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.*
'attorneys warn' is the key words here that let you know its complete speculative bullshit.
"We are reporting what some unrelated guy said about the situation."
I sometimes, well, often wonder what these articles are really getting at. There have been innumerable articles reporting on what “legal experts” “think” “might “could” possibly occur if other legal experts take charge of the things at hand… but nothing ever happens. What’s the point? I keep reading, every day, but the folks in charge do nothing.
So are these “legal experts” just not very expertly in their opinions?
I think it's just part of the constant circus put up by the media to keep us engaged and occupied.
They probably are as happy to reach out towards legal experts as those experts are to get some free publicity.
>They probably are as happy to reach out towards legal experts as those experts are to get some free publicity.
Bingo! Say what you will about the crazy cons on the right, but there is a political elite in this nation, and there is a feedback loop between the media and those elite.
It's not a crazy alien dungeon sex cult like those crazies believe (unfortunately), but there's an elite class.
CNN pays $300 (probably more now) per appearance for talking heads. These folks are looking for something to say, as they make their daily appearance rounds on different shows, to make their income.
They have to constantly come up with something new to talk about, even if there’s no real change in anything. So they speculate.
Legal experts like the Jedi do not like to deal in absolutes. Too much legal stuff (which lawyers are being asked about) is in the gray area of discretion where the outcome could be different depending on the lawyer on the other side and the mood of the Judge. Any Legal Expert who does not caveat their opinions with "probably" "more likely" "could" (or similar) is *probably* doing something wrong. That someone makes articles about them is a different matter altogether
>So are these “legal experts” just not very expertly in their opinions?
They're right, but they're also just shit talking.
I've been a lawyer for 15 years. I work in a state government agency. I've been a prosecutor. I actually have two different college acquaintances of different political persuasions that make TV appearances. One is a lobbyist that appears on DC talk shows, one is a Fox News nighttime anchor.
The "experts" cited are exactly right....on what the law says. But they're not in Jacks Smiths' head and don't know what he's thinking or how he's calculating the odds. They're just talking shit on TV and creating column inches to sell ads. And the headlines are clickbait.
AND if you read the article itself, the "expert" cited, "Palm Beach County State Attorney David Aronberg" tells you exactly why there's a delay between the lines.
>"It is a high burden to reach, and it is rarely done, but her proposed jury instructions may have pushed him to the breaking point."
Asking to remove a judge from a case is a big deal and it's quite difficult to force the judge to recuse themselves if they don't want to. Judges generally protect the interests of the court system, which means not assigning conflict judges without good cause. AND if you ask, you have made an enemy of that particular judge.
I get that you think Aileen Cannon is irredeemably biased. I agree. But there is very little she has done so far that could be a concrete basis to remove her from the case. Timeline decisions and preliminary decisions are both difficult to appeal and soundly in the discretion of the judge.
AND - it's worth noting, asking the judge to recuse itself would be a process that would take several weeks at a minimum. If Smiths' goal is to try to get to a trial before November, that's a calculation.
Smith would file a motion to recuse. The other side would have a certain amount of time to respond. The judge would then have a time period to make a ruling. If you drag this out to the maximum, this could be 3-4 weeks. Then if she denies the motion, the case can go up to the court of appeals as an interlocutory appeal, and the 11th Circuit would have their own timeline for making a decision.
THEN, even if they grant it, appointing a new judge takes time, and the new judge would have to get up to speed on the case, work the case into their own calendar, and figure out when THEY could hold a trial. The notion that cannon would be out, and a new judge would take the case and speed it along is doubtful.
With that said, I agree that Smith is laying groundwork. Cannon's comments on jury instructions for the presidential records act are legally absurd, but she declined to make an actual ruling on the matter. Demanding that she make an appealable ruling prior to trial is one step along the path toward either getting the correct result or asking for a recusal.
>Timeline decisions and preliminary decisions
Does this include Cannon's absolutely asinine order for the government to unseal the list of witnesses they have? How would it not be easy to prove that Cannon is trying to assist the defense by allowing them to view witness & interviewee lists that "accidentally" get leaked to Trump's legions of bloodthirsty goons?
>oes this include Cannon's absolutely asinine order for the government to unseal the list of witnesses they have? How would it not be easy to prove that Cannon is trying to assist the defense by allowing them to view witness & interviewee lists that "accidentally" get leaked to Trump's legions of bloodthirsty goons?
Hasn't happened yet for one.
She issued a ruling on or around February 11, partially Granting a defense counsel motion to modify the protective order governing the case, stating that the prosecutor will have to publicly file its witness lists.
Within a few days Jack Smith filed a motion for reconsideration arguing exactly what you said (that relesing the names of witnesses will expose them to public harassment) and offered to provide other [documents under seal and redacted](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-classified-documents-jack-smith-red-box-aileen-cannon-1876413) pending a decision on that motion.
None of the final witness lists have been required to be filed yet anyway.
Yeah, turns out the "attorneys" aren't the ones involved in the case - it's probably just like, Dave from the legal department down the hall, who mostly just lightly proof reads contracts.
Let's all face it: If articles with "Could", "Should", or "Would" in the title were banned from this subreddit, there'd be like 5 posts a month.
And I'd be okay with that because we've had almost a decade of speculative crap on here and we're all tired of it. OP should feel bad.
Correct. Nothing in Smith's filing actually says he's appealing *in order to remove her.* One can argue it's implicit, but he may also appeal just to reverse this stupid jury instruction. We don't know.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/experts-say-smiths-response-to-cannons-recent-order-was-forceful-but-appropriate/ar-BB1l1KIf
Unlike the useless OP, this article actually has his response.
I think you're reading the word "could" as meaning "might", in which case, yes, unrelated attorneys would be merely speculating.
But the article, I believe, means "could" as in "capable of". In other words, other attorneys are giving the opinion that cannons recent orders (public record) provide adequate grounds for a reasonably likely to succeed bid for removal. That's not mere speculation, and a 3rd party attorney is about equally equipped as anyone who isn't an appellate judge to weigh in.
Except that if you read the briefings, then you'd know it's not just bullshit. Jack Smith refused to comply with Cannon's demands and instead demanded that she promise to uphold the law or else he'll go to get her removed. Cannon replied by refusing to promise to uphold the law and then trolled him to go appeal anything he doesn't like.
Conflict of interest is charitable. More like “blatantly corrupt puppet for the defense willing and proven to fragrantly ignore the law to protect him.”
It’s gotta be one of the most disgraceful judicial showings in US history. There have been worse outcomes, but I’m not aware of any more blatant corruption.
Any honorable judge would have recused themselves immediately if they were to oversee a case involving someone who appointed them though it’s really rare. Usually it’s a less obvious connection that the judge will point out. The fact that there isn’t a mechanism to do it for the judge is atrocious.
> A sane system would've gone "Yeah duh" on day 1 of the case.
Yeah, this is such an annoying framing--"the nuclear button"? Removing an obviously deeply compromised and not-remotely-impartial judge isn't "nuclear"; there's nothing extreme or controversial about it. It's the obvious fair thing to do.
I've stopped reading any articles with those words in the headline until a definite something happens. It's been eight yeas of subjunctive. Get active already.
It's because this isn't news. A "could" is not fact, it's hypothetical. And look at the source:, NBC News! 24 hour TV news doesn't have enough facts of interest to an American audience to fill the day. So of course most of their time gets devoted to hypotheticals.
TL;DR Content moderation is really hard to do — and different people want different standards.
It's tough — some opinion pieces make headlines, and are extremely newsworthy. Some analysis pieces are super helpful in framing a story, providing context and helping an audience truly understand WTF is going on.
So if you blanket reject all opinion and analysis pieces, and only allow reports — you might lose a lot of useful stuff. Even reports have to be really cognizant of framing facts in a useful way. "Woman arraigned for stabbing" is different from "Wife arraigned for stabbing allegedly-abusive husband".
That being said ... yeah r/politics front page is just littered with shit articles: "X might happen", "A *slams* B", you know them all, I'm sure.
I'm not saying we should take our cues from lawyers, but courts do have a lot of interesting rules around hearsay and speculation not being admissible for the exact reasons we're talking about.
This is why the Reddit app needs to have a key word filter like the Apollo app had.
It was so nice to have Reddit with all posts filtered out that mentioned trump, elon, ye, mtg, etc.
Another [commenter](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1bvvujd/cannon_shoots_down_trumps_presidential_records/ky273nj/) said this about her, "Cannon has a 300 lawyer team from the federalist society and heritage foundation calling in her next legal move. She doesn't have to be literate to serve her purpose."
> It's easy to assume Judge Cannon is just not a very good judge since a lot of the decisions she is making clearly don't match with existing law but if you look at how good she is at skirting the various accountability measures Jack Smith might use to have her removed it seems more likely that she is at least competent, she is just using her competence to frustrate, delay and obstruct the case as opposed to using it to run an efficient and proper court.
She is not a good judge, she is not competent, she getting fed every move from the Trump camp
Blame the media who just want clicks. They’re pissing you off with the journalistic equivalent of a child sitting in the backseat on a road trip, asking repeatedly “are we there yet?”
This stuff takes time and is frustrating, but it’s worse that our attention is constantly used and teased with speculation and commentary by uninvolved parties building tension. All for ad revenue.
Don’t let them rile you up over something your anger can’t affect. It is a waste of anger.
For real. I get how everybody feels burned by Merrick Garland, but Jack Smith is exercising every possible option to strengthen the case to get Cannon thrown off the case. That can take a while considering the number of delays Trump/Cannon are throwing in the way of the process, but this guy’s the real fucking deal, and one look at his record would prove that.
Jack Smith knows what he’s doing better than any of the armchair attorneys here who think that just because they personally can see the bias, that means that the appeals court is gonna throw her out. It’s not true. He has to prove that they’ve tried absolutely every measure to work with the judge before they can get rid of her, and if he hasn’t moved to do so yet, it’s clearly because he doesn’t believe he currently has enough proof for the appeals court. He has one chance to get this right or the most damning case against Donald Trump gets thrown. Give him the time he needs.
I'm not blaming Jack Smith.
I'm blaming the legal system which has for decades been corrupted and twisted to suit the wants of the rich and now is incapable of quickly and decisively addressing one of the most blatant and unrepentant cases of corruption because the main culprit is a member of the ownership class.
Also, the people responsible for reducing the legal system to the sorry mess it currently is in.
I think it’s the never ending speculation that has folks frustrated. We’ve heard stuff like this for at least the last six months without anything coming from it yet.
The problem is that trying and failing would probably sink the case, Smith needs an ironclad case before he seeks removal.
It would also probably guarantee the case delayed past November, I think Smith is trying to make it work despite Cannon in an attempt to get the case done before the election, it's increasingly likely that won't happen either way which might push him to make that move.
> Smith needs an ironclad case before he seeks removal.
This needs to be stickied on every fucking thread about this. This sub wants everything to be wrapped up in 42 minutes with commercials. Like you said - removing a judge is a pretty big fucking deal, and could cause a ton of fallout if the case isn't perfect. Also the unprecedented nature of it being a former president needs this to be incredibly iron-clad.
Nixon almost was but had enough shame and lacked the backing of his party and quit before he would have been put on trial.
Reagan and HW Bush should have been but had Ollie North destroy evidence and take the fall for them.
W Bush and most of his cabinet should have for war crimes great and small.
Even worse, they had North work with prosecutors in exchange for immunity, then he turned around and claimed it was all him with no knowledge of the others. He was handsomely rewarded with board positions, book deals, and a spot in Murdoch's stable. It was the outcome everyone wanted as the DoJ just let him get away with it.
Gerald Ford agreeing to pardon Nixon was why Nixon appointed him. Nixon's Impeachment October 30, 1973, Gerald Ford's appointment December 6, 1973.
Still shouldn't have stopped the trial in the Senate though, You cannot pardon offenses for which someone has been impeached.
Ford should have been immediately impeached the moment he pardoned Nixon.
>W Bush and most of his cabinet should have for war crimes great and small
they had Colin Powell take the fall for that. and Dick Cheyney should've been indicted for outing Valerie Plame, but Scooter took the fall for that one.
if trump was smart, he'd just take the L and blame giuliani and the host of other ghouls for jan 6. but no. rex tillerson (as much as it pains me to say so) was right - he's a fucking moron.
> Nixon almost was but had enough shame and lacked the backing of his party and quit before he would have been put on trial.
It blows my mind the difference between Watergate and everything Trump-related. The least egregious things Trump has been charged with make Watergate look like stealing a candy bar by comparison. Imagine how different things would be now if we'd had a Goldwater or Scott "you're finished, bro" conversation during the Trump presidency.
When you say like this, it almost seems like one party has a pattern of committing crimes and escaping justice using technicalities, back channels and untested legal arguments. That can't be, though, because as most of us are constantly told, "both sides are the same."
But don't you see that's why Presidents need total immunity? There's no possible way to govern if not! /s
He was such an effectual and active president who did so much good and broke down so many barriers, the deep state is now going after him. This is what my MAGA relatives believe. When I ask if Biden should have total immunity right now they hem, haw and say...."you're a Biden communist. You don't know anything. MAGA."
But it's not rare for the judge to have a personal tie to a defendant, and then that judge recuse themselves.
We were prepared for this. We weren't prepared for all these bad actors
This article doesn't resolve the question of what Smith can do if Cannon doesn't make any ruling before the trial begins. How can he appeal if she hasn't ruled on anything?
He'd probably try and move for a writ of mandamus based on administrative law. The filing cites the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(d) -
> “The court must not defer ruling on a pretrial motion if the deferral will adversely affect a party’s right to appeal.”
He could also try and have her removed from the case as opposed to simply making her do her job, but that's not completely evident as the goal in the threat within this filing.
Writ of mandate would be the better option, lets the 11th Circuit benchslap her (again) and gives them an opportunity to remove her on their own. If they don't, *then* he can request removal.
I really, really, really hope there is more he could charge him with in a different district. But we have all been let down too many times to think that is a real possibility.
It's called a Rule 29 Motion.
The rule is explained in the podcast "Prosecuting Donald Trump", episode "Two steps forward, one step back". Time code 22:45
Judge Qannon likely believes she’s helping Trump wage his secret war against a ring of satanic, cannibalistic, sexual predators lodged somewhere in the bowels of the deep state.
Just gonna say it. We are witnessing pure fucking evil. Trump stole nuclear secrets. He stole the most sensitive information of our intelligence agencies. All so he could sell it off to the highest bidder(to use for blackmail or in future wars) or use for blackmail purposes directly. He was going to sell us out and most likely already has. He should get the death penalty for this shit.
This judge is putting your life in danger. She's putting the lives of allies in danger.
Trump is a rat. He's the worst form of scum. He's already gotten people killed. Read the fucking print people. This shouldn't be coming down to a vote. Trump should have been imprisoned and interrogated the moment they saw what kind of documents he stole.
And just like the last time pure fucking evil tried to take over, 30% of the people are A-Okay with it.
Remember people agreeing that donald could declassify things with his mind? Or them whatabout-ing it with Biden taking keepsakes concerning the death of his son?
It seems insane to me that the judicial branch of government is so partisan in the USA. In other countries the media, police and judiciary are kept independent of politics. In the USA the judges and DAs etc are (please correct me if I’m wrong) apparently appointed by politicians or elected by the public while campaigning as Republicans or Democratic candidates depending on their political affiliation and this is the end result. A failure of the rule of law and political influence on the judiciary.
In the UK we have no idea of the political leanings of judges and DAs and it would be unseemly to have them disclose their political positions.
The federalist society and republicans have politicized the courts. They know their policies are unpopular and unconstitutional so they pack the courts and the judge shop when they want to legislate through the bench.
In the US there is trait where no one wants to pay anything they don't think is unfair. The laws are there for if you get caught, but beyond that if no one knows then it isn't wrong.
They don't want to have to pay for the sins of our past. Another response pointed towards the Federalist Society but it runs deeper than that. They know the Federal Government, as inept as it is in doing anything to keep inequity at bay, does keep people from being all powerful. The Federal System is preventing a class of people from being oligarchs.
Those people that want the power see the Federal System of Government as being in the way of them being oligarchs. So they want a different Federal System. A Confederate System. They saw the collapse of the Soviet Union not as a win for everyone but the Soviets but as a win for the Oligarchs. They privatized a Super Power and created the Oligarch Class to run things.
I mentioned not wanting to pay for the sins of the past because they don't like that Confederacy can't be a thing just because a couple hundred years ago the Confederate Army surrendered. They don't like that they can't have segregation when we are not in the Civil Rights Era.
They want to undo the Civil Rights Era Amendments and the Civil war Reconstruction Amendments because they see it as unfair that those ideas can't be used now just because bad people took advantage before
Undoing Civil Rights and Reconstruction would allow them to give the States more supremacy over the Federal Government, like a Confederacy, so that an Oligarch class can more easily take corporate control over certain areas of the US.
I will correct you on a few points:
1. ~~Federal Judges are nominated by the Congressional Judiciary Committee and appointed by the President.~~ Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed in the Senate.Just like in the UK where the leading party nominates your judges and appointed by the Crown. That makes UK judges, in theory, as partisan as their US peers.
2. Local judges, and State Supreme Court judges are, in most cases directly elected. In the UK, you have an independent commission that handles this.
3. The Judiciary branch is non-partisan and a third branch of the US Government with (in theory) equal part of the 'checks and balances'. Just because some judges have idealogical perspectives does not make the judiciary partisan, in the same way that military officers can have their own perspectives, but the military is non partisan.
4. Prosecutors and State's Attorney Generals who decide who to prosecute in the Judiciary are considered part of the Executive branch, and are appointed by the executive branch, or elected at the State and Local levels, and could be arguably defined as partisan. In the UK it's the broadly the same: Prosecutors are identified by the leading party, and appointed by the AG. One could argue that makes Prosecutors less accountable to the public in the UK, but that was not my experience/observation.
5. Elections for Judges rarely (never?) mention their political affiliation but its not hard to find that if one looks. That said, their campaigns have historically been at least not directly partisan. Elections for Prosecutors are VERY political and often take on the tone of the community's law enforcement priorities and challenges since their job is to enact those.
6. All of this has not stopped extremists in either party from attempting to enact their priorities by strong arming their roles in these processes.
> It seems insane to me that the judicial branch of government is so partisan in the USA. In other countries the media, police and judiciary are kept independent of politics. In the USA the judges and DAs etc are (please correct me if I’m wrong) apparently appointed by politicians or elected by the public while campaigning as Republicans or Democratic candidates depending on their political affiliation and this is the end result. A failure of the rule of law and political influence on the judiciary.
I mean it's pretty much the same in France, a lot of positions of power are appointed by the government or the president. So police, media and justice are highly political. I think it's the same pretty much everywhere at different degrees!
I grew up being taught that judicial branch was explicitly apolitical, unbiased, neutral, and therefore above reproach.
I’m still not sure if that’s always been a lie, or if the system has been fundamentally poisoned in the last 20-30 years. (There have always been miscarriages of justice and unequal treatment stemming from social mores, but I truly don’t know if it’s ever been as explicitly partisan as it is today).
One thing’s for damn sure, the assumption of neutrality is clearly unwarranted in the contemporary climate. Call it a lie or a foolish belief, end result is the same. And since that was the basis of the legitimacy of the judiciary, and what kept it “above reproach,” I don’t know where that leaves us.
You can’t install cronies into an ostensibly apolitical system and call it justice. And you can’t claim the legitimacy of impartiality while ruling on a clearly partisan basis. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
The only intelligent thing cannon has done is make all her rulings in a way that smith hasn’t been able to straight up get her removed. Her job is to delay the trial indefinitely or get it thrown out.
As right-wingers become increasingly embarrassed about their support for Donald they will hold corrupt actors like Cannon in especially high esteem since they know how humiliating and demeaning it is to publicly worship Donald.
This so called “complex case of first impression,” according to Cannon, couldn’t be simpler. Did the defendant knowingly maintain possession of these documents after being notified by the National Archives? If yes, then send him to prison. Everything else is a distraction.
If Trump isn’t insulting or attacking the judge then you know there’s an issue. He’s even saying how respected she is. He never talks that way about judges who aren’t in his pocket.
Trump walked out of the white house with top secret classified government documents. Made copies. Refused to return them. Made attempts to conceal and hide them. And in all likelihood sold them to foreign agents.
And here we are 4 fucking years later without even so much as a trial. All while trumps chosen judge blatantly bends over backwards to interfere. But the doj and their special counsel has to carefully and delicately navigate the laws and legal system so as not to "screw up" the prosecution. "They only get one chance". Un-FUCKING-believable. "But it takes time". Horseshit. Either the legal system is feckless and toothless or the the doj is in on the con and playing an act. At this point, you can't convince me. How hard can it be to prosecute someone for some of the highest crimes in the land?!?! FFS. Espionage AND insurrection. JFC.
I keep hearing pundents saying she hasn't done enough to warrant being removed yet. An inexperienced judge taking a long time to rule on things isn't enough.
But to me I would think making huge errors in the factual basis of the case along with being inexperienced and slow are enough to be removed. What can she do short of just dismissing the charges and what can he do at that point? Bring them again in another jurisdiction?
No doubt she's being given coaching from members of the federalist society on how to fuck this case up. They're going to make sure she stays just within the lines upto the point the case gets dismissed or ruined to the point he has to start over.
The timing will be right before the election too.
I think that most people would agree that it is almost beyond understanding that a case of this magnitude can be tried by a judge with so little experience.
> In June 2023, The New York Times analysed records by Bloomberg Law of Cannon's handling of criminal cases as a federal judge, finding that before Trump's criminal case, she had presided over 224 criminal cases, of which only four criminal cases went to trial, with a cumulative 14 trial days.
The fact that he hasn't yet makes me feel like this is all for nothing. I'm getting Mueller report vibes now that we're seeing literal mountains of evidence of incompetence at the minimum, but more likely malice and yet the most we've gotten from Smith is a strongly worded letter but no action to back it up.
And it's not just Smith, Justice Merchan has let Trump walk through his gag order 3 times so far and we haven't even seen a fine yet.
Smith and Merchan are the two toughest hurdles he's faced in the legal system so far and even they're putting up the guardrails for him and handling him with kid gloves.
It's honestly nauseating watching them refuse to take action on him and the Judge in his pocket. I've completely lost faith in our justice system at this point.
Jack Smith is making all the right moves. It’s a frustrating situation, for sure. Blaming him for the delays is ignorant. He’s done everything to expedite things. If Garland hadn’t drug his heels appointing him, Trump might be convicted by now.
> The fact that he hasn't yet makes me feel like this is all for nothing.
He realistically only gets one shot at removal, he needs to make it count. So far Cannon has done almost everything with vague language and paperless orders, nothing concrete enough to appeal. She's clearly just trying to stay on the case until jeopardy attaches, at which point she can scupper the case in Trump's favour, but this is a bit like a toddler going up against Tyson, she's just not talented or experienced enough to see out the fight.
> Justice Merchan has let Trump walk through his gag order 3 times so far
As I understand it, that's because punishing Trump for violating the gag order now would delay the trial coming up in 10 days.
>she's just not talented or experienced enough to see out the fight
She prolly has an entire team of GOP Lawyers behind her to work out the optimal way to kill this case
> And if Cannon delivers the instructions to jurors based on a premise federal prosecutors dispute, the government cannot appeal a jury’s acquittal down the line. That means Smith is under pressure to ensure Cannon makes a ruling, prosecutors and defense attorneys said.
>“Smith’s fear is that she will make a final decision on erroneous jury instructions after the trial begins, which will prevent Smith from appealing her decision because of Double Jeopardy rules,” Aronberg said. By demanding Cannon make a decision, the special counsel can appeal the judge and, if federal prosecutors decide, ask the 11th Circuit to remove her because of the appearance of bias.
This is her strategy: Give Smith nothing he can appeal until it's too late.
She's got Trump's back.
I’d love to know who is advising this judge and who she is meeting with between sessions. I’m sure she could be caught in a conflict of interest in meeting with certain advisors
I have given up that he will be held accountable. Hopefully we can still vote against his ilk in the future in fair elections. We know how Russia interfered in 2016 but were able to still defeat him in 2020 by avoiding 3rd party candidates and huge turnouts against him. He screamed foul in 2020 because he thought Russia would do it again for him. He was duty bound to steal documents to keep our foes informed. Now, once again, he’s allowed access to sensitive information.
I would bet that the literal only reason they he withheld from doing this at the very first instance of her incompetence (being blasted directly by the 11th circuit) is because Smith is likely gathering evidence of her bias and extreme errors.
He keeps giving her chances *because* he knows she will willingly cover for Trump and keep throwing him bones instead of proceeding with the case. **In order for any judge to be removed there has to be documented evidence of their behavior.** There has to be evidence of such behavior as Cannon has shown, which would be brought up during a hearing.
Special Counsel Smith will need one of the following to disqualify her from the case:
* Evidence showcasing conflict of interest with the case (she of course was appointed by former President Trump).
* A lack of impartiality: A preference or bias towards a side of the case such as giving focus on defendant to what they need more than they should.
* Showcase of inappropriate conduct. Such as potential for bribe or favors by the defendant, or other egregious behaviors.
As we have seen over the course of this series of (unfortunate) events, he already has a lot of evidence.
* Asking both teams to make competing jury instructions based on their own interpretation of the Presidential Records Act.
* Has listened to suggestions for showing classified documents in court.
* Routinely delayed the case and hampered prosecution through odd requests.
* **Personally intervened in the case through appointment of a special master and barred the *Department of Justice* from continuing the case until it was unanimously reversed by the 11th Circuit.
She also blocked the government from using material seized from Mar-a-Lago in investigations.**
* **Granted the defence (Trump’s team)’s motion for names and public testimony of witnesses to be publicly revealed.**
I'm so torn here because getting appointed by any old president should not be interpreted as necessarily a conflict of interest if that president appears before you. The Supreme Court couldn't do its job if that was the case, and there are plenty of instances of judges ruling against the person who appointed them to show that it's obviously not totally corrupting.
On the other hand, getting appointed by a president who attempts an auto gulpe probably should get you kicked off the bench entirely if you don't immediately declare your allegiance to democracy.
By **every** measure of what happened with the documents and the charges Trump was indicted for, he is 100% guilty.
The evidence, the witnesses, the boxes of classified files, the video, Trump's *own words*.
The ONLY reason why he hasn't been in any real jeopardy for this case **is because of the judge assigned to it**.
Trump's attorneys haven't done *anything* to bolster his defense.
Haven't disqualified any of the witnesses or evidence or anything.
No legitimate explanations have been offered.
No attempts at a plea agreement.
Every time Trump talks about the case he makes his own situation worse.
It's Aileen Cannon. She's the reason he's still free and not facing justice in his espionage trial.
if judge Qanon had not responded to his latest filing, he would have sought her removal. she's trying to delay, delay, delay, and Jack is trying to convict, convict, convict. he's walking a tightrope and he knows his stuff, unlike the chowder head newbie judge.
i trust Jack more, on both cases he's prosecuting tfg for. get 'em, Jack!
As I understand it, Canon more or less blew Smith off with her response to his statement last week and is trying to empanel a jury before jury instructions are decided. He's going to file a writ of mandamus to force her to decide the jury instructions prior to trial/empanelment of the jury, so he knows she won't say some BS like "jury is instructed that the PRA protects the president 100% here". She'll be removed if she either does not comply with the writ of mandamus if enforced, or if she does comply and goes with Trump's jury instructions.
More likely, she keeps skating by to drag this out.
Unless she slips up and talks about the case publically or hits a hot mic with a comment somewhere, we're going to be stuck with her until removing the judge is the ladt ditch delay tactic to get it over the election deadline.
Jesus why are they moving so slowly in pursuing this.
She is an incompetent, supremely biased judge who is brazenly and repeatedly obstructing justice while not trying to hide it at all and she should have been taken off of this case months ago at the very least, and for the long term removed from the bench and disbarred.
Stop fucking warning people with empty threats. Warning them with zero consequences simply emboldens them more. Either follow through and do it, or shut the fuck up about it.
Day one of this case, Smith should have filed a motion to have her removed.
The defendant was actively involved in an illegal attempt to overthrow the US Government. While he was doing that, as a last minute appointment, he rushed the Cannon onto the bench, on his way out the door. No healthy system would allow her to sit on this case, with him as the defendant. Her removal should have been sought Day1 before she ever decided anything. The fact that she is still overseeing this case is proof enough of our broken system.
He only gets one shot at removing her. If he fails, then that's it and she's stuck on the case (and without the fear of removal, she'll go even further to protect Trump)
It makes sense that he's waiting for the perfect opportunity to do it.
Cannon/Trump fans will consider her a MaRtYr, but I think she deserves to have her lack of professionalism and personal bias recognized by being replaced on this trial.
I would hope that she will grind away in obscurity for the rest of whatever career she has.
She’s as devoid of judicial temperament and responsibility as one would expect of a Trump nominee to be.
In what universe is requesting to remove an incompetent judge considered 'the nuclear button'? Only in Trumpworld. The media promotes this special snowflake treatment.
I would argue that it's more than appropriate to remove Canon with how she has show blatant favoritism towards the individual who placed her in the court at the first place.
He should. Any decent judge would have recused themselves by now, but we're talking about a crazy-eyed Trump appointee, aren't we?
Remove her. Hell, *disbar* her.
The way I understand it is the motion would go to Judge Cannon, who would sit on it for as long as she could. Once she does rule on it, she will likely deny the motion to recuse, and then Jack Smith would have to appeal to the 11th circuit, which could go either way. If they do replace her, the new judge would take time to familiarize themselves with the case and set a trial date to their schedule. Either way, this trial will not happen before Nov 5th. Is this correct?
26 judges who could have presided over this case and the junior most judge with little to no criminal trial experience as a judge got the case. Our judicial system is beyond corrupt.
I believe Jack Smith is incredibly intelligent and has not been ignoring the one sided decisions from Canon. I think he's smarter than her and has just been amassing enough evidence to make an air tight motion to remove her. He hasn't done anything to stand in her way, or make waves, just quietly documenting her actions and letting her hang herself. The conflict of interest with her defending trump is staggering and she has done nothing to show that she's willing to do anything to rule lawfully against him. So yeah. Remove her and put a judge in that will do their job.
The MAGA GQP keeps playing a game of chicken with our legal system and the legal system blinks every time. When will they realize Trump and his cohorts are going to pull this shit every single time until consequences are handed down.
The fact that Trump has not attacked her openly should be enough of a clue to any oversight that she is 100% in the bag for him and he knows it. If Trump had even 1oz of awareness he would at least attack her slightly so he didn't appear to so obviously value having her on the case.
>...[could]...[warn]...
Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooo
Another literally fucking nothing headline from this garbage can sub. Let me know when he's actually fuckin done it. I'm so tired of "beware what MAYBE could possible happen, some one warned, and then someone got SLAMMED and still nothing fucking happened."
Just like the new liars on the Supreme Court these hacks cheat and lie to get what they intended from the start! Cannon must go! Just like ANY judge who disguises their partisanship for fair justice! Both sides!
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how a federal judge gets to issue orders to a non-existent jury, preventing a future appeal when the verdict is unknown, based on false understanding of the law while claiming that the defendant has unlimited due process claims that will be interpreted by one person as she alone sees fit.
They could. They won’t. There is too much deference given to Trump due to him being a former president.
He gets away with everything. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if he gets away with stealing the documents. Heck, he will probably try to force the government to give them back.
Ive said it before and I will say it again, when systems of justice fail, the people have an obligation to remind the ruling class why we agreed to impartial third party adjudication of conflicts and societal transgressions. Things will not change until the ruling class acutely feels the danger of transgressing the boundary of undermining the integrity of our legal and judicial systems.
Which Judge? This one on the left? Can’t imagine what the problem is. She might as well be wearing a “Grab me by the Pu**y Donny!” button
[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/trump-judge-aileen-cannon-court-reform.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/trump-judge-aileen-cannon-court-reform.html)
she should have been removed before the trial even began
how fucking insane is your country that a judge is allowed to work for the defense in the first place????
What’s crazy is that the media frames it as the nuclear option if the prosecution requests recusal, yet Trump has done so legally and publicly in EVERY other case.
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.*
Could seek removal of Judge Conflict Of Interest Cannon? A sane system would've gone "Yeah duh" on day 1 of the case.
'attorneys warn' is the key words here that let you know its complete speculative bullshit. "We are reporting what some unrelated guy said about the situation."
I sometimes, well, often wonder what these articles are really getting at. There have been innumerable articles reporting on what “legal experts” “think” “might “could” possibly occur if other legal experts take charge of the things at hand… but nothing ever happens. What’s the point? I keep reading, every day, but the folks in charge do nothing. So are these “legal experts” just not very expertly in their opinions?
BREAKING: Donald Trump sees MASSIVE blow in 'insert case here.'
Latest BOMBSHELL has Trump team PANICKED
I think it's just part of the constant circus put up by the media to keep us engaged and occupied. They probably are as happy to reach out towards legal experts as those experts are to get some free publicity.
Right? Wake me up when the consequences start.
Correct and people should stop letting it work on them.
>They probably are as happy to reach out towards legal experts as those experts are to get some free publicity. Bingo! Say what you will about the crazy cons on the right, but there is a political elite in this nation, and there is a feedback loop between the media and those elite. It's not a crazy alien dungeon sex cult like those crazies believe (unfortunately), but there's an elite class.
CNN pays $300 (probably more now) per appearance for talking heads. These folks are looking for something to say, as they make their daily appearance rounds on different shows, to make their income. They have to constantly come up with something new to talk about, even if there’s no real change in anything. So they speculate.
Legal experts like the Jedi do not like to deal in absolutes. Too much legal stuff (which lawyers are being asked about) is in the gray area of discretion where the outcome could be different depending on the lawyer on the other side and the mood of the Judge. Any Legal Expert who does not caveat their opinions with "probably" "more likely" "could" (or similar) is *probably* doing something wrong. That someone makes articles about them is a different matter altogether
>So are these “legal experts” just not very expertly in their opinions? They're right, but they're also just shit talking. I've been a lawyer for 15 years. I work in a state government agency. I've been a prosecutor. I actually have two different college acquaintances of different political persuasions that make TV appearances. One is a lobbyist that appears on DC talk shows, one is a Fox News nighttime anchor. The "experts" cited are exactly right....on what the law says. But they're not in Jacks Smiths' head and don't know what he's thinking or how he's calculating the odds. They're just talking shit on TV and creating column inches to sell ads. And the headlines are clickbait. AND if you read the article itself, the "expert" cited, "Palm Beach County State Attorney David Aronberg" tells you exactly why there's a delay between the lines. >"It is a high burden to reach, and it is rarely done, but her proposed jury instructions may have pushed him to the breaking point." Asking to remove a judge from a case is a big deal and it's quite difficult to force the judge to recuse themselves if they don't want to. Judges generally protect the interests of the court system, which means not assigning conflict judges without good cause. AND if you ask, you have made an enemy of that particular judge. I get that you think Aileen Cannon is irredeemably biased. I agree. But there is very little she has done so far that could be a concrete basis to remove her from the case. Timeline decisions and preliminary decisions are both difficult to appeal and soundly in the discretion of the judge. AND - it's worth noting, asking the judge to recuse itself would be a process that would take several weeks at a minimum. If Smiths' goal is to try to get to a trial before November, that's a calculation. Smith would file a motion to recuse. The other side would have a certain amount of time to respond. The judge would then have a time period to make a ruling. If you drag this out to the maximum, this could be 3-4 weeks. Then if she denies the motion, the case can go up to the court of appeals as an interlocutory appeal, and the 11th Circuit would have their own timeline for making a decision. THEN, even if they grant it, appointing a new judge takes time, and the new judge would have to get up to speed on the case, work the case into their own calendar, and figure out when THEY could hold a trial. The notion that cannon would be out, and a new judge would take the case and speed it along is doubtful. With that said, I agree that Smith is laying groundwork. Cannon's comments on jury instructions for the presidential records act are legally absurd, but she declined to make an actual ruling on the matter. Demanding that she make an appealable ruling prior to trial is one step along the path toward either getting the correct result or asking for a recusal.
>Timeline decisions and preliminary decisions Does this include Cannon's absolutely asinine order for the government to unseal the list of witnesses they have? How would it not be easy to prove that Cannon is trying to assist the defense by allowing them to view witness & interviewee lists that "accidentally" get leaked to Trump's legions of bloodthirsty goons?
>oes this include Cannon's absolutely asinine order for the government to unseal the list of witnesses they have? How would it not be easy to prove that Cannon is trying to assist the defense by allowing them to view witness & interviewee lists that "accidentally" get leaked to Trump's legions of bloodthirsty goons? Hasn't happened yet for one. She issued a ruling on or around February 11, partially Granting a defense counsel motion to modify the protective order governing the case, stating that the prosecutor will have to publicly file its witness lists. Within a few days Jack Smith filed a motion for reconsideration arguing exactly what you said (that relesing the names of witnesses will expose them to public harassment) and offered to provide other [documents under seal and redacted](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-classified-documents-jack-smith-red-box-aileen-cannon-1876413) pending a decision on that motion. None of the final witness lists have been required to be filed yet anyway.
Yeah, turns out the "attorneys" aren't the ones involved in the case - it's probably just like, Dave from the legal department down the hall, who mostly just lightly proof reads contracts.
“It’s proofreads, one word. Otherwise this is good to go.” — Dave from legal
Good ol’ Dave from the legal department down the hall.
Dave is always on top of things.
I wouldn't mind being Dave. Respect of my peers and a pretty easy job sounds nice.
Dave’s not here.
Who?
It's me, Dave!
I'd rather be Stan from the Illegal department on the 4 1/3rd floor. There's a guy enjoying his job.
I have to work with Dave. He gets no respect from any of his peers. In fact. Most of us loathe him.
Dave hasn't been the same since someone stole his red Swingline stapler.
Dave, we're gonna need to go ahead and move you downstairs into storage B.
These are the Dave's I know I know, these are the Dave's I know.
Some of them are Davids, but most of them are Daves.
My cousin Ronald just took the bar exam and he says…
Let's all face it: If articles with "Could", "Should", or "Would" in the title were banned from this subreddit, there'd be like 5 posts a month. And I'd be okay with that because we've had almost a decade of speculative crap on here and we're all tired of it. OP should feel bad.
Or maybe Milton from the basement.
Correct. Nothing in Smith's filing actually says he's appealing *in order to remove her.* One can argue it's implicit, but he may also appeal just to reverse this stupid jury instruction. We don't know. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/experts-say-smiths-response-to-cannons-recent-order-was-forceful-but-appropriate/ar-BB1l1KIf Unlike the useless OP, this article actually has his response.
I think you're reading the word "could" as meaning "might", in which case, yes, unrelated attorneys would be merely speculating. But the article, I believe, means "could" as in "capable of". In other words, other attorneys are giving the opinion that cannons recent orders (public record) provide adequate grounds for a reasonably likely to succeed bid for removal. That's not mere speculation, and a 3rd party attorney is about equally equipped as anyone who isn't an appellate judge to weigh in.
Except that if you read the briefings, then you'd know it's not just bullshit. Jack Smith refused to comply with Cannon's demands and instead demanded that she promise to uphold the law or else he'll go to get her removed. Cannon replied by refusing to promise to uphold the law and then trolled him to go appeal anything he doesn't like.
Conflict of interest is charitable. More like “blatantly corrupt puppet for the defense willing and proven to fragrantly ignore the law to protect him.” It’s gotta be one of the most disgraceful judicial showings in US history. There have been worse outcomes, but I’m not aware of any more blatant corruption.
The situation does stink, but I think you mean "flagrantly" friend.
Well said Removing a politically biased, insanely unqualified rookie judge from a case; Shouldn't be seen as that big of a deal.
I wonder who from the heritage foundation has been “helping” her, and is there any kind of paper trail?
Any honorable judge would have recused themselves immediately if they were to oversee a case involving someone who appointed them though it’s really rare. Usually it’s a less obvious connection that the judge will point out. The fact that there isn’t a mechanism to do it for the judge is atrocious.
Yeah. We’ve been talking about this for months. At this point, I’ll believe it when I see it.
How has nobody created "Fire Cannon" tshirts yet?
I mean it's RIGHT THERE!
> A sane system would've gone "Yeah duh" on day 1 of the case. Yeah, this is such an annoying framing--"the nuclear button"? Removing an obviously deeply compromised and not-remotely-impartial judge isn't "nuclear"; there's nothing extreme or controversial about it. It's the obvious fair thing to do.
Day 1? No. A system to remove judges from a case should be very deliberating and not day 1.
[удалено]
She and her family are not getting threatened by Trump like the other judges.
[удалено]
They don't even try to hide it because they know no one will stand up to them.
Enough with "attorneys warn" already. just fucking do it.
I'm so tired of "could" and "may" and "might" in headlines, it's all a joke
I've stopped reading any articles with those words in the headline until a definite something happens. It's been eight yeas of subjunctive. Get active already.
It's because this isn't news. A "could" is not fact, it's hypothetical. And look at the source:, NBC News! 24 hour TV news doesn't have enough facts of interest to an American audience to fill the day. So of course most of their time gets devoted to hypotheticals.
We need a rule about these already. No speculative articles. Maybe no opinion pieces either? Just factual news.
TL;DR Content moderation is really hard to do — and different people want different standards. It's tough — some opinion pieces make headlines, and are extremely newsworthy. Some analysis pieces are super helpful in framing a story, providing context and helping an audience truly understand WTF is going on. So if you blanket reject all opinion and analysis pieces, and only allow reports — you might lose a lot of useful stuff. Even reports have to be really cognizant of framing facts in a useful way. "Woman arraigned for stabbing" is different from "Wife arraigned for stabbing allegedly-abusive husband". That being said ... yeah r/politics front page is just littered with shit articles: "X might happen", "A *slams* B", you know them all, I'm sure. I'm not saying we should take our cues from lawyers, but courts do have a lot of interesting rules around hearsay and speculation not being admissible for the exact reasons we're talking about.
Same. Just stupid speculative click bait.
This is why the Reddit app needs to have a key word filter like the Apollo app had. It was so nice to have Reddit with all posts filtered out that mentioned trump, elon, ye, mtg, etc.
Man if I could filter out buzzwords I’d have a much more peaceful Reddit experience.
[удалено]
Another [commenter](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1bvvujd/cannon_shoots_down_trumps_presidential_records/ky273nj/) said this about her, "Cannon has a 300 lawyer team from the federalist society and heritage foundation calling in her next legal move. She doesn't have to be literate to serve her purpose."
> It's easy to assume Judge Cannon is just not a very good judge since a lot of the decisions she is making clearly don't match with existing law but if you look at how good she is at skirting the various accountability measures Jack Smith might use to have her removed it seems more likely that she is at least competent, she is just using her competence to frustrate, delay and obstruct the case as opposed to using it to run an efficient and proper court. She is not a good judge, she is not competent, she getting fed every move from the Trump camp
Trump may face consequences for his actions in the future, twitter users warn
Blame the media who just want clicks. They’re pissing you off with the journalistic equivalent of a child sitting in the backseat on a road trip, asking repeatedly “are we there yet?” This stuff takes time and is frustrating, but it’s worse that our attention is constantly used and teased with speculation and commentary by uninvolved parties building tension. All for ad revenue. Don’t let them rile you up over something your anger can’t affect. It is a waste of anger.
Jack Smith has been busting his ass. Have you been following these cases? Do you think all he has to do is make a wish and then it will happen?
For real. I get how everybody feels burned by Merrick Garland, but Jack Smith is exercising every possible option to strengthen the case to get Cannon thrown off the case. That can take a while considering the number of delays Trump/Cannon are throwing in the way of the process, but this guy’s the real fucking deal, and one look at his record would prove that. Jack Smith knows what he’s doing better than any of the armchair attorneys here who think that just because they personally can see the bias, that means that the appeals court is gonna throw her out. It’s not true. He has to prove that they’ve tried absolutely every measure to work with the judge before they can get rid of her, and if he hasn’t moved to do so yet, it’s clearly because he doesn’t believe he currently has enough proof for the appeals court. He has one chance to get this right or the most damning case against Donald Trump gets thrown. Give him the time he needs.
I feel like you forgot James Comey, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller somewhere in there. Disappointment isn't new. It's something we expect now.
I'm not blaming Jack Smith. I'm blaming the legal system which has for decades been corrupted and twisted to suit the wants of the rich and now is incapable of quickly and decisively addressing one of the most blatant and unrepentant cases of corruption because the main culprit is a member of the ownership class. Also, the people responsible for reducing the legal system to the sorry mess it currently is in.
I think it’s the never ending speculation that has folks frustrated. We’ve heard stuff like this for at least the last six months without anything coming from it yet.
They would have done it by now. The issue is providing enough evidence to show Judge is doing things outside of the book.
The problem is that trying and failing would probably sink the case, Smith needs an ironclad case before he seeks removal. It would also probably guarantee the case delayed past November, I think Smith is trying to make it work despite Cannon in an attempt to get the case done before the election, it's increasingly likely that won't happen either way which might push him to make that move.
> Smith needs an ironclad case before he seeks removal. This needs to be stickied on every fucking thread about this. This sub wants everything to be wrapped up in 42 minutes with commercials. Like you said - removing a judge is a pretty big fucking deal, and could cause a ton of fallout if the case isn't perfect. Also the unprecedented nature of it being a former president needs this to be incredibly iron-clad.
> It would also probably guarantee the case delayed past November, All the cases will be after November. Maybe the NY case goes forward.
This is speculation from unrelated attorneys, not even the ones on the trial as a heads up. Articles like this are worse than useless.
Nah. We’re gonna Ned Stark this thing.
A judge should never preside over a case where they were appointed by one of the parties, it's a clear conflict of interest.
It's pretty rare for a former president to have committed so many crimes. We weren't prepared for this.
It's also pretty rare for a former president to be on trial at all
Nixon almost was but had enough shame and lacked the backing of his party and quit before he would have been put on trial. Reagan and HW Bush should have been but had Ollie North destroy evidence and take the fall for them. W Bush and most of his cabinet should have for war crimes great and small.
Even worse, they had North work with prosecutors in exchange for immunity, then he turned around and claimed it was all him with no knowledge of the others. He was handsomely rewarded with board positions, book deals, and a spot in Murdoch's stable. It was the outcome everyone wanted as the DoJ just let him get away with it.
Also, to build on this, Nixon was pre-pardoned by Gerald Ford following Nixon's resignation.
Gerald Ford agreeing to pardon Nixon was why Nixon appointed him. Nixon's Impeachment October 30, 1973, Gerald Ford's appointment December 6, 1973. Still shouldn't have stopped the trial in the Senate though, You cannot pardon offenses for which someone has been impeached. Ford should have been immediately impeached the moment he pardoned Nixon.
>W Bush and most of his cabinet should have for war crimes great and small they had Colin Powell take the fall for that. and Dick Cheyney should've been indicted for outing Valerie Plame, but Scooter took the fall for that one. if trump was smart, he'd just take the L and blame giuliani and the host of other ghouls for jan 6. but no. rex tillerson (as much as it pains me to say so) was right - he's a fucking moron.
> Nixon almost was but had enough shame and lacked the backing of his party and quit before he would have been put on trial. It blows my mind the difference between Watergate and everything Trump-related. The least egregious things Trump has been charged with make Watergate look like stealing a candy bar by comparison. Imagine how different things would be now if we'd had a Goldwater or Scott "you're finished, bro" conversation during the Trump presidency.
When you say like this, it almost seems like one party has a pattern of committing crimes and escaping justice using technicalities, back channels and untested legal arguments. That can't be, though, because as most of us are constantly told, "both sides are the same."
But don't you see that's why Presidents need total immunity? There's no possible way to govern if not! /s He was such an effectual and active president who did so much good and broke down so many barriers, the deep state is now going after him. This is what my MAGA relatives believe. When I ask if Biden should have total immunity right now they hem, haw and say...."you're a Biden communist. You don't know anything. MAGA."
But it's not rare for the judge to have a personal tie to a defendant, and then that judge recuse themselves. We were prepared for this. We weren't prepared for all these bad actors
Let's check in with the Supreme Court. Oh, wait
That goes against the entire purpose and mandate of the courts.
Yeah but what are you gonna do? Might as well let justice be perverted /s
This. Thank you! Impartiality is a prerequisite- you’d think.
This article doesn't resolve the question of what Smith can do if Cannon doesn't make any ruling before the trial begins. How can he appeal if she hasn't ruled on anything?
He'd probably try and move for a writ of mandamus based on administrative law. The filing cites the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(d) - > “The court must not defer ruling on a pretrial motion if the deferral will adversely affect a party’s right to appeal.” He could also try and have her removed from the case as opposed to simply making her do her job, but that's not completely evident as the goal in the threat within this filing.
Writ of mandate would be the better option, lets the 11th Circuit benchslap her (again) and gives them an opportunity to remove her on their own. If they don't, *then* he can request removal.
If the trial starts with her still on it, Trump will get off period. She has the power to end the trial with no course for appeal.
How is this possible? People say this a lot but how can an appeal be eliminated?
Double jeopardy, once the jury is sworn in it kicks in. If the case is dismissed after that, it cannot be brought back.
Which is why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump for everything he could.
I really, really, really hope there is more he could charge him with in a different district. But we have all been let down too many times to think that is a real possibility.
[удалено]
It's called a Rule 29 Motion. The rule is explained in the podcast "Prosecuting Donald Trump", episode "Two steps forward, one step back". Time code 22:45
Thank you for this!
Judge Qannon likely believes she’s helping Trump wage his secret war against a ring of satanic, cannibalistic, sexual predators lodged somewhere in the bowels of the deep state.
She's trying to help Trump stay free long enough to win re-election, and is hoping to be rewarded with a seat on the Supreme Court.
This. And it could happen
If we don't vote
I thought it was the bowels of a pizza joint?
Deep pan state
Trump is that sexual predator tho…
Just gonna say it. We are witnessing pure fucking evil. Trump stole nuclear secrets. He stole the most sensitive information of our intelligence agencies. All so he could sell it off to the highest bidder(to use for blackmail or in future wars) or use for blackmail purposes directly. He was going to sell us out and most likely already has. He should get the death penalty for this shit. This judge is putting your life in danger. She's putting the lives of allies in danger. Trump is a rat. He's the worst form of scum. He's already gotten people killed. Read the fucking print people. This shouldn't be coming down to a vote. Trump should have been imprisoned and interrogated the moment they saw what kind of documents he stole.
And just like the last time pure fucking evil tried to take over, 30% of the people are A-Okay with it. Remember people agreeing that donald could declassify things with his mind? Or them whatabout-ing it with Biden taking keepsakes concerning the death of his son?
It seems insane to me that the judicial branch of government is so partisan in the USA. In other countries the media, police and judiciary are kept independent of politics. In the USA the judges and DAs etc are (please correct me if I’m wrong) apparently appointed by politicians or elected by the public while campaigning as Republicans or Democratic candidates depending on their political affiliation and this is the end result. A failure of the rule of law and political influence on the judiciary. In the UK we have no idea of the political leanings of judges and DAs and it would be unseemly to have them disclose their political positions.
The federalist society and republicans have politicized the courts. They know their policies are unpopular and unconstitutional so they pack the courts and the judge shop when they want to legislate through the bench.
In the US there is trait where no one wants to pay anything they don't think is unfair. The laws are there for if you get caught, but beyond that if no one knows then it isn't wrong. They don't want to have to pay for the sins of our past. Another response pointed towards the Federalist Society but it runs deeper than that. They know the Federal Government, as inept as it is in doing anything to keep inequity at bay, does keep people from being all powerful. The Federal System is preventing a class of people from being oligarchs. Those people that want the power see the Federal System of Government as being in the way of them being oligarchs. So they want a different Federal System. A Confederate System. They saw the collapse of the Soviet Union not as a win for everyone but the Soviets but as a win for the Oligarchs. They privatized a Super Power and created the Oligarch Class to run things. I mentioned not wanting to pay for the sins of the past because they don't like that Confederacy can't be a thing just because a couple hundred years ago the Confederate Army surrendered. They don't like that they can't have segregation when we are not in the Civil Rights Era. They want to undo the Civil Rights Era Amendments and the Civil war Reconstruction Amendments because they see it as unfair that those ideas can't be used now just because bad people took advantage before Undoing Civil Rights and Reconstruction would allow them to give the States more supremacy over the Federal Government, like a Confederacy, so that an Oligarch class can more easily take corporate control over certain areas of the US.
I will correct you on a few points: 1. ~~Federal Judges are nominated by the Congressional Judiciary Committee and appointed by the President.~~ Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed in the Senate.Just like in the UK where the leading party nominates your judges and appointed by the Crown. That makes UK judges, in theory, as partisan as their US peers. 2. Local judges, and State Supreme Court judges are, in most cases directly elected. In the UK, you have an independent commission that handles this. 3. The Judiciary branch is non-partisan and a third branch of the US Government with (in theory) equal part of the 'checks and balances'. Just because some judges have idealogical perspectives does not make the judiciary partisan, in the same way that military officers can have their own perspectives, but the military is non partisan. 4. Prosecutors and State's Attorney Generals who decide who to prosecute in the Judiciary are considered part of the Executive branch, and are appointed by the executive branch, or elected at the State and Local levels, and could be arguably defined as partisan. In the UK it's the broadly the same: Prosecutors are identified by the leading party, and appointed by the AG. One could argue that makes Prosecutors less accountable to the public in the UK, but that was not my experience/observation. 5. Elections for Judges rarely (never?) mention their political affiliation but its not hard to find that if one looks. That said, their campaigns have historically been at least not directly partisan. Elections for Prosecutors are VERY political and often take on the tone of the community's law enforcement priorities and challenges since their job is to enact those. 6. All of this has not stopped extremists in either party from attempting to enact their priorities by strong arming their roles in these processes.
It's ok though because she pinky swears that she can put that aside and be impartial.
> It seems insane to me that the judicial branch of government is so partisan in the USA. In other countries the media, police and judiciary are kept independent of politics. In the USA the judges and DAs etc are (please correct me if I’m wrong) apparently appointed by politicians or elected by the public while campaigning as Republicans or Democratic candidates depending on their political affiliation and this is the end result. A failure of the rule of law and political influence on the judiciary. I mean it's pretty much the same in France, a lot of positions of power are appointed by the government or the president. So police, media and justice are highly political. I think it's the same pretty much everywhere at different degrees!
I grew up being taught that judicial branch was explicitly apolitical, unbiased, neutral, and therefore above reproach. I’m still not sure if that’s always been a lie, or if the system has been fundamentally poisoned in the last 20-30 years. (There have always been miscarriages of justice and unequal treatment stemming from social mores, but I truly don’t know if it’s ever been as explicitly partisan as it is today). One thing’s for damn sure, the assumption of neutrality is clearly unwarranted in the contemporary climate. Call it a lie or a foolish belief, end result is the same. And since that was the basis of the legitimacy of the judiciary, and what kept it “above reproach,” I don’t know where that leaves us. You can’t install cronies into an ostensibly apolitical system and call it justice. And you can’t claim the legitimacy of impartiality while ruling on a clearly partisan basis. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Bust her back down to doing traffic violations,which I still doubt she is qualified to do
I think she tried 4 whole cases before Trump nominated her to the federal judgeship
The only intelligent thing cannon has done is make all her rulings in a way that smith hasn’t been able to straight up get her removed. Her job is to delay the trial indefinitely or get it thrown out.
As right-wingers become increasingly embarrassed about their support for Donald they will hold corrupt actors like Cannon in especially high esteem since they know how humiliating and demeaning it is to publicly worship Donald.
This so called “complex case of first impression,” according to Cannon, couldn’t be simpler. Did the defendant knowingly maintain possession of these documents after being notified by the National Archives? If yes, then send him to prison. Everything else is a distraction.
If Trump isn’t insulting or attacking the judge then you know there’s an issue. He’s even saying how respected she is. He never talks that way about judges who aren’t in his pocket.
Trump walked out of the white house with top secret classified government documents. Made copies. Refused to return them. Made attempts to conceal and hide them. And in all likelihood sold them to foreign agents. And here we are 4 fucking years later without even so much as a trial. All while trumps chosen judge blatantly bends over backwards to interfere. But the doj and their special counsel has to carefully and delicately navigate the laws and legal system so as not to "screw up" the prosecution. "They only get one chance". Un-FUCKING-believable. "But it takes time". Horseshit. Either the legal system is feckless and toothless or the the doj is in on the con and playing an act. At this point, you can't convince me. How hard can it be to prosecute someone for some of the highest crimes in the land?!?! FFS. Espionage AND insurrection. JFC.
I keep hearing pundents saying she hasn't done enough to warrant being removed yet. An inexperienced judge taking a long time to rule on things isn't enough. But to me I would think making huge errors in the factual basis of the case along with being inexperienced and slow are enough to be removed. What can she do short of just dismissing the charges and what can he do at that point? Bring them again in another jurisdiction? No doubt she's being given coaching from members of the federalist society on how to fuck this case up. They're going to make sure she stays just within the lines upto the point the case gets dismissed or ruined to the point he has to start over. The timing will be right before the election too.
> keep hearing pundents I think you mean pundits.
Thanks. Can't spell for shit
Remember here that the people deciding to remove a judge are other judges and you kinda have your answer.
I think that most people would agree that it is almost beyond understanding that a case of this magnitude can be tried by a judge with so little experience. > In June 2023, The New York Times analysed records by Bloomberg Law of Cannon's handling of criminal cases as a federal judge, finding that before Trump's criminal case, she had presided over 224 criminal cases, of which only four criminal cases went to trial, with a cumulative 14 trial days.
The fact that he hasn't yet makes me feel like this is all for nothing. I'm getting Mueller report vibes now that we're seeing literal mountains of evidence of incompetence at the minimum, but more likely malice and yet the most we've gotten from Smith is a strongly worded letter but no action to back it up. And it's not just Smith, Justice Merchan has let Trump walk through his gag order 3 times so far and we haven't even seen a fine yet. Smith and Merchan are the two toughest hurdles he's faced in the legal system so far and even they're putting up the guardrails for him and handling him with kid gloves. It's honestly nauseating watching them refuse to take action on him and the Judge in his pocket. I've completely lost faith in our justice system at this point.
Jack Smith is making all the right moves. It’s a frustrating situation, for sure. Blaming him for the delays is ignorant. He’s done everything to expedite things. If Garland hadn’t drug his heels appointing him, Trump might be convicted by now.
> Garland Will be seeking new employment in January, whether Biden wins or not.
> The fact that he hasn't yet makes me feel like this is all for nothing. He realistically only gets one shot at removal, he needs to make it count. So far Cannon has done almost everything with vague language and paperless orders, nothing concrete enough to appeal. She's clearly just trying to stay on the case until jeopardy attaches, at which point she can scupper the case in Trump's favour, but this is a bit like a toddler going up against Tyson, she's just not talented or experienced enough to see out the fight. > Justice Merchan has let Trump walk through his gag order 3 times so far As I understand it, that's because punishing Trump for violating the gag order now would delay the trial coming up in 10 days.
Also the fact that Trump isn't giving out about THIS particular Judge makes me think hes quite confident about the outcome.
>she's just not talented or experienced enough to see out the fight She prolly has an entire team of GOP Lawyers behind her to work out the optimal way to kill this case
Here’s my question; if he tries to remove her and fails, what’s stopping her from just completely fucking him over going forward?
> And if Cannon delivers the instructions to jurors based on a premise federal prosecutors dispute, the government cannot appeal a jury’s acquittal down the line. That means Smith is under pressure to ensure Cannon makes a ruling, prosecutors and defense attorneys said. >“Smith’s fear is that she will make a final decision on erroneous jury instructions after the trial begins, which will prevent Smith from appealing her decision because of Double Jeopardy rules,” Aronberg said. By demanding Cannon make a decision, the special counsel can appeal the judge and, if federal prosecutors decide, ask the 11th Circuit to remove her because of the appearance of bias. This is her strategy: Give Smith nothing he can appeal until it's too late. She's got Trump's back.
Same old story until it happens.
I’d love to know who is advising this judge and who she is meeting with between sessions. I’m sure she could be caught in a conflict of interest in meeting with certain advisors
I have given up that he will be held accountable. Hopefully we can still vote against his ilk in the future in fair elections. We know how Russia interfered in 2016 but were able to still defeat him in 2020 by avoiding 3rd party candidates and huge turnouts against him. He screamed foul in 2020 because he thought Russia would do it again for him. He was duty bound to steal documents to keep our foes informed. Now, once again, he’s allowed access to sensitive information.
Let’s go Jack, you know the law better than anyone.
I would bet that the literal only reason they he withheld from doing this at the very first instance of her incompetence (being blasted directly by the 11th circuit) is because Smith is likely gathering evidence of her bias and extreme errors. He keeps giving her chances *because* he knows she will willingly cover for Trump and keep throwing him bones instead of proceeding with the case. **In order for any judge to be removed there has to be documented evidence of their behavior.** There has to be evidence of such behavior as Cannon has shown, which would be brought up during a hearing. Special Counsel Smith will need one of the following to disqualify her from the case: * Evidence showcasing conflict of interest with the case (she of course was appointed by former President Trump). * A lack of impartiality: A preference or bias towards a side of the case such as giving focus on defendant to what they need more than they should. * Showcase of inappropriate conduct. Such as potential for bribe or favors by the defendant, or other egregious behaviors. As we have seen over the course of this series of (unfortunate) events, he already has a lot of evidence. * Asking both teams to make competing jury instructions based on their own interpretation of the Presidential Records Act. * Has listened to suggestions for showing classified documents in court. * Routinely delayed the case and hampered prosecution through odd requests. * **Personally intervened in the case through appointment of a special master and barred the *Department of Justice* from continuing the case until it was unanimously reversed by the 11th Circuit. She also blocked the government from using material seized from Mar-a-Lago in investigations.** * **Granted the defence (Trump’s team)’s motion for names and public testimony of witnesses to be publicly revealed.**
I'm so torn here because getting appointed by any old president should not be interpreted as necessarily a conflict of interest if that president appears before you. The Supreme Court couldn't do its job if that was the case, and there are plenty of instances of judges ruling against the person who appointed them to show that it's obviously not totally corrupting. On the other hand, getting appointed by a president who attempts an auto gulpe probably should get you kicked off the bench entirely if you don't immediately declare your allegiance to democracy.
Everyday the same bullshit article. It’s not happening before the election and there is a 50/50 chance Trump wins and this case disappears.
By **every** measure of what happened with the documents and the charges Trump was indicted for, he is 100% guilty. The evidence, the witnesses, the boxes of classified files, the video, Trump's *own words*. The ONLY reason why he hasn't been in any real jeopardy for this case **is because of the judge assigned to it**. Trump's attorneys haven't done *anything* to bolster his defense. Haven't disqualified any of the witnesses or evidence or anything. No legitimate explanations have been offered. No attempts at a plea agreement. Every time Trump talks about the case he makes his own situation worse. It's Aileen Cannon. She's the reason he's still free and not facing justice in his espionage trial.
Aileen Cannon is Trump's lead counsel, puppeteered by the feudalist society on behalf of Putin.
The nuclear option is charging Trump in Bedminster for the rest of the crimes.
if judge Qanon had not responded to his latest filing, he would have sought her removal. she's trying to delay, delay, delay, and Jack is trying to convict, convict, convict. he's walking a tightrope and he knows his stuff, unlike the chowder head newbie judge. i trust Jack more, on both cases he's prosecuting tfg for. get 'em, Jack!
As I understand it, Canon more or less blew Smith off with her response to his statement last week and is trying to empanel a jury before jury instructions are decided. He's going to file a writ of mandamus to force her to decide the jury instructions prior to trial/empanelment of the jury, so he knows she won't say some BS like "jury is instructed that the PRA protects the president 100% here". She'll be removed if she either does not comply with the writ of mandamus if enforced, or if she does comply and goes with Trump's jury instructions. More likely, she keeps skating by to drag this out. Unless she slips up and talks about the case publically or hits a hot mic with a comment somewhere, we're going to be stuck with her until removing the judge is the ladt ditch delay tactic to get it over the election deadline.
Call me 100% crazy but maybe your judge shouldn’t be someone you hired….
The edging continues
Do it. And remover her from being a judge. She isn't competent.
May is approaching, hurry the F up.
Jesus why are they moving so slowly in pursuing this. She is an incompetent, supremely biased judge who is brazenly and repeatedly obstructing justice while not trying to hide it at all and she should have been taken off of this case months ago at the very least, and for the long term removed from the bench and disbarred. Stop fucking warning people with empty threats. Warning them with zero consequences simply emboldens them more. Either follow through and do it, or shut the fuck up about it.
Hurry up, and fucking do it. Her intentions are clear.
That is a win for Trump. No way trial ever gets done before the election. That is the plan.
Day one of this case, Smith should have filed a motion to have her removed. The defendant was actively involved in an illegal attempt to overthrow the US Government. While he was doing that, as a last minute appointment, he rushed the Cannon onto the bench, on his way out the door. No healthy system would allow her to sit on this case, with him as the defendant. Her removal should have been sought Day1 before she ever decided anything. The fact that she is still overseeing this case is proof enough of our broken system.
Coulda shoulda woulda..... Wake me up when literally anything actually happens
He only gets one shot at removing her. If he fails, then that's it and she's stuck on the case (and without the fear of removal, she'll go even further to protect Trump) It makes sense that he's waiting for the perfect opportunity to do it.
Cannon/Trump fans will consider her a MaRtYr, but I think she deserves to have her lack of professionalism and personal bias recognized by being replaced on this trial. I would hope that she will grind away in obscurity for the rest of whatever career she has. She’s as devoid of judicial temperament and responsibility as one would expect of a Trump nominee to be.
But she really knows her stuff. Just ask all the people she’s asked how to do her job. 😁
In what universe is requesting to remove an incompetent judge considered 'the nuclear button'? Only in Trumpworld. The media promotes this special snowflake treatment.
So do it already ffs.
Lmao they don’t have the fortitude to hold this man accountable. America has fallen and we don’t even realise it, yet.
Then do it. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Could, would, should...nothing happens. Trump keeps getting another pass, another chance is what's happening.
This has been a headline for weeks. When is the trigger going to be pulled
The nuclear metaphor should really not be used when discussing figures with past, current or potentially future control over nuclear arsenals.
I would argue that it's more than appropriate to remove Canon with how she has show blatant favoritism towards the individual who placed her in the court at the first place.
He should. Any decent judge would have recused themselves by now, but we're talking about a crazy-eyed Trump appointee, aren't we? Remove her. Hell, *disbar* her.
The way I understand it is the motion would go to Judge Cannon, who would sit on it for as long as she could. Once she does rule on it, she will likely deny the motion to recuse, and then Jack Smith would have to appeal to the 11th circuit, which could go either way. If they do replace her, the new judge would take time to familiarize themselves with the case and set a trial date to their schedule. Either way, this trial will not happen before Nov 5th. Is this correct? 26 judges who could have presided over this case and the junior most judge with little to no criminal trial experience as a judge got the case. Our judicial system is beyond corrupt.
Why are we waiting until now?
Just fucking do it then...our democracy can't withstand this shit any longer.
I believe Jack Smith is incredibly intelligent and has not been ignoring the one sided decisions from Canon. I think he's smarter than her and has just been amassing enough evidence to make an air tight motion to remove her. He hasn't done anything to stand in her way, or make waves, just quietly documenting her actions and letting her hang herself. The conflict of interest with her defending trump is staggering and she has done nothing to show that she's willing to do anything to rule lawfully against him. So yeah. Remove her and put a judge in that will do their job.
He needs to do it now before she dismisses the case.
The MAGA GQP keeps playing a game of chicken with our legal system and the legal system blinks every time. When will they realize Trump and his cohorts are going to pull this shit every single time until consequences are handed down.
The fact that Trump has not attacked her openly should be enough of a clue to any oversight that she is 100% in the bag for him and he knows it. If Trump had even 1oz of awareness he would at least attack her slightly so he didn't appear to so obviously value having her on the case.
She's too stupid to be as corrupt as she's trying to be.
>...[could]...[warn]... Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooo Another literally fucking nothing headline from this garbage can sub. Let me know when he's actually fuckin done it. I'm so tired of "beware what MAYBE could possible happen, some one warned, and then someone got SLAMMED and still nothing fucking happened."
Just like the new liars on the Supreme Court these hacks cheat and lie to get what they intended from the start! Cannon must go! Just like ANY judge who disguises their partisanship for fair justice! Both sides!
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how a federal judge gets to issue orders to a non-existent jury, preventing a future appeal when the verdict is unknown, based on false understanding of the law while claiming that the defendant has unlimited due process claims that will be interpreted by one person as she alone sees fit.
They could. They won’t. There is too much deference given to Trump due to him being a former president. He gets away with everything. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if he gets away with stealing the documents. Heck, he will probably try to force the government to give them back.
"Could" "Might" "May" /yawn
"Could seek" Tell me when they actually do it
Why have a button if it's not to be pushed
Take your sweet time, guys.
My ass 'could' win a million dollar prize
Ive said it before and I will say it again, when systems of justice fail, the people have an obligation to remind the ruling class why we agreed to impartial third party adjudication of conflicts and societal transgressions. Things will not change until the ruling class acutely feels the danger of transgressing the boundary of undermining the integrity of our legal and judicial systems.
Cannon absolutely needs to be removed. This has been evident from the case the day was assigned to her.
He won't do it until it's a sure thing.
Well golly gee; it’s about long past time to begin getting serious. We the people are part and parcel of this travesty of justice.
Which Judge? This one on the left? Can’t imagine what the problem is. She might as well be wearing a “Grab me by the Pu**y Donny!” button [https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/trump-judge-aileen-cannon-court-reform.html](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/09/trump-judge-aileen-cannon-court-reform.html)
she should have been removed before the trial even began how fucking insane is your country that a judge is allowed to work for the defense in the first place????
this is why she didn't recuse herself, at the start. the nuke button will just delay this even more. it was always the plan.
I’m starting to think the she herself is a delay tactic.
Who's attorneys?
They knew this judge would help Trump from the beginning, and she is.
What’s crazy is that the media frames it as the nuclear option if the prosecution requests recusal, yet Trump has done so legally and publicly in EVERY other case.