Trump, the suspect of multiple federal investigations and investigations in multiple states, twice impeached and removed from officeby the American voters in 2020, COMPLETE SORE LOSER (He is the definition of an entitled snowflake because he whines over a loss that he pretends he won), unpatriotic white nationalist TRASH and authoritarian dictator wannabe (he wants to destroy our democracy while political GQP hacks and trash/clown media (I.e. Fox Noise and white nationalist media outlets) mimic his stupidity) Is raided by the FBI:
Perhaps I misread, but when you posted this, it seemed to me that of you weren't asking for one you were at least chastising her for the lack of one.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:
I'm not sure what source led you astray, as you didn't include it. But, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the situation.
3 minutes ago, Beerman said:
[...]
But, anyway, what are you wanting a source for?
As you seemed to be suggesting that the post you quoted was in error, and posted what you perceive to be "the truth," it seems you should post a source.
Cases are randomly assigned. When filing a new case, a party wouldn't know what judge would be assigned to it.
You asserted that they went and found a Trump appointed judge.
So, how did the Trump team know what judge would be assigned to the case?
Good to know, and a good question. I was listening to Nancy Gertner on tv (attorney >> federal judge >> law school lecturer) who questioned why this court and why this judge. She pointed out that federal judges rotate being on-call to take new cases. It could be the rotation is predictable. It could be I’m totally fos. Like I said - pure speculation.
I’m reading comments about sourcing my posts. I can’t copy/paste on my phone. This info was in a cnn livestream that is available online and can be googled. It won’t load on my phone, though. You can try cnn.com>videos>politics>2022>08>
22.
Perhaps I misread, but when you posted this, it seemed to me that of you weren't asking for one you were at least chastising her for the lack of one.
As you seemed to be suggesting that the post you quoted was in error, and posted what you perceive to be "the truth," it seems you should post a source.
I've read a lot, and posted a few things. If you would point me to the post you're speaking of, I'll gladly address it.
Good to know, and a good question. I was listening to Nancy Gertner on tv (attorney >> federal judge >> law school lecturer) who questioned why this court and why this judge. She pointed out that federal judges rotate being on-call to take new cases. It could be the rotation is predictable. It could be I’m totally fos. Like I said - pure speculation.
Yes, having worked in a state court in my pre-nurse life, taking in new cases and filings, I do have some experience, and that is true.
There are different ways to keep the assignments random.
I'll also concede that it's certainly not impossible that the Trump team somehow gained some inside info.
Of course, the same is true of when the FBI went to get a warrant. They may have known who would be reviewing warrants that day. That's probably even more likely, as local law enforcement officers go there often, get to know people and routines.
I can only imagine the comments I would have received if I'd accused, without evidence, the FBI of judge shopping.
Yes, having worked in a state court in my pre-nurse life, taking in new cases and filings, I do have some experience, and that is true.
There are different ways to keep the assignments random.
I'll also concede that it's certainly not impossible that the Trump team somehow gained some inside info.
Of course, the same is true of when the FBI went to get a warrant. They may have known who would be reviewing warrants that day. That's probably even more likely, as local law enforcement officers go there often, get to know people and routines.
I can only imagine the comments I would have received if I'd accused, without evidence, the FBI of judge shopping.
Of course the FBI judge-shops — did anyone assert that they do not? The part that makes it interesting is that they went to a whole different court to do it.
Of course the FBI judge-shops — did anyone assert that they do not? The part that makes it interesting is that they went to a whole different court to do it.
Why would anyone have asserted that if it was never brought up.
LOL...right, it would have met with open minds if I had suggested the FBI on purpose went to a anti Trump judge...ha, you have a sense of humor!
There are many reasons a court may or may not have jurisdiction of a case. The judge is asking for their argument. We'll see what happens.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
21 minutes ago, Beerman said:
Why would anyone have asserted that if it was never brought up.
LOL...right, it would have met with open minds if I had suggested the FBI on purpose went to a anti Trump judge...ha, you have a sense of humor!
There are many reasons a court may or may not have jurisdiction of a case. The judge is asking for their argument. We'll see what happens.
Well that would have been a ridiculous assertion for you to make... that the FBI on purpose went to an anti-Trump... because they didn't go to a anti-Trump judge. Are we supposed to be open minded about ridiculous assertions which are contrary to facts and evidence? Or maybe that's the humorous part.
The judge asked them why they came to a different court and judge for motions about a matter currently in front of another judge and court. She asked them that after she instructed them on basic legal procedure. How embarrassing for them.
Of course the FBI judge-shops — did anyone assert that they do not? The part that makes it interesting is that they went to a whole different court to do it.
For that matter, why did they wait 2 weeks to do it? What did they suppose the investigators were doing all that time?
chare
4,374 Posts
Perhaps, after calling @heron on not providing a source for her post, you would provide one for yours.