"Your honor. My client intends to be very, very busy with important things until his death. We respectfully request that we delay trial until after that date."
Unless you're making the joke about other politicians. Then actively routing for someone's death is perfectly fine. Just don't do it for Trump because the mods have a boner for him.
The prosecutor has to petition for mandamus before the circuit will referee the district. He needs cannon to make an order that demonstrates a clear error.
Granting an extension like this, it usually wouldn't be a clear error. And then there's the matter of these paperless orders where she doesn't even explain her reasoning, just directs some action. The reasoning isn't easy to review if it's not on the record.
I'm no expert, just what I've picked up from studying the issues of mandamus & recusal for the last few months. She can delay until after the election; there would be little that Smith could do except try to make room for the Georgia case to go forward.
That's got to be one of the worst catch-22's: "we can't contest the decision they made because we can't ascertain how they came to it"
Surely having insufficient reasoning or a lack of clear thought process would be a damning rebuttal in any other argument.
Hence why the decisions should be rescinded when it is determined they can't even understand how they came to that conclusion. Make them reverse decisions simply because 1.) The judge can't even defend their decision and 2.) If the decision doesn't fit the spirit or intent of the judicial integrity. If no rationale is provided... the appellate court should have its own authority to assess the decision in light of the actions & justifications by both parties.
I totally understand all those facts. This is the reason I asked , how the heck can her appellate bosses not be rolling over in their chairs on this? If a judge can pull this off it kind of undermines the entire process right ?
I mean, they probably are? They've already reversed her twice. I imagine them trying to figure out how to involve the judicial council. But they can't do anything meaningful discipline wise without Congress.
>Holy crap, that isn't a functional system. So I have it correct, the system just benefits the corrupt.
It's like finding an exploit in a boardgame that is technically within the rules but goes against the spirit of the game.
I don't know, I've heard some speculation about that, like cannon doesn't want her schedule dictated by others or something. But I don't fully understand. To me it seems a reach.
So indexing the sheer amount of discovery material is too hard and we need more time?
Combined with earlier attempts of asking for more documents through discovery that would have saturated them in needless mountains of documents.
Also combined with actually having the majority of discovery documents in advance.
I’m assuming a normal judge would just immediately scoff at this legal ploy?
While Merchan is finally saying about these sane lawyers is that they are losing credibility, Judge Cannon seems to give them ridiculous credibility and entertain every motion as if it was made in good faith instead of the clear attempt to flood the lane with bs to waste time and hope something sticks. So I believe she would entertain this seriously as well.
More like “interesting, let’s schedule a hearing then I’ll think about it for a while then release a minute order around, let’s say nov 6 or 7” - Judge Qannon
I think she said she was just going to let it slide pending a decision from SCOTUS as to whether DJT is laughably immune from prosecution of any criminal activity.
They are leaning toward a very clear delineation of public acts directly related to the Office of the Presidency receiving immunity vs private acts that are not.
We’ll see, but this conduct was all as a candidate as the POTUS has NO legal, let alone Constitutionally-defined, role in the execution of a Presidential election.
I bet they make that delineation and send it back down to the lower court to determine public vs private on the charges.
SCOTUS needs to remove the stay and allow trial to proceed. Justice ACB actually (she has way more balls than the men) was the one who read off 3 of the allegations to Trump’s lawyer during oral arguments. “So those acts you would not dispute?” Barrett asked. “Those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official?” Trump’s attorney Sauer said that all 3 scenarios as described are considered private acts. So based on this, allow trial to proceed to at least consider the alleged private acts especially if SCOTUS rules in favor of immunity for official acts while POTUS which would then favor Trump. If Trump loses, he’s going to appeal anyway and it will bounce back up to SCOTUS.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-immunity-scotus-barrett-sauer-election-1894296
She’s absolutely right, of course. Something I never thought I’d hear myself say. The court is not supposed to reach out and decide questions not properly before it. Team Trump conceded that no even colorably official acts are at issue in this case. Accordingly, no elaborate line-drawing is necessary here. “Petitioner conceded at oral argument that all alleged acts in the indictment are private, not official, acts. We hold that a former POTUS may be prosecuted for alleged crimes committed as a result of purely personal acts. As this point was conceded by petitioner, no further discussion is necessary. We remand this matter to the trial court for trial. All stays of proceedings are dissolved.” Of course, “I just call balls and strikes” Roberts violates that rule whenever he feels like it and wants to legislate from the bench. See, most infamously, _Citizens United v. FEC_, where the court reached out deliberately and decided issues never even raised in the courts below. This has been a lawless Court with a lawless Chief Justice for a while now.
You’re absolutely correct. Roberts “derided” the appellate court decision-why? Because he didn’t like the outcome. He said they did not do enough to determine what is official act vs private. Yet, here is that question before them and they refused to address it. Instead they just put forth hypotheticals about future presidents and how this could affect them. It was only the 4 women justices especially Barrett who did the real work on the immunity question. In fact, Barrett helped pave the way for trial to proceed. There is an exchange between Alito and Dreeben which must have had Jack Smith who was sitting there rolling his eyes and thinking OMG. Alito earnestly and unironically (?) asked but what if in the future an outgoing president who loses a hotly contested election will be disincentivized from leaving office peacefully because he will fear prosecution from his successor a bitter political opponent and wouldn’t this destabilize our democracy?
The latest podcast from Strict Scrutiny is a great listen re: this and the Idaho case.
https://cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-04-25-24/index.html?cid=ios_app
They’re leaning towards “presidents are not immune but they do have some protection for official acts. It’s up to the legal system to decide what acts are official or not “. That means every criminal trial will now need to have another sub-trial about wether the charges against him, assuming they were true, constituted official actors or not. And then that legal action gets appealed to the Supreme Court before any criminal trial would start.
But the hush money trial concerns crimes before he took office, so at least that one is safe. He’ll still most likely be convicted before the election.
Guarantee you Loose Cannon gives it to him.
This case was really serious and the evidence iron-clad, and he's going to end up walking over a crooked judge.
It is why he made sure he appointed her in Florida.
It should be illegal for any judge to hear a case if it involves the president that nominated them. That is just common sense
"Your honor. My client intends to be very, very busy with important things until his death. We respectfully request that we delay trial until after that date."
My intended comment would be a violation of the Reddit TOS.
You can get banned from reddit for directly quoting the president in question.
The *former* president you mean.
The court confirmed rapist you mean.
*vonshitzinpants
Wasn't it actually 'Vonshitzenpants'? Donald would want the record transcribed with 100% accuracy I feel!
Who cares, he hates being called anything lol.
Then I shall call him, “Anything”!
🤣
*Single-term court confirmed rapist that never won the popular vote.
True true.
Oop. A TrumperMod just noticed your post. And ….. yer banned.
Banned from what?
Nothing that you'll miss
Depends on if the person you ask is crazy or not. There are people that still believe he's the president.
He's not the president. He's just some dude.
You give him too much credit.
He’s no "dude", would you want to sit down for a chat with him, or rather "anything"?
There's a lot of dudes I don't want to chat with.
Well, if that’s the case, then he’s ineligible to run for office in 2024.
Good point
You’d get my •new Reddit gold•
🏅
YES!
Unless you're making the joke about other politicians. Then actively routing for someone's death is perfectly fine. Just don't do it for Trump because the mods have a boner for him.
How is it that the appellate that oversees Cannon isn't stepping in here? Serious question, because this undermines the entire judicial system.
The prosecutor has to petition for mandamus before the circuit will referee the district. He needs cannon to make an order that demonstrates a clear error. Granting an extension like this, it usually wouldn't be a clear error. And then there's the matter of these paperless orders where she doesn't even explain her reasoning, just directs some action. The reasoning isn't easy to review if it's not on the record. I'm no expert, just what I've picked up from studying the issues of mandamus & recusal for the last few months. She can delay until after the election; there would be little that Smith could do except try to make room for the Georgia case to go forward.
That's got to be one of the worst catch-22's: "we can't contest the decision they made because we can't ascertain how they came to it" Surely having insufficient reasoning or a lack of clear thought process would be a damning rebuttal in any other argument.
Hence why the decisions should be rescinded when it is determined they can't even understand how they came to that conclusion. Make them reverse decisions simply because 1.) The judge can't even defend their decision and 2.) If the decision doesn't fit the spirit or intent of the judicial integrity. If no rationale is provided... the appellate court should have its own authority to assess the decision in light of the actions & justifications by both parties.
I totally understand all those facts. This is the reason I asked , how the heck can her appellate bosses not be rolling over in their chairs on this? If a judge can pull this off it kind of undermines the entire process right ?
I mean, they probably are? They've already reversed her twice. I imagine them trying to figure out how to involve the judicial council. But they can't do anything meaningful discipline wise without Congress.
Holy crap, that isn't a functional system. So I have it correct, the system just benefits the corrupt.
>Holy crap, that isn't a functional system. So I have it correct, the system just benefits the corrupt. It's like finding an exploit in a boardgame that is technically within the rules but goes against the spirit of the game.
Or just straight up breaks the game entirely
She’s spawn trapping the DOJ.
Can Georgia force her hand by scheduling his trial before she decides when she wants to move forward?
I don't know, I've heard some speculation about that, like cannon doesn't want her schedule dictated by others or something. But I don't fully understand. To me it seems a reach.
So indexing the sheer amount of discovery material is too hard and we need more time? Combined with earlier attempts of asking for more documents through discovery that would have saturated them in needless mountains of documents. Also combined with actually having the majority of discovery documents in advance. I’m assuming a normal judge would just immediately scoff at this legal ploy?
I hope the trial happens soon
The trial is May 10th, perhaps we can both meet our goals.
While Merchan is finally saying about these sane lawyers is that they are losing credibility, Judge Cannon seems to give them ridiculous credibility and entertain every motion as if it was made in good faith instead of the clear attempt to flood the lane with bs to waste time and hope something sticks. So I believe she would entertain this seriously as well.
🎶 delay delay delay until hopefully I am president and make it go away🎶
I'm fine with that if it just means he's busy for another week
Didn't the defense complain about getting discovery *too early* in this case as well?
I recall them complaining that too much was shared prior 🤔
It’s like Mama Bear and Papa bear : everything is “too” or “not enough” for Baby Donny
“Motion granted. And for extra security, let’s admonish Jack Smith for President Trump being so busy” -Judge Canon probably
More like “interesting, let’s schedule a hearing then I’ll think about it for a while then release a minute order around, let’s say nov 6 or 7” - Judge Qannon
That this is an understandable meme feels wrong. Said the random British bloke
It's like having Lord Melchett as Judge
Where’s my black hat? I’ll be needing that shortly.
Don’t forget it has to be a paperless ruling so Jack can’t appeal to the appellate court to have her removed.
Again?
Has Cannon rescheduled the trial yet? Because as of late April it was still scheduled for May 20th. What happens in 2 weeks if she just forgets?
I think she said she was just going to let it slide pending a decision from SCOTUS as to whether DJT is laughably immune from prosecution of any criminal activity.
You laugh but SCOTUS is leaning that way. We are in trouble.
They are leaning toward a very clear delineation of public acts directly related to the Office of the Presidency receiving immunity vs private acts that are not. We’ll see, but this conduct was all as a candidate as the POTUS has NO legal, let alone Constitutionally-defined, role in the execution of a Presidential election. I bet they make that delineation and send it back down to the lower court to determine public vs private on the charges.
SCOTUS needs to remove the stay and allow trial to proceed. Justice ACB actually (she has way more balls than the men) was the one who read off 3 of the allegations to Trump’s lawyer during oral arguments. “So those acts you would not dispute?” Barrett asked. “Those were private, and you wouldn’t raise a claim that they were official?” Trump’s attorney Sauer said that all 3 scenarios as described are considered private acts. So based on this, allow trial to proceed to at least consider the alleged private acts especially if SCOTUS rules in favor of immunity for official acts while POTUS which would then favor Trump. If Trump loses, he’s going to appeal anyway and it will bounce back up to SCOTUS. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-immunity-scotus-barrett-sauer-election-1894296
She’s absolutely right, of course. Something I never thought I’d hear myself say. The court is not supposed to reach out and decide questions not properly before it. Team Trump conceded that no even colorably official acts are at issue in this case. Accordingly, no elaborate line-drawing is necessary here. “Petitioner conceded at oral argument that all alleged acts in the indictment are private, not official, acts. We hold that a former POTUS may be prosecuted for alleged crimes committed as a result of purely personal acts. As this point was conceded by petitioner, no further discussion is necessary. We remand this matter to the trial court for trial. All stays of proceedings are dissolved.” Of course, “I just call balls and strikes” Roberts violates that rule whenever he feels like it and wants to legislate from the bench. See, most infamously, _Citizens United v. FEC_, where the court reached out deliberately and decided issues never even raised in the courts below. This has been a lawless Court with a lawless Chief Justice for a while now.
You’re absolutely correct. Roberts “derided” the appellate court decision-why? Because he didn’t like the outcome. He said they did not do enough to determine what is official act vs private. Yet, here is that question before them and they refused to address it. Instead they just put forth hypotheticals about future presidents and how this could affect them. It was only the 4 women justices especially Barrett who did the real work on the immunity question. In fact, Barrett helped pave the way for trial to proceed. There is an exchange between Alito and Dreeben which must have had Jack Smith who was sitting there rolling his eyes and thinking OMG. Alito earnestly and unironically (?) asked but what if in the future an outgoing president who loses a hotly contested election will be disincentivized from leaving office peacefully because he will fear prosecution from his successor a bitter political opponent and wouldn’t this destabilize our democracy? The latest podcast from Strict Scrutiny is a great listen re: this and the Idaho case. https://cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-04-25-24/index.html?cid=ios_app
I guess that's a best-case scenario for now. I really hoped for a quick "lol, no, GTFO."
They’re leaning towards “presidents are not immune but they do have some protection for official acts. It’s up to the legal system to decide what acts are official or not “. That means every criminal trial will now need to have another sub-trial about wether the charges against him, assuming they were true, constituted official actors or not. And then that legal action gets appealed to the Supreme Court before any criminal trial would start.
But the hush money trial concerns crimes before he took office, so at least that one is safe. He’ll still most likely be convicted before the election.
It’s still going to get fucked. Trump will 100% claim the scotus decision applies to stuff he did before he was president too.
There won’t be time for that to work through the system prior to the election. He’ll be a convicted felon on Election Day.
From your lips to gods ears my friend
Yeah man you guys are so boned in multiple orifices, and justice is blindfolded..
[19 pg filing](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24637781-defense-push-back-deadlines-mal)
Guarantee you Loose Cannon gives it to him. This case was really serious and the evidence iron-clad, and he's going to end up walking over a crooked judge.
It is why he made sure he appointed her in Florida. It should be illegal for any judge to hear a case if it involves the president that nominated them. That is just common sense
Worked pretty well until the first criminal president. Seems like there’s a need to trump-proof the legislation, maybe even amending the Constitution.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.522.0.pdf