Categories
Commentary Crime January 6 The Courts The Law

Report: Judge in Trump Jan 6 Case Previously Said in Open Court He’s Guilty of Crimes!

Views: 39

Former President Donald Trump, left, can’t expect much of a fair trial on charges being brought before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, right. Chutkan has effectively pronounced Trump guilty already — and in open court. (Alex Brandon / AP ; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts / AP)

This is giving kangaroo courts a bad name.

A kangaroo court is a parody of justice

The trial of former President Donald Trump in the District of Columbia isn’t even close to starting yet, but Americans who support the 45th president can already be sure of one thing: The judge has already reached her own verdict.

It’s been clear from the get-go that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is biased in the case being brought by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith that accuses Trump of four counts related to the Capitol incursion of Jan. 6, 2021: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

But a review of Chutkan’s handling of Capitol incursion defendants by the website RealClearInvestigations yielded an explosive result: Chutkan is not only biased, she’s tacitly pronounced Trump guilty, in open court, of what are essentially the charges against him.

And she’s done it more than once.

In one case, Chutkan sentenced Christine Priola, a Cleveland woman, to 15 months in prison after Priola pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding and aiding and abetting, according to WJW in Cleveland.

But judging by Chutkan’s words from the bench at the Oct. 28 hearing, the real culprit was Donald Trump, and he deserved to be in prison, too.

The participants in the incursion “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant, not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy,” Chutkan said, according to RealClearInvestigations.

“It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

WHY IS SHE NOT REMOVED FROM THIS CASE?

“Free to this day”? Sounds an awful lot like Chutkan was wishing she was putting Donald Trump behind bars, not a former occupational therapist from Ohio.

In another case, she sentenced Texas resident Matthew Mazzocco to 45 days behind bars when, according to The Washington Post. Prosecutors had only asked for probation.

And, in Chutkan’s words, she made it clear that Trump was the man who should have been standing before her instead.

Mazzocco, Chutkan said, “went there to support one man who he viewed had the election taken from him. In total disregard of a lawfully conducted election, he went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country or in support of democracy.”

And that “one man” is going to be relying on Chutkan to dispense impartial justice in her courtroom?

With that kind of record, it’s more than understandable that Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican firebrand, has introduced a measure to censure Chutkan for her comments — not only regarding Trump himself but also comparing the Capitol incursion, unfavorably, to the Black Lives Matter rioters who burned American cities during the summer of 2020.

“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 riots posed to the foundation of our democracy,” she said at Mazzocco’s sentencing hearing, The Washington Post reported.

Gaetz clearly knows, just like any honest observer knows, that Chutkan has reached her own decision on the Trump case — and the decision is clearly going to color every decision she makes as it proceeds.

A kangaroo court is a parody of justice, where predetermined verdicts get the color of due process, the fiction that a legal proceeding has ensured the rights of the accused, as well as the rights and duties of the society whose rules he is supposed to have violated.

Loading

209
Categories
Politics Faked news Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts

Did Alito and Barrett Claim That America Needs a ‘Domestic Supply of Infants’? Fake News.

Views: 28

Article was originally here.

A viral tweet claims that Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito justified overturning Roe v. Wade in the leaked draft majority opinion because “the US needs a ‘domestic supply of infants.’”

In a reply to the tweet, the tweet author shared a screenshot from the opinion showing the line in question.

Twitter avatar for @DrGJackBrownDr. Jack Brown @DrGJackBrown

Addendum:

Image

The draft was written by Alito, not Barrett and Alito as the tweet suggests. The section of the opinion from which the quote is pulled is a footnote, with the line not being written by Barrett or Alito, but coming from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention paper on adoption. The line reads: “[N]early 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand of a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent.”

This paper is cited in a paragraph summing up arguments from pro-life Americans, specifically being cited in a sentence noting that a newborn put up for adoption in the United States will likely find a home. The footnote appears in the following section, following the italicized portion (italicization added):

“Americans who believe that abortion should be restricted press countervailing arguments about modern developments. They note that attitudes about the pregnancy of un-married women have changed drastically; that federal and state laws ban discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,42 that leave for pregnancy and childbirth are now guaranteed by law in many cases,43 that the costs of medical care associated with pregnancy are covered by insurance or government assistance44; that States have increasingly adopted ‘safe haven’ laws, which generally allow women to drop off babies anonymously45; and that a woman who puts her newborn up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home46.”

From the context of the footnote, it’s clear that the CDC quote appeared in the footnote only to highlight the fact that unwanted babies put up for adoption in the United States will likely find a family—not, as the tweet implies, that domestic birth rates need to increase to meet adoption demands. What’s more, the paragraph in which the footnote appears is about the arguments of pro-life Americans, taking place in a summary of the public debate surrounding abortion. Immediately preceding the above paragraph is another summing up the beliefs of pro-abortion Americans, which reads:

“Defenders of Roe and [Casey v. Planned Parenthood] do not claim that any new scientific learning calls for a different answer to the underlying moral question, but they do contend that changes in society require the recognition of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Without the availability of abortion, they maintain, people will be inhibited from exercising their freedom to choose the types of relationships they desire, and women will be unable to compete with men in the workplace and in other endeavors.”

Following both summaries, the opinion continues:

“Both sides make important policy arguments, but supporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States. They have failed to make that showing, and we thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected officials.”

Loading

182
Categories
Uncategorized Biden Pandemic Opinion Politics

Remember when Joe threatened the border agents? Said they would pay for trying to stop the undocumented from voting? The Heroes were cleared.

Views: 33

Our border patrols heroes were cleared of charges that they whipped Haitians trying to come here illegally to vote, or take American jobs.

Now that the agents have reportedly been cleared of any wrongdoing, Congressman Gonzales ( his district ) blasted the administration for sweeping the investigation under the rug. But they’re not out of the woods yet. They made asses out of Biden and his stooges.

If OPR finds that the agents violated CBP policy, they could face termination.

Loading

201
Categories
Politics

Mueller Denies Claims He didn’t go far enough.

Views: 24

Mueller Denies Claims He didn’t go far enough. Mueller has had enough and went public with his condemnation of Andrew Weissmann. Weissmann in his so called tell all book, said they could have and should have gone further in their witch hunt of the President.

Mueller’s report, which came out in early 2019, said there was no evidence of criminal conspiracy, cooperation, or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, and declined to make a judgment on whether President Trump had obstructed justice. We have this from the very upset Mueller.

“It is not surprising that members of the Special Counsel’s Office did not always agree, but it is disappointing to hear criticism of our team based on incomplete information,” “When important decisions had to be made, I made them,” he said. “I did so as I have always done, without any interest in currying favor or fear of the consequences. I stand by those decisions and by the conclusions of our investigation.”

 

Loading

209
Verified by MonsterInsights