politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former President Trump on Monday formally demanded the recusal of the federal judge overseeing his 2020 election subversion case in Washington, D.C.
“Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial — and may believe that she can do so — her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.”
In October 2022, Chutkan chided Ohio Jan. 6 defendant Christine Priola during her sentencing that she and other rioters offered “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day,” according to a hearing transcript.
Trump has publicly criticized Chutkan before, claiming she “obviously wants me behind bars,” and is “very biased and unfair.” He has also speculated that there is “no way” he will receive a fair trial under the federal judge and previewed he would file the recusal motion.
“Public statements of this sort create a perception of prejudgment incompatible with our justice system,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.
“In a case this widely watched, of such monumental significance, the public must have the utmost confidence that the Court will administer justice neutrally and dispassionately.
The original article contains 537 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I mean, it sounds like he has a point? Perhaps another judge should sentence him to prison instead, just so they don't have grounds for an appeal on this.
The issue is all Judges from the available pool have heard Jan 6 cases and Chutkin is one of the “nicest” of the bunch.
So far trump's lawyers have thrown a lot of meritless shit at the walls and hoped it would delay the process and maybe something sticks.
This statement by the judge seems mostly innocuous, but it may actually give them a little crack of daylight
I'm keen to hear about this on Opening Arguments podcast tomorrow. They've been doing great work tracking and explaining every legal filing.