this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
214 points (99.5% liked)

politics

18651 readers
4295 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
214
Jack Smith 'visibly shocked' as Aileen Cannon doubles down on order he calls 'clear error' (www.rawstory.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Judge Aileen Cannon expressed skepticism in court Friday when special counsel Jack Smith's legal team argued against a ruling they've described as a potentially dangerous blunder.

Cannon presided over a federal court conference in Fort Pierce, Florida, to discuss her order, challenged by Smith, to unseal sensitive materials in former President Donald Trump's classified document case, Lawfare's Anna Bower reports.

"No decision from the bench," Bower wrote on X. "But Cannon sounded skeptical of prosecutors’ claims that she clearly erred."

"Clear error" are the words Smith used in a filing early last month to describe Cannon's decision on handling discovery in a case that could involve more than 5,000 pages of classified documents.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 148 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not an error. She is clearly biased, should be removed from the case, and barred from ever holding public office again.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

It's an error but not a mistake. An error is simply when something has gone wrong. Intentional fuckery can cause errors.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 131 points 5 months ago

That’s all well and good, but I feel like she’s done like 10x what it would take a judge to normally get pulled from the case and she’s still in it, so I’ll celebrate when she actually gets removed and censured

[–] [email protected] 100 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Okay, time to appeal and ask the 11th Circuit to remove her from the case. This is a glaring departure from responsible jurisprudence. She is now willfully putting witnesses and others at risk. Exposing those witnesses names and the essence of their testimony puts them at immediate risk of harassment from Trump's red-hat hordes at minimum, and likely even personal risk for them and their loved ones.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They'll probably wait until someone on their team is literally murdered by someone screaming, "Trump is king!" or something. People have proven time and time and time again to be underestimating of evil people, yet continue to underestimate. They think the mere existence of laws deters bad people like it does "good" people.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They think the mere existence of laws deters bad people like it does "good" people.

Why doesn't someone just make crime illegal? Problem solved!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Like Governor Abbott did when he got rid of rape in Texas?

Conservatives are dumb as fuuuuck.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

They're probably hoping for just that. It would mean further delays.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

WRIT OF MANDAMUS!!!!!!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Is the judicial branch allowed to order the release of classified materials?