Meanwhile it was great, even surreal, to see LYZ CHENEY with KAMALA in WISCONSIN.....wow...impressive moment........a strong and courageous woman who stands for what she believes....BRAVO MADAME.
Towards the presidential run of 2024
- Thread starter sene5hos
- Start date
- Status
..and U.S. economy added 250K jobs in September.......beating expectations.....and inflation getting more more under control......only good news for the ticket.
That's exactly right. Biden didn't cause the post covid worldwide inflation. Trump and MAGA Republicans are always looking for someone to blame to gain a political edge. They have no solutions just grievances, and their hapless supporters stupidly accept the promise that trump will fix everything.
Interesting infos on Youtube about Trump administration response on natural disasters.
The infos come from officials working at the time.
Simply, he tried to withhold aid from victims who didn't vote for him.
After the huge forest fires in California, he didn't want to help because California was a Democrat state. In 2019, after a huricane caused disaster in Florida, Ron de Santis asked for more help.
Trump told : " they love me in the Panhandle. I must have 90 percent of the vote out there. Huge crowds. What do they need ? On March 9, 2019, trump signed an order directing FEMA to pay 100 percent of most disaster costs in Florida.
So true. Trump was not, and will not be, a president for all of America - just for MAGA America, the rich, big corporations, his cronies, and for himself.
Not true. When I read your post I knew if true it would have been a blatant violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A Judge made the decision to do so.
Whether Judge Chuktan violated the 60 Day Quiet Rule is unknown, as I haven't studied the Canon of Judicial Ethics. I suspect Trump's counsel may file a grievance. I would. The rule is the rule, doesn't matter who is running for President. You don't get to interfere with elections in this fashion.
Trump claims new Jack Smith filing is election interference. Here's how it became public.
Former President Donald Trump accused special counsel Jack Smith of election interference over a new filing in his federal case. Here's what really happened.
Last edited:
And when an individual has been indicted and criminally charged, it doesn't matter that the defendant is running for office or not. No one is above the law, or should get special treatment, including this defendant.Not true. When I read your post I knew if true it would have been a blatant violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A Judge made the decision to do so.
Whether Judge Chuktan violated the 60 Day Quiet Rule is unknown, as I haven't studied the Canon of Judicial Ethics. I suspect Trump's counsel may file a grievance. I would. The rule is the rule doesn't matter who is running for President.
Trump claims new Jack Smith filing is election interference. Here's how it became public.
Former President Donald Trump accused special counsel Jack Smith of election interference over a new filing in his federal case. Here's what really happened.www.yahoo.com
I think what Fradi meant is that your credibility took a hit since your lunacies has been exposed.
Sais the most credible poster in this thread !
A criminally charged defendant gets equal treatment of the law in the courtroom. So you are comparing apples and oranges. Upholding the law on election interference which has been propounded by the DOJ means whomever is running, and whether you like their positions or not. That is NOT special treatment. That is called applying laws and rules to everyone- criminally charged defendants and those running for office, who are entitled to be free of election interferences that the law does not allow.
Trump was indicted in 2023 for conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Prosecuting trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election that he lost and illegally stay in power is NOT election interference just because he is running for office in 2024. Any 1st year law student would know that.
You clearly don't understand the legal issue. Prosecuting him isn't election interference. Releasing information gathered during the prosecution which the law prevents from being released is the election interference. It's not supposed to happen. No other criminal defendant would have that happen and Trump deserves the same treatment as any criminal defendant. It would be an automatic dismissal for almost any other ordinary criminal defendant and none of you seem to understand this. So when you guys get charged with crimes we get a free pass in releasing whatever information was collected on you by the prosecutor? That's not the way it works.
By the way first year law school tests your ability to spot, understand and analyze legal issues. Your last post would have received a failing grade from my constitutional law professor.
Last edited:
Trump has repeatedly claimed that prosecuting him for election interference is election interference. It is not. Trump is also claiming that Smith's new filing is election interference. It is not. It was judge Chutkan who made the decision to unseal the filing that is within her judicial authority. That decision is not election interference either. Chatkan has made it clear that trump's run for office will have no impact on the case. The so-called 60 day rule doesn't apply to judges or apply to pending cases. Obviously your interpretation of the law is at variance with the federal district judge who is presiding over this trial. Consequently your partisan objection has been overruled.
It was completely a partisan decision and not a legal one. She didn't have to do what she did except to garner partisan favor. This is why many people are disgusted by partisan politics, including myself. Any right minded Judge, bound or not, respects the rule and leaves it alone. It's a dangerous precedent that is set that gets used in future election cycles when a Republican Judge does the same thing to a Democratic candidate under some prosecution. These are perversions of the law by those hoping to gain partisan favor that most people can see. As I have already said partisan politics simply discourages problem solving in favor of demonstrating loyalty to a predetermined agenda. This is how we are slowly devolving as a society and nobody even sees it any more.
Last edited:
Once again you're assuming facts not in evidence. It's only your opinion, based on your personal partisan politics, that the judge was motivated by partisan politics. It's her court, her trial, and her decision to unseal the brief. She has made it abundantly clear that the fact that the defendant is running for office is irrelevant to how she manages the case. Trying to overturn the 2020 election and illegally stay in power is far more detrimental to society and democracy than the unsealing of a legal brief.
Which makes it abundantly clear that there is no reason for her to release that information other than partisan politics. Information collected by the prosecutiion is supposed to stay in Court 100% of the time. It does not need to be released if someone wants to give the defendant a fair trial. I am not just talking about this case, it's true for any criminal case. The whole point of voir dire is to get rid of jurors who have been poisoned by what they have read about a particular case, or about a particular issue or a person that is part of a trial.
You are accusing me of partisanship and your posts on this subject are beyond ridiculously, intensely partisan. I am not a registered Republican or Democrat, never have been, never would be and the only time I have not voted for a 3rd party candidate in the last 35 years was Obama in 2008. When was the last time you did not vote for whatever body the Democrats ran?
Last edited:
The indictments against trump have been unsealed. How is the judge unsealing a brief in support of the unsealed indictment any different? Even the defendant said on the campaign trail that there's nothing new in the brief. Of course he also went on to call it "election interference", so he's clearly confused. I'm a registered independent voter like you so I guess, using your logic, I can't be partisan.
A brief is simply a recitation of legal authorities, and is completely different. Most members of the public would find them too boring to read, and would not get past page 1.
Speaking of electton interference, Biden has tacitly accused Netanyahu of it:
www.bbc.com
Biden: I don't know if Netanyahu is trying to sway US election
Some Democrats accuse Israel's PM of holding off on agreeing a Gaza ceasefire deal for political reasons.
www.bbc.com
So only a partisan would object to it being unsealed, right? It cites the legal authority in support of the unsealed indictment.
- Status
Similar threads
