1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.NEWS.INTERNET.DISCUS

  • election interference

    From JAB@21:1/5 to All on Fri Oct 18 13:29:37 2024
    Judge Chutkan's 5-page order rejecting Trump's request to keep
    materials secret until after the election: "If the court withheld
    information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely
    because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that withholding could itself constitute -- or appear to be -- election interference."

    https://x.com/stengel/status/1847262378171486700

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to adhellman1@gmail.com on Fri Oct 18 18:57:14 2024
    On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:32:39 -0400, Auric Hellman
    <adhellman1@gmail.com> wrote:

    This judge appears to have an axe to grind

    Regardless, her point is valid. =====================================================

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Auric Hellman on Sat Oct 19 11:16:48 2024
    On Fri, 18 Oct 2024, Auric Hellman wrote:

    On 10/18/2024 2:29 PM, JAB wrote:
    Judge Chutkan's 5-page order rejecting Trump's request to keep
    materials secret until after the election: "If the court withheld
    information that the public otherwise had a right to access solely
    because of the potential political consequences of releasing it, that
    withholding could itself constitute -- or appear to be -- election
    interference."

    https://x.com/stengel/status/1847262378171486700



    This judge appears to have an axe to grind, judging by her recent history pertaining to the events of Jan 6. With having been both doxed and swatted, her attitude is somewhat understood.

    But not justified. Behaviour like that shows that the judge holds personal vendettas higher than the law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to nospam@example.net on Sat Oct 19 10:51:14 2024
    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:16:48 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

    Behaviour like that shows

    I'm not aware of a legal doctrine suggesting a person's claimed "dirty
    laundry" should be hidden for a candidate. In a democracy, making an
    exception for political candidates would not be fair, since the rest
    of us can't choose a time when the dirty laundry is exposed. And,
    needless to say, voters should have a 'fair/balanced' understanding.

    In any event, those voting for the moralless one are not concerned
    about his piles and piles of dirty laundry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Sat Oct 19 18:48:09 2024
    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:16:48 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

    Behaviour like that shows

    I'm not aware of a legal doctrine suggesting a person's claimed "dirty laundry" should be hidden for a candidate. In a democracy, making an exception for political candidates would not be fair, since the rest
    of us can't choose a time when the dirty laundry is exposed. And,
    needless to say, voters should have a 'fair/balanced' understanding.

    My interpretation is that in order to do that, an active action has to be performed, which clearly shows the political agenda of the judge and an perversion of the law. If it would have been the default, without any
    active action, no one could have complained.

    In any event, those voting for the moralless one are not concerned
    about his piles and piles of dirty laundry.

    The smart people know that this is just lawfare and discreditation, and
    will not let themselves be persuaded. Trump has God on his side.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to nospam@example.net on Sat Oct 19 18:52:53 2024
    On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 18:48:09 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

    Trump has God on his side.

    In the hereafter, the board of education will be used repetitively

    My interpretation

    His attorneys can oppose, and gain brownie points if successful.

    The smart people know that this is just lawfare and discreditation

    Then, like I said,

    In any event, those voting for the moralless one are not concerned
    about his piles and piles of dirty laundry.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)