I honestly don’t understand how she hasn’t been summarily removed from the case by the appellate court. This is absolutely fucking ludicrous.
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
215 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2541 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm fairly certain it has to be requested by one of the parties. I'm sure Jack Smith's team has been getting it ready for quite some time now, but you only want to fire when you're 103% certain it will work, otherwise you've just made things a lot harder for yourself.
She's rotten to the core.
Corrupt piece of shit.
It's stark how the Magtards would be threatening her life at this point.
I mean she's covering for a guy who has 100% said he'd kill protestors. At this point its indulgent masturbation to say that we're good people for not taking threats and actions seriously.
Maybe he's just going to use lots of Master Locks on them.
Two things:
-
Jack Smith has to file a motion to have her removed at this point. I understand that under normal circumstances, you don't want to piss off the judge. But how much more adversarial can she be at this point? She's literally trying to have him removed from the case. At this point, Smith has nothing left to lose. What else could she do to him? Have him deported?
-
This has got to be appealed if/when she rules that he has no authority to prosecute. If she rules that special prosecutors have no authority to bring these cases and that ruling were allowed to stand, wouldn't it invalidate other cases brought by special prosecutors? Or at the very least give those convicted grounds for having their convictions thrown out?
The role of a district court judge is to do two things:
- Apply existing precedent to individual cases to the greatest extent possible.
- Set new precedent only when absolutely necessary because the facts of the case don't align well to existing precedent.
Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.
Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That's it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.
Trump has, in my humble opinion, something on the judge or the judge's family from his time in the office of the president and access to warrantless wiretapping all US Americans from LEO/CIA/NSA information.
Trump, in my humble opinion, has found and used private information to flex on the judge.
That, or she’s a True Believer.
Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That’s it.
That, and he got to appoint his own judge. And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up. And he's got all sorts of national security secrets, but is still walking around free. And he's got virtually unlimited resources, but isn't considered a flight risk.
And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.
Only 3?
I assume Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett are guaranteed to back him. Kavanaugh likely will, and Roberts if he thinks he can get away with it while maintaining his thin veneer of legitimacy.
Roberts has Legitimacy?
“Thin veneer of legitimacy.”
He doesn’t have legitimacy, but he likes to pretend he does. Enough that he sometimes votes against the other conservative justices when it’s going to be 5-4 vs 6-3 anyway.
Edit: As chief justice I think Roberts has a better understanding of the legacy of his court, and it has caused him to be at least somewhat less gung-ho about the blatant partisan nature of the court. But definitely not always.
And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.
Thomas and Alito: "Are we a joke to you?!"
Yes, but it's not very funny.
If nobody is going to do anything about it, then there is no point is us (rightfully) getting riled up.
It seems a lot of media anger is righteous but performative while we let right wing crazies have their way.
If we do not get riled then history will say we were content with it. History will say we liked it.
Take your shepherding to some flock, and let's have the people stand up and be heard.
The problem is that we clearly like it enough to not do something about it. Until the right wing crazies become more than a slight inconvenience for the moderates, then nothing is going to change.
To be clear, you and I are both sitting by letting this happen.
She's doing everything she can because this is an open and shut case that he has absolutely no defense for.
Remember that she has several motions that she has yet to rule on, along with some that she has stated that she will not rule on until after the trial starts. Which means her plan is:
- Delay the trial by any means necessary that aren't appealable until after the election.
- If Trump wins, he orders the DOJ to back off of his cases, so she doesn't have to do anything. Trump walks.
- If Trump loses, she can start the trial, seat the jury, then rule on those motions and dismiss the case with double jeopardy attached. Trump walks.
This is all part of the plan.
If Trump loses the election, why not let the trial go through? These people can’t be drinking their own snake oil.
These people can’t be drinking their own snake oil.
Never underestimate MAGA's insatiable thirst for snake oil. Come on, the GOP in the House were still pushing horse paste as a viable treatment for COVID mere days ago in the Fauci hearing. People are drinking raw milk that may be contaminated with H5N1 bird flu just to "own teh libz". These people absolutely can and will drink their own snake oil, then ask for seconds.
She's got to be removed, one way or another. This blatant corruption is unacceptable.
Eventually the Left will need to take back the country by force.
There's not enough of us, and definitely not enough of us with actual force, or any skills useful to applying or upkeeping that force. I've spent a lot of time finding my local revolutionary minded kin and what I learned is aim small. Have a small circle you can sustain, learn to grow food, get good at running, and keep a well maintained weapon. When shit hits the fan build parallell societies or camps or communes or whatever. Keep your network big and your goals small. Also learn ham radio. With a car battery and a wire antenna placed high enough, the 20m and 40m bandwidths can propagate worldwide day and night. Most people would rather watch fascism win and be in peace than try to fight it but be in conflict.
There are actually more Democrats than Republicans, the problem is the Republicans are noisier and better organized.
Democrats are not The Left.
In America? They absolutely are.
Not even close and im tired of people like you trying to obfuscate that. Democrats are liberal, liberals believe in capitalism. The Left does not.
It's OK, I'm tired of the angry "14 year old and I am deep" interpretation of "Capitalism".
Nice try patronizing anyone who doesn't agree with you, but words have meaning and the Democrats are not The Left.
And they refuse to play by any rule that doesn’t suit them.
I cannot help but think that a major cause of this current ‘unrest’ or ‘disharmony’ (as they might say in the CCP) is due partly to continual Russian trolling campaigns, and major media owners (looking at you Murdoch) helping actively shout not only ‘misinformation’ but outright fucking lies.
Can she actually do that?
I mean do judges have the power to do that?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The next question I have is... where's her oversight peeps that have had to bitch at her few times already?
The Apellate Court only gets involved if someone taps them, Jack needs to get on that.
Every time I read an article about this trial I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Yup. Nope. I feel like the crazy pills would help it make more sense, not less.
It’s also. It you. It’s the world that’s crazy.
because the judge in this case is actually taking crazy trump pills
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Cannon has already taken a drastically different tack from other trial-level federal judges who have handled criminal cases charged by recent special counsel’s offices – of which there have been five since Trump became president.
Many of the most substantive legal questions to be decided in the classified records case, which the Justice Department first brought against Trump last June, aren’t yet ripe for a decision.
That work is essentially reserved for defendants’ teams to bring and argue in courts across the country, opposite Justice Department prosecutors.
That third parties are being allowed to opine at the hearing is absurd,” Bradley Moss, a national security law expert based in Washington, DC, told CNN.
Two of those groups support Trump’s position to dismiss the case against him and say the special counsel, for various constitutional reasons, doesn’t have authority to prosecute.
Two former Republican-appointed US attorneys general, Edwin Meese and Michael Mukasey, are part of the groups of so-called “friends of the court” that side with Trump and whom Cannon will hear from.
The original article contains 616 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
If you're trying to keep track of where we're at in the Trump prosecutions:
Updated 06/05/2024
New York
34 state felonies
Stormy Daniels Payoff
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest
Trial
Conviction <- You Are Here Guilty, all 34 counts.
Sentencing - July 11, 2024
Florida
40 federal felonies
Top Secret Documents charges
Investigation
Indictment
Original indictment was for 37 felonies. 3 new felonies were added on July 27, 2023.
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - May 8th, 2024 - Trial has been placed on an Indefinite Hold.
A June 21st hearing is scheduled to determine if the Special Prosecutor even has the authority to prosecute the case.
Conviction
Sentencing
Washington, D.C.
4 federal felonies
January 6th Election Interference
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
Trial - The trial, originally scheduled for March 4th, has been placed on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential Immunity. They heard those arguments on April 25th. and the ruling is expected in June.
Conviction
Sentencing
Georgia
10 state felonies
Election Interference
As of 3/13/24 - Judge McAfee cleared 6 charges, 3 against Trump, saying they were too generic to be enforced.
Investigation
Indictment
Arrest <- You Are Here
All 19 defendants have surrendered.
Trial - An October 4th, 2024 hearing has been set to determine if Fani Willis can remain on the case.
Three defendants, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and bail bondsman Scott Hall, have all pled guilty and have agreed to testify in other cases.
Conviction
Sentencing
Other grand juries, such as for the documents at Bedminster, or the Arizona fake electors, have not been announced.
The E. Jean Carroll trial for sexual assault and defamation where Trump was found liable and ordered to pay $5 million before immediately defaming her again resulting in a demand for $10 million is not listed as it's a civil case and not a crimimal one. He was found liable in that case for $83.3 million.
There had been multiple cases in multiple states to remove Trump from the ballot, citing ineligibility under the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled on March 4th that states do not have the ability to determine eligibility in Federal elections.
Thanks a lot, this clarified this news article instantly for me!