Aileen “loose” Cannon knows where her bread is buttered.
She need to be impeached for not recusing herself due to the OBVIOUS conflict of interest alone given that she was appointed by the man she is judging. Seriously what the living fuck?
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
66 points (94.6% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4589 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.
- 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.
- 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
She has a lifetime appointment, so from that perspective, she doesn't owe them anything. Unless she's got eyes on SCOTUS, which historically wouldn't take people as wildly partisan as her, but times have obviously changed in SCOTUSland.
Judge Cannon has absolutely no business being on this case and it's a joke to our entire justice system that she can be anywhere near a court room involving the president that appointed her to the bench. She needs to be recused.
TL;DR Summary:
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case, hinted that the trial might be delayed until 2024, deeming the matter potentially complex. This comes after prosecutors and Trump's attorneys presented their arguments. While prosecutors had urged the judge not to defer the trial beyond the 2024 election, Trump's side recommended a postponement. The case involves Trump being charged with retaining crucial national defense information. Given the nature of the charges, the case is governed by the Classified Information Procedures Act (Cipa), which has specific rules for cases involving classified documents, making it more time-consuming than standard criminal cases. Both Trump and his valet, Walt Nauta, have pleaded not guilty. If the trial is delayed post-2024 and Trump wins the election, he could possibly pardon himself or instruct the justice department to dismiss the case.
Oh ffs please don't. Thanks.
Judge Cannon was a Trump appointee and Trumps lawyers specifically selected her because of her bias towards Trump. She has already done stuff like this before.
But this is not the only jurisdiction in which Trump is being prosecuted. So eventually, when this does go to trial, the DoJ will appeal whatever ruling she makes that ends up being super lenient to trump, and they’ll get to do it all again in Big Boy court, except he’ll get real punishment this time. But then also maybe it will get to the SC, and if they give him a pass… well, the Supreme Court can be packed by people who aren’t Republicans, too.
She wasn't specificly selected. She did have something like a 50% chance of being drawn with the way the districts work. But otherwise fully agree. She's a hack.
Yeah - they went judge shopping. It’s ultimately a bit of a roll of the dice as you said, but there are absolutely ways to game the system so that you have better odds of getting the judge you want. Which Trump’s lawyers absolutely did.
How exactly would the defense be able to decide in which federal district the DOJ would prosecute the case?
Trump knows what court district his resort is in, and one of the many shitty judges he appointed when he was president was to the district court where Mar-a-lago is.
From there: Cases are generally prosecuted in the district in which they were committed. For the classified documents case, the crime was committed at or around his residence:
- Moving the boxes while he was president, though deeply sketchy, was technically not illegal.
- Possession of the boxes after Biden was sworn in - and moreover, clear, unambiguous, and repeated attempts to stymie and misdirect investigations around where the documents went - is definitely illegal.
This ignores that he is also under investigation in other districts, at the state level, and the reports of other classified document incidents that happened in other locations but haven't been charged (yet).
Your first bullet point is also moot, as Trump was not charged with taking documents, but rather keeping them without legal authority or permission.
What a circus.
Jack Smith needs to pound home the Speedy Trial Doctrine. It shouldn't just apply to defendants, although that's usually who it benefits.
I’m shocked. Utterly.