Indictment case judge

[Athetotheist]

Trump's indictment case has been given to a judge who was appointed by the defendant.*

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09/11813108 ... indictment

Should this judge recuse herself for her glaring conflict of interest in this case?


*As I understand it, she could be setting the trial date. Would it be before or----conveniently----after the '24 election?

[Avoice]

So instead it should be set on a date that would be mire beneficial for the democratic party?

You have a lot of nerve. What you are saying is that you hope the judge isnt like you. Because if you were judge yiud make sure it was before the 24th. Not a date based on court calender but political agenda.

You are a shining example of your party. Blame the other side for evil deeds that have only played out in your own mind

[boatsnguitars]

So instead it should be set on a date that would be mire beneficial for the democratic party?

You have a lot of nerve. What you are saying is that you hope the judge isnt like you. Because if you were judge yiud make sure it was before the 24th. Not a date based on court calender but political agenda.

You are a shining example of your party. Blame the other side for evil deeds that have only played out in your own mind

Are you a Trumper? I'm not finding many willing to talk about Trump nowadays.

What's your take on the issue? Do you feel it's a continuation of the alleged witch hunt?

[Athetotheist]

So instead it should be set on a date that would be mire beneficial for the democratic party?

You have a lot of nerve. What you are saying is that you hope the judge isnt like you. Because if you were judge yiud make sure it was before the 24th. Not a date based on court calender but political agenda.

You are a shining example of your party. Blame the other side for evil deeds that have only played out in your own mind

First, you seem to be presuming----erroneously----that I'm a Democrat (Surprise! Some of us aren't members of either major party!).

Second, it isn't about party politics. It's about this case, this judge, how this judge has handled cases before and what judges are supposed to do.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump ... nts-recuse

We have to stop letting ourselves be divided by party politics.

[boatsnguitars]

We have to stop letting ourselves be divided by party politics.

I disagree. I don't want to allow a party that demonizes gay people, liberals, women, etc.. Just because you can't decide what the right thing to do is, doesn't mean the rest of us sit on the fence and watch the abuse of millions of people.

The Government is a tool for "We The People" to get what we collectively want. Parties are factions within the people that try to gain support for their view. If you abdicate the power you have as an individual to join one side or the other, then a group will happily swoop into the vacuum you've created.

Power hungry people would be ecstatic if more people were like you.

No doubt, you feel that all you non-political types ought to get together and wield your power to get "Them" to stop grabbing power. It's a great thing to say "We should all be "Us" but who is going to stop "Them" from taking the power you hand to them?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #5

It's a great thing to say "We should all be "Us" but who is going to stop "Them" from taking the power you hand to them?

Certainly not the Democrats. Your heroes have handed more power to the GOP than you or I ever would----or could----on our own.

Abolishing the Senate filibuster would have paved the way for massive reforms, and their own VP----the president of the Senate----wouldn't cast her vote to do so because an unelected parliamentarian----with no authority----who could easily and legitimately have been overruled----didn't endorse the move.

Look at how much their POTUS himself gave away to strike a deal so his "Republican friends" wouldn't crash the economy over the debt ceiling.

The "opposition party" gave us coal baron Joe Manchin and Kyrsten "Anything-For-A-Corporate-Dollar" Sinema, even though the latter now hides behind the label "Independent" (it was then-Democrat Sinema, as I recall, who crooned about "bipartisan consensus" while thumbing her nose at the right thing to do).

In short, the D-party has fallen a long way since the days of "I-welcome-their-hatred" FDR.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #5

It's a great thing to say "We should all be "Us" but who is going to stop "Them" from taking the power you hand to them?

Certainly not the Democrats. Your heroes have handed more power to the GOP than you or I ever would----or could----on our own.

Abolishing the Senate filibuster would have paved the way for massive reforms, and their own VP----the president of the Senate----wouldn't cast her vote to do so because an unelected parliamentarian----with no authority----who could easily and legitimately have been overruled----didn't endorse the move.

Look at how much their POTUS himself gave away to strike a deal so his "Republican friends" wouldn't crash the economy over the debt ceiling.

The "opposition party" gave us coal baron Joe Manchin and Kyrsten "Anything-For-A-Corporate-Dollar" Sinema, even though the latter now hides behind the label "Independent" (it was then-Democrat Sinema, as I recall, who crooned about "bipartisan consensus" while thumbing her nose at the right thing to do).

In short, the D-party has fallen a long way since the days of "I-welcome-their-hatred" FDR.

And if the GOP took power, we'd let them run roughshod over laws in the absence of the fillabuster?

I don't see how you think Dems have allowed this, when they done everything they can to win within the rules. Changing the rules would have been disastrous.
The country would have rightly seen it as a power grab.

This is why it's so important to vote with knowledge.
Unfortunately young people don't vote, old crusty conservatives do. There are more Left leaning people in America, they just don't show up because they think there's no difference between the parties. Same thing happens ever election: voter suppression in the form of " both candidates are evil, so why vote?"

Nothing make the Right happier than hearing people say that. That's how they keep winning with the minority of America voting for them. They show up.

But, there is clearly a difference in parties.

We could go over bills to prove it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #7

And if the GOP took power, we'd let them run roughshod over laws in the absence of the fillabuster?

Is this the old "we-may-want-to-use-it-ourselves-someday" argument? If the Dems would just give the country what they promise, they wouldn't have to resort to tricks.

Changing the rules would have been disastrous.

Parliamentarians don't make rules. All they can make are recommendations. And the filibuster isn't in the Constitution, so getting rid of it wouldn't break any rule.

The country would have rightly seen it as a power grab.

Yeah----a power grab for the country and away from corporate interests.

Same thing happens ever election: voter suppression in the form of " both candidates are evil, so why vote?"

Nothing make the Right happier than hearing people say that. That's how they keep winning with the minority of America voting for them. They show up.

People don't show up for Democrats because they realize that Democrat leaders have abandoned them (how do you suppose members of the railworkers union are feeling right now?).

But, there is clearly a difference in parties.

We could go over bills to prove it.

Bills, shmills. It's easy to propose legislation, even if you know it won't pass because "those darn Republicans killed it with that unconstitutional filibuster we refused to get rid of!"

That seems to be what Democrats in Washington are banking on: getting re-elected by looking like they tried. Be honest----between the Democrat party's constituents and its corporate donors, who's been getting more of what they want?

Bills mean nothing.

Remember Build Back Better?

Neither does anyone else.

[boatsnguitars]

Bills mean nothing.

Remember Build Back Better?

Neither does anyone else.

The Build Back Better Plan or Build Back Better agenda was a legislative framework proposed by U.S. president Joe Biden between 2020 and 2021. Generally viewed as ambitious in size and scope, it sought the largest nationwide public investment in social, infrastructural, and environmental programs since the 1930s Great Depression-era policies of the New Deal.[1]

The Build Back Better plan was divided into three parts:

American Rescue Plan (ARP), a COVID-19 pandemic-relief bill;
American Jobs Plan (AJP), a proposal to address long-neglected infrastructure needs and reduce America's contributions to destructive effects of climate change;[2] and
American Families Plan (AFP), a proposal to fund a variety of social policy initiatives, some of which (e.g., paid family leave) had never before been enacted nationally in the U.S.[3]
The first part was passed as the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and was signed into law in March 2021.[4]

The other two parts were reworked into different bills over the course of extensive negotiations. Aspects of the AJP's infrastructure goals were diverted into the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was signed into law in November 2021.

Other AJP priorities (e.g., climate change remediation, home health care reform, etc.) were then merged with the AFP to form the Build Back Better Act.[5] The bill passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives but struggled to gain the support of Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona in the evenly divided Senate, with unified Republican opposition. Manchin and Sinema negotiated the reduction of Build Back Better Act's size, scope, and cost significantly with Biden and Democratic congressional leaders, but Manchin, widely viewed as the key swing vote needed to pass the bill in the Senate, ultimately rejected it over the procedural tactics used.[6]

Continued negotiations between Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer eventually resulted in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which was signed into law in August 2022, and incorporated some of the Build Back Better Act's climate change, healthcare, and tax reform proposals while excluding its social safety net proposals.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Plan


BBBP might not exist any more, but you wouldn't have gotten much at all if Dems didn't get done what they could. The fact that the public won't see this as good legislating (which it is) is the true crime, not that Dems arent grabbing power and acting unilaterally.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #9

BBBP might not exist any more, but you wouldn't have gotten much at all if Dems didn't get done what they could.

The Dems could have gotten a lot more done if they had dedicated themselves to abolishing the Senate filibuster----which they didn't do.