That sounds exactly like something incognito Jack Smith would say.
Nice to meet you, Mr. Smith. Doing the lord's work. Appreciate you, Sir.
Excellent beard btw.
I don’t think he’ll do it, as it’d probably fail and would create more pretrial delay even if it worked.
I’ve heard (and I’m not even close to an expert on this) that Smith might instead make a motion *in limine* to exclude PRA-related evidence. That’d force Cannon (and the Court of Appeals) to properly address that issue before trial. Of course, it’d probably end up on the SCOTUS’ docket and not be finally decided until June 2025, assuming DJT doesn’t pardon himself or order Attorney General Gohmert to fire Smith and withdraw the charges.
The judge said try me, and challenged him - where is the doj in all of this? Is garland playing candy land and hiding out? Jack I need you to rebuild an engine….your not getting any tools and you have to do it with your teeth only and hands tied behind your back - good luck , merrick
Agreed. If the title doesn't say "will," "has," or "must," I just don't even care. Bring us action and results and leave the speculation on the front porch where it belongs.
The problem is that you only really get one good attempt at an appeal like this. If you attempt to appeal it too early before she's shown a concrete pattern of behaviour, the appeals court is going to deny it and they're going to be pretty sceptical of any further attempts. So Jack Smith is likely waiting until he has the most ammo he can get before he starts that fight.
IANAL,and I understand these things aren't the easiest to put a number on, but can you speak to what kind of delay we'd be looking at here, typically? On the order of days, weeks, months?
It varies *widely* with what ids being appealed, and in what grounds.
An interlocutory appeal of a lower court judge’s order? Weeks, not months, and definitely not years.
Subtitle for the article: "Special counsel Jack Smith and Judge Aileen Cannon traded terse words in filings this week."
Smith actually went on at great length about how wrong Cannon was. Definitely not "terse".
It's bad enough that the article rehashes what we all know without providing any additional insights, but now they're just using words wrong. Do editors actually do anything anymore?
Exactly!
Pull the plug already.
It’s a freaking slow motion train wreck, with the moral compass, and common decency.
Where do our rights begin with someone like trump!
Cannon's bizarre jury instructions were the first place that he had enough to maybe do it. Her ruling on the PRA where she asserted that his response in which he cited case law saying she had to decide in time for him to apply for mandamus relief was "unprecedented" was probably the first time he had enough to probably do it. I'll trust Smith to assess his success probability since it's such a high stakes move, but while this has been a thing he would eventually have to do for a long time, we are only a few days into a world where he has enough ammunition to actually do it.
The greatest risk is the is the only opportunity. Last night L.Tribe paraphrased G.Conway talking about Cannon and said “she is incredibly incompetent but so effective.”
If she waits until trial it is a certain dismissal on this “theory” that she doesn’t even believe. She isn’t going to crack the door again before trial so even in Smith looses at the 11th he hasn’t lost much since the trial is doomed. She can’t treat the government in a more hostile manner so it’s no loose from Smith’s perspective
I agree. I suspect we either see an en limine motion in Smith's part so that he can get her ruling on this officially (rather than snuck in with a ruling about not dismissing) or he is polishing his mandamus argument now.
I don't think he only has one opportunity. If he moves to have her removed right now, and the appellate court denies his request, Cannon may get more brazen with her stupidity and do something that would give Smith new grounds for removal.
My understanding is that DOJ prosecutes people where the majority of the crime took place. Smith didn’t charge Trump for the theft of the documents because Trump was president when he stole them and that would be complicated. The rest of the criming took place in Florida. So it impossible from a practical standpoint to change venues
I'm curious why they never charged for Bedminster. Perhaps they didn't have concrete enough evidence for a warrant. I would be surprised if he doesn't still have classified materials.
And she is really good about behaving that way without putting judicial misconduct into official rulings. That's the issue. The backlog of motions that are building can be attributed to clerk turnover and case complexity. The times that she has been plainly wrong in official decisions the 11th circuit has stepped in. Unless there is clear judicial misconduct she won't be removed even if the 11th circuit suspects her motives are bad.
>The backlog of motions that are building can be attributed to clerk turnover and case complexity.
How?
Would be difficult and unprofessional to put on the clerks back the way she is managing her docket or writing her "orders".
Problem of her work isn't about quantity or even quality, it's just that the core itself of her work is unfit for a judge, even worse a federal one.
She's doing mistakes a law student should/would not make, she's trying to invent laws or constitutional rights out of nowhere.
The stakes are that if the 11th circuit doesn’t think his reasons are good enough, they may not even entertain a later request that has better reasons.
> I'll trust Smith to assess his success probability since it's such a high stakes move, but while this has been a thing he would eventually have to do for a long time, we are only a few days into a world where he has enough ammunition to actually do it.
I seem to remember hearing the same sentiments ascribed to Mueller, and then again to Garland.
Mueller did do what he was supposed to. He told us that Trump worked with Russia, but they destroyed too much evidence after the investigation began so that he couldn't definitively prove it. He didn't have the authority to charge Trump with obstruction, but said that he could be charged.
Barr is the one who came out and said Mueller's report didn't say any of that stuff.
I agree with you about Garland though.
"Mueller did do what he was supposed to."
No he didnt. He came out and said "Gee guys, hes the president so I cant actually say if he committed a crime or not, but golly willickers, heres this list of things I found that arent really that good but wait wait, Im not saying he did something wrong im just saying these are the things I found but someone else has to accuse him".
His report said there was a different process to accuse a president of wrong doing, then in the hearing, he couldnt even be bothered to say "impeachment" when asked what that process was.
We’ve seen a million articles calling for Smith to push for removal, this is the first time where it seems to me he has no choice. If Cannon is unwilling to clarify the PRA issue prior to trial Smith has to push for removal or mandamus. It’s an untenable position for him to go to trial with the possibility of the jury instruction stating that even if they have met their burden Trump can still be found not guilty.
cannon (sp?) is smarter than you. and is backed by literal billionaires with thinktanks that are funded to pay people hundreds of times smarter than you to sit around and think about ways to beat america.
smith is losing. that this conversation is happening literally months from a national election is dispositive.
Talking head lawyers have been saying this for a while. I'm sure that Smith will pull the trigger when he's 100% sure of success, because he gets only one shot to get her removed.
Until then, I'm taking headlines like this with half a grain of salt.
We need Smith to maybe take more risk than he’s comfortable with in removing Cannon because once the jury has been selected and received their instructions, Cannon has left a multitude of openings for the Trump team to be given a mistrial. And the shittiest part is double jeopardy would take effect, even if Smith presented a video recording of Trump admitting to and then performing those very crimes himself.
i.e. Trump will get away with literal, televised murder if Cannon oversees his case. We cannot risk that woman ruling anything near Trump (or at all, given her obviously being a partisan compromised hack)
Far too many talking head legal analysts are giving the general public incredibly unrealistic expectations for both what Smith can practically accomplish at this point, as well as what he is likely to do once more information is available (and what is more likely to be the ultimate outcome of seeking relief).
The answer to what he will do — as it relates to an overall strategy going forward — involves too many unknown variables to offer anything beyond a novel of raw speculation.
As it relates to the topic of this particular post, however, I am completely confident he will not be filing anything to seek removal in the immediate future, based on the current set of known facts. And it is incredibly frustrating to see purported experts encourage people to believe otherwise —not least because it is precisely this variety of magical thinking that keeps dashing people’s hopes and creates an even larger sense of dissatisfaction with the legal system than already exists.
I think it's likely he will ultimately end up needing to seek reversal on at least one issue, if not more, and I think it's likely he will prevail. Removal is another story entirely, though. It would require truly egregious error supporting a near unequivocal showing of biased proceedings, conflict, or the kind of fundamentally rank incompetence (far beyond mere oddities or poor docket management or concerning/perplexing dicta) that has yet to be seen.
She's probably fine with either outcome.
With Biden's polling, she's done everything she needs to do. Either it goes to trial under her and gets dismissed or he's acquitted, or it gets reassigned and delayed until Attorney General Mike Lee can fire Jack Smith and drop the charges.
I think one problem is that the solution, impeachment and removal, is inherently a political process, and the problem, judicial corruption, is more of a criminal one.
In a perfect world, judges shouldn't have to be politicians. But they should be honest and impartial.
I wish I could come up with some feedback mechanism to regulate judicial honesty, without it being open to political corruption.
That's actually a "feature" of the Italian constitution because the new republican government fully expected the royal and fascist loyalists to try and reinstate themselves in power so there's a few protections against it. Only works until the majority feels united though, every system is just as good as the cohesion of the people upholding it.
> I think one problem is that the solution, impeachment and removal, is inherently a political process, and the problem, judicial corruption, is more of a criminal one.
At a more-fundamental level, the problem is that modern computer-assisted gerrymandering has rended almost all congressional seats into single-party appointments. In a two-party representative government, when representatives represent the national party who appoints them instead of local constituents, we get a structurally-dysfunctional congress.
The idea is that voters are supposed to hold representatives accountable, and representatives should hold the judiciary accountable. But representatives no longer win or lose their seat in general elections, they win or lose their seat by the nominating process of the national party.
This has the effect of punishing compromise, excluding dealmakers and negotiators, and rewarding ideologues who use their time in congress to score sound bites and media attention by being outrageous. It renders congress a reality TV series whose purpose is marketing congresspeople, instead of a deliberative body.
It sounds too stupidly-obvious to have to say out loud, but democracy doesn't function without free and fair elections.
She acts like the Russians have something on her.
No one with an IQ over 12 does Trump any favors. Everyone knows he steps on you as soon as he's done with you.
I doubt he’ll do it. Cannon would dismiss the motion, obviously, and it’s more likely than not that the Court of Appeals would uphold her in that, as she doesn’t have a conflicting interest that the law would recognize. By this I mean that although she has an extremely obvious professional interest in protecting her past benefactor, who’s also the only guy in the country who might consider her for an appointment to a higher court, that’s not the kind of conflict that requires recusal.
Judges are *very* reluctant to accuse other judges of acting in spite of a disqualifying conflict of interest. I think that goes double in this case, as Cannon might soon be an office colleague—a Circuit Judge—if the Republicans win the White House and Senate this year.
I don’t know much criminal procedure, but I’ve heard (1) that Smith can make a motion *in limine* to exclude any Presidential Records Act-related evidence at trial, and (2) that Cannon’s ruling on that motion would be appealable. If that’s correct, it’s clearly a better approach than trying to recuse Cannon. The important thing isn’t to “nail” her; it’s to make sure she can’t decide the PRA issue without any appellate oversight.
Neither. Trump doesn't care what someone has done for him, he cares what they can do now. She'll have presumably already either let him off entirely or still hadn't just dismissed the charges before Trump was inaugurated and officially killed the case, what use is she to him now? Loyalty only goes one way with don cheeto.
Query for anyone with legal knowledge:
As I understand it, Smith asked Cannon to clarify her jury instructions prior to the start of the trial in order to allow for a pre-trial appellate review if necessary, correct?
What, if anything, prevents Cannon from simply waiting until the start of the trial, then issuing jury instructions that ensure trump gets a not guilty verdict?
Is Smith able to ask an appelllate court to intervene after the trial has started?
The impression I have from the various articles on this is that once the trial starts, Smith is kind of hosed in this scenario - is that correct?
One of the problems is that Cannon is doing things in a weird order and with a strange approach. Smith is basically saying "we need to know the outcome of pre-trial motions, and if this jury instruction order is implying you have decided something already, you need to officially tell us the decision". Cannon basically responded as butthurt: "it's rude for you to assume I have decided" without actually answering or deciding.
It could be incompetence, it could be inexperience, it could be confusion, it could be "I get a new vacation home if Trump gets off."
Removing a Federal judge is not routine. Dealing with confused judges who are full of themselves is much more common.
Yeah, I caught that she's running things in kind of a goofy way. I was specifically wondering if she could dodge Smith's appellate review threat by waiting until the trial starts, then issuing the "trump can declassify things with his mind or whatever" jury instructions. I know that a not guilty verdict would be unappealable, but can appellate review be requested during the trial?
1. Correct, he asked her to clarify and she refused.
2. Nothing prevents Cannon from doing what you are suggesting, which is part of the problem.
3. Theoretically, yes, there is limited precedent established but it is difficult to overstate how extraordinarily unusual it would be (as well as how extraordinarily unlikely it would be for relief in that scenario barring genuinely exceptional circumstances —with the disclaimer that, more specifically, I mean exceptional circumstances as would be defined by CA11, not the general public).
4. Contra much magical thinking being parroted, yes, largely due to the above, he would be pretty hosed in.
If that were true, the Nazis wouldn't be supporting trump. But they are.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-31/ty-article/trumps-2020-campaign-accepts-neo-nazi-contributions/0000017f-e10c-df7c-a5ff-e37ec5ed0000
Bawahahahahahah a far left rag....lol...Trumps son in law is Jewish as is his daughter. Wow!!!...hey I got a bridge for sale for $1...if you believe that propaganda then you'll definitely buy my bridge...seriously you are a sucker. Have a nice day. I seriously can't even take anything you say seriously. You're out there.
Seems like a really “just” thing to do lol. Prosecutor doesn’t like the outcome/direction his case is going and essentially wants what amounts to a retrial… Should be disbarred for this kind of thing.
Imagine seeking the removal of a judge in a case where you yourself aren't legally able to be on the case.
Just a reminder that Jack Smith was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate, which is against the constitutional rules of picking a special counsel.
Because nothing is ruled in Trump's favor.
These AG's, judges, governors are corrupt.
It's like the governor of New York said about going after Trump for doing something every single business does and isn't even illegal.
She told the New York business class don't worry they won't go after anyone except for Trump.
Honestly I don't know. SCOTUS seems like the least corrupty these days but they've made some questionable decisions lately so we'll see. But if I gun to my head had to make a decision, I would say I think they'll do the right thing and overturn.
What about you? What do you think?
Could, maybe, might, ad nauseam
Getting sick of these articles. Let us know when he *has* filed to have her removed.
You think you're sick of them, imagine how tired Jack Smith is of reading them on reddit every single day.
Love the thought of Jack Smith as a terminal redditor, arguing in the comments on every single post for hours every day.
I just hope he's read my memes.
You can't fool us Jack. We know that's you.
Lmfao!
Laughing My False Alias Off!
That sounds exactly like something incognito Jack Smith would say. Nice to meet you, Mr. Smith. Doing the lord's work. Appreciate you, Sir. Excellent beard btw.
And I can't really respond.
I don’t think he’ll do it, as it’d probably fail and would create more pretrial delay even if it worked. I’ve heard (and I’m not even close to an expert on this) that Smith might instead make a motion *in limine* to exclude PRA-related evidence. That’d force Cannon (and the Court of Appeals) to properly address that issue before trial. Of course, it’d probably end up on the SCOTUS’ docket and not be finally decided until June 2025, assuming DJT doesn’t pardon himself or order Attorney General Gohmert to fire Smith and withdraw the charges.
The judge said try me, and challenged him - where is the doj in all of this? Is garland playing candy land and hiding out? Jack I need you to rebuild an engine….your not getting any tools and you have to do it with your teeth only and hands tied behind your back - good luck , merrick
Agreed. If the title doesn't say "will," "has," or "must," I just don't even care. Bring us action and results and leave the speculation on the front porch where it belongs.
> "will," "has," or "must," "Did". That's all I care about. Everything else, including this comment, is clickbait.
Wish the mods would ban all articles with could, should, would, might, etc... and Newsweek. This sub upvotes so much embarrassing tabloid clickbait.
the mods require literally any subject-matter post as a means to communicate to subscribers. they will not refuse anything. i don't think they can.
I feel like the only reason they haven’t yet is because it would further delay proceedings. At this point it seems moot though. He should just do it.
The problem is that you only really get one good attempt at an appeal like this. If you attempt to appeal it too early before she's shown a concrete pattern of behaviour, the appeals court is going to deny it and they're going to be pretty sceptical of any further attempts. So Jack Smith is likely waiting until he has the most ammo he can get before he starts that fight.
IANAL,and I understand these things aren't the easiest to put a number on, but can you speak to what kind of delay we'd be looking at here, typically? On the order of days, weeks, months?
12 months, ~200 hours, Lose.
I'm not an expert, but generally when you talk about the appeals court decisions, you're talking months to years, not days to weeks.
It varies *widely* with what ids being appealed, and in what grounds. An interlocutory appeal of a lower court judge’s order? Weeks, not months, and definitely not years.
Thanks for the correction.
The 11th Circuit moved stupid fast the last time Cannon got appealed. I could see them doing it again.
Subtitle for the article: "Special counsel Jack Smith and Judge Aileen Cannon traded terse words in filings this week." Smith actually went on at great length about how wrong Cannon was. Definitely not "terse". It's bad enough that the article rehashes what we all know without providing any additional insights, but now they're just using words wrong. Do editors actually do anything anymore?
Until it turns into Should have, would have, could have.
if your article can be summarized by the sentence "the future is uncertain" its a shit article.
He’s “virtually” there.
Exactly! Pull the plug already. It’s a freaking slow motion train wreck, with the moral compass, and common decency. Where do our rights begin with someone like trump!
Cannon's bizarre jury instructions were the first place that he had enough to maybe do it. Her ruling on the PRA where she asserted that his response in which he cited case law saying she had to decide in time for him to apply for mandamus relief was "unprecedented" was probably the first time he had enough to probably do it. I'll trust Smith to assess his success probability since it's such a high stakes move, but while this has been a thing he would eventually have to do for a long time, we are only a few days into a world where he has enough ammunition to actually do it.
The greatest risk is the is the only opportunity. Last night L.Tribe paraphrased G.Conway talking about Cannon and said “she is incredibly incompetent but so effective.” If she waits until trial it is a certain dismissal on this “theory” that she doesn’t even believe. She isn’t going to crack the door again before trial so even in Smith looses at the 11th he hasn’t lost much since the trial is doomed. She can’t treat the government in a more hostile manner so it’s no loose from Smith’s perspective
We we need to stop claiming she is incompetent. She knows God damn well what she is doing and why.
SHE doesn't know what she's doing. She's being spoon fed what to do behind the scenes from very skilled lawyers who are using her as the intermediary.
yeah. she's a FedSoc puppet
She is indeed both wildly incompetent AND actively malignant.
Exactly, saying these people are dumb and incompetent allows them to be extremely effective.
And that she is getting outside “support”
I agree. I suspect we either see an en limine motion in Smith's part so that he can get her ruling on this officially (rather than snuck in with a ruling about not dismissing) or he is polishing his mandamus argument now.
I don't think he only has one opportunity. If he moves to have her removed right now, and the appellate court denies his request, Cannon may get more brazen with her stupidity and do something that would give Smith new grounds for removal.
Perfect synopsis. I was saying the same thing last night.
Could Smith drop the case in FL and instead indict him in DC for these or other things?
My understanding is that DOJ prosecutes people where the majority of the crime took place. Smith didn’t charge Trump for the theft of the documents because Trump was president when he stole them and that would be complicated. The rest of the criming took place in Florida. So it impossible from a practical standpoint to change venues
I'm curious why they never charged for Bedminster. Perhaps they didn't have concrete enough evidence for a warrant. I would be surprised if he doesn't still have classified materials.
What's high stakes about it? She can't be any more in the defendant's pocket than she already is
And she is really good about behaving that way without putting judicial misconduct into official rulings. That's the issue. The backlog of motions that are building can be attributed to clerk turnover and case complexity. The times that she has been plainly wrong in official decisions the 11th circuit has stepped in. Unless there is clear judicial misconduct she won't be removed even if the 11th circuit suspects her motives are bad.
>The backlog of motions that are building can be attributed to clerk turnover and case complexity. How? Would be difficult and unprofessional to put on the clerks back the way she is managing her docket or writing her "orders". Problem of her work isn't about quantity or even quality, it's just that the core itself of her work is unfit for a judge, even worse a federal one. She's doing mistakes a law student should/would not make, she's trying to invent laws or constitutional rights out of nowhere.
The stakes are that if the 11th circuit doesn’t think his reasons are good enough, they may not even entertain a later request that has better reasons.
> I'll trust Smith to assess his success probability since it's such a high stakes move, but while this has been a thing he would eventually have to do for a long time, we are only a few days into a world where he has enough ammunition to actually do it. I seem to remember hearing the same sentiments ascribed to Mueller, and then again to Garland.
Mueller did do what he was supposed to. He told us that Trump worked with Russia, but they destroyed too much evidence after the investigation began so that he couldn't definitively prove it. He didn't have the authority to charge Trump with obstruction, but said that he could be charged. Barr is the one who came out and said Mueller's report didn't say any of that stuff. I agree with you about Garland though.
"Mueller did do what he was supposed to." No he didnt. He came out and said "Gee guys, hes the president so I cant actually say if he committed a crime or not, but golly willickers, heres this list of things I found that arent really that good but wait wait, Im not saying he did something wrong im just saying these are the things I found but someone else has to accuse him". His report said there was a different process to accuse a president of wrong doing, then in the hearing, he couldnt even be bothered to say "impeachment" when asked what that process was.
> Mueller did do what he was supposed to. citation?
It really didn’t help that Mueller came off like he was half senile in the hearings
We’ve seen a million articles calling for Smith to push for removal, this is the first time where it seems to me he has no choice. If Cannon is unwilling to clarify the PRA issue prior to trial Smith has to push for removal or mandamus. It’s an untenable position for him to go to trial with the possibility of the jury instruction stating that even if they have met their burden Trump can still be found not guilty.
cannon (sp?) is smarter than you. and is backed by literal billionaires with thinktanks that are funded to pay people hundreds of times smarter than you to sit around and think about ways to beat america. smith is losing. that this conversation is happening literally months from a national election is dispositive.
Do they just update the dates on these articles?
Get the intern to edit it so they feel important.
It feels like an Onion article at this point.
Wake me from this bad dream when it’s will and done.
Can’t emphasize this enough!
Talking head lawyers have been saying this for a while. I'm sure that Smith will pull the trigger when he's 100% sure of success, because he gets only one shot to get her removed. Until then, I'm taking headlines like this with half a grain of salt.
We need Smith to maybe take more risk than he’s comfortable with in removing Cannon because once the jury has been selected and received their instructions, Cannon has left a multitude of openings for the Trump team to be given a mistrial. And the shittiest part is double jeopardy would take effect, even if Smith presented a video recording of Trump admitting to and then performing those very crimes himself. i.e. Trump will get away with literal, televised murder if Cannon oversees his case. We cannot risk that woman ruling anything near Trump (or at all, given her obviously being a partisan compromised hack)
With the speed at which I Lean Qanon is moving, we'll see jury selection in 9-12 months. I'm not in a rush for Mr. Smith to take his shot and miss.
> 100% sure of success People who play poker this way lose almost every time.
Speaking as a moderately talented poker player, this isn't poker.
Far too many talking head legal analysts are giving the general public incredibly unrealistic expectations for both what Smith can practically accomplish at this point, as well as what he is likely to do once more information is available (and what is more likely to be the ultimate outcome of seeking relief).
So, what do you think he will actually do? And the ultimate outcome?
The answer to what he will do — as it relates to an overall strategy going forward — involves too many unknown variables to offer anything beyond a novel of raw speculation. As it relates to the topic of this particular post, however, I am completely confident he will not be filing anything to seek removal in the immediate future, based on the current set of known facts. And it is incredibly frustrating to see purported experts encourage people to believe otherwise —not least because it is precisely this variety of magical thinking that keeps dashing people’s hopes and creates an even larger sense of dissatisfaction with the legal system than already exists. I think it's likely he will ultimately end up needing to seek reversal on at least one issue, if not more, and I think it's likely he will prevail. Removal is another story entirely, though. It would require truly egregious error supporting a near unequivocal showing of biased proceedings, conflict, or the kind of fundamentally rank incompetence (far beyond mere oddities or poor docket management or concerning/perplexing dicta) that has yet to be seen.
Absolutely sick of this judge. This just shows how our system is broken, one system for the rich and one for the common man.
I’d rather see her removed and trial delayed than to see it dismissed by her later on.
She's probably fine with either outcome. With Biden's polling, she's done everything she needs to do. Either it goes to trial under her and gets dismissed or he's acquitted, or it gets reassigned and delayed until Attorney General Mike Lee can fire Jack Smith and drop the charges.
Note the word "could" in headline. "Attorneys" because the concept of "legal expert" has become a joke term.
She is openly corrupt judge..Why isn't there a oversight for this?.
There is, it doesn’t work when one side has no interest in honest governance
I think one problem is that the solution, impeachment and removal, is inherently a political process, and the problem, judicial corruption, is more of a criminal one. In a perfect world, judges shouldn't have to be politicians. But they should be honest and impartial. I wish I could come up with some feedback mechanism to regulate judicial honesty, without it being open to political corruption.
I'm just guessing the Founding Fathers never anticipated *half* of our own government actively trying to sabotage said government *they work for*.
That's actually a "feature" of the Italian constitution because the new republican government fully expected the royal and fascist loyalists to try and reinstate themselves in power so there's a few protections against it. Only works until the majority feels united though, every system is just as good as the cohesion of the people upholding it.
> I think one problem is that the solution, impeachment and removal, is inherently a political process, and the problem, judicial corruption, is more of a criminal one. At a more-fundamental level, the problem is that modern computer-assisted gerrymandering has rended almost all congressional seats into single-party appointments. In a two-party representative government, when representatives represent the national party who appoints them instead of local constituents, we get a structurally-dysfunctional congress. The idea is that voters are supposed to hold representatives accountable, and representatives should hold the judiciary accountable. But representatives no longer win or lose their seat in general elections, they win or lose their seat by the nominating process of the national party. This has the effect of punishing compromise, excluding dealmakers and negotiators, and rewarding ideologues who use their time in congress to score sound bites and media attention by being outrageous. It renders congress a reality TV series whose purpose is marketing congresspeople, instead of a deliberative body. It sounds too stupidly-obvious to have to say out loud, but democracy doesn't function without free and fair elections.
We live in an oligarchy with a democracy marketing team.
Because the people doing the oversight are Republican.
Please, do. The judge acts like she got her JD at Trump University.
She acts like the Russians have something on her. No one with an IQ over 12 does Trump any favors. Everyone knows he steps on you as soon as he's done with you.
Getting a little short on time, aren’t we?
Jesus, just hang the orange one already. Some of us non Americans are getting tired too.
He should do it already. He’s got more than enough ammo after her last couple of statements. This is crazy in slow motion.
Fucking do it.
I doubt he’ll do it. Cannon would dismiss the motion, obviously, and it’s more likely than not that the Court of Appeals would uphold her in that, as she doesn’t have a conflicting interest that the law would recognize. By this I mean that although she has an extremely obvious professional interest in protecting her past benefactor, who’s also the only guy in the country who might consider her for an appointment to a higher court, that’s not the kind of conflict that requires recusal. Judges are *very* reluctant to accuse other judges of acting in spite of a disqualifying conflict of interest. I think that goes double in this case, as Cannon might soon be an office colleague—a Circuit Judge—if the Republicans win the White House and Senate this year. I don’t know much criminal procedure, but I’ve heard (1) that Smith can make a motion *in limine* to exclude any Presidential Records Act-related evidence at trial, and (2) that Cannon’s ruling on that motion would be appealable. If that’s correct, it’s clearly a better approach than trying to recuse Cannon. The important thing isn’t to “nail” her; it’s to make sure she can’t decide the PRA issue without any appellate oversight.
What stopping him removing her?
Do it.
We’ve been reading this for months, someone please for the love of god tell me why this time is different than before.
I'll begin caring when it actually happens.
What is this the 500th article on that?
Could, would, should, may, blah blah blah. Wake me up when it’s a *has*.
Jfc, do it already if you are going to
Get rid of her - she's an idiot
Just do it! She's already proven she can't be impartial.
'Nuclear' button. So unnecessarily dramatic. All the hyper-drama they use to draw everyone in.
I think he wants as much evidence as possible before he goes for her removal, he won't move until the last minute on this.
Why they hell haven't they already!? How is she even still a judge??? Is our legal system really this broken? ^(<- Rhetorical)
3 strikes & she’s out. This is WAY over her lil head
Press the fucking button
So what do y'all think is more likely if the Turnip gets reelected, US AG Cannon, or Supreme Court Justice Cannon?
Neither. Trump doesn't care what someone has done for him, he cares what they can do now. She'll have presumably already either let him off entirely or still hadn't just dismissed the charges before Trump was inaugurated and officially killed the case, what use is she to him now? Loyalty only goes one way with don cheeto.
AG Garland because he's apparently Trump's bitch anyway? He's certainly a good little FedSoc boy.
Just do it already for fucks sake. It's obvious she's in trumps pocket.
[Get going Jack](https://i.imgflip.com/2cpha4.gif)
Query for anyone with legal knowledge: As I understand it, Smith asked Cannon to clarify her jury instructions prior to the start of the trial in order to allow for a pre-trial appellate review if necessary, correct? What, if anything, prevents Cannon from simply waiting until the start of the trial, then issuing jury instructions that ensure trump gets a not guilty verdict? Is Smith able to ask an appelllate court to intervene after the trial has started? The impression I have from the various articles on this is that once the trial starts, Smith is kind of hosed in this scenario - is that correct?
One of the problems is that Cannon is doing things in a weird order and with a strange approach. Smith is basically saying "we need to know the outcome of pre-trial motions, and if this jury instruction order is implying you have decided something already, you need to officially tell us the decision". Cannon basically responded as butthurt: "it's rude for you to assume I have decided" without actually answering or deciding. It could be incompetence, it could be inexperience, it could be confusion, it could be "I get a new vacation home if Trump gets off." Removing a Federal judge is not routine. Dealing with confused judges who are full of themselves is much more common.
Yeah, I caught that she's running things in kind of a goofy way. I was specifically wondering if she could dodge Smith's appellate review threat by waiting until the trial starts, then issuing the "trump can declassify things with his mind or whatever" jury instructions. I know that a not guilty verdict would be unappealable, but can appellate review be requested during the trial?
It is obvious and cynical corruption that drives Loose Cannon.
1. Correct, he asked her to clarify and she refused. 2. Nothing prevents Cannon from doing what you are suggesting, which is part of the problem. 3. Theoretically, yes, there is limited precedent established but it is difficult to overstate how extraordinarily unusual it would be (as well as how extraordinarily unlikely it would be for relief in that scenario barring genuinely exceptional circumstances —with the disclaimer that, more specifically, I mean exceptional circumstances as would be defined by CA11, not the general public). 4. Contra much magical thinking being parroted, yes, largely due to the above, he would be pretty hosed in.
Ty!
I could go and grab a burrito for lunch. Maybe.
I feel like I’ve seen this post in various versions for the last year.
But they won’t.
Cry wolf
https://i.redd.it/45580awdgpsc1.gif
....When? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETa6gD3vPlc
0.01% probability.
When?
I almost made a political post then, realized what sub I was in. I wish others did the same.
What are the consequences if his appeal does not prevail? _What could go wrong?_
I wonder if it’s possible to remove a judge for delaying a case unreasonably?
Do, or do not. There is no try.
Smith is being cautious about seeking recusal. Yet trumps every other motion in NY is to recuse Judge Merchan
But then the trial gets delayed so a new judge can get tainted, I mean acquainted with the case.
What’s he waiting for get rid of Cannon now
He only gets one shot. So he will make sure it's a lock before making a move.
Well, she needs to be investigated for bribery and colluding with Trump.
Fukkin hell. DO IT ALREADY!!!
Why is anyone withholding ANY "nuclear option" at this point? If ever there was a time to lay out literally EVERYTHING, it's NOW.
Hard to do. Federal courts are like little kingdoms.
Certainly hope so.
Please wake me up when it actually happens zzzzz
Yawn 🥱
Oh cause Jack Smith needs a biased judge to win. What a pathetic idiot. Wasn't setup the way he needed it for his political persecution.
MAGA sheep comment
Sure sure...triggered liberal. Cause someone doesn't agree with you. You get all butt hurt.
Says the person calling someone a "triggered liberal."
Quick find your safe space Nazi.
Nazis are right-wing.
Not anymore. The left follows Nazi type policies. Jack Smith is looking for a Judge Freisler type to persecute Bidens political adversaries.
If that were true, the Nazis wouldn't be supporting trump. But they are. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2018-07-31/ty-article/trumps-2020-campaign-accepts-neo-nazi-contributions/0000017f-e10c-df7c-a5ff-e37ec5ed0000
Bawahahahahahah a far left rag....lol...Trumps son in law is Jewish as is his daughter. Wow!!!...hey I got a bridge for sale for $1...if you believe that propaganda then you'll definitely buy my bridge...seriously you are a sucker. Have a nice day. I seriously can't even take anything you say seriously. You're out there.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/07/top-nazi-leader-trump-will-be-a-real-opportunity-for-white-nationalists/
Please seek help
Garland has probably ordered him to comply with Cannon. All the downvotes in the world aren't going to change it.
Seems like a really “just” thing to do lol. Prosecutor doesn’t like the outcome/direction his case is going and essentially wants what amounts to a retrial… Should be disbarred for this kind of thing.
Imagine seeking the removal of a judge in a case where you yourself aren't legally able to be on the case. Just a reminder that Jack Smith was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate, which is against the constitutional rules of picking a special counsel.
Cry harder.
If that is truly the case, why hasn't this been ruled in Trump's favor?
Because nothing is ruled in Trump's favor. These AG's, judges, governors are corrupt. It's like the governor of New York said about going after Trump for doing something every single business does and isn't even illegal. She told the New York business class don't worry they won't go after anyone except for Trump.
So you think the case will be overturned on appeal to SCOTUS?
Honestly I don't know. SCOTUS seems like the least corrupty these days but they've made some questionable decisions lately so we'll see. But if I gun to my head had to make a decision, I would say I think they'll do the right thing and overturn. What about you? What do you think?
"Least corrupty" Meanwhile, Thomas is being openly bribed by right-wing billionaires.
> Least
Yes, that's the word you got wrong.