It was not a general question. He was referring to specifically Trump's motions in various cases that, he claimed, pushed those cases to beyond elections.
The question was related specifically to Trump's case, but it was about the ability to use the system to achieve goals using means not for their intended purpose.
For example, submitting motions that you know will fail only because you know that everything will be put on hold until it's responded to.
People who can afford lawyer fees can game the system when it suits them, but I do struggle to think of another circumstance where it could actually be of use .
I would have liked to hear her view on it, given her experience in the courtroom. And the fact that she was a Haley supporter, thus a little more neutral.
There is a lot to unpack in your comment I will try my best and see if I can do justice to this.
but it was about the ability to use the system to achieve goals using means not for their intended purpose.
The answer Judy gave makes exactly this point. She completely ignores Trump's motions and directs her vitriol on the very same thing thats being done - but against him, not by him. I think this is a powerful statement. It tells you what she thinks about whether Trump is manipulating the system, or whether the system is being manipulated against him.
For example, submitting motions that you know will fail only because you know that everything will be put on hold until it's responded to.
Here I have to ask you directly. Do you think Trump is filing motions to manipulate the system? Keep in mind that his motions are exposing deep corruption within DOJ, the collusion of the DA/prosecutor, the illegality of special counsel, the deeply compromised judges etc.
If you want an example, I would say the use of two tiered legal system where one side has unlimited budget and the other side will have to capitulate no matter what unless you agree to their demands to do what they want you to do.
In this case, would be for Trump to not run for president or to run as a controlled candidate.
Do you really think filing motions is wrong, even if lets say you "know it will fail" as long as you are the one paying for them, and your opponent is the most powerful legal entity in the world?
Do you think wanting to delay the cases to after the elections is wrong? Using whatever legal means (assuming thats what Trump was supposedly doing - but I think in reality he wasn't) including filing motions?
Do you really think filing motions is the biggest problem in the judicial system?
(Again I am not talking about two people, but DOJ vs people)
And the fact that she was a Haley supporter, thus a little more neutral.
She makes it clear that she is not a Trump supporter, and she also makes it clear that this is a travesty of justice against Trump. So I think the answer is very clear.
I'll try to address your questions but I'm no legal mind which is why I wanted her view on it.
It tells you what she thinks about whether Trump is manipulating the system, or whether the system is being manipulated against him.
I would have liked a more explicit response, it felt more like political deflection tbh.
Do you think Trump is filing motions to manipulate the system?
There were some which I understood to be just to delay. Like repeatedly asking the judge to recuse himself while not offering additional reasons on subsequent requests. What is "delay" to me could be "trying to bring attention to a corrupt judge" to another, I understand that. I lean towards the former as the greater motivator.
I don't know enough about the legal system to answer most of the other questions, for example whether it's ethical/moral to delay the cases until after the election. Certainly it's not illegal, but one point often made is how much it costs taxpayers to extend it. Yes I know the initial cost of them even happening is enormous but we're talking about the use of employing delay tactics.
I believe Trump could run for president on his own terms while pointing out the hypocrisy of being singled out for ticky tacky charges while they say "no one is above the law". There's no need for him to capitulate and become a controlled candidate.
In my view he's trying to stay more favorable to independent voters who could be swayed by headlines.
In the New York lawsuit, he was indicted on March 2023 and the trial began on April 15, 2024 and concluded on May 30, 2024 - 14 months later.
(Compare this to Ghislane Maxwell, who was indicted in July 2020 and the trail finished December 2021 - 17 months later)
The District of Columbia trial was put on hold in February 2024 while waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution.
The Georgia trial is paused while the Georgia Court of Appeals decides whether to disqualify Fani Willis
The Florida trial has been indefinitely postponed, while Judge Cannon has been declassifying tons of documents that expose the collusion between the Biden WH, DOJ, Jack Smith, National Archives etc.
Which of these cases do you believe possibly suffers from unnecessary motions purely to delay the cases beyond the election date?
It was not a general question. He was referring to specifically Trump's motions in various cases that, he claimed, pushed those cases to beyond elections.
The question was related specifically to Trump's case, but it was about the ability to use the system to achieve goals using means not for their intended purpose.
For example, submitting motions that you know will fail only because you know that everything will be put on hold until it's responded to.
People who can afford lawyer fees can game the system when it suits them, but I do struggle to think of another circumstance where it could actually be of use .
I would have liked to hear her view on it, given her experience in the courtroom. And the fact that she was a Haley supporter, thus a little more neutral.
There is a lot to unpack in your comment I will try my best and see if I can do justice to this.
The answer Judy gave makes exactly this point. She completely ignores Trump's motions and directs her vitriol on the very same thing thats being done - but against him, not by him. I think this is a powerful statement. It tells you what she thinks about whether Trump is manipulating the system, or whether the system is being manipulated against him.
Here I have to ask you directly. Do you think Trump is filing motions to manipulate the system? Keep in mind that his motions are exposing deep corruption within DOJ, the collusion of the DA/prosecutor, the illegality of special counsel, the deeply compromised judges etc.
If you want an example, I would say the use of two tiered legal system where one side has unlimited budget and the other side will have to capitulate no matter what unless you agree to their demands to do what they want you to do.
In this case, would be for Trump to not run for president or to run as a controlled candidate.
Do you really think filing motions is wrong, even if lets say you "know it will fail" as long as you are the one paying for them, and your opponent is the most powerful legal entity in the world?
Do you think wanting to delay the cases to after the elections is wrong? Using whatever legal means (assuming thats what Trump was supposedly doing - but I think in reality he wasn't) including filing motions?
Do you really think filing motions is the biggest problem in the judicial system?
(Again I am not talking about two people, but DOJ vs people)
She makes it clear that she is not a Trump supporter, and she also makes it clear that this is a travesty of justice against Trump. So I think the answer is very clear.
I'll try to address your questions but I'm no legal mind which is why I wanted her view on it.
I would have liked a more explicit response, it felt more like political deflection tbh.
There were some which I understood to be just to delay. Like repeatedly asking the judge to recuse himself while not offering additional reasons on subsequent requests. What is "delay" to me could be "trying to bring attention to a corrupt judge" to another, I understand that. I lean towards the former as the greater motivator.
I don't know enough about the legal system to answer most of the other questions, for example whether it's ethical/moral to delay the cases until after the election. Certainly it's not illegal, but one point often made is how much it costs taxpayers to extend it. Yes I know the initial cost of them even happening is enormous but we're talking about the use of employing delay tactics.
I believe Trump could run for president on his own terms while pointing out the hypocrisy of being singled out for ticky tacky charges while they say "no one is above the law". There's no need for him to capitulate and become a controlled candidate.
In my view he's trying to stay more favorable to independent voters who could be swayed by headlines.
In the New York lawsuit, he was indicted on March 2023 and the trial began on April 15, 2024 and concluded on May 30, 2024 - 14 months later.
(Compare this to Ghislane Maxwell, who was indicted in July 2020 and the trail finished December 2021 - 17 months later)
The District of Columbia trial was put on hold in February 2024 while waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution.
The Georgia trial is paused while the Georgia Court of Appeals decides whether to disqualify Fani Willis
The Florida trial has been indefinitely postponed, while Judge Cannon has been declassifying tons of documents that expose the collusion between the Biden WH, DOJ, Jack Smith, National Archives etc.
Which of these cases do you believe possibly suffers from unnecessary motions purely to delay the cases beyond the election date?