(08-07-2023 12:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 11:43 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:To give you an idea of just how unfair Judge Chutkan is when dealing with conservatives...

In the four January 6th cases in which prosecutors did NOT seek any jail time, Judge Chutkan still ordered jail times ranging from 14 days to 45 days.

Overall, one-third of the J6 defendants have received zero jail time. But of the 38 defendants whose cases Chutkan has handled, ALL of them received jail or prison time.

Associated Press has described her as the "number one punisher" of J6 defendants.

And now, she only gave Trump's legal team 1 business day to respond to Jack Smith's proposed gag order, ignoring the standard 14-day rule to respond to motions.

There's no way Trump gets a fair trial in front of this activist judge.

Yawn. I'd be all for it to be much easier to have judges removed from cases with obvious political bias, but LOL that conservatives want that in any other case but specifically this one instance. Not even all instances of Trump cases as they certainly don't think Cannon should be removed.

There is zero substantive grounding for either Cannon to be recused, or the DC judge to be recused.

The record only indicates one small issue --- Cannon was nominated by the person in front of her as a defendant. The same cannot be be said for the DC judge.

But neither issue has enough legal backing to have a motion to recuse survive.

I would have thought that Cannon might do so, given that she got her ass handed to her in a major league way multiple times by the 11th Circ., and by the SCOTUS, for her really bad 'lets make up legal principles on the fly' with the Special Master episode in this same case, but she did not.

Most judges would have done that on their own. But, to not do that is her decision. And she has a basis for it.

If her 'lets make stuff up on the fly' continues, the chief judge of the Southern District has the power to swap her out. Given that she only has maybe 20 hours of trial as a judge under her belt, and never overseen anything near even a medium level criminal matter -----

She hasnt gone off the reservation I will say to her credit. That is since getting this after getting torched by SCOTUS and 4 different rulings by the 11th Circ. pre-indictment.....

(08-03-2023 03:00 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Shere is the one detached from reality?

LOL LOL LOL

Bwahahahahaha

(08-07-2023 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 11:43 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:To give you an idea of just how unfair Judge Chutkan is when dealing with conservatives...

In the four January 6th cases in which prosecutors did NOT seek any jail time, Judge Chutkan still ordered jail times ranging from 14 days to 45 days.

Overall, one-third of the J6 defendants have received zero jail time. But of the 38 defendants whose cases Chutkan has handled, ALL of them received jail or prison time.

Associated Press has described her as the "number one punisher" of J6 defendants.

And now, she only gave Trump's legal team 1 business day to respond to Jack Smith's proposed gag order, ignoring the standard 14-day rule to respond to motions.

There's no way Trump gets a fair trial in front of this activist judge.

Yawn. I'd be all for it to be much easier to have judges removed from cases with obvious political bias, but LOL that conservatives want that in any other case but specifically this one instance. Not even all instances of Trump cases as they certainly don't think Cannon should be removed.

There is zero substantive grounding for either Cannon to be recused, or the DC judge to be recused.

The record only indicates one small issue --- Cannon was nominated by the person in front of her as a defendant. The same cannot be be said for the DC judge.

But neither issue has enough legal backing to have a motion to recuse survive.

I would have thought that Cannon might do so, given that she got her ass handed to her in a major league way multiple times by the 11th Circ., and by the SCOTUS, for her really bad 'lets make up legal principles on the fly' with the Special Master episode in this same case, but she did not.

Most judges would have done that on their own. But, to not do that is her decision. And she has a basis for it.

If her 'lets make stuff up on the fly' continues, the chief judge of the Southern District has the power to swap her out. Given that she only has maybe 20 hours of trial as a judge under her belt, and never overseen anything near even a medium level criminal matter -----

She hasnt gone off the reservation I will say to her credit. That is since getting this after getting torched by SCOTUS and 4 different rulings by the 11th Circ. pre-indictment.....

I agree there isn't any basis for either, my only point was there's no way you could with a straight face argue there's a legal basis for removing the DC judge and argue Cannon is good to stay.

(08-07-2023 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 11:43 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:To give you an idea of just how unfair Judge Chutkan is when dealing with conservatives...

In the four January 6th cases in which prosecutors did NOT seek any jail time, Judge Chutkan still ordered jail times ranging from 14 days to 45 days.

Overall, one-third of the J6 defendants have received zero jail time. But of the 38 defendants whose cases Chutkan has handled, ALL of them received jail or prison time.

Associated Press has described her as the "number one punisher" of J6 defendants.

And now, she only gave Trump's legal team 1 business day to respond to Jack Smith's proposed gag order, ignoring the standard 14-day rule to respond to motions.

There's no way Trump gets a fair trial in front of this activist judge.

Yawn. I'd be all for it to be much easier to have judges removed from cases with obvious political bias, but LOL that conservatives want that in any other case but specifically this one instance. Not even all instances of Trump cases as they certainly don't think Cannon should be removed.

There is zero substantive grounding for either Cannon to be recused, or the DC judge to be recused.

The record only indicates one small issue --- Cannon was nominated by the person in front of her as a defendant. The same cannot be be said for the DC judge.

But neither issue has enough legal backing to have a motion to recuse survive.

I would have thought that Cannon might do so, given that she got her ass handed to her in a major league way multiple times by the 11th Circ., and by the SCOTUS, for her really bad 'lets make up legal principles on the fly' with the Special Master episode in this same case, but she did not.

Most judges would have done that on their own. But, to not do that is her decision. And she has a basis for it.

If her 'lets make stuff up on the fly' continues, the chief judge of the Southern District has the power to swap her out. Given that she only has maybe 20 hours of trial as a judge under her belt, and never overseen anything near even a medium level criminal matter -----

She hasnt gone off the reservation I will say to her credit. That is since getting this after getting torched by SCOTUS and 4 different rulings by the 11th Circ. pre-indictment.....

Sounds like more experience than you. But of course everyone here should exalt your incredible insight. Despite far more renown lawyers having a difference of opinion. Lolz, chuckles.

Judge Chutkan's Controversial Denial to Trump Team's Hearing Request Previews Really Rough Seas Ahead

Quote:On Tuesday morning, Donald Trump’s legal team made what most would consider a very normal, reasonable request. Yet, it was quickly denied in a move that previews really rough seas ahead for the former president.

The controversy surrounds a hearing on a recent DOJ-requested protective order against Trump relating to a post he made on Truth Social attacking Mike Pence. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the D.C.-based election-related case, quickly set a hearing date of August 11th.

The problem? It wasn’t immediately clear that either of Trump’s primary lawyers could make that date. That led to a request that included coordination with the DOJ to offer August 9th and 10th as possible dates as well. In other words, both the defendant and prosecution were willing to work around each other to ensure everyone could make the hearing.

Further, Trump’s team stated that while they’d prefer to have both lawyers present, thereby suggesting August 14th or 15th, one of Trump’s lawyers would be available on August 10th. That is one of the dates the DOJ agreed would work for them.

To reiterate, you have both sides agreeing to a possible date (the 10th) while one side says another date won’t work at all (the 11th), and what does Judge Chutkan do? She issues an order for the hearing to remain on August 11th.

I don’t know Judge Chutkan’s motives. What I do know is that she’s been one of the most vindictive judges to handle 2020 election-related cases, specifically those dealing with January 6th defendants. It seems more than reasonable to presume she has an ax to grind surrounding that entire period, and this ruling only provides further evidence of that.

Even if Judge Chutkan didn’t want to delay the hearing to the next week, you had both Trump’s team and the DOJ agreeing that they could make August 10th. To then double down on scheduling it on the 11th, when it’s possible that none of Trump’s primary counsel could attend, looks like pure spite. Moving dates around to accommodate the ability of lawyers to attend hearings is standard fare. There would be no reason to deny such a request when both sides had already agreed to compromise.

The other thing this points to is Chutkan’s desire to speed the entire process up in ways that aren’t reasonable or fair. It doesn’t look like she even entertained delaying the hearing by four days as Trump’s lawyers requested. That says that the rumors of her wanting to get this done well before the general election are probably true. That’s not good news for the former president, whose primary strategy, given the bias of Chutkan and the venue she lords over, has obviously been to delay things until Trump could possibly pardon himself.

Now that Chutkan has shown her hand, we’ll see how Trump’s lawyers respond. Obviously, there’s not much they can do overall because she controls nearly everything, but they can tweak their strategy based on how she’s operating. Regardless, Trump could be looking at a conviction by a D.C. jury well before the general election takes place if things continue this way.

(08-07-2023 01:03 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 11:43 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:To give you an idea of just how unfair Judge Chutkan is when dealing with conservatives...

In the four January 6th cases in which prosecutors did NOT seek any jail time, Judge Chutkan still ordered jail times ranging from 14 days to 45 days.

Overall, one-third of the J6 defendants have received zero jail time. But of the 38 defendants whose cases Chutkan has handled, ALL of them received jail or prison time.

Associated Press has described her as the "number one punisher" of J6 defendants.

And now, she only gave Trump's legal team 1 business day to respond to Jack Smith's proposed gag order, ignoring the standard 14-day rule to respond to motions.

There's no way Trump gets a fair trial in front of this activist judge.

Yawn. I'd be all for it to be much easier to have judges removed from cases with obvious political bias, but LOL that conservatives want that in any other case but specifically this one instance. Not even all instances of Trump cases as they certainly don't think Cannon should be removed.

There is zero substantive grounding for either Cannon to be recused, or the DC judge to be recused.

The record only indicates one small issue --- Cannon was nominated by the person in front of her as a defendant. The same cannot be be said for the DC judge.

But neither issue has enough legal backing to have a motion to recuse survive.

I would have thought that Cannon might do so, given that she got her ass handed to her in a major league way multiple times by the 11th Circ., and by the SCOTUS, for her really bad 'lets make up legal principles on the fly' with the Special Master episode in this same case, but she did not.

Most judges would have done that on their own. But, to not do that is her decision. And she has a basis for it.

If her 'lets make stuff up on the fly' continues, the chief judge of the Southern District has the power to swap her out. Given that she only has maybe 20 hours of trial as a judge under her belt, and never overseen anything near even a medium level criminal matter -----

She hasnt gone off the reservation I will say to her credit. That is since getting this after getting torched by SCOTUS and 4 different rulings by the 11th Circ. pre-indictment.....

Sounds like more experience than you. But of course everyone here should exalt your incredible insight. Despite far more renown lawyers having a difference of opinion. Lolz, chuckles.

There is a substantive difference between a trial judge with lots of experience of handling trials and those who dont have very much.

That has *nothing* to do with any of *my* handling a trial as a judge. But you be you.

The only people braying for recusal of either Judge Cannon *or* Judge Chutkan are the ideologue stalwarts or those that simply read from the garbage like conservativetreehouse.com like it is a bible, or the progressive counterpart (which I have no earthly idea what it is). Funny, that is ---- those just like you.

But leave it to you to punctuate a pretty bland and benign comment of mine with a frothing mouth. UBU, my friend.

Maybe clean up some of that spittle from your keyboard.

(08-08-2023 05:53 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Judge Chutkan's Controversial Denial to Trump Team's Hearing Request Previews Really Rough Seas Ahead

Quote:On Tuesday morning, Donald Trump’s legal team made what most would consider a very normal, reasonable request. Yet, it was quickly denied in a move that previews really rough seas ahead for the former president.

The controversy surrounds a hearing on a recent DOJ-requested protective order against Trump relating to a post he made on Truth Social attacking Mike Pence. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the D.C.-based election-related case, quickly set a hearing date of August 11th.

The problem? It wasn’t immediately clear that either of Trump’s primary lawyers could make that date. That led to a request that included coordination with the DOJ to offer August 9th and 10th as possible dates as well. In other words, both the defendant and prosecution were willing to work around each other to ensure everyone could make the hearing.

Further, Trump’s team stated that while they’d prefer to have both lawyers present, thereby suggesting August 14th or 15th, one of Trump’s lawyers would be available on August 10th. That is one of the dates the DOJ agreed would work for them.

To reiterate, you have both sides agreeing to a possible date (the 10th) while one side says another date won’t work at all (the 11th), and what does Judge Chutkan do? She issues an order for the hearing to remain on August 11th.

I don’t know Judge Chutkan’s motives. What I do know is that she’s been one of the most vindictive judges to handle 2020 election-related cases, specifically those dealing with January 6th defendants. It seems more than reasonable to presume she has an ax to grind surrounding that entire period, and this ruling only provides further evidence of that.

Even if Judge Chutkan didn’t want to delay the hearing to the next week, you had both Trump’s team and the DOJ agreeing that they could make August 10th. To then double down on scheduling it on the 11th, when it’s possible that none of Trump’s primary counsel could attend, looks like pure spite. Moving dates around to accommodate the ability of lawyers to attend hearings is standard fare. There would be no reason to deny such a request when both sides had already agreed to compromise.

The other thing this points to is Chutkan’s desire to speed the entire process up in ways that aren’t reasonable or fair. It doesn’t look like she even entertained delaying the hearing by four days as Trump’s lawyers requested. That says that the rumors of her wanting to get this done well before the general election are probably true. That’s not good news for the former president, whose primary strategy, given the bias of Chutkan and the venue she lords over, has obviously been to delay things until Trump could possibly pardon himself.

Now that Chutkan has shown her hand, we’ll see how Trump’s lawyers respond. Obviously, there’s not much they can do overall because she controls nearly everything, but they can tweak their strategy based on how she’s operating. Regardless, Trump could be looking at a conviction by a D.C. jury well before the general election takes place if things continue this way.

Well, when a Federal judge says 'before the 11th', and *you* come up with the only option you specifically put out is the 14th --- that is what happens.

Life is tough.

(08-08-2023 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:53 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Judge Chutkan's Controversial Denial to Trump Team's Hearing Request Previews Really Rough Seas Ahead

Quote:On Tuesday morning, Donald Trump’s legal team made what most would consider a very normal, reasonable request. Yet, it was quickly denied in a move that previews really rough seas ahead for the former president.

The controversy surrounds a hearing on a recent DOJ-requested protective order against Trump relating to a post he made on Truth Social attacking Mike Pence. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the D.C.-based election-related case, quickly set a hearing date of August 11th.

The problem? It wasn’t immediately clear that either of Trump’s primary lawyers could make that date. That led to a request that included coordination with the DOJ to offer August 9th and 10th as possible dates as well. In other words, both the defendant and prosecution were willing to work around each other to ensure everyone could make the hearing.

Further, Trump’s team stated that while they’d prefer to have both lawyers present, thereby suggesting August 14th or 15th, one of Trump’s lawyers would be available on August 10th. That is one of the dates the DOJ agreed would work for them.

To reiterate, you have both sides agreeing to a possible date (the 10th) while one side says another date won’t work at all (the 11th), and what does Judge Chutkan do? She issues an order for the hearing to remain on August 11th.

I don’t know Judge Chutkan’s motives. What I do know is that she’s been one of the most vindictive judges to handle 2020 election-related cases, specifically those dealing with January 6th defendants. It seems more than reasonable to presume she has an ax to grind surrounding that entire period, and this ruling only provides further evidence of that.

Even if Judge Chutkan didn’t want to delay the hearing to the next week, you had both Trump’s team and the DOJ agreeing that they could make August 10th. To then double down on scheduling it on the 11th, when it’s possible that none of Trump’s primary counsel could attend, looks like pure spite. Moving dates around to accommodate the ability of lawyers to attend hearings is standard fare. There would be no reason to deny such a request when both sides had already agreed to compromise.

The other thing this points to is Chutkan’s desire to speed the entire process up in ways that aren’t reasonable or fair. It doesn’t look like she even entertained delaying the hearing by four days as Trump’s lawyers requested. That says that the rumors of her wanting to get this done well before the general election are probably true. That’s not good news for the former president, whose primary strategy, given the bias of Chutkan and the venue she lords over, has obviously been to delay things until Trump could possibly pardon himself.

Now that Chutkan has shown her hand, we’ll see how Trump’s lawyers respond. Obviously, there’s not much they can do overall because she controls nearly everything, but they can tweak their strategy based on how she’s operating. Regardless, Trump could be looking at a conviction by a D.C. jury well before the general election takes place if things continue this way.

Well, when a Federal judge says 'before the 11th', and *you* come up with the only option you specifically put out is the 14th --- that is what happens.

Life is tough.

So August 10th is AFTER August 11?

(08-08-2023 07:41 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So August 10th is AFTER August 11?

In gin world

(08-08-2023 07:41 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:53 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Judge Chutkan's Controversial Denial to Trump Team's Hearing Request Previews Really Rough Seas Ahead

Quote:On Tuesday morning, Donald Trump’s legal team made what most would consider a very normal, reasonable request. Yet, it was quickly denied in a move that previews really rough seas ahead for the former president.

The controversy surrounds a hearing on a recent DOJ-requested protective order against Trump relating to a post he made on Truth Social attacking Mike Pence. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the D.C.-based election-related case, quickly set a hearing date of August 11th.

The problem? It wasn’t immediately clear that either of Trump’s primary lawyers could make that date. That led to a request that included coordination with the DOJ to offer August 9th and 10th as possible dates as well. In other words, both the defendant and prosecution were willing to work around each other to ensure everyone could make the hearing.

Further, Trump’s team stated that while they’d prefer to have both lawyers present, thereby suggesting August 14th or 15th, one of Trump’s lawyers would be available on August 10th. That is one of the dates the DOJ agreed would work for them.

To reiterate, you have both sides agreeing to a possible date (the 10th) while one side says another date won’t work at all (the 11th), and what does Judge Chutkan do? She issues an order for the hearing to remain on August 11th.

I don’t know Judge Chutkan’s motives. What I do know is that she’s been one of the most vindictive judges to handle 2020 election-related cases, specifically those dealing with January 6th defendants. It seems more than reasonable to presume she has an ax to grind surrounding that entire period, and this ruling only provides further evidence of that.

Even if Judge Chutkan didn’t want to delay the hearing to the next week, you had both Trump’s team and the DOJ agreeing that they could make August 10th. To then double down on scheduling it on the 11th, when it’s possible that none of Trump’s primary counsel could attend, looks like pure spite. Moving dates around to accommodate the ability of lawyers to attend hearings is standard fare. There would be no reason to deny such a request when both sides had already agreed to compromise.

The other thing this points to is Chutkan’s desire to speed the entire process up in ways that aren’t reasonable or fair. It doesn’t look like she even entertained delaying the hearing by four days as Trump’s lawyers requested. That says that the rumors of her wanting to get this done well before the general election are probably true. That’s not good news for the former president, whose primary strategy, given the bias of Chutkan and the venue she lords over, has obviously been to delay things until Trump could possibly pardon himself.

Now that Chutkan has shown her hand, we’ll see how Trump’s lawyers respond. Obviously, there’s not much they can do overall because she controls nearly everything, but they can tweak their strategy based on how she’s operating. Regardless, Trump could be looking at a conviction by a D.C. jury well before the general election takes place if things continue this way.

Well, when a Federal judge says 'before the 11th', and *you* come up with the only option you specifically put out is the 14th --- that is what happens.

Life is tough.

So August 10th is AFTER August 11?

I guess you are clueless about what the word 'request' does.

Here is what Trump's people say:

1) we want both attorneys there;
2) each attorney sinks a day;
3) for some magical reason Friday is 'lost';
4) Even though your order specifies 'before the 11th', we *request* either the 14th or 15th.

Can you even read?

Smart attorneys, with a specific timeframe limitation, the only *request* is to try and challenge the Judge's ordered timing

They done got judge-slapped for that. Maybe they dont try that again.

(08-08-2023 09:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 07:41 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:53 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Judge Chutkan's Controversial Denial to Trump Team's Hearing Request Previews Really Rough Seas Ahead

Quote:On Tuesday morning, Donald Trump’s legal team made what most would consider a very normal, reasonable request. Yet, it was quickly denied in a move that previews really rough seas ahead for the former president.

The controversy surrounds a hearing on a recent DOJ-requested protective order against Trump relating to a post he made on Truth Social attacking Mike Pence. Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the D.C.-based election-related case, quickly set a hearing date of August 11th.

The problem? It wasn’t immediately clear that either of Trump’s primary lawyers could make that date. That led to a request that included coordination with the DOJ to offer August 9th and 10th as possible dates as well. In other words, both the defendant and prosecution were willing to work around each other to ensure everyone could make the hearing.

Further, Trump’s team stated that while they’d prefer to have both lawyers present, thereby suggesting August 14th or 15th, one of Trump’s lawyers would be available on August 10th. That is one of the dates the DOJ agreed would work for them.

To reiterate, you have both sides agreeing to a possible date (the 10th) while one side says another date won’t work at all (the 11th), and what does Judge Chutkan do? She issues an order for the hearing to remain on August 11th.

I don’t know Judge Chutkan’s motives. What I do know is that she’s been one of the most vindictive judges to handle 2020 election-related cases, specifically those dealing with January 6th defendants. It seems more than reasonable to presume she has an ax to grind surrounding that entire period, and this ruling only provides further evidence of that.

Even if Judge Chutkan didn’t want to delay the hearing to the next week, you had both Trump’s team and the DOJ agreeing that they could make August 10th. To then double down on scheduling it on the 11th, when it’s possible that none of Trump’s primary counsel could attend, looks like pure spite. Moving dates around to accommodate the ability of lawyers to attend hearings is standard fare. There would be no reason to deny such a request when both sides had already agreed to compromise.

The other thing this points to is Chutkan’s desire to speed the entire process up in ways that aren’t reasonable or fair. It doesn’t look like she even entertained delaying the hearing by four days as Trump’s lawyers requested. That says that the rumors of her wanting to get this done well before the general election are probably true. That’s not good news for the former president, whose primary strategy, given the bias of Chutkan and the venue she lords over, has obviously been to delay things until Trump could possibly pardon himself.

Now that Chutkan has shown her hand, we’ll see how Trump’s lawyers respond. Obviously, there’s not much they can do overall because she controls nearly everything, but they can tweak their strategy based on how she’s operating. Regardless, Trump could be looking at a conviction by a D.C. jury well before the general election takes place if things continue this way.

Well, when a Federal judge says 'before the 11th', and *you* come up with the only option you specifically put out is the 14th --- that is what happens.

Life is tough.

So August 10th is AFTER August 11?

I guess you are clueless about what the word 'request' does.

Here is what Trump's people say:

1) we want both attorneys there;
2) each attorney sinks a day;
3) for some magical reason Friday is 'lost';
4) Even though your order specifies 'before the 11th', we *request* either the 14th or 15th.

Can you even read?

Smart attorneys, with a specific timeframe limitation, the only *request* is to try and challenge the Judge's ordered timing

They done got judge-slapped for that. Maybe they dont try that again.

They agreed to the 10th, although only one lawyer would be able to be present. Why wasnt that date chosen, instead of the 11th?

Also, learn to read a calendar.

(08-08-2023 09:17 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 09:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 07:41 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 06:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 05:53 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Judge Chutkan's Controversial Denial to Trump Team's Hearing Request Previews Really Rough Seas Ahead

Well, when a Federal judge says 'before the 11th', and *you* come up with the only option you specifically put out is the 14th --- that is what happens.

Life is tough.

So August 10th is AFTER August 11?

I guess you are clueless about what the word 'request' does.

Here is what Trump's people say:

1) we want both attorneys there;
2) each attorney sinks a day;
3) for some magical reason Friday is 'lost';
4) Even though your order specifies 'before the 11th', we *request* either the 14th or 15th.

Can you even read?

Smart attorneys, with a specific timeframe limitation, the only *request* is to try and challenge the Judge's ordered timing

They done got judge-slapped for that. Maybe they dont try that again.

They agreed to the 10th, although only one lawyer would be able to be present. Why wasnt that date chosen, instead of the 11th?

Also, learn to read a calendar.

They said that one could be there on the 10th.

They also 'requested' it for the 14th.

In the minute order, the judge was clear --- what days on or before the 11th.

Had Trump's attorneys simply stuck with 'one can be there on the 10th', and *only* that, that probably would have happened on the 10th.

Instead, they angled 'we need both there' with the added thing of 'and because of *our* requirement of the needing *both*, we request the 14th' --- they got judge slapped.

Judge said, in effect, this is *my* courtroom, not yours. *My* order said 'tell me two times on or before the 11th you can do this. They chose *not* to do that, and instead *chose* to try and reset the judge's own order.

Again, they got judge ***** slapped for that.

Dude, the minute order is crystal fing clear -- 'on or before the 11th.' Period.

Their filing is crystal clear -- they tried to reset the judge's explicit order. Last I saw 'requesting the 14th or 15th' is not anywhere in the order that says 'the 11th or before'.

Dont fk with a judge and their order.

Seriously, read the details. It helps.

The background also helps. The background is that the judge did a minute order on last Thursday in this issue requiring the defense response to the motion on the protective order no later than Monday (yesterday) at 3pm. Trump's attorneys on Friday filed a 'motion for extension' of that response for this Thursday.

Judge denied that, and said to them 'maybe you should have used the time for the extension in the response'. They filed Monday, Smith had until tomorrow to file a reply -- he filed his reply 45 minutes after the Trump attorneys filed their response.

The judge sent out a minute order on that exchange 20 min after Jack Smith filed, that order saying 'give me two times for a hearing between now and the end of Friday.

Lauro filed with his 'not Friday, we need next week.'

Chutkan hammered Lauro for his continuous 'not on the timeline you said, we want our timeline.' Chutkan told him here who ran her courtroom -- and it aint Lauro.

Lauro thumbed his nose at her twice this week. Lauro got hammered because of it.

The 14th is *not* 'on the 11th or before'.

I suggest Lauro simply comply with the court minute orders instead of trying to set his own timetable.

But please ***** some more that Lauro didnt follow the judge's minute order.

SLUUUURRRRRP SLUUUURRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPP

(08-08-2023 07:46 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 07:41 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So August 10th is AFTER August 11?

In gin world

Hey, life is tough! Lolz, chuckles….

(08-08-2023 11:48 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 07:46 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 07:41 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So August 10th is AFTER August 11?

In gin world

Hey, life is tough! Lolz, chuckles….

It would be much easier if some had some basic reading skills. I agree.

"Mommy Mommy make the bad men stop being mean to me on the internetz"

(08-09-2023 08:32 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  "Mommy Mommy make the bad men stop being mean to me on the internetz"

I guess the above equates to substantive discussion for you. Good job. Lolz.