It's the American people that deserve a speedy trial - not Donald Trump.

[kentuck]

In fact, he doesn't want a speedy trial. He wants no trial at all.

It is the American people that have suffered the threats and treason of this one-time president of the United States.

It is the people that have waited almost 3 years for justice to come. Donald Trump would have you believe that you did not see what you saw on January 6th, 2021.

He would have you believe that the attempted extortion and conspiracy to steal an election was nothing more than "free speech".

He is no longer the president. He is a common citizen. He should be treated as such.

[Effete Snob]

1. The Constitution disagrees with you

The Eighth Amendment is not a difficult read:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

The right belongs to the accused.

In fact, the Constitution confers a number of rights upon the accused defendant in a criminal proceeding. It is up to the accused defendant in a criminal proceeding to exercise or waive those rights. Any right you have, you are free to not use, but the choice is up to you, not someone else.

People hate the Constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants. It is the one most common unAmerican tendencies you find on both the right and the left.

To be clear - Do you know what protections the Constitution provides to victims of crimes? NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. Protecting victims of crimes is not the point.

I realize the Constitution, and the rights it secures to criminal defendants, is a pain in the ass. But posts like this OP inspire confidence that a broad coalition of Americans strongly support doing away with those rights.

[boston bean]

3. Both are cited as per Jack Smith. It is not solely a defendants right to waive. There is a public

interest that is also taken into consideration.

[Hortensis]

11. As you and others say. Courts have a duty to safeguard all rights.

Including of those who don't understand or value them, are even eager to throw them away.

[William769]

15. ...

[kentuck]

4. Yes, he has the "right"...

...but the people "deserve" a speedy trial also, in my opinion. It is wrong to let the people be victimized in such a way.

And no one has denied Donald Trump a "speedy" trial. He doesn't want one. How do we fix that?

[Wonder Why]

10. Once he is convicted and then denied right to run or loses, watch how he tries to further extend any

other trials. Right now, all he cares about is winning the election before first conviction. If he loses, he will really worry about convictions because he'll have no hope at all.

[RobinA]

26. Trump

or any defendant has the right to waive his right to a speedy trial. The people do not have a similar right.

[The Magistrate]

5. This Is Pecksniffery, Sir

The gentleman knows the text.

And he makes a valid point, that a speedy trial is in the best interest of the people and our country, and that this would-be tyrant's attempts to delay and thwart justice, by means of pleas with no more legal weight than some sov-cit's liens on a county commissioner, must be bull-dozed through. He cannot be allowed to delay his reckoning one second past the normal course of trial for conspiracy to commit violent felonies. That it is in fact a trial for the highest of crimes, attempting overthrow of the government of the United States, is no reason to indulge the man's dilatory efforts. The government of the United States is not some contractor who wants the full hundred thousand for installing the carpet in the lobby, rather than the sixty-five this 'blue-collar billionaire' seeks to fob him off with..


"Mad or sane, rebels must hang. Your Excellency knows this."

[gab13by13]

7. The voters need to see what a traitor Trump is,

how anti-democratic he is, how he would remain a dictator BEFORE voting for or against him.

Our democracy needs a speedy but fair trial.

[inthewind21]

28. Kind

of like they needed to SEE he was a business failure, a con, a womanizer and all the other things he is BEFORE the 2016 election? Like that? How'd that work out? If you think for one split second that indictments, trials, convictions, mug shots or perp walks will prevent his supporters from voting for him again, well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. If the voters don't already see it, then nothing is going to make them. All this hysteria thinking, no demanding the world needs to stop and X or Y needs to be done RIGHT NOW to prevent Trump from getting elected again is nothing more than nailing your foot to the floor then wondering why you are walking in circles.

[Rhiannon12866]

8. Perfectly stated, Sir! Thank you!

I've been waiting for him to go away permanently since the 2916 election, I found him so offensive, insulting anyone who doesn't agree with him, those who served the country like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. And then - as you said - he tried to overthrow the government, yet thinks he should get a second chance to finish the job! He deserves to be convicted and placed where we will never have to hear his insults to the people and this country again...

[niyad]

12. Thank you for enlarging my vocabulary with that delicious word.

[Beastly Boy]

13. It is a matter of best interest vs a constitutional right. Logic demands that the latter supercedes

the former. Neither one can be ignored for the sake of the other, but there is an order of priorities that applies here. A trial is considered speedy when the constitutional rights of a defendant are met. It is up to the judge to make sure they are met, and it is up to the judge to determine what constitutes indulging the defendant. One must be clear which is which before calling for bulldozing through the latter without affecting the former.

[The Magistrate]

17. To Quote Mr. Lincoln, Sir

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

No one is arguing that there be violation of anyone's rights, certainly not of anyone's right to a speedy trial before an impartial jury. It takes some brass to cite that right in defense of bad faith attempts to string out the process in hopes of being crowned in future and able then not just to dismiss charges but persecute those who brought them.

Everyone knows what's going on. There is no reason a judge should entertain, let alone grant, motions for delay that amount to deranged tweets presented for a clerk's stamp. Treating them as what they are impairs no one's rights under the Constitution.


"This pretense of not knowing what any idiot knows has come to define our political discourse."

[Beastly Boy]

22. In legal matters, it is the judge's task to determine where a defendant's rights end and bad faith

begins. With all due respect to Mr. Lincoln, I don't see the relevance of his quote to this context. What the quote implies is, I am sure, a routine practice in jurisprudence.

The poster you originally replied to states that the right for a speedy trial belongs to the accused. I trust this is beyond debate. A speedy trial presumes adherence to the constitutional protections granted to the accused, and I presume this is not a matter for debate either. You seem to have no argument with that. I proposed that it is up to the judge to determine the merits of the motions brought to her by the accused. This would require the judge to entertain every motion, no matter how frivolous, in order to make such determination. You appear to disagree with it in your last post.

Is it your position that the defendant's motions have no legal weight regardless of the judge's opinion? Is the judge free to dismiss them without familiarizing herself with their content? If so, how does the judge discern the difference between motions that have legal merit and those that don't? And if it's not the judge, who or what determines the presence or absence of legal weight in these motions?

Surely, you will not argue that the public persona of the defendant is the sole determinant of the legal merit of all his motions, will you? Surely you will not argue that what "everybody knows" about the defendant is the sole determinant of the legal merits of his motions, will you?

[The Magistrate]

23. In This Instance, Sir, It Begins When The Defendant's Lawyers Open Their Mouth

Strike the posture of virtue and Olympian detachment as much as you please, this is not a stage on which to preen.

This is suppressing insurrection, this is our government defending the country against a domestic enemy.

The man is owed no more consideration than any indigent charged with multiple felonies represented by a public defender.


"No one feels more keenly the injustices of our criminal justice system than white men of mature age and conservative inclination caught in its toils for the very first time."

[Beastly Boy]

24. Are you suggesting that the judge has the right to deprive the accused of legal counsel at will?

In itself, this would constitute a lesser consideration than any haredscrabble charged with jaywalking represented by a public defender is entitled to.

It is absurd to suggest I am posturing when you are deflecting from addressing the issues I am raising.

[The Magistrate]

25. I Do Know, Sir

That it is a general principle of semantics that the meaning of an utterance is the meaning taken from it by the hearer. So if you took from my words the meaning that I intend depriving anyone of counsel, I must accept responsibility, even as I salute your agility and the quality of your squint to manage it.

I have said what my rock bottom view on this is:

The defendant and his lawyers are owed every break and courtesy in court that a public defender representing an indigent charged with multiple felonies could expect.

[Beastly Boy]

27. It is not your intent I question.

It is self-evident that you lack standing to deprive anyone of counsel. So your intent to do so, whether it exists or not, is outside of my inquiry.

This is the extent of what I inferred from your posts: I am questioning your suggestions that a judge's discretion in insuring a defendant's rights "Begins When The Defendant's Lawyers Open[ing] Their Mouth" and "There is no reason a judge should entertain, let alone grant, motions for delay that amount to deranged tweets presented for a clerk's stamp.". This is below the standards you yourself suggested: "The defendant and his lawyers are owed every break and courtesy in court that a public defender representing an indigent charged with multiple felonies could expect."

These are your direct quotes, and if I inferred from them something that you didn't mean, you are welcome to elaborate on what you did mean.

[William769]

16. Always the voice of reason.

[2live is 2fly]

21. I don't understand your tendency to use these cleverly camoflaged little put-downs, so much so

they're often glanced over innocuously, example "The Eighth Amendment is not a difficult read:" (Translation= Even a dummy should be able to figure it out.) OR Maybe you write in such a rush, so hurried a manner that you don't realize it. If that's the case, I apologize

If someone points out our problems, we may attempt & try to correct them. For instance, I myself can be quite pedantic

METAPHORICALLY:
In a metaphoric manner; not literally; by means of metaphor.Used to draw attention that what follows is a metaphor, not to be taken literally.In a metaphorical manner.
**********************************************************
PEDANTIC:
Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way.

https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › pedantic
Pedantic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Pedantic is a word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

[Kid Berwyn]

2. Shut him up.

No tweeting, texting, direct messaging, phone calls from prison, etc. from him. And no TV.

Amerca needs to shut off the Nazi bigot spigot.

[rubbersole]

6. Only because he's a treasonous putin puppet tax cheating felon.

[loquaciouslimey]

9. And a Gag order!

Agreed! A speedy trial is a constitutional right but the American people *also deserve an unbreakable gag order on the MSM. They have been saturation-bombing this story for 3 years and I can't be the only one sick to the teeth of it 🥴

[William769]

14. He is not a common citizen

He's a common thug.

[The Magistrate]

18. Thugs Are Citizens Too, Sir

He and his lawyers are owed every break and courtesy in court that a public defender representing an indigent charged with multiple felonies could expect.

[William769]

19. I agree with most of your statement.

To me, a thug is a thug, is a thug.

I have 20 years under my belt working in the Florida Department of Corrections to make that statement.



P.S. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the protections afforded a defenddent. I also have common sense.

[The Magistrate]

20. Fair Enough, Sir