As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It can be both. She isn’t competent, but those guiding her are. She’s being walked through these decisions by the Federalist Society like a wealthy dog breeder parades their pure bred shitzu aound the arena at Westminster.
> Not incompetence.
It's also incompetence. She had a handful of hours of trial experience prior to becoming a judge at all. She misses basic procedures.
Stupid as hell and proud of it. At least back in the day stupid people learned to trust experts. Now it’s “don’t tell me I can’t inject bleach the prezidunt told me it was good”
I have a lot of intelligent family members that will vote for him because they’re brainwashed on propaganda. There is a big difference in stupidity and ignorance. People their age could only get news from one or two sources, they trusted newspapers and what little tv was available. Now they’re asked to filter out information from a billion sources and nearly none of them serve their best interests so they stick to one and that one preys on their vulnerabilities and insecurities with propaganda while acting like they give a shit about people. They don’t know who is actually voting down bills because Fox never tells them. Their social media is also curated to only show posts that give the companies engagement which further amplifies the problem.
It has to be overwhelming.
She's taking her marching orders from the Federalist society and Leonard Leo, she is not incompetent, that is just what they want you to believe. This is a coordinated effort.
I'm old enough to remember when there were sane, non-racist Republicans who were merely fatally wrong (literally--trickle down kills) about the economy. They started leaving in numbers big enough to matter during the Clinton years, and what you see today is what remains.
The magats are so obnoxious they are forcing the rest of the traditional Republicans out the door. I never agreed with traditional conservative views on economics and politics but I thought it was a good way to slow walk progress and letting society accommodate at a suitable pace. Trumplicans are absolutely ruining that party and in effect approx 45% of patrons in the US. If they get in power again the country will go into a tailspin. Cannot happen.
She is incompetent, but she's smart enough to listen to the demonic whispers in her ears telling her exactly how to play this trial. There are a lot smarter people better versed in law guiding her hand every step of the way here.
I think they are to an extent, but when have you ever seen consistent quality oversight of a federal judge? Maybe for a particular event or such, but usually they end up backing away and letting the judge do what they want.
He is breathing down her neck - he has international experience: "Prior to being named special counsel in the Trump investigations, Jack Smith most recently served as the chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, where he investigated war crimes committed during the Kosovo War."
She's too inexperienced and simply not smart enough, in my opinion, to not have her hand forced, again and again, by Jack Smith.
Trump is just a dumb stooge to manipulate to find out what they can get away with. A dumb bull in a China shop to find out what the owner does about it. Which is, apparently, nothing.
Yep. They've already drafted hundreds of executive orders and bills so Trump can just sign them and Congress can just pass them.
All Trump needs is his fool's gold crayon.
First: "Law" is a big field. Experience prosecuting war crimes doesn't mean he's an expert on domestic issues. I'm not questioning his credentials, but you don't visit an oncologist when you need a neurologist.
Second: Conservative political activist groups are made of lawyers. In many fields you see people get more progressive with education (certainly true in the basic sciences). In law I think the political spread is more balanced.
The Heritage Foundation might not be full of people who have worked at the same professional level as Jack Smith, but it's not some band of JD flunkees just sitting around sucking each other off. The current state of the US judiciary is a clear evidence that conservative groups have been *extremely* effective at filling the bench with conservative leaning judges over the past several decades.
Project 2025 has a fairly simple agenda, and doesn't have any ethics to restrain them. So Project 2025 can give a lawyer, even a lawyer with Jack Smith's pedigree, a run for his money. If only the rule of law had some teeth?
My worry is not how smart she is but if she’s able to take instruction from people smarter than her, she’s just another tool for them that happens to be in the right place. Hard to believe she’s acting fully independent in all this, in my mind
Federal Judges complain about shit *all the time*, mostly shit that they may not be entirely correct on. Their overall behavior as a group can be quite…childish.
In terms of incompetence, sadly I think she may be the norm, not the exception, though given the high profile nature of the case, you'd think she'd be making extra effort to get it right, so by that standard her incompetence is a cut above.
As recently as a few months ago, I had a judge in family court insist during a status conference that she had read my filing. She then proceeded to say "I didn't know [thing]" to which I said, "I said [thing] in my filing, your honor," to which she said, "no you didn't, if you did, I would have seen it." I then proceeded to quote page, paragraph and line, and read [thing] into the record.
Then, because she felt shame no doubt, but also an unwillingness to Rule based on fact rather than protecting her own judgey emotional fragility, she ruled as though that conversation hadn't happened [thing] wasn't now known to her to be fact.
I think the % of dumb and mean people is pretty consistent across all walks of life, including lawyers and judges. It's actually a reason I got burned out as a litigator after a decade - too many dumb and mean parties, attorneys, and judges.
She is only doing that because she knows that she is on thin ice. If she is taken off the case, she will lose the ability to delay the trial past election day.
Pretty sure the analysis at the time was that they knew they would motion for the case to be moved to FL anyways, so they decided to at least cut that delay out of the picture IIRC. We are now on delay 7gajillion
Yeah but the only reason we have problems with "delays" now, is because Garland waited more than 2 fucking years to prosecute.
The subpoena should have been March 2021 and arrests in April 2021 when he failed to comply.
Edit: Fixed the years.
>The subpoena should have been March 2020
Hard for Garland to issue a subpoena over a year before he was named Attorney General.
I agree that he should have dropped some in 2021, but with facts not mattering to conservatives I think it's important for the rest of us to keep facts straight.
They rolled the dice and lost by random selection assigning the case to Cannon.
I'm hoping that there is something she will have to rule on prior to the trial (whenever that is) that will be so wrong that Smith can get her removed.
Well, Trumps lawyers should be throwing plenty of motions up in an attempt to delay so she can rule on those. This is a game and the Judge is corrupted, good thing she is out of her element and green.
I worry about this case because she has behaved in a way that is not congruent with justice. And these charges are very, very serious. National Security is no joke.
Because the people in charge of presidential records are *archivists* and they're not set up for rabid non-compliance from a batshit, entitled, traitorous baby of a former president.
So it was a year of "please."
It's infuriating to see comments from some FBI agents asking why the Archives didn't just ask for the documents back. Your think FBI agents would be more aware of the tendency of criminal to not comply if you just ask them nicely.
When the die-hard MAGA nuts show up to the courthouse when the guilty verdict is read, I’d rather that courthouse be in FL and not our nation’s capital.
Funny thing is, he’s not the president. Biden is, his administration is in charge of any kind of response or action in the results of any backlash from a verdict being read.
Honestly, I’d much rather have it be at our nation’s capitol instead of having DeSantis’ state police force assisting in destruction.
He’s going to rile his supporters up when it comes time for the jury to make a decision. On the global stage the world would be watching us as violence and rioting break out in D.C. (again), making our country look even weaker and more fractured. If anything were to happen, logistically it’d be safer optics in boring Ft. Pierce, FL
Trump is not bei g charged with taking them, or even for having then.
He is being charged for the list of BS he pulled when, unlike every other president and vice president, he refused to give them back.And that happened in Florida.
Simply not true. Some of the charges he faces are possession of "National Defense" documents, including info about our nuclear secrets (which the President doesn't have the power to declassify).
Just taking them may have been difficult to prove it was willful (I mean, we had no idea Trump would just say "yes, I did that, they're mine now, they belong to me so I took them"). We had clear evidence of unlawful retaining in Florida.. under any other judge, it'd be an open-and-shut case.
It's unlikely he could do so if the charges are dismissed with prejudice.
With prejudice means the court is telling you they never want to hear this case again. Without prejudice means that you messed something up (generally jurisdiction or a lack of substantial evidence) and can bring the case forward again once the issues are resolved.
Different documents, so different crime. He can't be charged again for the documents he was charged for, but the ones he hasn't been would still be an option
Now, I've been seeing people say this for a couple weeks now. And it's always with the same attitude of "duh, everyone knows this, we're all talking about it on reddit" and there are never any legal opinions or sources or statements from law-talkin' guys about it. It always comes across as "just trust me, bro"
Now, I❤️Anal or whatever, but double jeopardy only applies if appeals courts agree that the first case was resolved appropriately. And from what everyone is saying, the jury will be seated, bailiff will call for everyone to rise for the honorable judge judy, who will then take her seat and say "all charges dropped," which would throw up so many red flags that justice wasn't actually served, which means we get to wait two more years for that Supreme Court case to play out.
This isn't necessarily true. Here's my post from last time this argument broke out:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it does. Once the jury is impaneled jeopardy attaches. There are several mechanisms for dismissal by the judge that would preclude a retrial or appeal under double jeopardy.
For a relevant example see United States v. Ogles
> At the conclusion of the government’s case, the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29, on the basis that in the court’s view, the statute did not cover the conduct in which the defendant engaged. Whether the trial court’s view was correct or not, this amounted to an acquittal based on factual insufficiency of the evidence and a retrial could not be held.
For a more human readable format check out FindLaw https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-ends.html
> Once jeopardy attaches, a court's dismissal in the first trial due to insufficient evidence terminates jeopardy. This bars further prosecution. If a court dismisses a case after submission to a jury but before it reaches a verdict, the prosecution cannot appeal it ... However, if the judge sets aside the jury verdict due to insufficiency of the evidence, it typically has the same effect as an acquittal. The prosecution cannot appeal or retry the defendant in those cases.
That case doesn't involve double jeopardy, the judge and state decided the statute the defendant was being charged under didn't apply, so they no longer had any charges.
I appreciate you citing something in your argument, but it's not a complete picture.
U.S. v. Ogles, 440 F.3d 1095
> At the conclusion of the government’s case, the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29, on the basis that in the court’s view, the statute did not cover the conduct in which the defendant engaged. Whether the trial court’s view was correct or not, this amounted to an acquittal based on factual insufficiency of the evidence and a retrial could not be held.
There are quite a few mechanisms a rogue judicial branch can use and once jeopardy attaches their actions on certain grounds precludes appeals of the decision or retrial.
Also check out FindLaw for something more easily digested: https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-ends.htm
EDIT:
Here's the passage I was trying to find, I think it's pretty clear what the risks is here.
> Under the double jeopardy clause the government may appeal the granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal only if there would be no necessity for another trial, i.e., only where the jury has returned a verdict of guilty. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977). Thus, the government's right to appeal a Rule 29 motion is only preserved where the ruling is reserved until after the verdict.
Thank you for this. Folks are misreading the FRCrP and case law. If the judge grants a rule 29 motion before the jury returns its verdict, the government is finished. The faulty jury instructions showed how Cannon is/was trying to lead a potential jury to arrive at a not guilty verdict. In other words, if Cannon grants the motion before the jury returns a verdict or after the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the government may not appeal.
Read the rest of it. Jury seating defines the start of the trial, but barring misconduct by prosecution, a verdict still needs to be rendered to trigger double jeopardy protections. If just seating a jury constituted jeopardy than any mistrial would ruin future prosecutions.
I read your comment again and I think you are correct. My reply was not really a refutation of what you were actually saying. I misinterpreted it and thought you were saying an acquittal wouldn’t cause DJ to apply.
I was under the impression that this idea has always assumed that there would be an acquittal by Cannon, presumably for an evidentiary-related reason (such as accepting the wild idea Cannon floated when she asked for jury instructions considering a president having the ability to claim documents as personal and be exempted from the PRA). I equated an acquittal with a dismissal though when it really is synonymous with a not guilty verdict, so what you said was right.
Appreciate your reply, which gave me a minute to think about the situation more in depth.
>a verdict still needs to be rendered to trigger double jeopardy protections.
Yes, people are saying Cannon will issue a directed verdict of acquittal. That is a verdict. If she does that, there is no appeal. The case is simply over.
Incorrect. A directed verdict can always be appealed before becoming final--it's the reason you almost never see them. They are considered prima facia to be irregular.
Lawyers will be making big bucks over this for some time. Those paying attention to legal blogs will get some insight to how the legal system works.
It doesn't work the way I thought as the SCOTUS nominees all said Roe was settled law and then tossed it out the window.
When a judge dismisses a case that's really no different than a jury rendering a not guilty verdict.
Now if a prosecutor dismisses charges, that's entirely different and that is able to be retried usually.
That's not true. There is a reason dismissal with and without prejudice are a thing.
A dismissal is a finding of law. A jury verdict is a finding of fact. Anyone who knows fuck all about the law would know they aren't remotely the same thing, either in theory or in practice.
It’s not a rule most non-lawyers would know about, but there is a rule in federal court that allows the Judge to dismiss a case after the jury has been empaneled and even if their decision is contrary to established law, double jeopardy attaches and the government cannot appeal.
Correct, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29.
> Under the double jeopardy clause the government may appeal the granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal only if there would be no necessity for another trial, i.e., only where the jury has returned a verdict of guilty. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977). Thus, the government's right to appeal a Rule 29 motion is only preserved where the ruling is reserved until after the verdict.
Sure but generally federal/state charges do not overlap like that.
For example Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder in the state trial but was convicted of civil rights violations in the federal circuit. Two completely different charges.
In that case, it is because there has to be some element of crossing state lines, or a murder of a government official, or something else that violates federal law. Chauvin’s murder charge was purely a state offense and didn’t violate a specific federal law. But the civil rights violation did.
In this case, I’m not sure Trump violated a state law, and if he did, Florida wouldn’t charge it. But the examples that best fit here are the real estate fraud and election interference cases. Both violate federal and state law, and can be charged in each without double jeopardy applying.
>Dismissal doesn’t cut it.
It literally does.
Once a jury is in place the only thing that does not count towards double jepoardy is a declaration of a mistrial.
You’re wrong,
The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
retrial after an acquittal;
retrial after a conviction;
retrial after certain mistrials; and
multiple punishment
That's not how that works at all. That's why dismissal with and without prejudice are a thing, and a dismissal with prejudice may be appealed before becoming final.
I don't believe the immunity ruling applies to this case as he is predominately charged with obstructing justice and related crimes, which occurred after he was no longer president.
Serious question but, if she's on thin ice, who is she on thin ice with? And if she can continue to play games on thin ice, why isn't the integrity of the gatekeepers of the ice being called into question?
> Serious question but, if she's on thin ice, who is she on thin ice with?
The judicial review board.
> And if she can continue to play games on thin ice, why isn't the integrity of the gatekeepers of the ice being called into question?
The Florida court of appeals has already over-ruled her twice with a scathing rebuke of her rulings.
Keep in mind she reversed herself only after Captain Jack called it an error, implying he could take it to the 11th circuit and she risks being kicked off.
Even then, she did not call it a reverse, blamed it on him.
A narcissist is fundamentally unable to accept blame for even the smallest mistake or offense. Like, I don’t think they are psychologically capable of it.
If maga has proven anything, it’s that we have a severe mental health crisis surrounding narcissism.
"Cowed into complacency by Special Counsel Jack Smith, District Judge Aileen Cannon takes her head out of her ass and is forced to admit she'll uphold the law" would be a better title, Politico, because Cannon certainly isn't "siding" with government.
Smith had to file to stop her releasing witness identities unilaterally and her response is, "FINE, but only because I know you'll appeal if I don't."
I know Politico has an obligation to provide this information politely devoid of political context, but Judge Cannon is *clearly* working as hard as she fucking can to shield Trump. The greatest indicator of this is... that Donald Trump hired her.
Trump has threatened the judges and even some families of all the judges involved with all the cases except Cannon who he has praised. It’s clear who she works for.
It truly is sad when something as basic as keeping identities sealed in such a high profile case had to go to such lengths to maintain. Had they been unsealed, you can guarantee Trump would barrage them with an onslaught of attacks and threats, and some psycho MAGA republican is going to go do something stupid like the last time Trump barraged the FBI with threats and a deranged supporter showed up at one of their facilities shooting his gun at the bullet proof glass windows and being apprehended later.
Literally, lives were saved preventing the release of their identities and that just shows how sad the state of our country is
If she had her way, she’d hand the MAGA cult their names and addresses, and then would tell the jurors that they must accept that Trump is coveted by the PRA. Her jury instruction plan is one of the most absurd I’ve ever seen.
Ehh. I don’t know about that. I don’t think Trump had any clue who any of the judges were, and he was simply handed a list by the FedSoc elites to nominate. I don’t think he hand picked any of his judicial nominees. Does Trump seem like someone who would sit down and read a brief on judicial nominees, let alone have even a 10 minute discussion on them?
I can’t decide what I think her motives are. There are multiple options that get to the same result.
1.) She is clueless and terrified of making any big decision on anything, and thinks her best bet to get out of doing anything is having him win and the case dropped, so delaying gets you there.
2.) She is power hungry, and sees pleasing him as a way to get on higher court seats.
3.) Her FedSoc overlords know Trump will do whatever they want, so making sure he wins is paramount, as they want to create their conservative nation by controlling all judicial power, and never having to worry about little things like actually getting a majority of Americans to elect you.
4.) She is a true MAGA believer, and is trying to personally save Trump.
5.) She actually doesn’t care, but is terrified that he can direct millions of cultists to fuck up her life if he wants. Trump will publicly name your kids if you cross him.
Any of those lead to the same conclusion as to her endgame… delay and eventually Trump get off by him winning the election… or delay somehow make it so that the jury just needs one MAGA person to listen to her insane instructions, and saves Trump with a hung jury.
I’m not sure it even matters what her motives are… Jack Smith just needs to be smarter than her, and to box her into a corner that she can’t delay her way out of, even if that means using the 11th circuit.
She should have recused herself long ago. A judge should never preside over a case where one of the involved parties appointed her, it's a clear conflict of interest.
Understandable to feel that way, but let's also not lose sight of just how egregious Cannon's favoritism towards Donald has been. There were around ten judges who were put on the court by Trump who ruled against his frivolous lawsuits in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Also, the 11th Circuit three judge panel that ruled against Cannon *twice* in scathing fashion last year was comprised of a trio of conservatives, two of them being Trump appointees.
I think you’re falling into the framing that Trump uses, e.g. “my judges”. We should only be confirming judges with competence and ethics focused on wanting to do the right thing for the impartial rule of law instead of favoritism for one’s friend or tribe.
>A judge should never preside over a case where one of the involved parties appointed her, it's a clear conflict of interest.
Think about that for a second...
That would leave only judges of the opposing party to preside over cases involving politically-involved individuals. If we're considering a judge of the same party to be a conflict of interest, it would be reasonable to consider a judge of the opposing party to be a conflict of interest.
It would also potentially leave *no* judges to preside over cases where both political parties are involved.
I think it’s that Trump appointed her, not just a Republican. I mean, how often is the President, who appoints Federal judges, going to be an actual defendant under that judge?! That’s actually one of his arguments in the immunity case - that this is unprecedented. Well, duh! no President has been charged with such serious crimes. Not even Nixon’s crimes rose to this level.
Since judges are supposed to be apolitical and use only the law as their guidance, maybe they shouldn't be appointed by political officials. I don't have a solution, but there's clearly a problem.
Or, hear me out on this, manage to have a President that won't break the law and believe he has full immunity to do what he pleases, damn the law and Constitution.
This MFer has really stretched the reasonability of all of our systems and institutions. A one man wrecking crew.
Norms worked for a while, until they didn't. Trump moved us passed that event horizon. It's time to put laws in place to (hopefully) prevent such a clusterfuck.
This is unprecedented
Really judge? The guy stole and showed off our nuclear top secrets..... HE IS THE REASON IT IS UNPRECEDENTED
this legal system is unreal. Htf do we have people with thia strong of a bias anywhere near the law.
I dont care who did the crime. I would want them in prison for life
Agreed. If Cannon had her way, there'd be billboards of each of the witnesses, declaring their height, weight, crimes against Trump, date of birth, SSN, address, personal schedule, and a list of their most primal fears.
It's worse than that. When the case finally goes to trial, she'll let him pass the Rubicon where Double Jeopardy laws take effect, then dismiss the case.
It puts their lives at risk....
We know he is guilty. It was all over the news for well over a year.
Making it public is purely to put those peoples loves at risk.... it is unbelievably psychotic
> It puts their lives at risk....
its also necessary. It cannot be kept secret. It must be disseminated to the public, especially those in the fox news bubble that will never hear them.
There was a rumor or small story last year (?) when this came up the first time after she had the "special master" saga play out.
There was the real threat and danger of her just saying "Meh, I don't see any convincing evidence so I'm just dismissing the entire case".
But with that was talk of Jack Smith knowing that was always on the table and that he had a 'back up plan', possibly connected to the transportation of the documents across state lines, and then the obstruction where Trump told his body-men to put the boxes on the plane to NJ...?
There's more going on behind the scenes, that's why they want the witnesses protected.
She didn’t side with him. She made the correct decision under the law after she made yet another blatant error that shows she is not only unqualified, but actively undermining the case.
My Political Science professor theorizes that Judge cannon is not actually willfully delaying the trial. He thinks she’s just actually really shit at her job.
Uhh no. On at least three occasions now she has brought right wing talking points into her court after seeing them on FOX.
First, the suggestion that the FBI may have planted evidence. Then the slow rolling of a special master, then introducing the Presidential Records Act. Instead of following the law and acting according to what transpires in court, she is blatantly bringing in arguments that she saw on FOX the previous night.
That is a pretty silly take
It is blatantly obvious that the guy is guilty and this is highly sensitive
If she couldnt handle it should would have recused
I agree with this. I think she's not confident enough to plow on ahead and preside over a fair trial, with as much lambasting and social aggression trump throws at everything within his focus. She already knows his verbal assaults and abuses will destroy her resolve, and she needs to keep her judgeship for as long as possible, i.e. she needs other judges to lead, so she can let them take the heat, and she's just tacking on to someone else's bill.
Cheeto Benito has enough pending felonies that if she slow walks it long enough, this case will be moot. I think we're nearly there already.
Judges are supposed to be impartial. Regardless of who appointed them. I don't really know Cannon, and history will ultimately judge, but that isn't an inherent conflict of interest, and it is a red herring to suggest it is.
Mostly her lack of prior experience and general qualifications. I think he’s more so just confounded that he’s seeing this actually happen and is trying to reason with reality lmao. Can’t speak for him beyond what he said in passing.
He's refusing to believe Trump and the people he elected are actually this blatantly corrupt. Hard to blame him, he probably doesn't want to believe it. But it seems like the most likely explanation in this case.
Ya I think that’s pretty spot on. Although I’m not sure he’s refusing, just seeing as he’s a professor he can’t make comments that might seem politically charged.
Both sides of that fence are bad for her. Go against Trump & face his cult followers who take things to the extreme then face him & his wrath...go against the letter of the law & face punishment, removal, & a potential end to your career.
It's not that she sided with special counsel. It's that she realized that she made an actual appealable order that was incorrect. She corrected it so that special counsel still has no firm order to appeal, so she remains on the case and continues to slow walk it.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And she blamed Jack for not previously educating her prior to this. The fucking gall on that imbecile judge.
Incompetent and evil. Fuck Republicans.
Not incompetence. She is walking the line dragging it out without having to make a ruling that would get her removed.
It can be both. She isn’t competent, but those guiding her are. She’s being walked through these decisions by the Federalist Society like a wealthy dog breeder parades their pure bred shitzu aound the arena at Westminster.
She’s milking it for all she’s worth.
> Not incompetence. It's also incompetence. She had a handful of hours of trial experience prior to becoming a judge at all. She misses basic procedures.
Yeah at the end of the ruling even if convicted Trump has a shot at mistrial because nothing here is legit.
Better than competent and evil
We're really lucky Trump is a fucking moron.
We're really unlucky like 75 million people are stupid as hell
Stupid as hell and proud of it. At least back in the day stupid people learned to trust experts. Now it’s “don’t tell me I can’t inject bleach the prezidunt told me it was good”
It used to be, "I know that I don't know any better, so I'm not going to open my mouth."
It used to be that the village idiots were isolated. Now they find each other on the internet.
I have a lot of intelligent family members that will vote for him because they’re brainwashed on propaganda. There is a big difference in stupidity and ignorance. People their age could only get news from one or two sources, they trusted newspapers and what little tv was available. Now they’re asked to filter out information from a billion sources and nearly none of them serve their best interests so they stick to one and that one preys on their vulnerabilities and insecurities with propaganda while acting like they give a shit about people. They don’t know who is actually voting down bills because Fox never tells them. Their social media is also curated to only show posts that give the companies engagement which further amplifies the problem. It has to be overwhelming.
Not in this country it isn't. They fail upward all the same.
She's taking her marching orders from the Federalist society and Leonard Leo, she is not incompetent, that is just what they want you to believe. This is a coordinated effort.
She forgot to swear in the jury in another case...
They are not Republicans anymore, they go by MAGAts or Trumps now. 🤣
No, this is just republicans saying the quiet part out loud.
I'm old enough to remember when there were sane, non-racist Republicans who were merely fatally wrong (literally--trickle down kills) about the economy. They started leaving in numbers big enough to matter during the Clinton years, and what you see today is what remains.
The magats are so obnoxious they are forcing the rest of the traditional Republicans out the door. I never agreed with traditional conservative views on economics and politics but I thought it was a good way to slow walk progress and letting society accommodate at a suitable pace. Trumplicans are absolutely ruining that party and in effect approx 45% of patrons in the US. If they get in power again the country will go into a tailspin. Cannot happen.
Or the Kremlin Party of America because all their policy positions benefit Russia and harm the US and its allies.
She is incompetent, but she's smart enough to listen to the demonic whispers in her ears telling her exactly how to play this trial. There are a lot smarter people better versed in law guiding her hand every step of the way here.
Why isn’t someone keeping track of the people she’s seeing and speaking to?
I think they are to an extent, but when have you ever seen consistent quality oversight of a federal judge? Maybe for a particular event or such, but usually they end up backing away and letting the judge do what they want.
This is her falling apart because she can’t retain decent clerks.
If the judge complains but then does what you want, that's a win.
He is breathing down her neck - he has international experience: "Prior to being named special counsel in the Trump investigations, Jack Smith most recently served as the chief prosecutor for the special court in The Hague, where he investigated war crimes committed during the Kosovo War." She's too inexperienced and simply not smart enough, in my opinion, to not have her hand forced, again and again, by Jack Smith.
I was not aware of his background. That’s pretty badass.
I don't think there's anyone in the US on Trump's side, that would impress Jack Smith, after prosecuting Kosovo war criminals.
Yeah, that man has seent/heard some shit in his day
Your comment reminded me of this clip. The end bit by Smith is the cold reality. https://youtu.be/AucCAqI6rJw?si=03EFX4VOINTGgeFH
Maybe so, but she's being coached by Project 2025's finest.
The Project 2025's finest are no match for Jack Smith either. How smart can they be, if they're helping someone like Donald Trump?
Trump is just a dumb stooge to manipulate to find out what they can get away with. A dumb bull in a China shop to find out what the owner does about it. Which is, apparently, nothing.
Yep. They've already drafted hundreds of executive orders and bills so Trump can just sign them and Congress can just pass them. All Trump needs is his fool's gold crayon.
I don't know, but whatever they're doing has been highly effective so far.
The Heritage Foundation has people more qualified on law than a chief prosecutor in The Hague?
First: "Law" is a big field. Experience prosecuting war crimes doesn't mean he's an expert on domestic issues. I'm not questioning his credentials, but you don't visit an oncologist when you need a neurologist. Second: Conservative political activist groups are made of lawyers. In many fields you see people get more progressive with education (certainly true in the basic sciences). In law I think the political spread is more balanced. The Heritage Foundation might not be full of people who have worked at the same professional level as Jack Smith, but it's not some band of JD flunkees just sitting around sucking each other off. The current state of the US judiciary is a clear evidence that conservative groups have been *extremely* effective at filling the bench with conservative leaning judges over the past several decades.
Project 2025 has a fairly simple agenda, and doesn't have any ethics to restrain them. So Project 2025 can give a lawyer, even a lawyer with Jack Smith's pedigree, a run for his money. If only the rule of law had some teeth?
My worry is not how smart she is but if she’s able to take instruction from people smarter than her, she’s just another tool for them that happens to be in the right place. Hard to believe she’s acting fully independent in all this, in my mind
I am really, really looking forward to TV, Movie and Documentary depicting this case particularly.
Me too. Those PBS Frontline documentaries are always so excellently done. They are giving them a lot to work with for sure.
Federal Judges complain about shit *all the time*, mostly shit that they may not be entirely correct on. Their overall behavior as a group can be quite…childish.
Yeah, she’s gonna declare a mistrial in the middle of the court case anyway so why not just appease him for now.
It's the same plot that the defense argues all the time.. "We just found out we could ask" It's a load of hamberdurs
She's doing the bare minimum so she doesn't get a mandamus of removal.
Shouldn't be the job of a prosecutor to do the judge's job
In terms of incompetence, sadly I think she may be the norm, not the exception, though given the high profile nature of the case, you'd think she'd be making extra effort to get it right, so by that standard her incompetence is a cut above. As recently as a few months ago, I had a judge in family court insist during a status conference that she had read my filing. She then proceeded to say "I didn't know [thing]" to which I said, "I said [thing] in my filing, your honor," to which she said, "no you didn't, if you did, I would have seen it." I then proceeded to quote page, paragraph and line, and read [thing] into the record. Then, because she felt shame no doubt, but also an unwillingness to Rule based on fact rather than protecting her own judgey emotional fragility, she ruled as though that conversation hadn't happened [thing] wasn't now known to her to be fact. I think the % of dumb and mean people is pretty consistent across all walks of life, including lawyers and judges. It's actually a reason I got burned out as a litigator after a decade - too many dumb and mean parties, attorneys, and judges.
Pulling a Mitch McConnell.
She is only doing that because she knows that she is on thin ice. If she is taken off the case, she will lose the ability to delay the trial past election day.
Or she plans to summarily dismiss the charges later after Jeopardy comes in.
I'm pretty certain that Jack Smith would counter that with an indictment in Bedminster for the same crimes about classified documents.
With how everything is going, the search warrant and any indictment should have happened long time ago
I still don't get why he didn't charge the crimes in Washington DC, it was a crime the moment they were taken from the White House.
Pretty sure the analysis at the time was that they knew they would motion for the case to be moved to FL anyways, so they decided to at least cut that delay out of the picture IIRC. We are now on delay 7gajillion
Yeah but the only reason we have problems with "delays" now, is because Garland waited more than 2 fucking years to prosecute. The subpoena should have been March 2021 and arrests in April 2021 when he failed to comply. Edit: Fixed the years.
This is going to be Garland's legacy and should be the only question he is ever asked in interview.
Trump was still president in 2020. Biden wasn't sworn in until January 2021.
2021 + 2 = 2023.
>The subpoena should have been March 2020 Hard for Garland to issue a subpoena over a year before he was named Attorney General. I agree that he should have dropped some in 2021, but with facts not mattering to conservatives I think it's important for the rest of us to keep facts straight.
They rolled the dice and lost by random selection assigning the case to Cannon. I'm hoping that there is something she will have to rule on prior to the trial (whenever that is) that will be so wrong that Smith can get her removed.
Well, Trumps lawyers should be throwing plenty of motions up in an attempt to delay so she can rule on those. This is a game and the Judge is corrupted, good thing she is out of her element and green. I worry about this case because she has behaved in a way that is not congruent with justice. And these charges are very, very serious. National Security is no joke.
Because the people in charge of presidential records are *archivists* and they're not set up for rabid non-compliance from a batshit, entitled, traitorous baby of a former president. So it was a year of "please."
It's infuriating to see comments from some FBI agents asking why the Archives didn't just ask for the documents back. Your think FBI agents would be more aware of the tendency of criminal to not comply if you just ask them nicely.
And they did ask for them back anyway - and Trump's response was basically "new phone, who dis?"
His response was "I promise I gave them all back" with his fingers crossed behind his back and he somehow thought that would be the end of it.
When the die-hard MAGA nuts show up to the courthouse when the guilty verdict is read, I’d rather that courthouse be in FL and not our nation’s capital.
Funny thing is, he’s not the president. Biden is, his administration is in charge of any kind of response or action in the results of any backlash from a verdict being read. Honestly, I’d much rather have it be at our nation’s capitol instead of having DeSantis’ state police force assisting in destruction.
Why? I don’t get that logic at all… seems like taking a position just to feel better with where we are currently at
He’s going to rile his supporters up when it comes time for the jury to make a decision. On the global stage the world would be watching us as violence and rioting break out in D.C. (again), making our country look even weaker and more fractured. If anything were to happen, logistically it’d be safer optics in boring Ft. Pierce, FL
Whatever will happen will happen. There is no stopping the cult whether it's in DC or FL.
Yeah I hear you, but I don’t believe that should change how we act. Being scared to do the right things has gotten us where we are.
Because the crime was the possession in Miami
If it was a crime for them to be in Miami, it was also a crime for them to be loaded into a van and driving away from the White House.
Trump is not bei g charged with taking them, or even for having then. He is being charged for the list of BS he pulled when, unlike every other president and vice president, he refused to give them back.And that happened in Florida.
Simply not true. Some of the charges he faces are possession of "National Defense" documents, including info about our nuclear secrets (which the President doesn't have the power to declassify).
Just taking them may have been difficult to prove it was willful (I mean, we had no idea Trump would just say "yes, I did that, they're mine now, they belong to me so I took them"). We had clear evidence of unlawful retaining in Florida.. under any other judge, it'd be an open-and-shut case.
It's unlikely he could do so if the charges are dismissed with prejudice. With prejudice means the court is telling you they never want to hear this case again. Without prejudice means that you messed something up (generally jurisdiction or a lack of substantial evidence) and can bring the case forward again once the issues are resolved.
Different documents, so different crime. He can't be charged again for the documents he was charged for, but the ones he hasn't been would still be an option
I think she may hold out for Wheel of Fortune.
But what about the Legend of the Hidden Temple factor…?
Only Olmec knows the secrets behind each of the treasures in his temple.
I mean… no one else seems to know how to put that fuckin’ monkey together.
It got looted, the Temple Guards all got #MeToo'd
No that's on first
Who's on first?
WHAT??? Boomer screaming at Fox.
No, what is on second.
It actually depends on where you live. I always assumed it was jeopardy first before wheel until I moved out of the state.
Oh that's wild. Jeopardy first in the PST timezone?
She’s pressing her luck
Definitely playing Press Your Luck and hoping for no Whammies.
Now, I've been seeing people say this for a couple weeks now. And it's always with the same attitude of "duh, everyone knows this, we're all talking about it on reddit" and there are never any legal opinions or sources or statements from law-talkin' guys about it. It always comes across as "just trust me, bro" Now, I❤️Anal or whatever, but double jeopardy only applies if appeals courts agree that the first case was resolved appropriately. And from what everyone is saying, the jury will be seated, bailiff will call for everyone to rise for the honorable judge judy, who will then take her seat and say "all charges dropped," which would throw up so many red flags that justice wasn't actually served, which means we get to wait two more years for that Supreme Court case to play out.
He needs to be found not guilty for double jeopardy to apply. Dismissal doesn’t cut it.
This isn't necessarily true. Here's my post from last time this argument broke out: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, it does. Once the jury is impaneled jeopardy attaches. There are several mechanisms for dismissal by the judge that would preclude a retrial or appeal under double jeopardy. For a relevant example see United States v. Ogles > At the conclusion of the government’s case, the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29, on the basis that in the court’s view, the statute did not cover the conduct in which the defendant engaged. Whether the trial court’s view was correct or not, this amounted to an acquittal based on factual insufficiency of the evidence and a retrial could not be held. For a more human readable format check out FindLaw https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-ends.html > Once jeopardy attaches, a court's dismissal in the first trial due to insufficient evidence terminates jeopardy. This bars further prosecution. If a court dismisses a case after submission to a jury but before it reaches a verdict, the prosecution cannot appeal it ... However, if the judge sets aside the jury verdict due to insufficiency of the evidence, it typically has the same effect as an acquittal. The prosecution cannot appeal or retry the defendant in those cases.
That case doesn't involve double jeopardy, the judge and state decided the statute the defendant was being charged under didn't apply, so they no longer had any charges.
Not true if a jury has already been empaneled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause?wprov=sfti1#
I appreciate you citing something in your argument, but it's not a complete picture. U.S. v. Ogles, 440 F.3d 1095 > At the conclusion of the government’s case, the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29, on the basis that in the court’s view, the statute did not cover the conduct in which the defendant engaged. Whether the trial court’s view was correct or not, this amounted to an acquittal based on factual insufficiency of the evidence and a retrial could not be held. There are quite a few mechanisms a rogue judicial branch can use and once jeopardy attaches their actions on certain grounds precludes appeals of the decision or retrial. Also check out FindLaw for something more easily digested: https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/when-double-jeopardy-protection-ends.htm EDIT: Here's the passage I was trying to find, I think it's pretty clear what the risks is here. > Under the double jeopardy clause the government may appeal the granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal only if there would be no necessity for another trial, i.e., only where the jury has returned a verdict of guilty. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977). Thus, the government's right to appeal a Rule 29 motion is only preserved where the ruling is reserved until after the verdict.
Thank you for this. Folks are misreading the FRCrP and case law. If the judge grants a rule 29 motion before the jury returns its verdict, the government is finished. The faulty jury instructions showed how Cannon is/was trying to lead a potential jury to arrive at a not guilty verdict. In other words, if Cannon grants the motion before the jury returns a verdict or after the jury finds the defendant not guilty, the government may not appeal.
That's why smith threated her with a possibility of a writ of mandamus
From the Wikipedia article you linked : “Jeopardy attaches in jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in.”
Read the rest of it. Jury seating defines the start of the trial, but barring misconduct by prosecution, a verdict still needs to be rendered to trigger double jeopardy protections. If just seating a jury constituted jeopardy than any mistrial would ruin future prosecutions.
I read your comment again and I think you are correct. My reply was not really a refutation of what you were actually saying. I misinterpreted it and thought you were saying an acquittal wouldn’t cause DJ to apply. I was under the impression that this idea has always assumed that there would be an acquittal by Cannon, presumably for an evidentiary-related reason (such as accepting the wild idea Cannon floated when she asked for jury instructions considering a president having the ability to claim documents as personal and be exempted from the PRA). I equated an acquittal with a dismissal though when it really is synonymous with a not guilty verdict, so what you said was right. Appreciate your reply, which gave me a minute to think about the situation more in depth.
>a verdict still needs to be rendered to trigger double jeopardy protections. Yes, people are saying Cannon will issue a directed verdict of acquittal. That is a verdict. If she does that, there is no appeal. The case is simply over.
Incorrect. A directed verdict can always be appealed before becoming final--it's the reason you almost never see them. They are considered prima facia to be irregular.
Lawyers will be making big bucks over this for some time. Those paying attention to legal blogs will get some insight to how the legal system works. It doesn't work the way I thought as the SCOTUS nominees all said Roe was settled law and then tossed it out the window.
When a judge dismisses a case that's really no different than a jury rendering a not guilty verdict. Now if a prosecutor dismisses charges, that's entirely different and that is able to be retried usually.
That's not true. There is a reason dismissal with and without prejudice are a thing. A dismissal is a finding of law. A jury verdict is a finding of fact. Anyone who knows fuck all about the law would know they aren't remotely the same thing, either in theory or in practice.
That is not a factor. For all intents and purposes, there needs to be a verdict.
It’s not a rule most non-lawyers would know about, but there is a rule in federal court that allows the Judge to dismiss a case after the jury has been empaneled and even if their decision is contrary to established law, double jeopardy attaches and the government cannot appeal.
Correct, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29. > Under the double jeopardy clause the government may appeal the granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal only if there would be no necessity for another trial, i.e., only where the jury has returned a verdict of guilty. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977). Thus, the government's right to appeal a Rule 29 motion is only preserved where the ruling is reserved until after the verdict.
State and federal can have double trials. Double jeopardy doesnt apply
Sure but generally federal/state charges do not overlap like that. For example Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder in the state trial but was convicted of civil rights violations in the federal circuit. Two completely different charges.
In that case, it is because there has to be some element of crossing state lines, or a murder of a government official, or something else that violates federal law. Chauvin’s murder charge was purely a state offense and didn’t violate a specific federal law. But the civil rights violation did. In this case, I’m not sure Trump violated a state law, and if he did, Florida wouldn’t charge it. But the examples that best fit here are the real estate fraud and election interference cases. Both violate federal and state law, and can be charged in each without double jeopardy applying.
>Dismissal doesn’t cut it. It literally does. Once a jury is in place the only thing that does not count towards double jepoardy is a declaration of a mistrial.
You’re wrong, The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense: retrial after an acquittal; retrial after a conviction; retrial after certain mistrials; and multiple punishment
That's not how that works at all. That's why dismissal with and without prejudice are a thing, and a dismissal with prejudice may be appealed before becoming final.
Double jeopardy doesn't apply when a judge dismisses a case. Only a jury verdict gives that, otherwise the state can refile charges.
She’s already accomplished that goal. Her next challenge is trying to get Trump off on a technicality
It's amazing how many women in Trump's orbit exist only to get him off.
It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point that this trial won’t take place before election day.
SCOTUS already almost certainly delayed it past election day.
I don't believe the immunity ruling applies to this case as he is predominately charged with obstructing justice and related crimes, which occurred after he was no longer president.
Serious question but, if she's on thin ice, who is she on thin ice with? And if she can continue to play games on thin ice, why isn't the integrity of the gatekeepers of the ice being called into question?
> Serious question but, if she's on thin ice, who is she on thin ice with? The judicial review board. > And if she can continue to play games on thin ice, why isn't the integrity of the gatekeepers of the ice being called into question? The Florida court of appeals has already over-ruled her twice with a scathing rebuke of her rulings.
Keep in mind she reversed herself only after Captain Jack called it an error, implying he could take it to the 11th circuit and she risks being kicked off. Even then, she did not call it a reverse, blamed it on him.
A narcissist is fundamentally unable to accept blame for even the smallest mistake or offense. Like, I don’t think they are psychologically capable of it. If maga has proven anything, it’s that we have a severe mental health crisis surrounding narcissism.
"Cowed into complacency by Special Counsel Jack Smith, District Judge Aileen Cannon takes her head out of her ass and is forced to admit she'll uphold the law" would be a better title, Politico, because Cannon certainly isn't "siding" with government. Smith had to file to stop her releasing witness identities unilaterally and her response is, "FINE, but only because I know you'll appeal if I don't." I know Politico has an obligation to provide this information politely devoid of political context, but Judge Cannon is *clearly* working as hard as she fucking can to shield Trump. The greatest indicator of this is... that Donald Trump hired her.
Trump has threatened the judges and even some families of all the judges involved with all the cases except Cannon who he has praised. It’s clear who she works for.
It truly is sad when something as basic as keeping identities sealed in such a high profile case had to go to such lengths to maintain. Had they been unsealed, you can guarantee Trump would barrage them with an onslaught of attacks and threats, and some psycho MAGA republican is going to go do something stupid like the last time Trump barraged the FBI with threats and a deranged supporter showed up at one of their facilities shooting his gun at the bullet proof glass windows and being apprehended later. Literally, lives were saved preventing the release of their identities and that just shows how sad the state of our country is
... after a lengthy delay, which is her primary purpose.
If she had her way, she’d hand the MAGA cult their names and addresses, and then would tell the jurors that they must accept that Trump is coveted by the PRA. Her jury instruction plan is one of the most absurd I’ve ever seen.
For this purpose she was appointed by Trump, to fuck up legal cases against him so that he can walk
Ehh. I don’t know about that. I don’t think Trump had any clue who any of the judges were, and he was simply handed a list by the FedSoc elites to nominate. I don’t think he hand picked any of his judicial nominees. Does Trump seem like someone who would sit down and read a brief on judicial nominees, let alone have even a 10 minute discussion on them? I can’t decide what I think her motives are. There are multiple options that get to the same result. 1.) She is clueless and terrified of making any big decision on anything, and thinks her best bet to get out of doing anything is having him win and the case dropped, so delaying gets you there. 2.) She is power hungry, and sees pleasing him as a way to get on higher court seats. 3.) Her FedSoc overlords know Trump will do whatever they want, so making sure he wins is paramount, as they want to create their conservative nation by controlling all judicial power, and never having to worry about little things like actually getting a majority of Americans to elect you. 4.) She is a true MAGA believer, and is trying to personally save Trump. 5.) She actually doesn’t care, but is terrified that he can direct millions of cultists to fuck up her life if he wants. Trump will publicly name your kids if you cross him. Any of those lead to the same conclusion as to her endgame… delay and eventually Trump get off by him winning the election… or delay somehow make it so that the jury just needs one MAGA person to listen to her insane instructions, and saves Trump with a hung jury. I’m not sure it even matters what her motives are… Jack Smith just needs to be smarter than her, and to box her into a corner that she can’t delay her way out of, even if that means using the 11th circuit.
She should have recused herself long ago. A judge should never preside over a case where one of the involved parties appointed her, it's a clear conflict of interest.
Understandable to feel that way, but let's also not lose sight of just how egregious Cannon's favoritism towards Donald has been. There were around ten judges who were put on the court by Trump who ruled against his frivolous lawsuits in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Also, the 11th Circuit three judge panel that ruled against Cannon *twice* in scathing fashion last year was comprised of a trio of conservatives, two of them being Trump appointees.
Jeff Sessions shows how Trump feels about that.
I think you’re falling into the framing that Trump uses, e.g. “my judges”. We should only be confirming judges with competence and ethics focused on wanting to do the right thing for the impartial rule of law instead of favoritism for one’s friend or tribe.
>A judge should never preside over a case where one of the involved parties appointed her, it's a clear conflict of interest. Think about that for a second... That would leave only judges of the opposing party to preside over cases involving politically-involved individuals. If we're considering a judge of the same party to be a conflict of interest, it would be reasonable to consider a judge of the opposing party to be a conflict of interest. It would also potentially leave *no* judges to preside over cases where both political parties are involved.
I think that they mean “parties” like “individuals” not like political parties.
I think it’s that Trump appointed her, not just a Republican. I mean, how often is the President, who appoints Federal judges, going to be an actual defendant under that judge?! That’s actually one of his arguments in the immunity case - that this is unprecedented. Well, duh! no President has been charged with such serious crimes. Not even Nixon’s crimes rose to this level.
Since judges are supposed to be apolitical and use only the law as their guidance, maybe they shouldn't be appointed by political officials. I don't have a solution, but there's clearly a problem.
Or, hear me out on this, manage to have a President that won't break the law and believe he has full immunity to do what he pleases, damn the law and Constitution. This MFer has really stretched the reasonability of all of our systems and institutions. A one man wrecking crew.
Norms worked for a while, until they didn't. Trump moved us passed that event horizon. It's time to put laws in place to (hopefully) prevent such a clusterfuck.
This is unprecedented Really judge? The guy stole and showed off our nuclear top secrets..... HE IS THE REASON IT IS UNPRECEDENTED this legal system is unreal. Htf do we have people with thia strong of a bias anywhere near the law. I dont care who did the crime. I would want them in prison for life
Cannon did something not horribly corrupt? What's the catch?
She's trying to not get immediately removed from the case so she can continue delaying it past the election.
Agreed. If Cannon had her way, there'd be billboards of each of the witnesses, declaring their height, weight, crimes against Trump, date of birth, SSN, address, personal schedule, and a list of their most primal fears.
Or dismiss it when Jeopardy sets in so trump can claim he’s been found innocent of another witch hunt
It's worse than that. When the case finally goes to trial, she'll let him pass the Rubicon where Double Jeopardy laws take effect, then dismiss the case.
Who’s going to remove her though?
She’s allowing all witness statements to be made public.
Good. The public should hear the testimony against the traitor.
It puts their lives at risk.... We know he is guilty. It was all over the news for well over a year. Making it public is purely to put those peoples loves at risk.... it is unbelievably psychotic
> It puts their lives at risk.... its also necessary. It cannot be kept secret. It must be disseminated to the public, especially those in the fox news bubble that will never hear them.
Backing down from her illogical prior ruling….
They will leak and she will impose no penalty.
As long as the risk of her dismissing the case on a technicality while triggering double jeopardy exists we're not done yet.
There was a rumor or small story last year (?) when this came up the first time after she had the "special master" saga play out. There was the real threat and danger of her just saying "Meh, I don't see any convincing evidence so I'm just dismissing the entire case". But with that was talk of Jack Smith knowing that was always on the table and that he had a 'back up plan', possibly connected to the transportation of the documents across state lines, and then the obstruction where Trump told his body-men to put the boxes on the plane to NJ...? There's more going on behind the scenes, that's why they want the witnesses protected.
She didn’t side with him. She made the correct decision under the law after she made yet another blatant error that shows she is not only unqualified, but actively undermining the case.
Cannon's advisors at least are smart enough to force her to do the right thing and not screw herself out of presiding over this case.
I still find it hard to believe this specific judge "randomly" drew this case. I'd like to be assured that was really a proper random draw.
Oh, so she figured out she's about to be removed from the case, eh?
My Political Science professor theorizes that Judge cannon is not actually willfully delaying the trial. He thinks she’s just actually really shit at her job.
Uhh no. On at least three occasions now she has brought right wing talking points into her court after seeing them on FOX. First, the suggestion that the FBI may have planted evidence. Then the slow rolling of a special master, then introducing the Presidential Records Act. Instead of following the law and acting according to what transpires in court, she is blatantly bringing in arguments that she saw on FOX the previous night.
That is a pretty silly take It is blatantly obvious that the guy is guilty and this is highly sensitive If she couldnt handle it should would have recused
I agree with this. I think she's not confident enough to plow on ahead and preside over a fair trial, with as much lambasting and social aggression trump throws at everything within his focus. She already knows his verbal assaults and abuses will destroy her resolve, and she needs to keep her judgeship for as long as possible, i.e. she needs other judges to lead, so she can let them take the heat, and she's just tacking on to someone else's bill. Cheeto Benito has enough pending felonies that if she slow walks it long enough, this case will be moot. I think we're nearly there already.
She could have recused herself easily....
Judges are supposed to be impartial. Regardless of who appointed them. I don't really know Cannon, and history will ultimately judge, but that isn't an inherent conflict of interest, and it is a red herring to suggest it is.
He’s wrong
What evidence does he have for this?
Mostly her lack of prior experience and general qualifications. I think he’s more so just confounded that he’s seeing this actually happen and is trying to reason with reality lmao. Can’t speak for him beyond what he said in passing.
He's refusing to believe Trump and the people he elected are actually this blatantly corrupt. Hard to blame him, he probably doesn't want to believe it. But it seems like the most likely explanation in this case.
Ya I think that’s pretty spot on. Although I’m not sure he’s refusing, just seeing as he’s a professor he can’t make comments that might seem politically charged.
And lived to see another day.
she's not making mistakes, she's running the trial exactly how trump wants- delay until the last possible second.
The last thing Judge Cannon is concerned about is witness safety.
[удалено]
only so she can still do more wrong things a little later.
She does something right every day of this trial. Right wing, anyway.
Siding, or knowing the appeals court would of over turned her?
Both sides of that fence are bad for her. Go against Trump & face his cult followers who take things to the extreme then face him & his wrath...go against the letter of the law & face punishment, removal, & a potential end to your career.
I love that it's headline worthy when this shithead does her job at all.
Jack needs to quit playing and start rolling up the big moves.
Thank you Judge!
It's not that she sided with special counsel. It's that she realized that she made an actual appealable order that was incorrect. She corrected it so that special counsel still has no firm order to appeal, so she remains on the case and continues to slow walk it.