Don Jr. tweet picture of judge's daughter.

[aubaseball 2,894]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I don't think that's correct. Just because they didn't attempt to prosecute does not mean they didn't find anything. By all accounts there was a case there, but the Justice Department did not pursue it further.

Seriously???you think that if they had something on the most polarizing figure in American history that they wouldn’t have gone after him?  Hilarious 

[Leftfield 3,412]

2 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I honestly don’t see why this is even in court, but you and both know why.   It’s only because it’s DT.   If this was anyone else, it wouldn’t even come to this or even matter.   

I also don't believe this to be true, and even if it were it's laughable that Trump supporters would complain about it. The amount of deference Trump has received over the decades and the way he has been able to weasel out of situations because of who he is and the influence he wields, particularly since he became president, is enormous. There's certainly far more he's been able to get away with than undue punishment because of who he is.

[Leftfield 3,412]

3 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

Seriously???you think that if they had something on the most polarizing figure in American history that they wouldn’t have gone after him?  Hilarious 

Yes, seriously. I do think they should have pursued it, but I can think of several reasons why they didn't. I think they most likely reason is that they knew if they went forward with the case, it would be years before there was any resolution, and they were hoping the country would just move on from Trump. They didn't want to keep him in the limelight, and it would have been worse if they weren't successful, because his supporters would be galvanized once again. My guess is they felt the risk was not worth the reward, at least at that time.

[AU9377 6,095]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Why are democrats in congress calling to pack the Supreme Court? 

The Supreme Court and a trial court judge are two different animals altogether. 

[AU9377 6,095]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

I certainly believe judges have bias. Why else would one want to pack a court? Is it not to even the playing field? Nothing to do with perceived bias eh? 

Amateur hour indeed. 

 

A trial judge, in a criminal case, has the responsibility to apply the law without favor or bias.  Most all of them I have ever worked with take that responsibility seriously.  If they fail to do so, there is a process to appeal their decisions.

A Supreme Court Justice is not a trial judge.  They don't determine facts.  They determine whether laws are constitutional and act as a check on the other branches of government.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Making the judge's daughter a potential political target is indefensible.  It cannot be justified.  It cannot be rationalized.   The politicizing of the judicial system is an entirely separate issue.  Our principles should be more important than our politics.

 

[homersapien 12,296]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Why are democrats in congress calling to pack the Supreme Court? 

To reciprocate, obviously. 

[homersapien 12,296]

On 4/5/2023 at 12:29 PM, Cardin Drake said:

You didn't actually answer any of the questions I asked.  Here's a few more. Do you think the DOJ would have ever pursued Cohen at all had they not seen him as an avenue to "get Trump".? Do you think that the DOJ knew how biased news organizations like PBS would report this? An entire detailed story about Cohen's campaign finance violations and then at the end this statement: Cohen was sentenced Wednesday not just for the campaign finance offenses, but also for tax evasion and bank fraud.  Do you think you get off with a year in prison for hiding $15 million in income and bank fraud? Why did Cohen get such a light sentence?

"biased news organizations like PBS"?    

You folks are a hoot.  

[homersapien 12,296]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Yes, obviously she has bias.

Well, how about this:

Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury trips from GOP donor, report says - The Washington Post

...ProPublica reported Thursday on an array of trips funded by Harlan Crow, a Dallas businessman. The publication said Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks. It said the justice also has vacationed at Crow’s ranch in East Texas and has joined Crow at the Bohemian Grove, an exclusive all-male retreat in California.

ProPublica cited a nine-day trip that Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, took to Indonesia in 2019, shortly after the court released its final opinions of the term. That trip, which included flights on Crow’s jet and island-hopping on a superyacht, would have cost the couple more than $500,000, if they had paid for it themselves, the publication said.....

 

.....The Times also reported that Crow helped finance a Savannah, Ga., library project dedicated to Thomas, presented him with a Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass and reportedly provided $500,000 for Ginni Thomas to start a tea-party-related group.....

 

Ginni Thomas privately pressed then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to pursue efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election, and she sent emails urging swing-state lawmakers to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory in awarding electoral votes. When those efforts were revealed by The Post last year, they intensified questions about whether her husband should recuse himself from cases related to the election and attempts to subvert it.

 

The Post also reported last month that a little-known conservative activist group led by Ginni Thomas collected nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations to wage a cultural battle against the left over three years. The previously unreported donations to the fledgling group Crowdsourcing for Culture and Liberty were channeled through a right-wing think tank in Washington that agreed to serve as a funding conduit from 2019 until the start of last year, according to documents and interviews.

 

That's all on Ginni??

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by homersapien

[AU9377 6,095]

I think some people forget that this judge has to run for his position.  His name is on a ballot.  When judges are elected, it shouldn't be surprising that they have political connections.  They still take an oath to fairly and without favor to perform their duties in applying the law.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

8 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The Supreme Court and a trial court judge are two different animals altogether. 

I think you know the answer. To dilute the opinions of Trump appointed Justices. 

[TexasTiger 14,505]

Judge was a $15 friend of Joe. In for 2.5 soy lattes.

[AU9377 6,095]

12 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think you know the answer. To dilute the opinions of Trump appointed Justices. 

You do realize that this judge was elected and has to run a campaign himself right?

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

23 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You do realize that this judge was elected and has to run a campaign himself right?

Quoting a prominent Democrat:

Nancy Pelosi: Glass of Water Could Take Districts Like Mine and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's—'That's Not Where We Have to Win the Election'

[TexasTiger 14,505]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Quoting a prominent Democrat:

Nancy Pelosi: Glass of Water Could Take Districts Like Mine and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's—'That's Not Where We Have to Win the Election'

That’s once they are nominated in a partisan race. Judgeships are usually open elections and when there are primaries, you still have to win them.

[I_M4_AU 9,031]

28 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s once they are nominated in a partisan race. Judgeships are usually open elections and when there are primaries, you still have to win them.

The point being, in that district a D judge has a leg up on all the rest.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

On 4/7/2023 at 9:48 AM, AU9377 said:

You do realize that this judge was elected and has to run a campaign himself right?

Doesn't address my point. The dems desirous to pack the court is clear. No gaslighting necessary.

[AU9377 6,095]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Doesn't address my point. The dems desirous to pack the court is clear. No gaslighting necessary.

No gas lighting is being done. The only reason the court hasn't been packed is the Democrats that have urged restraint within their party.  Republicans have been hypocritical as hell when it comes to the Court.  I'm not the least bit shocked, but that doesn't make it anything other than what it is. 

Democrats could play games and the next time there is a Republican president and they control the Senate, just refuse to allow any nominee to come up for a vote.  That would be in keeping with Republican precedent.

[AU9377 6,095]

23 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The point being, in that district a D judge has a leg up on all the rest.

So what?

[AU9377 6,095]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:56 PM, AUFAN78 said:

I think you know the answer. To dilute the opinions of Trump appointed Justices. 

They are different because the Supreme Court is not a trier of fact.  They don't determine facts.  That is for lower trial courts to determine.  The Supreme Court takes a case and determines the correct application of law or in other words corrects errors of law.