Trump's DC trial date set for March 4—one day before Super Tuesday

T. A. Gardner said:
Not true. Her sentencing of Jan 6 protesters usually has been outside of the federal guidelines. Her commentary on Jan 6 also shows a political bias.

Judge Chutkan Compares Jan. 6 to 9/11 Trials in Court
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ares-jan-6-to-911-trials-in-court/ar-AA1fYSnf

In Jan. 6 cases, 1 judge stands out as the toughest punisher
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-...s-sentencing-de394dd56b3251aac5a50014f4d6afa7

She has regularly ignored federal prosecutor recommendations on sentencing in plea deals and handed out far harsher sentences to Jan 6 defendants.

Judge in Trump Jan. 6 case is scion of Marxist revolutionaries
https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/judge-in-trump-jan-6-case-is-scion-of-marxists/

The Left doesn't deny any of that, but rather tries to excuse it...

Republicans Try To Discredit Judge In Trump’s Jan. 6 Case. Except They All Voted For Her.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-discredit-judge-trump-jan-6_n_64cbca84e4b03ad2b89d6f39

In fact, reading up on her, I'd say she is possibly the worst best choice the Left could make in a judge to 'get' Trump. What that means is her background, demeanor, and courtroom results to date on Jan 6 and related matters means that however Trump's trial with her ends, and a conviction from her is likely, it's going to be horribly for the prosecution come the inevitable appeal. Unlike the Jan 6 cases where the defendants almost always plead out rather than go to trial, with Trump going to trial an appeal is a certainty. I doubt her rulings will stand up to scrutiny based on performance to date.

Thus, the Left gets a brief win but loses in the end because they used a 'ringer' rather than accept a fair trial to get it.
Click to expand...

Judges are picked by random choice. The Dems did not pick Chutkan and the right did not select Cannon.
 
Nordberg said:
Judges are picked by random choice. The Dems did not pick Chutkan and the right did not select Cannon.
Click to expand...

I agree. But knowing the probability in a given jurisdiction of getting a sympathetic judge makes a difference. The classified documents case is weak. The case Chutkan is hearing has more to do with politics than law and she and a DC jury are more likely to convict regardless of evidence.
 
Port Tack said:
How does that mean that she is biased? Just like a rightwinger, fucking stupid. Just like the election was stolen because trump was in the lead and then Biden came back and beat him.
Click to expand...

You ignore how she rejects sentancing recommendations
 
ptif219 said:
You ignore how she rejects sentencing recommendations
Click to expand...
And?

Sentencing recommendations are just that. "Recommendations".

The Judge is not expected to stick to them. They are expected to use them to advise their decision when also considering if the crime deserves an upward or downward departure from the recommendations and Sentencing Guidelines.

A Judge who goes outside recommendations or guidelines knows that will be appealed so the premise of whether the decision and sentence is correct is ultimately in the hands of Appellate Court, senior judges and each and every time she has been tested in that way, her decisions have been upheld.


ptif219 said:
He did not believe them
Click to expand...
So? You do not get to hand pick your team of advisers (AG, WH Counsel, Cabinet, etc) and then just ignore them and instead side with Rudy and Kraken, because of what you want to believe.

Judges regularly instruct the Jury that 'willful ignorance IS NOT a defense' when it is clear the person was provided ample opportunity to understand the law from qualified sources.

...When a defendant is charged with a crime requiring knowledge of some fact, but the defendant deliberately avoided learning whether the fact in question obtained, it is common practice among federal courts to give so-called willful ignorance jury instructions.1 Such instructions tell the jury that it may find the knowledge element for the crime to be satisfied by the defendant's willful ignorance of the relevant fact (also called the inculpatory proposition)...
Click to expand...
... “willful blindness” or “deliberate indifference” instruction in many federal circuits, an ostrich instruction is a jury instruction given when a criminal defendant claims a lack of guilty knowledge about the crime but there is some evidence the defendant deliberately elected to remain ignorant to avoid confirmation....
Click to expand...

ptif219 said:
Read the links and see the truth
Click to expand...
I prefer to watch what happens in court and how the same Republi'cans' and their lawyers NEVER raise these accusations in a Court or anywhere where lying has consequences.
 
QP! said:
And?

Sentencing recommendations are just that. "Recommendations".

The Judge is not expected to stick to them. They are expected to use them to advise their decision when also considering if the crime deserves an upward or downward departure from the recommendations and Sentencing Guidelines.

A Judge who goes outside recommendations or guidelines knows that will be appealed so the premise of whether the decision and sentence is correct is ultimately in the hands of Appellate Court, senior judges and each and every time she has been tested in that way, her decisions have been upheld.


So? You do not get to hand pick your team of advisers (AG, WH Counsel, Cabinet, etc) and then just ignore them and instead side with Rudy and Kraken, because of what you want to believe.

Judges regularly instruct the Jury that 'willful ignorance IS NOT a defense' when it is clear the person was provided ample opportunity to understand the law from qualified sources.



I prefer to watch what happens in court and how the same Republi'cans' and their lawyers NEVER raise these accusations in a Court or anywhere where lying has consequences.
Click to expand...

Nice spin but this judge is throwing the book at jan6 defendants and will not be fair to Trump
 
ptif219 said:
Nice spin but this judge is throwing the book at jan6 defendants and will not be fair to Trump
Click to expand...

In fact, most of the insurrectionists are getting half the sentences the prosecutors asked for. They are being treated fairly. Trump was in charge of organizing 1-6. He should not be treated unfairly. It is not necessary. He is deeply involved,
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Nice spin but this judge is throwing the book at jan6 defendants and will not be fair to Trump
Click to expand...

As has been stated, most of these criminals are getting soft treatment. They are allowed to be out on bail at rates pending trial, completely out of the norm for Federal indictments. Their sentences are over whelming downward departures from where the prosecutor recommends. Even in jail, they are getting special treatment.


They perpetrated crimes in this country (insurrection) not seen since the civil war, so trying to apply precedent to sentencing is difficult as there is very little. Judges need to errr on the side heavier sentencing as these crimes are some of the most serious a country can face and thus should be setting the bar on the high side of all recommendations and precedent. These cases should be setting a new high bar.

This judge, will give Trump EXACTLY the fairness he deserves.
 
Nordberg said:
In fact, most of the insurrectionists are getting half the sentences the prosecutors asked for. They are being treated fairly. Trump was in charge of organizing 1-6. He should not be treated unfairly. It is not necessary. He is deeply involved,
Click to expand...

Stop your Democrat lies. They are treated with hate from the Democrats. They can't get a fair trial in Washington DC
 
QP! said:
As has been stated, most of these criminals are getting soft treatment. They are allowed to be out on bail at rates pending trial, completely out of the norm for Federal indictments. Their sentences are over whelming downward departures from where the prosecutor recommends. Even in jail, they are getting special treatment.


They perpetrated crimes in this country (insurrection) not seen since the civil war, so trying to apply precedent to sentencing is difficult as there is very little. Judges need to errr on the side heavier sentencing as these crimes are some of the most serious a country can face and thus should be setting the bar on the high side of all recommendations and precedent. These cases should be setting a new high bar.

This judge, will give Trump EXACTLY the fairness he deserves.
Click to expand...

Stop your lies some have been in jail over 2 years under inhumane condtions and still no trial
 
ptif219 said:
Stop your lies some have been in jail over 2 years under inhumane condtions and still no trial
Click to expand...

"some' but a much smaller percent than is the norm for Federal cases. And the 'inhumane conditions' are the norm in those places, but by all reports the Jan6th criminals are getting softer, and easier treatment than average.
 
QP! said:
"some' but a much smaller percent than is the norm for Federal cases. And the 'inhumane conditions' are the norm in those places, but by all reports the Jan6th criminals are getting softer, and easier treatment than average.
Click to expand...

More rants and opinions and no proof or facts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top