Breaking news and current events worldwide.
This is why the rule against editorialising headlines before posting exists. What you have written is not what it says in the article.
Trump doesn't have to show up, and all the judge did was suggest a hearing between today and Friday, dipshits lawyers said 'how about next week?', and she said 'friday it is'.
Stick to the facts
I think you missed the last part of the article. "The requirement of defendant's appearance is waived for this hearing."
That's the opposite of the title here. His attorney has to appear, but the co-counsel that is going to be in another court won't be there.
His lawyers need to show, not him. The last line of the article states as such.
She did how ever reject two dates in the future that trumps team proposed saying that they should be there Friday.
Post where the title in no way bears any resemblance to the link posted, op is an entire clown
I've not editorialized the headline, nor have I modified it's original text. What I have done, is added an introductory comment. That you don't care for the content of my comment is just not a 'me' problem.
You have presented it as though The Independent said "Federal Judge in Trump case says, No, bring your ass to Court on Friday like I said," which they did not. The title of the post is not "an introductory comment."
I mean, the article's actual headline is "DC judge rejects Trump team’s delay attempt and schedules protective order hearing"
When I post the same link, it suggests the same title as the article has; "DC judge rejects Trump team’s delay attempt and schedules protective order hearing". You had to type that title on your own, adding your take on the rejection, evidenced by Trump not having to bring "his ass" to court, as the judge specifically waived his appearance for this proceeding. So it's wrong.
That's literally "editorialized".
Setting aside the inflammatory title --
I am glad to see evidence that Chutkan is doing "find out" to the defense team's "fuck around." This leads me to have more confidence that she'll issue a protective order (something which I understand is amazingly common, and normally agreed to at arraignment). I still have concerns about what (if any) consequences will be issued to the defendant when he violates that order. I am hoping that those consequences will be spelled out in Friday's hearing on the matter.
I understand that his presence was excused. That's my whole complaint.
Nasty woman. Blood coming out of her eyes....
Can’t tell if sincere or what. She’s doing her job.
It's an old trump quote
I think it's a reference to something cheetos dust said in the past.
The misogyny was always so front and center with him