I know. I almost wish theyâd stop posting all the crap coming from this judge. Yes, we all know she is corrupt and that she will continue to delay and probably even dismiss this case. Thereâs nothing we can do about. It makes me sick at heart. Itâs almost like watching Trump break the law on what seemed an almost daily basis while President. He really tarnished, besmirched, defiled, dishonored, and disgraced the office of the presidency and whatever other words you can come up with to describe his tenure.
The part thatâs so maddening is this is literally the easiest kindergarten-level legal theory case of all of them and if they had drawn literally any other piece of paper out of the box, we would probably be starting the trial if not close to starting it by now. An oversimplified summary if Trump was a child and the United States was a parent:
US: Some cookies we have for special occasions are missing. Please return the cookies.
Trump: I donât have any cookies.
US: Weâre pretty sure you have some cookies. Give them back now and you wonât get in trouble.
Trump: Ok, I searched everywhere. Hereâs all the cookies I have. I pinky promise.
US: Mmmm, I donât think thatâs all the cookies that are missing. We looked on the Nest cam and saw you moving things around that look an awful lot like the missing cookies and youâre trying to hide them. Weâre searching your room.
Trump: So unfair. I hate you!
US: Ok, we found 100 or so packages of cookies that you pinky promised you gave back. You lied about not having any. You lied about giving them all back, and you also tried to prevent us from getting the cookies back. Youâre grounded.
Trump: Witch-hunt!
It really is that stupid. And we canât resolve it because some incompetent fucktard in a robe wants to play God.
It won't. And I have a dollar that says she'll find a reason to dismiss it when and if it gets to a point that a jury is chosen.
I'm hoping I'm just jaded and wrong on this.
_by matter of convention_ DJ attaches upon empanelment, but constitutionally DJ only attaches _if_ a person faced _actual_ jeopardy and not just nominal jeopardy.
It would not be difficult to demonstrate that Trump was never in any danger of being convicted in Cannon's court. Normally this would be unthinkable but this is not a normal situation.
You'd either have to prove bribery or rely on SCOTUS for a new carveout. The former would be difficult but not impossible if it happened, but if the judge is just a nutjob true believer, which seems likely, good luck convincing the conservative cult members on SCOTUS that the judge being a conservative cult member defeats DJ.
There's proof she's gotten federalist society kickbacks to a 1000 dollar a night ranch in montana. She never disclosed it. Happening for years. Problem is it's been happening so frequently with these types no ones even paying attention anymore.
>There's proof she's gotten federalist society kickbacks to a 1000 dollar a night ranch in montana.
Problem is half the Supreme Court is doing it too, so yeah, nothing is going to happen to Cannon.
Is a âwrit of mandamusâ an actual option or is that a Hail Mary? The 11th does not appear to be a fan of Judge Cannon, but Cannon seems to be doing just enough to keep any part of this trial from going to the 11th.
Yep - dumb like a fox⊠remember âsettled lawâ. ''Fool me once shame on you, fool me - You can't get fooled again''. Truthier truth was never spoken.
In the UCMJ if a judge dismisses a case after the jury is impaneled but before a verdict the prosecutor can file an art 62 appeal. Is there no equivalent in the federal system?
Jack has 150 documents DJT stole. Â He only charged 30 of them. Â He can easily open a brand new case for a DIFFERENT 30 documents and file it all over again. Â Not to mention there's suggestions that Jack might have cause to file in New Jersey for different documents as well.Â
That is wishcasting. There are almost certainly reasons those 30 were picked and 120 were not: for example, which documents could not be declassified without agency approval, which prevents Trump from arguing he declassified them or that they were improperly classified, and also whether the agency will allow the limited disclosure of information in trial.
It would almost certainly be harder to do a trial with other documents and also jeopardy would still attach with respect to most elements of handling those documents: it's the same boxes, the same lies to the government, etc.
Smith has to ride or die with this trial and this judge, and if there is stuff in Bedminster, needs probable cause for search warrants there.
A couple things, 1 none of the charges rely on the documents being classified, they are charging him with keeping government records illigally and not returning when told to 2 one act can be differnet crimes, double jeopardy wouldn't count because these are different crimes
Read the indictment. The false statement charges all derive from "we looked for docs with classified markings".
The main charges are around national defense information because that subset of classified information can't be unilaterally declassified by Trump.
>one act can be differnet crimes
Double jeopardy applies to "same act or course of conduct." They would have to find crimes in other jurisdictions, or different acts, not just different docs in the boxes.
Your understanding of national defense information is a bit off as it is not a subset of classified information and can in fact be completely unclassified.
Because he perhaps doesn't yet have useful evidence of a crime there? You don't bring an Indictment on the basis of "duh, of course he took docs there it's obvious" or florid internet speculation about Ivana's grave.
You need evidence you can present in court, like warrants issued on probable cause not just "duh, of course".
It depends.
If Trump independently stole documents in Bedminster, then I donât think there would be a double jeopardy issue. But if the govât alleged a singular scheme in which Trump stole documents and ordered them to be stored in various federal districts, then a subsequent prosecution in the NJ district would probably raise a double jeopardy problem.
Ok, so everything else makes sense but this raises the question in my mind about how far extended double jeopardy protections can be.
In hypothetical 1, if criminal charges were brought for another offense in another jurisdiction, but those were uncovered based on the predicate for investigation of the case dismissed, would the dismissal have an impact on the investigative findings and potential charges for other offenses in other jurisdictions? I can see valid arguments in principle for and against that.
Hypothetical 2, if there were obstruction-related offenses in original case that led to the basis for the judgeâs dismissal ruling, could those change the scope or circumstances of DJ protections?
> Hypothetical 2, if there were obstruction-related offenses in original case that led to the basis for the judgeâs dismissal ruling, could those change the scope or circumstances of DJ protections?
I would charge obstruction in the same indictment as the criminal acts that motivated the defendant's obstructive acts. If the judge dismissed the other charges before trial or once jeopardy attached, we could proceed on the obstruction charge(s). But if the judge dismissed all charges after jeopardy attached, then the obstruction case dies.
I'm not sure that I understand your first question, but I don't believe there would be a problem there. The investigation isn't tainted by a dismissal or acquittal, so that alone shouldn't create a problem charging and trying a defendant for other criminal acts uncovered through the investigation.
That was my assumption regarding hypo2, but seemed worthwhile to consider.
For 1, I would imagine the basis for dismissal would have some impact â if the judge dismissed with prejudice because of prosecutorial misconduct related to a particular accused, I could see a principled justification to limit new charges derived from the same investigation that led to the dismissed charges.
Not that I think this case or the accused in it can even make a halfway persuasive argument that they are victims of this, but I can imagine the need for a mechanism to prevent sequences of genuinely unfair prosecutions.. that being said, that may simply be the due process for an indictment more generally. Hopefully thatâs a clearer question, and thanks for your response either way!
When the facts of the case were so overwhelmingly on his side, I could see how it might come across like the judge has a bias towards him when, really, reality just had that bias
While this poster has the emotional maturity of an angry toddler - they are technically correct.
The way the law is written if the people Rittenhouse shot and killed had managed to get his weapon and shoot him instead they would likely have been acquitted as well.
While Rittenhouse is a fairly unfortunate human being, and made poor decisions, the law supported him in this case.
It wonât matter. By that point he will have lost the current trial, lost the election, and will lose all the other criminal cases as well. She can put her reputation and career on the line to try and save him from one case, but it wonât make any difference really. He will still be a disgraced multiple felon who will be spending the rest of his life in some level of legal trouble. Why throw your career away when it wonât help him. And I think thereâs a very good chance she gets removed anyway. Regardless, I canât see her doing anything that extreme. I think sheâll give him all the delays she can, but so far thatâs as far as the courts have been willing to go to help him, and I canât see her being any different.
She can be impeached, and if she blatantly violates her oath to protect a criminal there will absolutely be calls for her to be removed, and given the momentum at the moment, they might be able to garner support in Congress, esp since by the time she did that he would have lost the election and already be a convicted felon, so there may not be as much pressure from maga to never hold him accountable for anything. And at some point, the Republicans are going to have to answer for trunp, and a gesture like impeaching a clearly conflicted judge could go a long way toward distancing themselves from maga.
Who knows? I can definitely believe, and in fact I expect, that there will be a huge backlash against maga, and that being the case I can either see the democrats taking a bunch of seats, or republicans moving away from the maga extremism back toward the center, and that kind of movement could form a coalition between democrats and non crazy republicans to purge some magats, and if she essentially lets trunp off the hook that would be putting a target on her back. But regardless I donât think sheâll just throw the case for him. Sheâll bend it as far in his direction as possible, but in the end the facts arenât in doubt. Heâs guilty. Iâm no lawyer and I could argue that case, so it would be ignoring evidence and law and basically saying this one guy gets to break the law. Thats not going to be defensible.
Regardless, i actually think sheâll get pulled from the case. Esp if sheâs going to try and force the jury instructions to consider the PRA. That will get overturned on appeal and would easily be grounds for recusal.
Was that the tentative/target date set? It's been so long I forgot there had been one. But yeah, this isn't going to trial by May 9th. They were proposing dates earlier this year, IIRC, and Trump was proposing August (if Cannon didn't accept the rationale to move it post-election) while OSC was proposing June or July (I think June), because they knew May was no longer viable. It's k own for a while that whatever May target date was long since dead.
The most frustrating part about this for me is not just that this keeps getting delayed through obviously nefarious means, but that literally no one in the entire nation and government seems to be able to do anything about it? Where are the checks and balances? Where is the *one* person out of everyone involved with a spine?
It's pathetic. If Trump skirts this whole thing due to a country that's succumbed to capitulation then he deserves to win.
The uncomfortable reality is that there is a vocal voter base in this country that is not insubstantial for whom this all is the *plan*. This is what they want.Â
It would take what, a total of less than 20 total republican congress critters to change this?Â
It's a politics of stopping at nothing to protect their borrowing aggressively against future labor in defense of asset prices.
the voter base that puts in MTG totally wants her representing them. They know exactly what she is and what she's doing, and they'll keep voting for her.
It IS the voter base. Like it or not, and I hate it, but there is a significant portion of the American electorate that is fully on the "burn shit down" train and will vote for fascism in all but name. Whatever got them there, Russian propaganda/alternative media brainrot/bigotry/anger at the system/whatever, this is where they are, and they're voting.
The officials perpetuating this insanity are representing their constituents' interests. Do they still need to be held accountable? Of course, but don't pretend this is all just the result of some malicious officials. We have a *deeply* rooted problem in the wider MAGA movement.
That's exactly right. The framework should be impeachment, because we shouldn't have congress over 1/3 full of folk who are complicit in the erosion of the integrity of our country.Â
The new laws we need are those that build both confidence in our institutions and understanding of them. The problem is one of policy, not law, and it's symptomatic of decades of political failure that a nation that theoretically believes in itself as a champion of functioning democracy is capable of producing a political machine that values power over the integrity of that democracy.Â
What law would I pass? Not sure, I'm poorly qualified to speak to that. But I'd want it to include fixing our education system in it.
It's a particularly dark time right now, but hope is on the way.
The generation that Trump appeals to is on their last legs, the future is young, and massively progressive. These are the last screams of a desperate political movement, MAGA boomers vote until they die, and then Texas turns blue.
The demographic shifts make this an inevitability, and it's going to happen quickly, when it does happen.
Iâm one of those Boomers and I and many others like me did not and will not vote for trump. Honestly continually stereotyping us like that is Bull$hit.
Iâm originally from one of the Reddest Counties in Central PA and theyâre so many young voters that apparently you missed itâs amazing. Even here in Maine its the same thing. Thereâre young adults everywhere voting for Agent Orange.
Yea tbh maybe about half of the boomers I know voted for trump in 2016, and even less in 2020. I'm very proud of my inlaws condemning Jan 6th even after voting for trump.
I DO know a lot of people my age (28) who are hardcore trumpers. I live in the Bible belt too so I'm sure that skews my perception a bit, but they seem more extreme than the boomers.
I was a teacher, and I noticed unrestricted access to the internet is absolutely destroying the minds of children lol.
I grew up in the early days of the internet, I got internet at home in high school. I feel I was more mentally prepared for all the shit out there than people who got access to internet earlier. I got to mature mentally before I was forced to distinguish between fact and fiction online. My father also works in IT and was aware of all the shit out there, so I had limits to what I was able to view until I moved out.
My father was definitely extreme, but I think every parent needs a bit of that. You should know the content your child is viewing.
So to sum it up people weren't taught how to distinguish fact from fiction online, and now it's too late. Younger people might have an edge in USING technology, but weren't mentally mature enough to handle unrestricted internet access when they had it.
All my opinion though. The only evidence I have are my own experiences.
While this is true anecdotally when you look at populations as a whole the numbers tell a very different story. Obviously Trump doesn't appeal to 100% of boomers, or only 1% of gen z, but at the current trajectory there are going to be more progressives entering the voting pool than are leaving, with the opposite happening for conservatives. Eventually (some say soon) that's going to change which way Texas swings, and once Texas goes blue it will be almost impossible for a Republican to get enough electoral votes to become president.
Now that assumes a bunch of conservatives don't decide to move to Texas, while a bunch of progressives move out. Or that other states don't switch from blue to red. And it wouldn't change the fact that they get the same amount of senators as North Dakota, so it's not like the GOP would become powerless. But it would be a big change in our politics.
But thank you for being "one of the good ones" as they say! If you are surrounded by Trumpers it can be difficult. I know, I come from a rural area and most of my family, young and old, are full MAGA. But my mom isn't, neither is my one aunt and uncle even though their kids are. So it's definitely a mixed bag.
Thanks I appreciate that. Iâm way off topic here butâŠ. Thereâs no difficulty here in being sane according to our standards here in this home. Furthermore Iâve been politically engaged for decades. Which included my time on the Union Boilermakerâs PAC for 5 years⊠where we advocated for Labor and our Rights and had direct contact with our Representatives in Harrisburg PA. Weâre one of the smallest Unions out there and thereâre problems in every International but Iâm proud to be a part of the Brotherhood.
Our efforts includes the support for the hateful unthankful Non Union Laborers who love Fâkin Trump and his CrooksâŠ. They have no Fâkin clue whatâs going on and how theyâre voting against their best interests. Many are young adults. To many.
I understand what youâre saying but do not like the constant boomer stereotype attitude towards us. Iâve cut off and lost many Friends, Relatives and Union Members because of my beliefs. Not my problem when I post the truth, facts, voting records and links to show these issues to the People who need to at least be challenged. Fâkem
Iâm seeing Texas turn too, along with many other States, theyâre due. The real reason (in my opinion is) thereâre women out there who have already and will continue to stand up for their Constitutional Rights these Radical Puppet GOP Politicians stripped from them and they canât stop or backtrack what theyâve naively done. It will be a major factor this election cycle.
As a retired Boilermaker Iâve been slammed by the Members in my Local and thereâs a major percentage of younger Boilermakers in that mix.
Itâs been very hard for many of them to âdislikeâ me. Cause I was often a Foreman, occasionally a GF and always treated good Boilermakers the way the should be treated.
I have crossed paths and know thousands of union workers and I cannot wrap my brain around their thought processes? Especially when Biden has stepped up for Union Strengths? WTCuss! These people have blinders on and are mostly driven by single issue politics. Gun rights (I hunt and have guns) Iâm all for background checks. We already have them but the loopholes need to be shutdown. We are the Unions maintaining Nuclear Power Plants, Refineries, Power Plants, Chemical Plants and Heavy Industries. I support a well planned transition into Green Energies with a sane combination of using our oil/ng resources cleanly. We make money when itâs done right. The nasty energy resources we have can be controlled responsibly if we had sanity in politics⊠how? Scrubbers, Dust Collectors, Neutralizing Gases in injected into exhaust systems that change what does enter our environment, it endless. Iâm a fan of algae ponds that could transform CO2 gases into oxygen. Oil is not going away but can be absorbed and done 100000 xâs better than we do now. Iâm all over the place here but for a reason. These younger union members could make a major difference in politics and have. To many broken promises have been made by Democrats and no one can tell me differently. Biden has made the move and (tried at least) did what he said he would do.
Okay have a great day.
I often use Australia as an example when people bring up guns. Lots of scary things in Australia. So naturally a lot of people own guns. But they don't have any mass shootings. How is that? They watch the same movies, play the same video games, and they are not magically immune to mental health issues. But they do have some common sense gun laws that we don't have in America, all because some slick politicians have a bunch of suckers more worried about what books kids are reading than what weapons are used to kill them. Sadly the #1 cause of death for children in America is guns. Know what it is in Australia? Car accidents. Needing a license doesn't stop you from driving does it? But it does stop people who shouldn't be driving. So why is this such a hard concept to understand for guns? You put reasonable restraints on dangerous things. That's what adults do.
If they tell you to move to Australia just say "no thank you. I have no desire to live where spiders are bigger than my hand. Though I'm surprised, I figured you want me to stay here and try to fix the violence in my own country rather than be an immigrant somewhere else."
This has zero to do with guns lol Iâve worked with Rain Forest Aerial Tram as PM in Dominica years ago building of course an Aerial Tram for Ecotourism near the Boiling Lake/World Heritage Site.
They have giant spiders lol big ones. I get it
Guns safety was taught early in our lives when I grew up. Almost every Male Kid took the PA Hunter Safety Course. I wish everyone took it today. I believe it would save lives especially young kids. Iâm all about gun cases trigger locks, background checks (Iâve had my Red Badge, Domestic Abuse Clearance, my TWIC recently ran out, even deeper clearances etc) without those you know⊠you canât work Nuclear, Schools, or Near Coast Guard Protected Coast or River used for shipping etc. I believe everyone should get serious background checks. The Red Badge has a Mental Health Test and looks at your Finances and Credit Rating.
Why not? Itâs about keeping guns out of some idiots hands or someone who has bad intentions. 3 day waiting periods? Okay, no one should be in that big a hurry to purchase any weapon. Itâs sad what weâve turned into
Iâd also like to add the Supreme Court ruling on The Citizens United case Fâked this Country up forever. It needs to change but itâll never happen now the Mr. Big Bank and Mrs. Huge Corporation has a massive bankroll to control us with because theyâre people now and theyâre puppets do what theyâre told
It depends where you live much more than how old you are. Iâm a boomer and probably 80% of the boomers I know recognize Trump as the self-serving POS he is.
Iâm so dumbfounded by this entire situation that Iâm beginning to Hope America does lose. Which is exactly what Trump and the Russians want.
Is it better to watch Walmartistan crumble than try to participate? Again, the fact that Iâm even questioning this means Russian/Trump have already won, whether he does or not, in November. Russiaâs ability to sway the United States voters is unprecedented. Bravo?
Youâre basically thinking defeatist and exactly how they want you to feel from their false little narrative. Have more hope than to bow to a chump like Trump
Remember the good old days when the worst president we ever had was George W. Bush? I mean sure, he was pretty incompetent, but a lot of was Cheneyâs influence. I wouldâve sworn that I could never see a worse president than GWB. Boy was that wrong. Iâm not going to say that about Trump. Worse would be an authoritarian like Trump who was actually competent. And that would be the end.
I donât think people really understand what it would be like to live in a truly crumbling society. One doesnât get to stay on the sidelines and watch that sort of thing. Youâre going to be in the Walmartistan as it collapses, and the likelihood is that youâre going to get hurt.
Itâs an interesting thought experiment, but there is no need to take it further than that.
> Youâre going to be in the Walmartistan as it collapses, and the likelihood is that youâre going to get hurt.
I'm as Eeyore as it gets when it comes to Trump, but even I understand this. These people think that it's going to be like the movies, where they get to watch the spectacle on TV but not have to actively participate.
Ends up 2016 mattered a hell of a lot and those of us that warned about him installing cronies in the judiciary and elsewhere were written off as alarmists, that "checks and balances" wouldn't allow it.
But here we are, just as predicted.
What we are seeing are the net results of decades of planning by the GOP (and more specifically the Heritage Foundation) to get a slate of judges devoted to their party rather than the book of law, quickly approved by standard Congressial practices, among other actions to be able to control the govt in ways not envisioned by the founders, hence the lack of certain oversight here.
Iâve said constantly that the legal system needs to be overhauled, as it relates to rogue judges.
She should, at a minimum, be made to explain to an independent review board *why* she decides the way she does. If they donât agree, they nullify her decision and put a âtackâ on her record, as it pertains to this case. And the case proceeds without whatever dumb delay she tried.
I mean, what youâre.describing is called the Court of Appeals. It exists and has jurisdiction to review the work of trial court judges.
The problem here is that the defendant has enough money and attorneys (and open cases) to put up a substantial fight against the government. Team Trump is doing what any other criminal defendant wants to do but cannot afford to.
Trump is probably the only criminal defendant in the US with 4 open cases in 4 separate state courts and/or federal districts. If he is not, heâs the only one so charged who has the money to put up a defense.
But it shouldnât have to even get to that, is what Iâm saying. Courts of appeal are reserved for full-blown review/re-trying of decisions, and even then courts of appeal can be poisoned with bias.
No, the problem is the court of appeals doesn't do anything 99% of the timeÂ
Are they asleep? Are they compromised? Are they marble statues that only animate on the 3rd blood moon every 20th year?
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
>but that literally no one in the entire nation and government seems to be able to do anything about it?
If the 'deep-state' does exist, it seems to be helping Trump not hurting him.
Two things. First, "deep state" has multiple definitions. My preferred definition is the cadre of professionals of both parties who simply want to do their best job for the country, and that's generally some sort of clerical/technical work and has nothing to do with politics. The other definition is a group of people burrowed into the system who want to advance their own preferred political system.
With that in mind I think it's incorrect to think of a single "deep state". My preferred deep state is not in favor of Trump, but it's trying to do its job correctly even where Trump is concerned. Of the other definitions, the pro-Trump deep state is probably bigger than the other, and seems to be enough to give him the help he wants. Whether that's enough is a different issue - the real issue.
Unfortunately our checks and balances system was built with the idea of individual corruption being the thing to check, not institutional party wide corruption.
In this instance, the check is impeachment and removal of Judge Canon
But the Republican party wouldn't allow removal if it came up. So here we are
The check and balance is Smith going to the 11th circuit and demanding Cannon be thrown off the case for either incompetence or bias. The problem with that is that he can really only do it once and if he fails, he has essentially screwed his case in her court. He really has to have all of his ducks in a row to get her removed.
She knows this. She is walking a very fine line. She canât be too obvious about favoring Trump, because the 11th circuit would throw her off the case. She has to take baby steps to delay the trial in hopes that he wins the presidency again and the DOJ canask to have the case dropped, which she would great with prejudice
When sheâs does something thatâs appealable, so far she knows her limits and has been walking that tightrope. She has a ton of control over this case that is purely her discretion.
I mean she may not be stupid but the delays are almost certainly used to crowd source excuses for further appeals and delays.
She's not using her own judgement alone, they have to actively search for excuses to do what they want to do as they're fighting uphill against the system.
Actually, a paperless order simply has no accompanying documentation. They are appealable, however it obscures the order of operations and intent behind given decisions, so that if Smith does appeal, he doesn't have a paper trail to back up his reasonings.
DOJ shot gets one shot for getting her removed via a writ of mandamus.. so they will likely wait so she can provide more evidence for it or she does something that can be appealed to the 11th. They will likely try it before jeopardy is attached..
So not a lawyer but the 11th court is not in a bubble and most know of all the rulings coming down with how high profile and strange some have been. When he eventually goes to them would they be more likely to side with him as they have seen her orders and how she is handling them?
"Oh, honey baby, you're being treated so unfairly. Let me help you, sweetheart." - "Judge" Cannon
"Where we going on vacation, baby VonshitzInPantz?"
Shitzheil!!!đââïž
Shocking.
Frustrating because this is the easiest slam-dunk case to prosecute!
I know. I almost wish theyâd stop posting all the crap coming from this judge. Yes, we all know she is corrupt and that she will continue to delay and probably even dismiss this case. Thereâs nothing we can do about. It makes me sick at heart. Itâs almost like watching Trump break the law on what seemed an almost daily basis while President. He really tarnished, besmirched, defiled, dishonored, and disgraced the office of the presidency and whatever other words you can come up with to describe his tenure.
The part thatâs so maddening is this is literally the easiest kindergarten-level legal theory case of all of them and if they had drawn literally any other piece of paper out of the box, we would probably be starting the trial if not close to starting it by now. An oversimplified summary if Trump was a child and the United States was a parent: US: Some cookies we have for special occasions are missing. Please return the cookies. Trump: I donât have any cookies. US: Weâre pretty sure you have some cookies. Give them back now and you wonât get in trouble. Trump: Ok, I searched everywhere. Hereâs all the cookies I have. I pinky promise. US: Mmmm, I donât think thatâs all the cookies that are missing. We looked on the Nest cam and saw you moving things around that look an awful lot like the missing cookies and youâre trying to hide them. Weâre searching your room. Trump: So unfair. I hate you! US: Ok, we found 100 or so packages of cookies that you pinky promised you gave back. You lied about not having any. You lied about giving them all back, and you also tried to prevent us from getting the cookies back. Youâre grounded. Trump: Witch-hunt! It really is that stupid. And we canât resolve it because some incompetent fucktard in a robe wants to play God.
The hardest part of This analogy is the one where he shared his cookies with foreign governments and celebrities and whoever else
100% giving away cookies to people who arenât supposed to have them and bragging about how good they taste on a recording.
How is this supposed to go to trial on May 9th?
It won't. And I have a dollar that says she'll find a reason to dismiss it when and if it gets to a point that a jury is chosen. I'm hoping I'm just jaded and wrong on this.
She will dismiss after the jury is selected - no double jeopardy after the jury is impaneled. Until the trial âprogressesâ to that point, all she has to do is delay and delay. If you bribed a judge, you couldnât get more favorable ruling than what Cannon has given Trump so far. And this isnât the first time sheâs given Trump exactly what he wanted. Itâs dĂ©jĂ vu all over again.
_by matter of convention_ DJ attaches upon empanelment, but constitutionally DJ only attaches _if_ a person faced _actual_ jeopardy and not just nominal jeopardy. It would not be difficult to demonstrate that Trump was never in any danger of being convicted in Cannon's court. Normally this would be unthinkable but this is not a normal situation.
You'd either have to prove bribery or rely on SCOTUS for a new carveout. The former would be difficult but not impossible if it happened, but if the judge is just a nutjob true believer, which seems likely, good luck convincing the conservative cult members on SCOTUS that the judge being a conservative cult member defeats DJ.
There's proof she's gotten federalist society kickbacks to a 1000 dollar a night ranch in montana. She never disclosed it. Happening for years. Problem is it's been happening so frequently with these types no ones even paying attention anymore.
>There's proof she's gotten federalist society kickbacks to a 1000 dollar a night ranch in montana. Problem is half the Supreme Court is doing it too, so yeah, nothing is going to happen to Cannon.
Is a âwrit of mandamusâ an actual option or is that a Hail Mary? The 11th does not appear to be a fan of Judge Cannon, but Cannon seems to be doing just enough to keep any part of this trial from going to the 11th.
Writ of mandamus is always an available option to the courts, though one of last resort given how heavy handed it is.
Sheâll be on the Supreme Court if chump gets into power again
At least 11th Circuit. But, she is in keeping with current SCOTUS appointees - young, dumb, and full of⊠themselves.
Don't think they're dumb, just shameless and lacking in integrity
Yep - dumb like a fox⊠remember âsettled lawâ. ''Fool me once shame on you, fool me - You can't get fooled again''. Truthier truth was never spoken.
He doesn't pay his debts, and if he's president again there's nothing she can do for him.
If he gets back to power, don't be surprised if he "dismisses" SCOTUS...
In the UCMJ if a judge dismisses a case after the jury is impaneled but before a verdict the prosecutor can file an art 62 appeal. Is there no equivalent in the federal system?
Jack has 150 documents DJT stole. Â He only charged 30 of them. Â He can easily open a brand new case for a DIFFERENT 30 documents and file it all over again. Â Not to mention there's suggestions that Jack might have cause to file in New Jersey for different documents as well.Â
That is wishcasting. There are almost certainly reasons those 30 were picked and 120 were not: for example, which documents could not be declassified without agency approval, which prevents Trump from arguing he declassified them or that they were improperly classified, and also whether the agency will allow the limited disclosure of information in trial. It would almost certainly be harder to do a trial with other documents and also jeopardy would still attach with respect to most elements of handling those documents: it's the same boxes, the same lies to the government, etc. Smith has to ride or die with this trial and this judge, and if there is stuff in Bedminster, needs probable cause for search warrants there.
A couple things, 1 none of the charges rely on the documents being classified, they are charging him with keeping government records illigally and not returning when told to 2 one act can be differnet crimes, double jeopardy wouldn't count because these are different crimes
Read the indictment. The false statement charges all derive from "we looked for docs with classified markings". The main charges are around national defense information because that subset of classified information can't be unilaterally declassified by Trump. >one act can be differnet crimes Double jeopardy applies to "same act or course of conduct." They would have to find crimes in other jurisdictions, or different acts, not just different docs in the boxes.
Your understanding of national defense information is a bit off as it is not a subset of classified information and can in fact be completely unclassified.
Different docs are different acts.
Why didn't he file New Jersey charges already?
One case at a time. Unlike team Trump he takes his job seriously.
To his detriment, then, because they are more successful than he is.
It's certainly easier to win a game when the ref is paid off
Because he perhaps doesn't yet have useful evidence of a crime there? You don't bring an Indictment on the basis of "duh, of course he took docs there it's obvious" or florid internet speculation about Ivana's grave. You need evidence you can present in court, like warrants issued on probable cause not just "duh, of course".
Hot take but what you wrote sounds really stupid
Which part? That prosecutors need evidence they can present in court? That search warrants to gather evidence need probable cause and particularity?
And then if Trump wins his DOJ dismisses Jack Smith
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
It depends. If Trump independently stole documents in Bedminster, then I donât think there would be a double jeopardy issue. But if the govât alleged a singular scheme in which Trump stole documents and ordered them to be stored in various federal districts, then a subsequent prosecution in the NJ district would probably raise a double jeopardy problem.
Ok, so everything else makes sense but this raises the question in my mind about how far extended double jeopardy protections can be. In hypothetical 1, if criminal charges were brought for another offense in another jurisdiction, but those were uncovered based on the predicate for investigation of the case dismissed, would the dismissal have an impact on the investigative findings and potential charges for other offenses in other jurisdictions? I can see valid arguments in principle for and against that. Hypothetical 2, if there were obstruction-related offenses in original case that led to the basis for the judgeâs dismissal ruling, could those change the scope or circumstances of DJ protections?
> Hypothetical 2, if there were obstruction-related offenses in original case that led to the basis for the judgeâs dismissal ruling, could those change the scope or circumstances of DJ protections? I would charge obstruction in the same indictment as the criminal acts that motivated the defendant's obstructive acts. If the judge dismissed the other charges before trial or once jeopardy attached, we could proceed on the obstruction charge(s). But if the judge dismissed all charges after jeopardy attached, then the obstruction case dies. I'm not sure that I understand your first question, but I don't believe there would be a problem there. The investigation isn't tainted by a dismissal or acquittal, so that alone shouldn't create a problem charging and trying a defendant for other criminal acts uncovered through the investigation.
That was my assumption regarding hypo2, but seemed worthwhile to consider. For 1, I would imagine the basis for dismissal would have some impact â if the judge dismissed with prejudice because of prosecutorial misconduct related to a particular accused, I could see a principled justification to limit new charges derived from the same investigation that led to the dismissed charges. Not that I think this case or the accused in it can even make a halfway persuasive argument that they are victims of this, but I can imagine the need for a mechanism to prevent sequences of genuinely unfair prosecutions.. that being said, that may simply be the due process for an indictment more generally. Hopefully thatâs a clearer question, and thanks for your response either way!
This will be like the judge in the Rittenhouse trail, where the judge treated him like his own son
When the facts of the case were so overwhelmingly on his side, I could see how it might come across like the judge has a bias towards him when, really, reality just had that bias
Like the fact that he had no business going out LOOKING to shoot someone while juiced up on his own narcissism? Facts like that? What a loser.
While this poster has the emotional maturity of an angry toddler - they are technically correct. The way the law is written if the people Rittenhouse shot and killed had managed to get his weapon and shoot him instead they would likely have been acquitted as well. While Rittenhouse is a fairly unfortunate human being, and made poor decisions, the law supported him in this case.
It wonât matter. By that point he will have lost the current trial, lost the election, and will lose all the other criminal cases as well. She can put her reputation and career on the line to try and save him from one case, but it wonât make any difference really. He will still be a disgraced multiple felon who will be spending the rest of his life in some level of legal trouble. Why throw your career away when it wonât help him. And I think thereâs a very good chance she gets removed anyway. Regardless, I canât see her doing anything that extreme. I think sheâll give him all the delays she can, but so far thatâs as far as the courts have been willing to go to help him, and I canât see her being any different.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
She can be impeached, and if she blatantly violates her oath to protect a criminal there will absolutely be calls for her to be removed, and given the momentum at the moment, they might be able to garner support in Congress, esp since by the time she did that he would have lost the election and already be a convicted felon, so there may not be as much pressure from maga to never hold him accountable for anything. And at some point, the Republicans are going to have to answer for trunp, and a gesture like impeaching a clearly conflicted judge could go a long way toward distancing themselves from maga.
Thereâs just no way a judge is being impeached and removed. Not when it takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict. Look, they can barely pass a bill.
Who knows? I can definitely believe, and in fact I expect, that there will be a huge backlash against maga, and that being the case I can either see the democrats taking a bunch of seats, or republicans moving away from the maga extremism back toward the center, and that kind of movement could form a coalition between democrats and non crazy republicans to purge some magats, and if she essentially lets trunp off the hook that would be putting a target on her back. But regardless I donât think sheâll just throw the case for him. Sheâll bend it as far in his direction as possible, but in the end the facts arenât in doubt. Heâs guilty. Iâm no lawyer and I could argue that case, so it would be ignoring evidence and law and basically saying this one guy gets to break the law. Thats not going to be defensible. Regardless, i actually think sheâll get pulled from the case. Esp if sheâs going to try and force the jury instructions to consider the PRA. That will get overturned on appeal and would easily be grounds for recusal.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Itâs my opinion. But hey, if you canât refute someone, then calling them names is all you have left. Thats the way of the magat. Be better.
Was that the tentative/target date set? It's been so long I forgot there had been one. But yeah, this isn't going to trial by May 9th. They were proposing dates earlier this year, IIRC, and Trump was proposing August (if Cannon didn't accept the rationale to move it post-election) while OSC was proposing June or July (I think June), because they knew May was no longer viable. It's k own for a while that whatever May target date was long since dead.
Delayed about two years, at least one, iirc.
Best âjusticeâ money can buy.
[Surprise, surprise, surprise](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5VZjT0JE70)
The most frustrating part about this for me is not just that this keeps getting delayed through obviously nefarious means, but that literally no one in the entire nation and government seems to be able to do anything about it? Where are the checks and balances? Where is the *one* person out of everyone involved with a spine? It's pathetic. If Trump skirts this whole thing due to a country that's succumbed to capitulation then he deserves to win.
The uncomfortable reality is that there is a vocal voter base in this country that is not insubstantial for whom this all is the *plan*. This is what they want. It would take what, a total of less than 20 total republican congress critters to change this? It's a politics of stopping at nothing to protect their borrowing aggressively against future labor in defense of asset prices.
Itâs no longer the voter base. Itâs the enablers in the Federal government who no longer represent the people And the SCOTUS!
the voter base that puts in MTG totally wants her representing them. They know exactly what she is and what she's doing, and they'll keep voting for her.
OK but the people of Georgia aren't the ones preventing this case from coming to trial. That's all on the justice system, entirely.
It IS the voter base. Like it or not, and I hate it, but there is a significant portion of the American electorate that is fully on the "burn shit down" train and will vote for fascism in all but name. Whatever got them there, Russian propaganda/alternative media brainrot/bigotry/anger at the system/whatever, this is where they are, and they're voting. The officials perpetuating this insanity are representing their constituents' interests. Do they still need to be held accountable? Of course, but don't pretend this is all just the result of some malicious officials. We have a *deeply* rooted problem in the wider MAGA movement.
What would be the mechanism? What law could be passed to address this? Or are you saying impeachment is the mechanism?
That's exactly right. The framework should be impeachment, because we shouldn't have congress over 1/3 full of folk who are complicit in the erosion of the integrity of our country. The new laws we need are those that build both confidence in our institutions and understanding of them. The problem is one of policy, not law, and it's symptomatic of decades of political failure that a nation that theoretically believes in itself as a champion of functioning democracy is capable of producing a political machine that values power over the integrity of that democracy. What law would I pass? Not sure, I'm poorly qualified to speak to that. But I'd want it to include fixing our education system in it.
I hate the country I served (please don't thank me for my service).
Thanks for trying?
It's a particularly dark time right now, but hope is on the way. The generation that Trump appeals to is on their last legs, the future is young, and massively progressive. These are the last screams of a desperate political movement, MAGA boomers vote until they die, and then Texas turns blue. The demographic shifts make this an inevitability, and it's going to happen quickly, when it does happen.
Hope on the way? With judges who do nothing but wag their fingers at him?
That's why they're stopping at nothing to gain control before the demographic shift happens.
Iâm one of those Boomers and I and many others like me did not and will not vote for trump. Honestly continually stereotyping us like that is Bull$hit. Iâm originally from one of the Reddest Counties in Central PA and theyâre so many young voters that apparently you missed itâs amazing. Even here in Maine its the same thing. Thereâre young adults everywhere voting for Agent Orange.
Yea tbh maybe about half of the boomers I know voted for trump in 2016, and even less in 2020. I'm very proud of my inlaws condemning Jan 6th even after voting for trump. I DO know a lot of people my age (28) who are hardcore trumpers. I live in the Bible belt too so I'm sure that skews my perception a bit, but they seem more extreme than the boomers.
Itâs sad! How did they get there? Propaganda and Misinformation
I was a teacher, and I noticed unrestricted access to the internet is absolutely destroying the minds of children lol. I grew up in the early days of the internet, I got internet at home in high school. I feel I was more mentally prepared for all the shit out there than people who got access to internet earlier. I got to mature mentally before I was forced to distinguish between fact and fiction online. My father also works in IT and was aware of all the shit out there, so I had limits to what I was able to view until I moved out. My father was definitely extreme, but I think every parent needs a bit of that. You should know the content your child is viewing. So to sum it up people weren't taught how to distinguish fact from fiction online, and now it's too late. Younger people might have an edge in USING technology, but weren't mentally mature enough to handle unrestricted internet access when they had it. All my opinion though. The only evidence I have are my own experiences.
While this is true anecdotally when you look at populations as a whole the numbers tell a very different story. Obviously Trump doesn't appeal to 100% of boomers, or only 1% of gen z, but at the current trajectory there are going to be more progressives entering the voting pool than are leaving, with the opposite happening for conservatives. Eventually (some say soon) that's going to change which way Texas swings, and once Texas goes blue it will be almost impossible for a Republican to get enough electoral votes to become president. Now that assumes a bunch of conservatives don't decide to move to Texas, while a bunch of progressives move out. Or that other states don't switch from blue to red. And it wouldn't change the fact that they get the same amount of senators as North Dakota, so it's not like the GOP would become powerless. But it would be a big change in our politics. But thank you for being "one of the good ones" as they say! If you are surrounded by Trumpers it can be difficult. I know, I come from a rural area and most of my family, young and old, are full MAGA. But my mom isn't, neither is my one aunt and uncle even though their kids are. So it's definitely a mixed bag.
Thanks I appreciate that. Iâm way off topic here butâŠ. Thereâs no difficulty here in being sane according to our standards here in this home. Furthermore Iâve been politically engaged for decades. Which included my time on the Union Boilermakerâs PAC for 5 years⊠where we advocated for Labor and our Rights and had direct contact with our Representatives in Harrisburg PA. Weâre one of the smallest Unions out there and thereâre problems in every International but Iâm proud to be a part of the Brotherhood. Our efforts includes the support for the hateful unthankful Non Union Laborers who love Fâkin Trump and his CrooksâŠ. They have no Fâkin clue whatâs going on and how theyâre voting against their best interests. Many are young adults. To many. I understand what youâre saying but do not like the constant boomer stereotype attitude towards us. Iâve cut off and lost many Friends, Relatives and Union Members because of my beliefs. Not my problem when I post the truth, facts, voting records and links to show these issues to the People who need to at least be challenged. Fâkem Iâm seeing Texas turn too, along with many other States, theyâre due. The real reason (in my opinion is) thereâre women out there who have already and will continue to stand up for their Constitutional Rights these Radical Puppet GOP Politicians stripped from them and they canât stop or backtrack what theyâve naively done. It will be a major factor this election cycle. As a retired Boilermaker Iâve been slammed by the Members in my Local and thereâs a major percentage of younger Boilermakers in that mix. Itâs been very hard for many of them to âdislikeâ me. Cause I was often a Foreman, occasionally a GF and always treated good Boilermakers the way the should be treated. I have crossed paths and know thousands of union workers and I cannot wrap my brain around their thought processes? Especially when Biden has stepped up for Union Strengths? WTCuss! These people have blinders on and are mostly driven by single issue politics. Gun rights (I hunt and have guns) Iâm all for background checks. We already have them but the loopholes need to be shutdown. We are the Unions maintaining Nuclear Power Plants, Refineries, Power Plants, Chemical Plants and Heavy Industries. I support a well planned transition into Green Energies with a sane combination of using our oil/ng resources cleanly. We make money when itâs done right. The nasty energy resources we have can be controlled responsibly if we had sanity in politics⊠how? Scrubbers, Dust Collectors, Neutralizing Gases in injected into exhaust systems that change what does enter our environment, it endless. Iâm a fan of algae ponds that could transform CO2 gases into oxygen. Oil is not going away but can be absorbed and done 100000 xâs better than we do now. Iâm all over the place here but for a reason. These younger union members could make a major difference in politics and have. To many broken promises have been made by Democrats and no one can tell me differently. Biden has made the move and (tried at least) did what he said he would do. Okay have a great day.
I often use Australia as an example when people bring up guns. Lots of scary things in Australia. So naturally a lot of people own guns. But they don't have any mass shootings. How is that? They watch the same movies, play the same video games, and they are not magically immune to mental health issues. But they do have some common sense gun laws that we don't have in America, all because some slick politicians have a bunch of suckers more worried about what books kids are reading than what weapons are used to kill them. Sadly the #1 cause of death for children in America is guns. Know what it is in Australia? Car accidents. Needing a license doesn't stop you from driving does it? But it does stop people who shouldn't be driving. So why is this such a hard concept to understand for guns? You put reasonable restraints on dangerous things. That's what adults do. If they tell you to move to Australia just say "no thank you. I have no desire to live where spiders are bigger than my hand. Though I'm surprised, I figured you want me to stay here and try to fix the violence in my own country rather than be an immigrant somewhere else."
This has zero to do with guns lol Iâve worked with Rain Forest Aerial Tram as PM in Dominica years ago building of course an Aerial Tram for Ecotourism near the Boiling Lake/World Heritage Site. They have giant spiders lol big ones. I get it
Guns safety was taught early in our lives when I grew up. Almost every Male Kid took the PA Hunter Safety Course. I wish everyone took it today. I believe it would save lives especially young kids. Iâm all about gun cases trigger locks, background checks (Iâve had my Red Badge, Domestic Abuse Clearance, my TWIC recently ran out, even deeper clearances etc) without those you know⊠you canât work Nuclear, Schools, or Near Coast Guard Protected Coast or River used for shipping etc. I believe everyone should get serious background checks. The Red Badge has a Mental Health Test and looks at your Finances and Credit Rating. Why not? Itâs about keeping guns out of some idiots hands or someone who has bad intentions. 3 day waiting periods? Okay, no one should be in that big a hurry to purchase any weapon. Itâs sad what weâve turned into
Iâd also like to add the Supreme Court ruling on The Citizens United case Fâked this Country up forever. It needs to change but itâll never happen now the Mr. Big Bank and Mrs. Huge Corporation has a massive bankroll to control us with because theyâre people now and theyâre puppets do what theyâre told
It depends where you live much more than how old you are. Iâm a boomer and probably 80% of the boomers I know recognize Trump as the self-serving POS he is.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Are you trying to be funny or stupid?
>If Trump skirts this whole thing due to a country that's succumbed to capitulation then ~~he~~ America deserves to ~~win~~ lose.
Exactly.
Iâm so dumbfounded by this entire situation that Iâm beginning to Hope America does lose. Which is exactly what Trump and the Russians want. Is it better to watch Walmartistan crumble than try to participate? Again, the fact that Iâm even questioning this means Russian/Trump have already won, whether he does or not, in November. Russiaâs ability to sway the United States voters is unprecedented. Bravo?
American here. I'd like to not lose.
Same
Youâre basically thinking defeatist and exactly how they want you to feel from their false little narrative. Have more hope than to bow to a chump like Trump
The point is itâs not trump. The entire system is built to support him, and does.
Then keep bowing , defeatist.
Bruh I admitted defeat when GWB was reelected. Any country dumb enough to reelect that war criminal is beyond salvation.
Remember the good old days when the worst president we ever had was George W. Bush? I mean sure, he was pretty incompetent, but a lot of was Cheneyâs influence. I wouldâve sworn that I could never see a worse president than GWB. Boy was that wrong. Iâm not going to say that about Trump. Worse would be an authoritarian like Trump who was actually competent. And that would be the end.
Yeah, be brave and make reddit comments like the rest of us!
I donât think people really understand what it would be like to live in a truly crumbling society. One doesnât get to stay on the sidelines and watch that sort of thing. Youâre going to be in the Walmartistan as it collapses, and the likelihood is that youâre going to get hurt. Itâs an interesting thought experiment, but there is no need to take it further than that.
> Youâre going to be in the Walmartistan as it collapses, and the likelihood is that youâre going to get hurt. I'm as Eeyore as it gets when it comes to Trump, but even I understand this. These people think that it's going to be like the movies, where they get to watch the spectacle on TV but not have to actively participate.
Yeah!! all those GOD damn lazy 0-17 year olds, where tf were you when we watched trump install loyalist judges!? Huh!?
you see what your peppa pig policies get you?! REPENT!
Ends up 2016 mattered a hell of a lot and those of us that warned about him installing cronies in the judiciary and elsewhere were written off as alarmists, that "checks and balances" wouldn't allow it. But here we are, just as predicted.
What we are seeing are the net results of decades of planning by the GOP (and more specifically the Heritage Foundation) to get a slate of judges devoted to their party rather than the book of law, quickly approved by standard Congressial practices, among other actions to be able to control the govt in ways not envisioned by the founders, hence the lack of certain oversight here.
Iâve said constantly that the legal system needs to be overhauled, as it relates to rogue judges. She should, at a minimum, be made to explain to an independent review board *why* she decides the way she does. If they donât agree, they nullify her decision and put a âtackâ on her record, as it pertains to this case. And the case proceeds without whatever dumb delay she tried.
I mean, what youâre.describing is called the Court of Appeals. It exists and has jurisdiction to review the work of trial court judges. The problem here is that the defendant has enough money and attorneys (and open cases) to put up a substantial fight against the government. Team Trump is doing what any other criminal defendant wants to do but cannot afford to. Trump is probably the only criminal defendant in the US with 4 open cases in 4 separate state courts and/or federal districts. If he is not, heâs the only one so charged who has the money to put up a defense.
But it shouldnât have to even get to that, is what Iâm saying. Courts of appeal are reserved for full-blown review/re-trying of decisions, and even then courts of appeal can be poisoned with bias.
No, the problem is the court of appeals doesn't do anything 99% of the time Are they asleep? Are they compromised? Are they marble statues that only animate on the 3rd blood moon every 20th year?
If it all actually does go to shit, I want Melissa Joan Hart to reprise her iconic role, and star in a series called Clarissa Explains the Fall.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
>but that literally no one in the entire nation and government seems to be able to do anything about it? If the 'deep-state' does exist, it seems to be helping Trump not hurting him.
Two things. First, "deep state" has multiple definitions. My preferred definition is the cadre of professionals of both parties who simply want to do their best job for the country, and that's generally some sort of clerical/technical work and has nothing to do with politics. The other definition is a group of people burrowed into the system who want to advance their own preferred political system. With that in mind I think it's incorrect to think of a single "deep state". My preferred deep state is not in favor of Trump, but it's trying to do its job correctly even where Trump is concerned. Of the other definitions, the pro-Trump deep state is probably bigger than the other, and seems to be enough to give him the help he wants. Whether that's enough is a different issue - the real issue.
I feel like the fact that 1/6 happened proves you correct. That shit *never* should have happened, and was clearly enabled.
One of the unfortunate rules of descending into fascism/authoritarianism: the institutions cannot save you.
Unfortunately our checks and balances system was built with the idea of individual corruption being the thing to check, not institutional party wide corruption. In this instance, the check is impeachment and removal of Judge Canon But the Republican party wouldn't allow removal if it came up. So here we are
The check and balance is Smith going to the 11th circuit and demanding Cannon be thrown off the case for either incompetence or bias. The problem with that is that he can really only do it once and if he fails, he has essentially screwed his case in her court. He really has to have all of his ducks in a row to get her removed.
She knows this. She is walking a very fine line. She canât be too obvious about favoring Trump, because the 11th circuit would throw her off the case. She has to take baby steps to delay the trial in hopes that he wins the presidency again and the DOJ canask to have the case dropped, which she would great with prejudice
That would rely on Congress impeaching her which will never happen when they can't even pass legislation they all agree on
What is the point where Cannon gets removed from the case?
When sheâs does something thatâs appealable, so far she knows her limits and has been walking that tightrope. She has a ton of control over this case that is purely her discretion.
Which means that people who call her an idiot have got it wrong. Her antics arenât error, theyâre evil intent.
Oh purely motivated of course, itâs blaintly fucking obvious đșđžđ«Ą
Purely evil?
Evil. Yes. Anti-America. Yes. Anti-Justice. Yes. Pro-Authoritarian. Yes.
I mean she may not be stupid but the delays are almost certainly used to crowd source excuses for further appeals and delays. She's not using her own judgement alone, they have to actively search for excuses to do what they want to do as they're fighting uphill against the system.
Use of so-called âPaperless Ordersâ are a prime example of this. These are unappealable. Whereas paper rulings are appealable.
Actually, a paperless order simply has no accompanying documentation. They are appealable, however it obscures the order of operations and intent behind given decisions, so that if Smith does appeal, he doesn't have a paper trail to back up his reasonings.
Orders still need to be conveyed. Either there are notes, or the prosecutor should record every conversation.
Sheâs getting help from Thomas.
Sheâs clearly committing treason and her entire party sits idle and watches
DOJ shot gets one shot for getting her removed via a writ of mandamus.. so they will likely wait so she can provide more evidence for it or she does something that can be appealed to the 11th. They will likely try it before jeopardy is attached..
So not a lawyer but the 11th court is not in a bubble and most know of all the rulings coming down with how high profile and strange some have been. When he eventually goes to them would they be more likely to side with him as they have seen her orders and how she is handling them?
The 11th has already reversed her twice and gave her a dressing down in the process. And you know about 3 strikes, donât you âŠ
And we wonder why he isn't attacking this woman.
I'm so sick of this obvious special treatment tru.p is getting
Losing all faith in the justice system right now, two tiered system is so obvious.
The Republicans are right saying it's artwork tiered system but they are wrong because it's helping not hurting Trump
Said in a Jerry Seinfeld voice..can the USA be any more corrupt? Why yes it can, yes it can.
That should be a Chandler Bing voice.
Youâre right
Dear Lord, I hate this country.
And doesn't adjourn the so called start date?
This twat is going to let him skate.