Defendants don't set the trial dates.

 

[Lisa558]

All this should be settled before the election... Whether Trump is convicted or acquitted.

By a jury of Democrats who are determined to keep Trump from winning the election. Yeah, sounds like they’ll be fair. Not.

 

[Lisa558]

Defendants don't set the trial dates.

Defendants are entitled to time to prepare a defense - especially when he faces life in prison. If the activist, anti-Trump DA needed 2.5 years to prepare her evidence, Trump should get 2.5 years to prepare his defense.

This is like a 1930s style trial of a black man by a jury and judge of KKK members.

 

[Oldestyle]

What date would you suggest? Three days after never?

The way I see it. There are no good dates. Trump made the choice to run while being under multiple investigations.There are no good options. If there aren't any good options you do what's right.

The judge asked Lauro on multiple occasions to suggest another date. A date that didn't lay 3 years in the future. Lauro refused to budge. So the judge did what any judge does. She ruled.

Maybe a good idea if you want to run for president is not commit crimes. That way you won't get indicted.

Another good idea would not file a completely unreasonable court date when asked when to go to trail.

Maybe it isn't the best idea to go after the prosecutor the day that you have to get the judge to rule favorably on your motion.

Come to think about it. Maybe it isn't a good idea to use as a precedent for a white billionaire asking not to appear in court for years. A case where 2 black people were indicted and stood trial 6 days later, while being incarcerated and without being able to ask for a lawyer.

But hey "it's a leftist plot" works better than the notion that Trump and Trump's lawyer rather plead on TV and social media than in court.

Simple question for you then, Fork. Why is it SO important to you on the left that Trump IS brought to trial before the primaries? You're claiming that this is just "business as usual" that the Democrats have used the courts in a way that's never been done before in the very long history of the country and that anyone who questions the process is a conspiracy theorist? Those same prosecutors wait over two years to bring the charges against Trump and then get together with the White House to coordinate on the dates but you don't see a problem?

People like you are so focused on "getting" Trump that you don't seem to grasp that the precedent you're setting for going after political opponents is something we've NEVER done before in America and for good reason! Let's be blunt here. Trump didn't attempt a coup. He questioned an election...something that's been done REPEATEDLY over the years! He had documents in his possession that may or may not have been classified. Again, that is something that has been a bone of contention with multiple Presidents including the one currently sitting in the Oval Office! So what's really behind these law suits? Is it the seeking of "justice"? Or it using the courts in an attempt to hamstring your political opponent?

 

[surada]

Defendants are entitled to time to prepare a defense - especially when he faces life in prison. If the activist, anti-Trump DA needed 2.5 years to prepare her evidence, Trump should get 2.5 years to prepare his defense.

This is like a 1930s style trial of a black man by a jury and judge of KKK members.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Look at all the Stalinist cock suckers celebrating this un-American BULLSHIT!!!!
Unbelievable!

 

[Lisa558]

Look at all the Stalinist cock suckers celebrating this un-American BULLSHIT!!!!
Unbelievable!

Sad seeing the decline of Americans who are not only accepting if this travesty, but cheering it on.

 

[LeftofLeft]

All this should be settled before the election... Whether Trump is convicted or acquitted.

It should be. An activist judge blatantly targeting a date day prior to elections only undermines the validity of the multiple indictments.

 

[Faun]

Your "justice" is bootlicking power. That's what you support.

Poor baby.

 

[Faun]

So now you're willing to admit that his family HAS committed crimes, Faun?
I hate to break this to you but there is no way in the world that your family takes in twenty million dollars going to 9 different members and you don't know about it! Joe Biden knew what was happening and he was in it up to his scrawny little neck!

A pity you have no proof Joe was involved. Maybe some day.

 

[Faun]

Even those phone calls! What father takes 20 phone calls from his son when the son is meeting with business partners - just to talk about the weather? And what son dials in his daddy even ONCE when he’s meeting with business partners?

Joe not only knew….he enabled it.

Who doesn't take a phone call from their kids unless they themselves are busy at the moment?

 

[Faun]

Defendants are entitled to time to prepare a defense - especially when he faces life in prison. If the activist, anti-Trump DA needed 2.5 years to prepare her evidence, Trump should get 2.5 years to prepare his defense.

This is like a 1930s style trial of a black man by a jury and judge of KKK members.

He has like 6 months.

 

[Faun]

Simple question for you then, Fork. Why is it SO important to you on the left that Trump IS brought to trial before the primaries? You're claiming that this is just "business as usual" that the Democrats have used the courts in a way that's never been done before in the very long history of the country and that anyone who questions the process is a conspiracy theorist? Those same prosecutors wait over two years to bring the charges against Trump and then get together with the White House to coordinate on the dates but you don't see a problem?

People like you are so focused on "getting" Trump that you don't seem to grasp that the precedent you're setting for going after political opponents is something we've NEVER done before in America and for good reason! Let's be blunt here. Trump didn't attempt a coup. He questioned an election...something that's been done REPEATEDLY over the years! He had documents in his possession that may or may not have been classified. Again, that is something that has been a bone of contention with multiple Presidents including the one currently sitting in the Oval Office! So what's really behind these law suits? Is it the seeking of "justice"? Or it using the courts in an attempt to hamstring your political opponent?

There's 4 trials. He could be in trial between now and and 2025 or later.

 

[Magnus]

Just exactly what am I whining about?


Wrong. Your horseshit gets very, very old.

Senility hit early, eh? Thoughts & prayers.

 

[forkup]

Simple question for you then, Fork. Why is it SO important to you on the left that Trump IS brought to trial before the primaries? You're claiming that this is just "business as usual" that the Democrats have used the courts in a way that's never been done before in the very long history of the country and that anyone who questions the process is a conspiracy theorist? Those same prosecutors wait over two years to bring the charges against Trump and then get together with the White House to coordinate on the dates but you don't see a problem?

People like you are so focused on "getting" Trump that you don't seem to grasp that the precedent you're setting for going after political opponents is something we've NEVER done before in America and for good reason! Let's be blunt here. Trump didn't attempt a coup. He questioned an election...something that's been done REPEATEDLY over the years! He had documents in his possession that may or may not have been classified. Again, that is something that has been a bone of contention with multiple Presidents including the one currently sitting in the Oval Office! So what's really behind these law suits? Is it the seeking of "justice"? Or it using the courts in an attempt to hamstring your political opponent?

Let's be blunt

I like blunt. Blunt implies no BS. Let's see.

Why is it SO important to you on the left that Trump IS brought to trial before the primaries?

I can't speak for all the left but I will speak for myself. I believe Trump is a danger to Democracy. So anything that happens to him so he doesn't become president is a good thing. That's why I would like it to happen before he possibly gets elected. Much like you I presume don't want it to happen before the election.

Now let's think those 2 facts through. I'm willing to risk 1 juror saying not guilty, something that will undoubtedly help Trump's cause. While you are unwilling to risk that 12 jurors unanimously decide he's guilty.

Doesn't that kind of imply that neither of us believe Trump is truly innocent?

anyone who questions the process is a conspiracy theorist?

People questioning a process doesn't make a person a conspiracy theorist. I question the process all the time. You become a conspiracy theorist when you are unwilling to contemplate being wrong even when all the evidence points to it.

In other words a conspiracy theorist is dogmatic.

Argue your point reasonably and I'll listen to it honestly.

Those same prosecutors wait over two years to bring the charges against Trump

First off. Investigations takes time. I would argue investigating a former president takes extra time, precisely because you want to be absolutely certain you can get a conviction.

Second, NARA asked for more than a year for the documents back before it turned into this.

then get together with the White House to coordinate on the dates

This is what I would call a conspiracy.

Smith interviewed a witness AT the White House.

You simply assume it was for the purpose of coordination.

People like you are so focused on "getting" Trump that you don't seem to grasp that the precedent you're setting for going after political opponents

I'm not found of the precedent myself. On the other hand I believe in law and order. In my view he committed crimes.

So I have 2 competing precedents. Both are unpleasant.

I can choose the precedent that allows for a sitting president presiding over a DOJ that goes after his predecessor and future opponent. Or I can choose the precedent that would amount to immunity for previous presidents and front runner for the GOP and the Democratic party.

Both options suck so I'll choose the one that doesn't involve me trying to excuse crimes.

Trump didn't attempt a coup. He questioned an election.

You question an election in court. He did so 65 times.

Distributing a false document in order to contest that election is not that. Pressuring the Vice-president to unilaterally reject the certification isn't that. Pressuring governors to find you votes isn't that. Breaking in to election offices and copying data from election machines isn't that.

He had documents in his possession that may or may not have been classified. Again, that is something that has been a bone of contention with multiple Presidents

He had documents in his possession that WHERE classified. Signalled by its CLASSIFICATION MARKINGS. And the contention isn't that he HAD documents. The contention is that he KEPT documents even though the government wanted them back and that in order to do so he both lied and tried to hide them.

 

[Oldestyle]

I like blunt. Blunt implies no BS. Let's see.

I can't speak for all the left but I will speak for myself. I believe Trump is a danger to Democracy. So anything that happens to him so he doesn't become president is a good thing. That's why I would like it to happen before he possibly gets elected. Much like you I presume don't want it to happen before the election.

Now let's think those 2 facts through. I'm willing to risk 1 juror saying not guilty, something that will undoubtedly help Trump's cause. While you are unwilling to risk that 12 jurors unanimously decide he's guilty.

Doesn't that kind of imply that neither of us believe Trump is truly innocent?

People questioning a process doesn't make a person a conspiracy theorist. I question the process all the time. You become a conspiracy theorist when you are unwilling to contemplate being wrong even when all the evidence points to it.

In other words a conspiracy theorist is dogmatic.

Argue your point reasonably and I'll listen to it honestly.

First off. Investigations takes time. I would argue investigating a former president takes extra time, precisely because you want to be absolutely certain you can get a conviction.

Second, NARA asked for more than a year for the documents back before it turned into this.

This is what I would call a conspiracy.

Smith interviewed a witness AT the White House.

You simply assume it was for the purpose of coordination.

I'm not found of the precedent myself. On the other hand I believe in law and order. In my view he committed crimes.

So I have 2 competing precedents. Both are unpleasant.

I can choose the precedent that allows for a sitting president presiding over a DOJ that goes after his predecessor and future opponent. Or I can choose the precedent that would amount to immunity for previous presidents and front runner for the GOP and the Democratic party.

Both options suck so I'll choose the one that doesn't involve me trying to excuse crimes.


You question an election in court. He did so 65 times.

Distributing a false document in order to contest that election is not that. Pressuring the Vice-president to unilaterally reject the certification isn't that. Pressuring governors to find you votes isn't that. Breaking in to election offices and copying data from election machines isn't that.


He had documents in his possession that WHERE classified. Signalled by its CLASSIFICATION MARKINGS. And the contention isn't that he HAD documents. The contention is that he KEPT documents even though the government wanted them back and that in order to do so he both lied and tried to hide them.

Who determines that a former President has committed a "crime"? The President in power who will be running against said former President? Do you not grasp how allowing that would lead to election interference, Fork? What's happening right now poses the biggest threat to democracy in our country that I've seen in my lifetime. It's not even close! But you think that a former President having some documents in his possession that the National Archive wants is a bigger crisis than THAT? Seriously?

 

[Faun]

Who determines that a former President has committed a "crime"? The President in power who will be running against said former President? Do you not grasp how allowing that would lead to election interference, Fork? What's happening right now poses the biggest threat to democracy in our country that I've seen in my lifetime. It's not even close! But you think that a former President having some documents in his possession that the National Archive wants is a bigger crisis than THAT? Seriously?

And so your solution for a president who committed crimes is to place them above the law and not face justice?