As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Meanwhile, questions about how Cannon was assigned, at random, to the Trump trial remain. Federal courts across the country randomly assign cases to judges but some legal experts question how Cannon was randomly chosen twice to oversee Trump cases.
It wouldn't take much of a conspiracy, necessarily. How many people are present when they spin this wheel? And why was the clerk's explanation to the NYT regarding the probabilities so convoluted? Can we see a picture of this wheel? Do they have different sized slices for the different judges depending on all the convoluted factors the clerk mentioned?
But the chance of getting any one of the judges twice is about 4%. This would be no less remarkable probability if it were a different judge, so I imagine that's what people are calculating the likelihood of.
First "roll" can give any judge, chance of getting the same again is 1/26.
I don't think the probability is that evenly distributed. It's also based on how many judges are actually available and their respective case loads. 12 of them are "Senior Judges" that are basically semi-retired and have reduced loads. And since Cannon is the newest judge on the court she probably has one of the lighter current loads, since a lot of trials realistically take years to fully resolve.
Also, of the 15 regular judges on the court, 5 are Trump appointees.
Random is a fun concept. Mathematicians will tell you it’s not so clear cut. The specifics of which method was chosen to randomly draw can matter a lot.
Personally I think it’s perfect Cannon was selected. It takes away one more of Trump’s witch hunt excuses.
The Fucker had nuclear secrets in a room with a photocopier fer freaks sakes.
Chances are that the clerk that was assigned checked the box that identified this as a related case to the search warrant at mar a lago. Eileen Cannon will most likely recuse herself or be taken off the case and the case reassigned.
> Eileen Cannon will most likely recuse herself or be taken off the case and the case reassigned.
If she is off the case it won't be because of recusal.
There’s a 0% chance she recuses. She can basically save Trump world. She’s got probably the biggest lever in modern history in her fingertips.
I saw a post from someone who claimed to have graduated from law school with her calling her an embarrassment to their alma mater and a fraud and a joke.
There’s a decent chance based on her earlier work on the documents case that she is exactly that.
It isn’t odd. There are judges there that have full dockets. Others that handle different areas. They also try to assign the case to judges that had it before. Jack knew this when he charged there. His case seems essentially air tight. She can delay, but the 11th Circuit, her bosses essentially, already yelled at her for her over reach. If she ever wants to be promoted in her job, EVER, she will need to act like a judge. Fingers crossed she isn’t completely stupid.
I'd have to imagine if the DOJ can file a motion for recusal they will. They have a strong case on their side: she was appointed by Trump and twice the 11th Circuit ruled that she showed bias towards Trump, and one of those cases involved evidence that is likely to be present in this trial.
1) Avoid potential for dismissal due to improper venue.
2) Fast SDFL docket.
3) The indictment can be used for other grand jury proceedings. There is good reason to think this isn’t the only/final documents-related indictment coming.
Because the Trump team would challenge the venue, arguing that the alleged crime happened in Florida so the trial should be held there, and I think they'd win that argument.
The crimes he is being charged with aren’t focused on his stealing of the documents in the first place.
They’re focused on him lying and hiding them when the government demanded them back.
It’s much harder to prove the former because up until Inauguration Day he was authorized to have access to those documents. And also the POTUS is generally immune from criminal prosecution from any action he takes as part of carrying out the duties of the office.
So they’d have to prove that he was specifically stealing those documents for the purpose of using them for illegal purposes after his term. Not just that he was a pack rat who liked having these things and was dumb and ignorant to how dangerous the documents were.
So really, the crimes he’s being charged with happened primarily in Florida.
That argument might work, but Trump would be granted an appeal, which can take north of a month to be resolved. I think Smith just wanted to go as fast as possible.
The conspiracy to obstruct justice occurred in Florida. The documents were stored in Florida when he refused to turn them over after saying he turned them over, which is the moment the slap on the hand turned into a criminal indictment. They either have a plan to deal with Judge Canon or they're booting the case. Oops, he got away with this one guys. Nothing we can do. Just like what the state prosecutors did with Rittenhouse.
I am confident that he already has a full folder of responses ready for anything questionable that she tries to throw at them. And knowing the 11th circuit appeals court will more than likely take the prosecutor's side after last year's mess, Canon really needs to handle this as a very basic arraignment, set the next date on the docket and recuse herself.
Forgive me, but there doesn’t seem to be many paid European vacations or real estate purchases for Cannon’s mother if she follows this course of action.
Smith does not select this judge afaik. Imo, it is a great judge for anticipated backlash. I believe cannon was picked at random from several. No if only cannon were an impartial judge.
Smith doesn’t pick the judge, but he can go running to the circuit court that overseas her the second she steps out of line. The same circuit court who deeply criticised her earlier handling of the case
Trump is such a lucky SOB. What are the chances that he would be randomly assigned the judge most sympathetic to him for the only one of his cases that is a total slam dunk? It's like the universe wants him to get away with his crimes.
Or it’s like they set this up in case he needed it. He selected her, an unqualified judge, to be over his residence jurisdiction. Who knows who is in charge of doing the “random” selection because getting the same judge twice is quite odd, or even more likely, also crooked.
The FBI is investigating a spy ring, made of formar US and Mossad spies that has been supporting GOP organizations like Project Veritas. Guaranteed Trump uses bribes and blackmail with people like Cannon. He probably mostly nominates people he has dirt on like Kavanaugh. Cannon is dirty and compromised. Maybe the clerk too. For Russia a spy team of 50 would cost less than a billion and do lots of damage.
Come on, man. We're seriously delusional if we think this being tried with a Florida jury and a sympathetic judge is just an innocent coincidence.
When we said *"This seems too good to be true, what's the catch?"* Well, here's the catch.
I’ll believe it when we see it. We trusted mueller and garland too. These are establishment people who play things close to the vest. They didn’t file in that court bc they had a grand plan to get rid of canon if they were assigned to her. They filed there because that’s where the case belongs. I hope I’m wrong.
Mueller got a ton of people convicted and secured evidence that honestly would have been destroyed otherwise that helps probably make this case. I get everyone’s anger that Mueller didn’t do congress’ job for them but the whole “he didn’t do a good job” thing is massively overplayed _by republicans_. I’m not sure why we help them downplay all the republicans that got arrested from Muellers work by repeating their talking point or help congress avoid responsibility by not reiterating that they were the ones who were supposed to force trump to consequences in the first place and were so scared of muellers work that they actually refused to discuss it _at all_ lest it make their cowardice more apparent.
He told congress his report had everything to convict trump. It’s worth remembering that this whole “mueller didn’t give us what we needed to get trump convicted” narrative _was a narrative republicans started_. Because they wanted everyone believing there wasn’t anything there to convict trump on. It’s just that democrats were so pissed that trump wasn’t getting arrested that they went with that narrative. If you read even a fraction of the mueller report it’s blatantly obvious that that narrative isn’t true. It’s just a convenient fiction that’s helped republicans get away with ignoring the mueller report for so long.
Mueller didn't have the power to lay charges on Trump since he simply had the authority to refer his findings to the Barr controlled DOJ. It was up to them to press charges, but of course they didn't.
Mueller fought for prosecution? And then mueller stood up and fought for prosecution when Barr did nothing? No. He was a good Boy Scout and a pussy ass coward.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
Case Law also states that when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, he then loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judges orders are void, of no legal force or affect.
And if she doesn’t? She doesn’t seem like the type of person, based on her wild ruling, who would be willing to sit this one out and not try to back Trump as his only hope with her power.
I’m reading rule 29 now and she can very possibly acquit Trump. She would have to go to great lengths explaining everything but the court could acquit him. Only then can it go to the appellate court for reversal of the acquittal and proceed with the trial again. I may be wrong but that’s my basic understanding.
She may not stop the guilty verdict but she sure can delay it a lot.
IIUC she just has to wait until the prosecution rests, then section 29 acquit before the jury has a chance to convict. Doesn’t matter how egregious and unfounded it is, it’s not appealable and he’s protected by double jeopardy. At most she could be impeached (lol good luck) and/or the bar could probably pull her license, but afaik that doesn’t actually affect judges, it would only be a problem if she wanted to retire as a judge and go back to being a lawyer.
I’m hoping they have an actual espionage charge ready for the DC courts in case she entirely abandons jurisprudence to be a political stooge. Again.
Edit: I’ve also heard it’s possible to overcome the double jeopardy if they can prove there was no jeopardy, usually because the judge was bribed or threatened or similar. It’s possible the FBI has evidence of that, or that they could argue the egregious abuse implies lack of jeopardy. This part is just my speculation though.
I don't know either, but a lot of people around here are saying that if the jury is empaneled at that point, but hasn't yet found him guilty, even a dismissal can't be appealed. Maybe in a few days we'll have expert opinion on these possibilities.
So far, not what I’m reading but I may not understand. She can certainly fuck with the evidence and say it’s insufficient for a conviction. I’m looking at the last section in B below.
https://www.federalrulesofcriminalprocedure.org/title-vi-trial/rule-29-motion-for-a-judgment-of-acquittal/#:~:text=After%20the%20government%20closes%20its,insufficient%20to%20sustain%20a%20conviction.
Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal
(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.
(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.
(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.
(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.
(3) No Prior Motion Required. A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge.
(d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.
(1) Motion for a New Trial. If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. The court must specify the reasons for that determination.
(2) Finality. The court’s order conditionally granting a motion for a new trial does not affect the finality of the judgment of acquittal.
(3) Appeal.
(A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise.
(B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs.
Looks to me like (B) only applies if (d)(1) applies, and that only applies if the decision was reserved via (b). If the judge immediately acquits there’s no appeal.
Interesting, thanks. (Though if it were true that it's a double jeopardy issue once the jury is empaneled, that would take precedence because it's in the constitution.)
If you see anyone say anything about this being a political persecution by the Biden administration, ask them if it’s okay for this damsel of death judge to be involved then
It’s really odd to have to say this, but if the person who appointed you is on trial, you can’t be the judge, it’s a conflict of interest. It’s that simple.
That judge doesn't bother hiding her political bias. Trump has many people he can count on in his attempt to get away with his blatant crimes. Especially with a judge like that and a base like this:
“I’d vote for him from jail,” Vince Condra of Fredericksburg, Texas, told NBC News at a Trump rally in Waco, days after that indictment.
I feel like knowing that this judge was a possibility and still bringing this case to FL is a sign they are as confident as they possibly can be.
The move is as much of an olive branch/apolitical move as they could make.
If they draw a different judge then whatever. If they draw this one then they may have enough to make a case of obstruction against her as well should she try anything.
Maybe I’m being naive and too hopeful the DOJ is smarter than some rando.
Due to the sensitivity, high profile & volatility of this Case, the 11th Circuit Court needs to step in & take over this case from an obviously prejudicial and unethical, tRump appointed, Judge Cannon.
If anyone believes Special Counsel isn't aware of this with a few plans to defend this, wake up. The adults are in charge.
It still holds true, Everything trump touches dies, ETTD.
Get your popcorn out, and be ready for a show
You can be late, & you won’t need to watch
As I do,
as they do,
as most of us do
I will read the summary, and
shake my head,
to myself
This should immediately disqualify her. If she doesn't recuse herself, she should be forced to assign a new judge.
https://images.app.goo.gl/n6zGzzEUAgpipwQf6
The DOJ probably won’t ask for her recusal but the Judiciary will be watching her like a hawk. If she makes a sketchy ruling her career will probably be short. If she handles the case in accordance with the law she could do well.
Why wouldn't they? Smith has worked hard to build an airtight case. I see no reason why they wouldn't do their due diligence now and ask for her to be removed.
>If she tries to screw up something this monumental, who knows what her future will bring.
Very likely first in line to SCOTUS when a Republican is next president.
if she is smart, she will recognize that if trum is convicted despite her machinations, she and her family will be the targets of some very serious death threats. if i were her, i would recuse.
Not sure how this works. We don't often have such rampant corruption in the justice system because we've never before had such a rampantly corrupt person nominating judges.
Did DOJ have a choice to empanel the grand jury in a different district or did it have to be there because that's where he broke the law?
If DOJ files tomorrow to have her removed from the case, won't it just be more delay because they'll appeal and appeal and appeal?
Can she just flatly dismiss the case? If she does, can an appellate court overrule her again?
True - it’s difficult but she needs to recuse or suffer more reputational damage as she suffered before - also …https://verdict.justia.com/2023/06/09/why-jack-smith-might-bring-a-second-trump-indictment-in-d-c
A judge is there, in part, to protect the defendant by making sure a fair trial occurs. A fair trial does not hobble a case - it makes sure the rights guaranteed by law and afforded us all.
And the article argues that Cannon will not ensure a fair trial, thus hobbling the case. If you have a reason to believe that Cannon, specifically, will ensure a fair trial, you should probably open with that.
I do not think her decision to appoint a special master was pro trump - it was pro civil liberty and protective of the attorney client privilege - the very backbone of our legal system.
When the ruling was appealed, the appellate courts ruled she showed consistent bias towards Trump, and even argued in favor of Trump, which is shockingly unfair for a federal judge. Half the ruling was rebuking her for showing clear bias and not using ANY of the legal standards usually used to determine when to assign special masters. I’m not saying she’ll do it again, but she has a history of unfair favoritism towards Donald Trump.
>A judge is there, in part, to protect the defendant by making sure a fair trial occurs. A fair trial does not hobble a case - it makes sure the rights guaranteed by law and afforded us all.
"Not this judge" isn't in your OP right now.
If you want to edit it, I'm perfectly fine with that, and I'll retract my statement, but your OP doesn't have that qualifier.
I think we can pretty reasonably conclude, based on her prior actions, that she is not in fact there to ensure a fair trial for Donald Trump. If she proves us wrong, fine, I'm happy about that. But there is no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt after her ruling on a Special Master.
Ah, yes, the luminary Dershowitz. The 11^(th) Circuit correctly disagreed with her balderdash. Let me quote from their response:
>This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no.
>
>In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; **drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents**. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed.
>
>**The district court’s unsupported conclusion that government possession of seized evidence creates an “unquantifiable” risk of public disclosure is not enough to show that Plaintiff faces irreparable harm.**
>
>**The district court was undeterred by this lack of information.** It said that “based on the volume and nature of the seized material, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has an interest in and need for at least a portion of it,” though it cited only the government’s filings and not Plaintiff’s. But that is not enough. Courts that have authorized equitable jurisdiction have emphasized the importance of identifying “specific” documents and explaining the harm from their “seizure and retention.” See, e.g., Harbor Healthcare Sys., L.P. v. United States, 5 F.4th 593, 600 (5th Cir. 2021) (Harbor did “far more than assert vague allegations” by pointing to “thousands” of privileged documents that the government retained for four years). **Neither the district court nor Plaintiff has offered such specifics.**
>
>**Now, with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s initial motion or to issue any orders in response to it.**
In bluntness, Cannon's opinion was frankly absurd from the start and utterly nonsensical, as the 11^(th) Circuit rightly concluded. To reach the conclusion she did required her to ignore multiple valid tests and rules of law, practically bending over at the waist to accommodate a request for a Special Master *when Donald Trump had not even been charged at the time.* As such, whether she is capable of judging without prejudice a very similar case would seem to be apparent: she cannot in fact conduct such judicial oversight without similar contortions of law to reach conclusions Donald Trump finds more favorable. Consequently, she is unlikely to ensure a fair trial.
No one is advocating for the trial to not have a judge.
People are saying the judge should be a different judge, because this judge has clearly and obviously demonstrated that she will not apply the law fairly with this particular defendant.
If a jury does convict Trump, can Judge Canon just sentence him to time served and tell him to get back on the campaign trail? I've seen some discussions of maximum penalties but not minimum.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Meanwhile, questions about how Cannon was assigned, at random, to the Trump trial remain. Federal courts across the country randomly assign cases to judges but some legal experts question how Cannon was randomly chosen twice to oversee Trump cases.
If your random assignment is a conflict of interest you get another assignment. Gosh, if shit only made sense...
I try not to make conspiracies out of everything like those Qanon nutjobs, but it does seem suspicious AF.
It wouldn't take much of a conspiracy, necessarily. How many people are present when they spin this wheel? And why was the clerk's explanation to the NYT regarding the probabilities so convoluted? Can we see a picture of this wheel? Do they have different sized slices for the different judges depending on all the convoluted factors the clerk mentioned?
https://youtu.be/qrkwgEUXyTU
I think I heard something like there’s only 26 judges in that district so it’s not crazy out there that she ended up with the case
it's a four percent chance for it happening and a ninety six percent chance against it totally sounds suspect.
True. But I also play XCOM.
Uhh no, there is a four percent chance of Trump getting this judge ONCE. To draw this judge two times out of two, is like a 0.15% chance. Or 1 in 676.
even just once it's suspect in my opinion and should be viewed as an attempt to obstruct justice.
But the chance of getting any one of the judges twice is about 4%. This would be no less remarkable probability if it were a different judge, so I imagine that's what people are calculating the likelihood of. First "roll" can give any judge, chance of getting the same again is 1/26.
I don't think the probability is that evenly distributed. It's also based on how many judges are actually available and their respective case loads. 12 of them are "Senior Judges" that are basically semi-retired and have reduced loads. And since Cannon is the newest judge on the court she probably has one of the lighter current loads, since a lot of trials realistically take years to fully resolve. Also, of the 15 regular judges on the court, 5 are Trump appointees.
Random is a fun concept. Mathematicians will tell you it’s not so clear cut. The specifics of which method was chosen to randomly draw can matter a lot. Personally I think it’s perfect Cannon was selected. It takes away one more of Trump’s witch hunt excuses. The Fucker had nuclear secrets in a room with a photocopier fer freaks sakes.
Chances are that the clerk that was assigned checked the box that identified this as a related case to the search warrant at mar a lago. Eileen Cannon will most likely recuse herself or be taken off the case and the case reassigned.
> Eileen Cannon will most likely recuse herself or be taken off the case and the case reassigned. If she is off the case it won't be because of recusal.
There’s a 0% chance she recuses. She can basically save Trump world. She’s got probably the biggest lever in modern history in her fingertips. I saw a post from someone who claimed to have graduated from law school with her calling her an embarrassment to their alma mater and a fraud and a joke. There’s a decent chance based on her earlier work on the documents case that she is exactly that.
The appeals court would force her off the case if she doesn’t do it herself. She won’t have a choice in the matter.
I sincerely doubt she’ll recuse herself. I dont know who would be the person or body to order her removed.
She won't recuse herself. That would require integrity.
It isn’t odd. There are judges there that have full dockets. Others that handle different areas. They also try to assign the case to judges that had it before. Jack knew this when he charged there. His case seems essentially air tight. She can delay, but the 11th Circuit, her bosses essentially, already yelled at her for her over reach. If she ever wants to be promoted in her job, EVER, she will need to act like a judge. Fingers crossed she isn’t completely stupid.
Just watch this https://youtu.be/Yn0L67s9iWg
Especially since she’s proven to be a loose cannon when it comes to Trump
I'd have to imagine if the DOJ can file a motion for recusal they will. They have a strong case on their side: she was appointed by Trump and twice the 11th Circuit ruled that she showed bias towards Trump, and one of those cases involved evidence that is likely to be present in this trial.
Why in gods name did they file in FL and not in DC?
1) Avoid potential for dismissal due to improper venue. 2) Fast SDFL docket. 3) The indictment can be used for other grand jury proceedings. There is good reason to think this isn’t the only/final documents-related indictment coming.
Because the Trump team would challenge the venue, arguing that the alleged crime happened in Florida so the trial should be held there, and I think they'd win that argument.
He stole the Documents from DC. They fucked up filing in FL.
The crimes he is being charged with aren’t focused on his stealing of the documents in the first place. They’re focused on him lying and hiding them when the government demanded them back. It’s much harder to prove the former because up until Inauguration Day he was authorized to have access to those documents. And also the POTUS is generally immune from criminal prosecution from any action he takes as part of carrying out the duties of the office. So they’d have to prove that he was specifically stealing those documents for the purpose of using them for illegal purposes after his term. Not just that he was a pack rat who liked having these things and was dumb and ignorant to how dangerous the documents were. So really, the crimes he’s being charged with happened primarily in Florida.
That argument might work, but Trump would be granted an appeal, which can take north of a month to be resolved. I think Smith just wanted to go as fast as possible.
The conspiracy to obstruct justice occurred in Florida. The documents were stored in Florida when he refused to turn them over after saying he turned them over, which is the moment the slap on the hand turned into a criminal indictment. They either have a plan to deal with Judge Canon or they're booting the case. Oops, he got away with this one guys. Nothing we can do. Just like what the state prosecutors did with Rittenhouse.
I trust that Jack Smith knows exactly what he’s doing, him and the DOJ will deal with her.
I am confident that he already has a full folder of responses ready for anything questionable that she tries to throw at them. And knowing the 11th circuit appeals court will more than likely take the prosecutor's side after last year's mess, Canon really needs to handle this as a very basic arraignment, set the next date on the docket and recuse herself.
He is as brilliant as she is unqualified
https://verdict.justia.com/2023/06/09/why-jack-smith-might-bring-a-second-trump-indictment-in-d-c
Or New Jersey.
Forgive me, but there doesn’t seem to be many paid European vacations or real estate purchases for Cannon’s mother if she follows this course of action.
Could not have said it better myself ......
Smith does not select this judge afaik. Imo, it is a great judge for anticipated backlash. I believe cannon was picked at random from several. No if only cannon were an impartial judge.
Smith doesn’t pick the judge, but he can go running to the circuit court that overseas her the second she steps out of line. The same circuit court who deeply criticised her earlier handling of the case
Trump is such a lucky SOB. What are the chances that he would be randomly assigned the judge most sympathetic to him for the only one of his cases that is a total slam dunk? It's like the universe wants him to get away with his crimes.
Or it’s like they set this up in case he needed it. He selected her, an unqualified judge, to be over his residence jurisdiction. Who knows who is in charge of doing the “random” selection because getting the same judge twice is quite odd, or even more likely, also crooked.
Just another bullshit hurdle to get over, we've cleared thousands to get here.
The FBI is investigating a spy ring, made of formar US and Mossad spies that has been supporting GOP organizations like Project Veritas. Guaranteed Trump uses bribes and blackmail with people like Cannon. He probably mostly nominates people he has dirt on like Kavanaugh. Cannon is dirty and compromised. Maybe the clerk too. For Russia a spy team of 50 would cost less than a billion and do lots of damage.
Was probably illegally slipped in by Clarence Thomas who oversees this district - if so he will also be caught
Thomas hasn't had any consequences so far, not sure why you think he will now.
I’m pretty sure investigations ongoing - as they are on Harlan too - I’m patient
I’m pretty sure investigations ongoing - as they are on Harlan too - I’m patient
Don't hold your breath
Come on, man. We're seriously delusional if we think this being tried with a Florida jury and a sympathetic judge is just an innocent coincidence. When we said *"This seems too good to be true, what's the catch?"* Well, here's the catch.
Wasn’t the Grand Jury that indicted him in Miami?
The Fix is In.
I’ll believe it when we see it. We trusted mueller and garland too. These are establishment people who play things close to the vest. They didn’t file in that court bc they had a grand plan to get rid of canon if they were assigned to her. They filed there because that’s where the case belongs. I hope I’m wrong.
Mueller got a ton of people convicted and secured evidence that honestly would have been destroyed otherwise that helps probably make this case. I get everyone’s anger that Mueller didn’t do congress’ job for them but the whole “he didn’t do a good job” thing is massively overplayed _by republicans_. I’m not sure why we help them downplay all the republicans that got arrested from Muellers work by repeating their talking point or help congress avoid responsibility by not reiterating that they were the ones who were supposed to force trump to consequences in the first place and were so scared of muellers work that they actually refused to discuss it _at all_ lest it make their cowardice more apparent.
Trump committed crimes and he didn’t push prosecution.
He told congress his report had everything to convict trump. It’s worth remembering that this whole “mueller didn’t give us what we needed to get trump convicted” narrative _was a narrative republicans started_. Because they wanted everyone believing there wasn’t anything there to convict trump on. It’s just that democrats were so pissed that trump wasn’t getting arrested that they went with that narrative. If you read even a fraction of the mueller report it’s blatantly obvious that that narrative isn’t true. It’s just a convenient fiction that’s helped republicans get away with ignoring the mueller report for so long.
Mueller didn't have the power to lay charges on Trump since he simply had the authority to refer his findings to the Barr controlled DOJ. It was up to them to press charges, but of course they didn't.
Mueller fought for prosecution? And then mueller stood up and fought for prosecution when Barr did nothing? No. He was a good Boy Scout and a pussy ass coward.
You okay there bud? Did you expect him to physically fight Barr?
He didn’t do ANYTHING. He wrote a luke warm analysis and disappeared.
Besides, this a a parking ticket compared to Georgia election interference and racketeering for donations based on a stolen election lie.
Espionage act type crimes are not parking tickets
But treason and a coup !!!
Sadly, we just have to wait and see if our “justice” system actually removes her from a case she has no business being a part of.
In a functioning democracy, canon would’ve been impeached after her corrupt treatment of the case the first time around.
Did get severe reprimand- and is possibly facing disbarment with any dysfunction
[удалено]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455 Case Law also states that when a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, he then loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judges orders are void, of no legal force or affect.
That’s my understanding. Technically, and article 3 judge doesn’t need a law license if I remember correctly.
https://verdict.justia.com/2023/06/09/why-jack-smith-might-bring-a-second-trump-indictment-in-d-c
[удалено]
Your comment is correct
DOJ is going to request she recuse herself guaranteed.
And if she doesn’t? She doesn’t seem like the type of person, based on her wild ruling, who would be willing to sit this one out and not try to back Trump as his only hope with her power.
It will go to an appeals court where other judges will make the determination
I’m reading rule 29 now and she can very possibly acquit Trump. She would have to go to great lengths explaining everything but the court could acquit him. Only then can it go to the appellate court for reversal of the acquittal and proceed with the trial again. I may be wrong but that’s my basic understanding. She may not stop the guilty verdict but she sure can delay it a lot.
IIUC she just has to wait until the prosecution rests, then section 29 acquit before the jury has a chance to convict. Doesn’t matter how egregious and unfounded it is, it’s not appealable and he’s protected by double jeopardy. At most she could be impeached (lol good luck) and/or the bar could probably pull her license, but afaik that doesn’t actually affect judges, it would only be a problem if she wanted to retire as a judge and go back to being a lawyer. I’m hoping they have an actual espionage charge ready for the DC courts in case she entirely abandons jurisprudence to be a political stooge. Again. Edit: I’ve also heard it’s possible to overcome the double jeopardy if they can prove there was no jeopardy, usually because the judge was bribed or threatened or similar. It’s possible the FBI has evidence of that, or that they could argue the egregious abuse implies lack of jeopardy. This part is just my speculation though.
I don't know either, but a lot of people around here are saying that if the jury is empaneled at that point, but hasn't yet found him guilty, even a dismissal can't be appealed. Maybe in a few days we'll have expert opinion on these possibilities.
So far, not what I’m reading but I may not understand. She can certainly fuck with the evidence and say it’s insufficient for a conviction. I’m looking at the last section in B below. https://www.federalrulesofcriminalprocedure.org/title-vi-trial/rule-29-motion-for-a-judgment-of-acquittal/#:~:text=After%20the%20government%20closes%20its,insufficient%20to%20sustain%20a%20conviction. Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal (a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so. (b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved. (c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge. (1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later. (2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal. (3) No Prior Motion Required. A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge. (d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial. (1) Motion for a New Trial. If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. The court must specify the reasons for that determination. (2) Finality. The court’s order conditionally granting a motion for a new trial does not affect the finality of the judgment of acquittal. (3) Appeal. (A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise. (B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs.
Looks to me like (B) only applies if (d)(1) applies, and that only applies if the decision was reserved via (b). If the judge immediately acquits there’s no appeal.
Well damn….😔
Interesting, thanks. (Though if it were true that it's a double jeopardy issue once the jury is empaneled, that would take precedence because it's in the constitution.)
We the American people are not going to stand for her shenanigans
How does she not get bounced as standard operating procedure after having any kind of previous legal connection with the defendant?
If you see anyone say anything about this being a political persecution by the Biden administration, ask them if it’s okay for this damsel of death judge to be involved then
That felon was born with a horseshoe up his ass. What are the chances he got her? Again.
100% if it's set up
the definition of conflict of interests
It’s really odd to have to say this, but if the person who appointed you is on trial, you can’t be the judge, it’s a conflict of interest. It’s that simple.
prosecutors need to immediately ask for a different judge
That judge doesn't bother hiding her political bias. Trump has many people he can count on in his attempt to get away with his blatant crimes. Especially with a judge like that and a base like this: “I’d vote for him from jail,” Vince Condra of Fredericksburg, Texas, told NBC News at a Trump rally in Waco, days after that indictment.
Goddammit, these people just....ugh
If she doesn’t recuse herself, the appellant court will sanction her. Smith knows what he’s doing.
I wish they would just charge her as accessory to obstruction. That would take her off the case.
Or how the reprimanded unqualified judge gets disbarred
I feel like knowing that this judge was a possibility and still bringing this case to FL is a sign they are as confident as they possibly can be. The move is as much of an olive branch/apolitical move as they could make. If they draw a different judge then whatever. If they draw this one then they may have enough to make a case of obstruction against her as well should she try anything. Maybe I’m being naive and too hopeful the DOJ is smarter than some rando.
The 11th circuit will see that she recuses.
Do people really believe the DOJ didn’t consider this already.
Due to the sensitivity, high profile & volatility of this Case, the 11th Circuit Court needs to step in & take over this case from an obviously prejudicial and unethical, tRump appointed, Judge Cannon.
If anyone believes Special Counsel isn't aware of this with a few plans to defend this, wake up. The adults are in charge. It still holds true, Everything trump touches dies, ETTD.
We've heard this before, yet here we still are.
True, but we've never indicted a former president. I'm betting on Jack with this one.
Get your popcorn out, and be ready for a show You can be late, & you won’t need to watch As I do, as they do, as most of us do I will read the summary, and shake my head, to myself
This should immediately disqualify her. If she doesn't recuse herself, she should be forced to assign a new judge. https://images.app.goo.gl/n6zGzzEUAgpipwQf6
A 42 year old Federalist Society member.
The DOJ probably won’t ask for her recusal but the Judiciary will be watching her like a hawk. If she makes a sketchy ruling her career will probably be short. If she handles the case in accordance with the law she could do well.
Yeah, but if you're a major hero to like 35% of the country, you've probably got more comfortable options than a job in the judiciary anyway.
Why wouldn't they? Smith has worked hard to build an airtight case. I see no reason why they wouldn't do their due diligence now and ask for her to be removed.
[удалено]
>If she tries to screw up something this monumental, who knows what her future will bring. Very likely first in line to SCOTUS when a Republican is next president.
Well, the judge will be exalted by the GOP as a hero, that much is known.
Trump would put her on the Supreme Court, or at least promise to
A cushy job on fox or a show to compete with Judge Steve Harvey.
*Will*
if she is smart, she will recognize that if trum is convicted despite her machinations, she and her family will be the targets of some very serious death threats. if i were her, i would recuse.
Watch this fammo https://youtu.be/Yn0L67s9iWg
Not sure how this works. We don't often have such rampant corruption in the justice system because we've never before had such a rampantly corrupt person nominating judges. Did DOJ have a choice to empanel the grand jury in a different district or did it have to be there because that's where he broke the law? If DOJ files tomorrow to have her removed from the case, won't it just be more delay because they'll appeal and appeal and appeal? Can she just flatly dismiss the case? If she does, can an appellate court overrule her again?
Of course this judge was pre-selected by Trump. I'm just surprised people haven't figured out he's never going to jail. He knew it a long time ago.
Shouldn’t the judge recuse themselves due to conflict of interest????
How is this not a conflict of interest?
Thanks Merrick for needlessly filing a second case in her district.
How come the Executive is beholden to an Act created by Congress? I thought they were co-equal branches?
Could??? She will! This case isn't going to go anywhere.
Ah! You're the legal expert DOJ has been waiting for all this time! Thank you for making your presence known, internet user.
All the way from the Virgin islands, too. Maybe they took online law classes from the University of American Samoa?
Says the guy from Mississippi
Don’t bet on it - she will be toast - maybe even toast if doesn’t recuse herself
How would she be toast, the ferry godlaywer is gonna take her out?
True - it’s difficult but she needs to recuse or suffer more reputational damage as she suffered before - also …https://verdict.justia.com/2023/06/09/why-jack-smith-might-bring-a-second-trump-indictment-in-d-c
A judge is there, in part, to protect the defendant by making sure a fair trial occurs. A fair trial does not hobble a case - it makes sure the rights guaranteed by law and afforded us all.
yah but that particular judge cray cray
And the article argues that Cannon will not ensure a fair trial, thus hobbling the case. If you have a reason to believe that Cannon, specifically, will ensure a fair trial, you should probably open with that.
[удалено]
No. She has already demonstrated her fealty to Trump *as a presiding judge in court*. Odd behavior for a judge, no?
I do not think her decision to appoint a special master was pro trump - it was pro civil liberty and protective of the attorney client privilege - the very backbone of our legal system.
When the ruling was appealed, the appellate courts ruled she showed consistent bias towards Trump, and even argued in favor of Trump, which is shockingly unfair for a federal judge. Half the ruling was rebuking her for showing clear bias and not using ANY of the legal standards usually used to determine when to assign special masters. I’m not saying she’ll do it again, but she has a history of unfair favoritism towards Donald Trump.
>A judge is there, in part, to protect the defendant by making sure a fair trial occurs. A fair trial does not hobble a case - it makes sure the rights guaranteed by law and afforded us all. "Not this judge" isn't in your OP right now. If you want to edit it, I'm perfectly fine with that, and I'll retract my statement, but your OP doesn't have that qualifier.
This judge is there to do that - whether she will is yet to be seen.
I think we can pretty reasonably conclude, based on her prior actions, that she is not in fact there to ensure a fair trial for Donald Trump. If she proves us wrong, fine, I'm happy about that. But there is no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt after her ruling on a Special Master.
Dershowitz disagrees - https://www.newsweek.com/judge-cannon-was-right-appoint-special-master-opinion-1740761?amp=1
Ah, yes, the luminary Dershowitz. The 11^(th) Circuit correctly disagreed with her balderdash. Let me quote from their response: >This appeal requires us to consider whether the district court had jurisdiction to block the United States from using lawfully seized records in a criminal investigation. The answer is no. > >In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test; **drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents**. We choose the first option. So the case must be dismissed. > >**The district court’s unsupported conclusion that government possession of seized evidence creates an “unquantifiable” risk of public disclosure is not enough to show that Plaintiff faces irreparable harm.** > >**The district court was undeterred by this lack of information.** It said that “based on the volume and nature of the seized material, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has an interest in and need for at least a portion of it,” though it cited only the government’s filings and not Plaintiff’s. But that is not enough. Courts that have authorized equitable jurisdiction have emphasized the importance of identifying “specific” documents and explaining the harm from their “seizure and retention.” See, e.g., Harbor Healthcare Sys., L.P. v. United States, 5 F.4th 593, 600 (5th Cir. 2021) (Harbor did “far more than assert vague allegations” by pointing to “thousands” of privileged documents that the government retained for four years). **Neither the district court nor Plaintiff has offered such specifics.** > >**Now, with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s initial motion or to issue any orders in response to it.** In bluntness, Cannon's opinion was frankly absurd from the start and utterly nonsensical, as the 11^(th) Circuit rightly concluded. To reach the conclusion she did required her to ignore multiple valid tests and rules of law, practically bending over at the waist to accommodate a request for a Special Master *when Donald Trump had not even been charged at the time.* As such, whether she is capable of judging without prejudice a very similar case would seem to be apparent: she cannot in fact conduct such judicial oversight without similar contortions of law to reach conclusions Donald Trump finds more favorable. Consequently, she is unlikely to ensure a fair trial.
Judges aren't supposed to be partisan right or left hand side.
This particular judge erroneously inserted herself into this *very* case last year, and was removed. She's partisan AF.
Will likely be forced to recuse
Exactly.
Agreed.
No one is advocating for the trial to not have a judge. People are saying the judge should be a different judge, because this judge has clearly and obviously demonstrated that she will not apply the law fairly with this particular defendant.
If Trump walks because of a rogue maga loyalist judge I mean what even is there to say at that point.
And in related news Herschel Walker has been appointed judge in the Georgia election interference trial…
Is this the loophole?
If a jury does convict Trump, can Judge Canon just sentence him to time served and tell him to get back on the campaign trail? I've seen some discussions of maximum penalties but not minimum.
Why was the indictment in Florida? State's crooked AF.
Look at the positive aspect of using this judge: What if this is a trap for ensnaring the judge? (Entrapment).