Posted on 09/27/2023 4:41:47 PM PDT by Ciaphas Cain
Source won't allow for copying/pasting. Click here for article.
I think the judiciary is well past being de-legitimized.
With Roberts doing some of the things he’s done. Kennedy and his gay marriage thing.
Of course, all the judges, save one, involved in all of these other cases that Pres Trump is involved in. The most prominent, for now, who just said that Mar A Lago is only worth $18million.
Then the judge that wouldn’t let Pres Trump put up any kind of defense against that insane woman.
And then there’s the Sullivan(?) guy in regards to what he did to Gen Flynn.
All of the 9th Circuit. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The judge that dismissed, with prejudice, the Tennessee lawsuit against Soetero and healthcare for illegals.
Yeah....pretty much all of them.
Bingo!!!
A higher court should make her.
Time for an Anthony Scalia type retreat, to a remote lodge somewhere.
I hope she realizes millions of eyes are on her... And we’re getting pretty damn pissed off.
That doesn’t happen to liberal judges.
But, a woman that pretty much bought her ‘seat’, is rabidly and publicly anti-Trump and they let her oversee a trial.
Truly Banana Republic sh*t.
“Talk to the hand!”
Problem of going to link solved.
By Ryan J. Reilly
WASHINGTON — The federal judge overseeing former President
Donald Trump’s election interference case in Washington has denied his request that she recuse herself because of her comments in criminal cases against other Jan. 6 defendants.
[snip]
Chutkan wrote that she “has never taken the position the defense ascribes to it: that former ‘President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned.” Trump faces charges in four separate indictments.
‘This case is one of two federal cases being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, who was named in November.
“Based on its review of the law, facts, and record, the court concludes that a reasonable observer would not doubt its ability to uphold that promise in this case,” Chutkan wrote.
NBC News ^ | September 27, 2023 | Captain Obvious
Chutkan wrote that she has “’never taken the position” that former President Donald Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned, as Trump’s team claimed.
WASHINGTON — The federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in Washington has denied his request that she recuse herself because of her comments in criminal cases against other Jan. 6 defendants.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in her opinion that her comments in other Jan. 6 cases, which Trump’s team took issue with, “reflect the information and arguments presented by the defense in each case.”
Chutkan wrote that she “has never taken the position the defense ascribes to it: that former ‘President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned.’” Trump faces charges in four separate indictments. This case is one of two federal cases being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith, who was named in November.
“Based on its review of the law, facts, and record, the court concludes that a reasonable observer would not doubt its ability to uphold that promise in this case,” Chutkan wrote.
If this was a judge residing over a case concerning the Clinton Foundation that had said things about Clintons guilt and refused to recuse, you would be sure a tree would have jumped in front of her car while she was driving down a country road by now.
She can’t objectively determine whether or not she’s objective. The decision shouldn’t be hers to make.
Most Courthouses in America, or at least around here, have what’s generally called a “Presiding Judge” who would “normally” order, not request, a judge with a conflict to step aside. He then would “order” another judge to replace her.
That said, it’s “usually” not a problem. Meaning most judges with conflicts voluntarily step aside.
I predict she will get replaced but I also think the whole case is going to get wiped out or paused indefinitely.
I call her Sh!tkan
...😣 that little b* tch 😆
This assures two things:
1. Trump will be convicted.
2. It will be overturned on appeal.
Agreed
She can’t recuse herself and allow fair judicial review because that is not the aim of this lawfare.
Why should she...when it gives her the opportunity to show us all how much of a B!tch she is.
One of MANY from the corrupt Judges.
Make that a Bonetch.
Tanya is Black
Political analysis
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.