Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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.”
I hope she goes to town on the orange turd.
So, if Donnie is convicted of instigating the Jan-6 insurrection, could they they hit him with Felony Murder charges? People died as a direct result of the insurrection and D.C. has a Felony Murder rule.
He could face murder-like charges if he's held responsible for the "hang mike spence" thing, or the "tie-wraps attempt to kidbap thing, or the "death of Ashli while participating in his insurrection" thing. All of those happenned on January 6th for which he is responsible, and could be part of the conspiracy against rights charge.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person [...] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
I think the chain of causation would be a step too far removed. He isn't indicted for instigating the riots, but for the conspiracy around rigging the electoral count. The riots are implicated as one tool to pressure Pence. Sicknick's death would also be another step removed in that it is not as clear that it was a direct result of the riots (or at least it could be argued). Babbitt maybe but I don't know how DC handles death of confederates which is another wrinkle in the felony murder rule.
Source: got a B in criminal law
I would expect "conspiracy to commit" at the most.
I'm glad she is tough on the Jan 6 rioters. However, I want her to be impartial. If not then this will turn into a campaign tool for Trump. I already know he will use it as a tool anyways. But it will give those Republicans that are on the fence something to falsely claim as a righteous cause to vote for him.
Judges should be tough on treason. A bold statement, I know.
That's not bold or extreme. I want judges to treat him like anyone else that is up for treason.
We can't spend our lives afraid of what crazy people will say when we do the right thing.
I agree with being impartial of course. In terms of making him into a martyr of sorts, imo that ship has sailed. They're so delusional that they'll turn any possible outcome into a narrative where they were victims of some grand conspiracy. It's baffling what he can get away with while still receiving fanatic support.
That's brainwashing for you.
Pretty much any result or treatment where Trump isn't getting metaphorical and/or physical felatio is going to be called out as being biased against him. These people are in a cult, nothing we say or do is going to get them out of it until they have their Waco siege moment, which probably won't be great for the country.
What Republicans are still on the fence about this and wtf is wrong with them? Is this really a primary concern here?
If not then this will turn into a campaign tool for Trump.
We are well beyond that point right now. He has literally told his cult followers that he is being indicted for them.
His cult is a smaller part of people that say they are right leaning. The rest that are like Mitt Romney will side with him if the court turns into a mockery on both sides.
This is a very good stance to take on paper. But do you really think there will be any significant difference in Trump's campaigning regardless of outcome? The end result is completely meaningless in the grand scheme of the 2024 election, Trump supporters have already shown a dozen times over that there is literally nothing that could change their stance.
I just want to see him get the same treatment I would in his place.. He won't.. But I at least want him to sweat
This fills me with warm fuzzies.
Hopefully it’s not just wishful hope.
It’s probably wishful hope
I don't think there are too many black women out there that would be willing to be lenient on Donald Trump. Even his former friend Omarosa hates him.
Eh. I’m more concerned about what ever jury gets empaneled being split on partisan lines and him walking off because republicans voted not guilty just because.
They’re not exactly the most persuadable group (to be fair neither are ardent dems,)
Very legal and very cool
How are judges assigned in the US? Is it a random selection? Like, do they pull names out of a hat? (I'm pretty sure this was the legally prescribed way in some place)
IIRC it's rotational, and it changes after x amount of cases, or x amount of time, but the order is random.
I hope that this non-white female judge hands down clear and lasting damage to this sexist, racist narcissist.
I hope an impartial judge runs a clean trail, and hands down firm justice on criminals acting on a national scale.
Good
This may be an unpopular opinion but until he actually sees the inside of a jail cell, I find news like this to be very meh.
I mean, sure, the Jan 6 rioters have been getting some jail time after all this time.
But also, the guy who tweeted in response to Jan 6 that people should take up arms and DEFEND the country against insurrection was tried convicted and sentenced to 3 years by (October) of 2021. (Daniel Baker, for reference. The Floridian veteran.)
*edit October, not May. But still: arrested in January and was in solitary for months prior to being sentenced for 44 months.
