The judge assigned to Trump's Jan. 6 case is a tough punisher of Capitol rioters
The judge assigned to Trump's Jan. 6 case is a tough punisher of Capitol rioters
The federal judge assigned to the election fraud case against former President Donald Trump stands out as one of the toughest punishers of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol
The federal judge assigned to the election fraud case against former President Donald Trump stands out as one of the toughest punishers of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol
You're viewing a single thread.
In a memorable line from her ruling, Chutkan wrote, “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”
Other judges typically have handed down sentences that are more lenient than those requested by prosecutors. Chutkan, however, has matched or exceeded prosecutors' recommendations in 19 of her 38 sentences. In four of those cases, prosecutors weren't seeking any jail time at all.
“But to compare the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores a very real danger that the Jan. 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.”
Yeah, Trump’s in trouble.
Every time I hear a judge name a logical fallacy I cheer inside
I think this message supports the quote.
Here’s the quote with more context:
“Plaintiff does not acknowledge the deference owed to the incumbent President’s judgment. His position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power ‘exists in perpetuity,'” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in the ruling. “But Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President. He retains the right to assert that his records are privileged, but the incumbent President ‘is not constitutionally obliged to honor’ that assertion.”
That's a great way to get a mistrial for judicial bias... I know you love the sound bite... But God damn that sounds stupid for any judge to say. It's almost like she is trying to be as impartial as possible.
You do realize that he's basically on trial for trying to make himself a king, right? Her saying that wasn't hyperbole, it was a core issue.
It’s almost like she is trying to be as impartial as possible.
Why would being impartial lead to a mistrial?
Judicial Bias. A judge shouldn't be taking a side especially in decision. If she's shown to have show favoritism in her words or actions, that's pretty much an easy appeal... It's usually held until after the case (If the case goes in Trump's favor, they won't push for it, if it doesn't they can over turn it with a simple appeal).
Sure, but being impartial is the opposite of being biased.
Partial and impartial are antonyms, you've got em flipped.
What's a greater chance of judicial bias? This judge or the judge that Trump himself appointed? Because that's who he's in front of in Florida.
What is biased about stating Trump is not president and that he doesn't have presidential powers for life?