this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
310 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19073 readers
5125 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

Cannon seemed to invite Trump to raise the argument again at trial, where Jack Smith can't appeal, expert says

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected one of former President Donald Trump’s motions to dismiss his classified documents case.

Cannon shot down Trump’s motion arguing that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague when applied to a former president.

Cannon after a daylong hearing issued an order saying some of Trump’s arguments warrant “serious consideration” but wrote that no judge has ever found the statute unconstitutional. Cannon said that “rather than prematurely decide now,” she denied the motion so it could be "raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."

“The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ‘legal’ as our native language,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack, calling part of her ruling “deliberately dumb.”

“The good news here is temporary,” Vance wrote. “It’s what I’d call an ugly win for the government. The Judge dismissed the vagueness argument—but just for today. She did it ‘without prejudice,’ which means that Trump’s lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case. In fact, the Judge seemed to do just that in her order, essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial.”

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 113 points 7 months ago (1 children)

She is 100% just doing what the federalist society is telling her to do

[–] [email protected] 52 points 7 months ago

She is 100% just doing what the federalist society is PAYING her to do

I think we’ve learned from Clarence Thomas, federal judges are on the take. I hope someone is paying close attention to Cannon’s finances.

[–] [email protected] 73 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So by doing this the way she has set it up, she can now allow Trump's lawyers to present this amazingly poor case that the espionage act is too vague. If she then grants that motion to toss the charge, Jack Smith cannot appeal it, nor can Trump be charged with it again because of Double Jeopardy.

Our only hope is that Jack Smith is right now working on his case to force her recusal from the case, that he'll need to make to the 11th circuit.

EDIT - This all requires a jury sworn in - forgot that part.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh, so that’s how she’s intentionally fucking it up.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

To clarify for future confused readers, most of us aren't mad that she is denying the motions to dismiss, far from it, but we're mad that she is doing so in a way that allows the defence to use these same ridiculous arguments in court.

The first request is that the "Espionage Act" is too vague to enforce, which is pretty much not how laws work at all. Generally the more vague it is: the more illegal activities fall under it.

The second request is that the Presidential Records Act allows the Trump Admin to decide which documents were personal at will and therefor gives him complete immunity. Which, again, is pure idiocy, but Judge Canon hasn't even given a ruling on that motion.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 52 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Member when they were like "o no the DNC is absolutely going to run Hillary" and everyone was like "lol well she can at least beat trump" and then four years of utter political insanity and this judge gets the biggest case to come out of that infected turd circus?

I dunno i thought i was going somewhere with that but maybe it's just a still life

[–] A_Random_Idiot 17 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Remember when Hilary threw the election away by not even campaigning in what were otherwise secure democratic states that she lost, and how she spent so much time giving secret talks to rich people and corporations behind security and white noise generators, and generally did everything she could to be unlikable? and if she had put in even the slighest modicum of effort, she'd be the president we complained about instead of the Trump horror show despite of all of Russias interference and bullshit?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean all of that might be true but I still put a lot of blame on the assholes who voted for trump.

Sometimes we act like only Democrats have agency, and Republicans are just like a force of nature. Like a fire that burns without thought or a bear that mauls because that's what bears do. But they're still people and they could have chosen something else.

Trump supporters are at fault.

"Clinton didn't come to my state and make me feel special" is not an acceptable justification for supporting the catastrofuck that is trump.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Its not "Clinton didnt come to my state and make me feel special"

its

"Clinton didnt go to these states, to engage with her base and share with them her vision, plans, goals, etc, Which allowed just enough to be swayed by those that did"

[–] homesweethomeMrL 1 points 7 months ago

To be fair, that's mostly what her campaign manager was supposed to work out.

Mooooooook

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If this was 1840 I'd be more convinced. We have the internet. We've had radio for a hundred years. You shouldn't need to go to a rally to know what a major politican's visions, plans, goals, etc, are.

"I felt ignored" is a stupid emotional response, but I can understand it, kind of. Sometimes I'm petty, too. Feeling so ignored that you vote for trump is inexcusable, though. I don't think I'd excuse shirking your civic duty here, either.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You are sure hung up on this whole "I was ignored" thing.

Are you, specifically, upset that cause you felt ignored?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

That's what I took from the "she didn't come to my state and share her vision with me, specifically" thing. Or the related "I don't like being called flyover country ", I guess. Maybe I just don't get the people in question.

I live in a major city and don't feel politically ignored. A little, what do you call it, victim of a tyranny of a minority, sometimes, what with like North and South Dakota having senators.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Remember when the party fucked over Bernie for an institutionalized candidate who no-one liked instead?

And if you want to argue that they didn't have a choice, it's the difference of 300 delegates in the face of internal organizational opinion that you control. You can't maintain that it wasn't a choice. The DNC chose Hilary.

[–] btaf45 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

for an institutionalized candidate who no-one liked instead?

How idiotic can you get? If no one liked the nominee she wouldn't have had the most votes.

The DNC chose Hilary.

By "DNC" you mean the voters?

You can’t maintain that it wasn’t a choice.

Exactly. Stop pretending it wasn't the voter's choice. That is Trump level bullshit. There just wasn't enough of us voting Bernie.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

You sweet summer child

[–] Raykin 11 points 7 months ago

I'm with you bud. This shit is confounding.

Also, you had my upvote at 'member'.

[–] CosmicCleric 30 points 7 months ago

This part really stands out for me, because of where the criticism is coming from...

“The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ‘legal’ as our native language,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack, calling part of her ruling “deliberately dumb.”

It hints at the judge's decision not being impartial.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

If a jury would overrule the argument "no judge has ever ruled this unconstitutionally vague, including the judge on this case right now" then they were never going to find him guilty regardless.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why does America treats presidents and ex-presidente as a protected class of citizens?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

It's kind of funny.

They treat them like royalty. Even more royal than royals are treated.

[–] FenrirIII 7 points 7 months ago

Wealthy and connected

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

She only got her position by giving a wristy to Trump.

[–] assassin_aragorn 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The Federalist Society wanted to put young judges in positions so that they'd last a long time.

In the process, they made a Cannon a judge, someone who doesn't know the difference between sanitation and sanitization. If there was ever a judge to get removed for sheer incompetence, it would be her.

We just need to make sure we reclaim and reform the supreme court so that we can yeet all her awful decisions until she can be removed from office.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago
[–] Maggoty 10 points 7 months ago

Lmao.

Please offer this legally bullshit argument to 12 random people.

We're all fucked.

[–] ikidd 4 points 7 months ago

Passing the buck like a coward.

[–] someguy3 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I thought everything could be appealed. How can this not be?

[–] brianorca 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

In the US model of justice, the judge decides questions of law, and the jury decides questions of fact. This order appears to delegate a law question ("is it constitutional?") to a jury during the trial. If the jury finds the defendant innocent, then double jeopardy prevents any appeal which would change that verdict. Nobody, once declared innocent, can be put on criminal trial again for the same incident.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

When a trial involving a jury has resulted in a judgement of innocence it can't be appealed under pretty much any circumstances at all. The only way to appeal from the prosecution when they didn't win is if it's a hung trial / mistrial or equivalent error and there wasn't a ruling of innocence.

(under US law, plenty of other countries have some ability to appeal if they believe there was some serious error or new evidence has been found)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Not everything can be appealed. Especially if something is dismissed with prejudice, that's basically calling it officially dead.