Not shocked. The only question is the percentage of this caused by her subservience and the percentage caused by her incompetence.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
554 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19135 readers
2243 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
Fortunately there are 3 other criminal trials against Trump that she can't ruin with her corruption.
Almost as if the justice system knew this might happen
Several lawyers who have appeared before Cannon described her as "generally competent and straightforward" — as well as "someone who does not otherwise have a reputation of being unusually sympathetic to defendants." However, the sources, speaking anonymously to keep from publicly criticizing a judge before whom they may appear again, added that Cannon is "demonstrably inexperienced," particularly when unexpected issues arise or her actions are questioned.
Oh come on she's obviously in the tank for him. F Salon.
It answered op’s question. So if she’s not incompetent, despite inexperience, the ace seemed clear enough to me.
Or fear of retaliation.
Trump appointee betrays nation to benefit Trump, now here's Tom with the weather...
here's Tom with the weather...
I can hear Bill Hicks' voice.
The fact that a judge isn’t required to immediately recuse themselves if they’re picked for a case that involves the person who appointed them is insane. Sure, they’re “supposed to be impartial”, but judges are very obviously not being impartial… and there’s effect zero legal recourse for that.
If that were a thing, the right would clamor that it should also apply to judges appointed by the defendant's political opponents, and that would get all the cases against Turnip Dump tossed
She shouldnt be dismissed for being appointed by Trump.
She should be dismissed for being a die hard pro-trumpists who has tons of trump merchandise and a clear, personal bias towards Trump and has attended his rallys in full Trump face paint.
Though that sounds like it might make sense, if you actually think about it, it’s actually nonsense.
But this excludes all other judges that were appointed by 1) a different Republican president than Trump, and 2) a different Democrat president than Biden, no?
Unless all judge terms are shorter than 1-2 terms for presidents (haven't read all state/federal codes), this would leave a lot of judges left that would be considered less biased towards/against those under their prudence. No need to go nuclear devil's advocate for this one.
You are assuming republicans would negotiate in good faith, which is, forgive me, quite naïve.
I'm not claiming they would act in good faith, just that they would have less (unconscious) biased towards plaintiffs/defendants. Conscious biases would still be in play
If after every single time someone mentions x and they have to write formerly known as twitter, they might as well just call it twitter. X is never going to stick because it's dumb as shit.
Got a real "the artist formerly know as Prince" vibe, but not nearly as creative as using an unpronounceable glyph, I suppose.
He did want to be referred to as 'the artist'. It's was a comment on how impersonal the business of music was. As in contracts princes would be referred to as the artist.
When they name it back they need to start saying ‘the platform formerly known as the platform formerly known as Twitter’
I'd give anything to live in a world without headlines that include blast or slam.
How about “criticize??”
Why is that word illegal to use in the press now
It's better than "owned" and "fail" though.
That would make talking about The Nation of I much more difficult
Shocking no one. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if she's literally in contact with Trump. Through an intermediary or directly.
So what? Is anybody going to do anything about it?
Can’t they just have someone else work on it instead of her?
I believe that the DOJ can appeal to the higher court to try to get Cannon removed from the case. If they try that and succeed, Trump's lawyers will claim that they are going judge shopping to find one biased against Trump. If they try and fail, then this might result in Cannon acting even more in Trump's interest.
From what I can see, the DOJ's strategy is to play the long game. They're making notes of everything Cannon does incorrectly while trying to work with her. This way, if they eventually ask for a new judge, they'll be more likely to get one and it will be evident that they didn't go running to ask for a new judge immediately.
I guess if the DOJ has a problem with this judge you'll know about it.
The Garland DOJ has no problem slow walking anything having to do with Trump.
Jack Smirh is in charge of all thing Trump for the DOJ. He's got Trump on 80+ charges and is ready to go to court. Time schedules, as always, are set by the court.
I'm actually fine with this. The DC case is streamlined and will likely result in a conviction long before the documents case could get anywhere even if it were an impartial judge. It's better this way since the documents case will involve classified materials that can't be shared publicly that'll make the conspiracy theory nutjobs even more nuttier (and possibly violent) than usual.
Better to have Trump already in prison while that case is going on. He can be ferried from federal prison to Florida back to prison, then over to Georgia for that trial. The secrecy involved with the evidence in the documents case won't matter much to anyone if he's already incarcerated and we're seeing a televised trial in Georgia at the same time.
I kinda suspect it may be why Smith didn't challenge Cannon being the judge presiding over the documents case. Though I doubt that, Jack Smith seems like a straight shooter to me. At any rate, it's probably good for that case to be delayed.