this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
306 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3090 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a motion from former President Trump asking her to recuse herself from overseeing his prosecution on charges related to his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

While writing that recusal motions served a vital purpose, “justice also demands that judges not recuse without cause,” she wrote, pointing to a prior court decision noting that recusal motions can be “a procedural weapon to harass opponents and delay proceedings.”

“Motions for recusal could also be wrongfully deployed as a form of ‘judge shopping,’” Chutkan wrote.

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 year ago

Chutkan also noted she had never made any comments on Trump’s culpability — noting it was his own attorneys who leaped to that conclusion.

“The court expressly declined to state who, if anyone, it thought should still face charges. It is the defense, not the court, who has assumed that the Defendant belongs in that undefined group.", she wrote.

An excellent own-goal, I rate it Four Seasons out of 4.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Chutkan is such a trifecta for Don. She’s 1) black; 2) a woman and 3) an immigrant

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 16 points 1 year ago
  1. in a position of power
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

it's like a hydra for xenophobia, Trump would have a hard time attacking all three in a single Tweet or Truth Social post.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

“The court expressly declined to state who, if anyone, it thought should still face charges. It is the defense, not the court, who has assumed that the Defendant belongs in that undefined group,” she wrote.

This was a nice touch. "You think I meant you? Is that a confession?"

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

"Can I get the Trump Supporting Activist that Rittenhouse got?... please?" - Trump

I fib. Trump would never say please.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to jail. If the crooked shits in the supreme Court don't have to recuse themselves from obvious conflicts of interest while those same interests service them from both ends then Trump can go fuck himself in his fetid greased up hemroid infested anus.

Traitorous bastard.

[–] laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Funny side note: I believe going to jail is considered a plus in competitive monopoly since while in jail you don't have to pay rent to anyone, but still collect rent.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Once you get your property sets with hotels and all property is owned there is no better place than jail.

[–] LarryTheMatador@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

noting that recusal motions can be “a procedural weapon to harass opponents and delay proceedings.”

I believe that’s lawyer for “get bent”

[–] clearedtoland@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

The equivalent of “Per my last email…”

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm actually surprised she gave it as much deference as she did. She could have denied the motion without considering it at all for not being timely. I'm glad she gave a thorough justification, but it's not like Trump supporters won't just claim she didn't. She could have written, "Too late, eat shit" on a damp cocktail napkin and it would have been just as effective.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

I’m not surprised, did you see that takedown from Smith regarding all the reasons why she shouldn’t recuse? I bet she knew something of that caliber was coming from him and was just waiting for him to deliver all the slamdunk justifications for “no.”

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Any judge that Trump would find 'not biased' are likely to be even worse- Sure, she's a democrat. but trump would insist on a republican. Probably one he directly appointed.

Given the insane amount of scrutiny... it's really not going to matter anyhow.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

She must be so fed up with his bullshit already...

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything associated with that cowardly piece of shit sleazeball turns into an absolute shit-show. How on earth did half of America get so fucking stupid?

[–] AssPennies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They (his supporters, some at all ranks) knew he was a lying, cheating, fraudulent, uncouth, and dishonorable piece of shit.

They also knew he would continue being the same piece of shit if/when he got into office, unapologetically cheating any way he could to get his way.

In fact, I think that's exactly why his supporters supported him. To hell with the law and democracy, gotta stick it to the dems.

With ever looming shutdowns now being threatened by an extremist right faction of idiots, I wonder if the gop masters are finally now realizing the chickens have come home to roost. The hate and idiocy stoked to get support for extremism is now going to affect the bottom line of billionaires (the US's credit rating is about to get cut, and being unstable is not good for business).

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Judge Tanya Chutkan denied a motion from former President Trump asking her to recuse herself from overseeing his prosecution on charges related to his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.

Chutaken’s decision comes after a Sept. 11 request from Trump asking her to step aside from the case, noting comments she had made while presiding over the sentencing hearings of two Jan. 6 defendants.

The ruling, however, argues that Trump’s legal team took her out of context in singling out a few comments made in response to arguments from prior defendants — including those blaming the “architects” of the riot — noting that she has an obligation to address each point for the record.

“The defense interprets the court’s verbal reiteration of Palmer and Priola’s arguments about their relative culpability as “suggest[ing]” a secret “core view” about Defendant’s criminality….That inferential leap is not reasonable in light of the relevant facts, record, and law,” Chutkan writes.

Here are the two passages Chutkan includes in her decision, offering fuller context on the remarks singled out by Trump's team, which are italicized.

“Instead, it was fulfilling its duty to expressly evaluate the defendants’ arguments that their sentences should be reduced because other individuals whom they believed were associated with the events of January 6 had not been prosecuted.”


The original article contains 589 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!