2y ago

Trump documents case judge made multiple errors in earlier trial

www.cnbc.com

The judge in former U.S. President Donald Trump’s upcoming trial over his handling of classified documents made two key errors in a June trial, one of which violated a fundamental constitutional right of the defendant and could have invalidated the proceedings, according to legal experts and a court transcript.

57 comments

She's an idiot appointed by an idiot. She's doing exactly what she was put there to do.
When people like Trump get off the hook because of judicial incompetence, people are going to look outside the justice system for their justice. It's not a good thing. We should be doing things right.
- It's the Trump supporters that are frothing at the mouth for any reason to shoot someone.
  Trump is probably safe from vigilante justice
Imagine that… a trump worshipping minion put in place for his benefit only- managed to benefit him.
Color me surprised!
Does this mean that every person that's ever opposed Trump or found unfavorably against him is going to have everything in their career examined through the lens of Donald Trump being persecuted by them?
It's not good What this judge did to deny someone their public trial and failing to swear in the jury is just stupid. I don't see how it relates to Trump or even indirectly is affected by him.
- It means it will be drawn out on technicalities, she's throwing herself under the bus for him.
- It’s an example of her incompetence and lack of understanding of basic tenets of a jury trial in the lead up to a highly visible and important case in which Trump is the defendant.
- Yes to your first paragraph.
Not defending her, she was a Trump appointee, but this is the media trying to make her look bad. They’re implying that she will screw up the Trump trial. They can’t know that. It’s like me implying that Microwave will get a cavity because he forgot to brush his teeth one day.
Also; take care of your teeth. Floss. They’ll thank you when you’re older.
- "Trying to make her look bad" by explaining a time she deprived people of Constitutional rights in her court room, and made dumb mistakes like not swearing in a jury.
  She just looks bad, factually.
  The author can't "know" that she will make a mistake and that's why they didn't claim that. But when you put someone in charge of an extremely important case, it just is relevant if they have made bad mistakes in the past. The potential for errors and illegal, unconstitutional actions, are higher when the person has done it before. That is newsworthy.
  
  I’m not concern trolling. My criticism is of what the media chooses to focus on. Why not write about how the appointment system is flawed and she should have never been appointed? They don’t because that’s tedious and doesn’t scratch that tribalism itch. Everything is newsworthy. It’s what they choose to cover, or not cover that bothers me.
- She's already been rebuked by a conservative appeals court. It's not the media making her look bad. They just followed the stories she created.
  
  Don’t put too much faith in the media. Even if you agree with it. The media always has an agenda.
- You're right, she might do a good job, and I sincerely hope she does.
  I think lack of experiece and poor performance in the past is a good indicator that she's likely to do a bad job in the future.
  Why does it matter if "the media" is trying to make her look bad? There's no election, the choice has been made. The point of this article is to provide information about her past performance, specifically because she has already been rebuked by a higher court for what they considered to be poor reasoning and lack of understanding of the case and because it is going to be such a prominent and complex case with so much riding on it.
  
  You just wrote a better article than CNBC.

57 comments