this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
323 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19229 readers
3130 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a scathing filing, the special counsel pushed back on Judge Aileen Cannon’s interpretations of laws that could define the case against Trump

Special Counsel Jack Smith went toe-to-toe with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon over her requests for jury instructions in Donald Trump’s classified documents case

In a scathing filing submitted Tuesday, Smith accused Cannon of operating on an “unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise” when she requested that the parties in the case draft different versions of their proposed jury instructions based on their competing interpretations of laws governing classified materials and presidential records. 

Trump has argued that his retention of classified documents after his ouster from the White House was perfectly legal. Claiming that he both unilaterally telepathically declassified the documents, and that they were simply personal records he was already authorized to take. The former president’s trial on 40 charges related to his alleged mishandling of the documents is scheduled to begin in May, but will likely be delayed.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 110 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Cannon is doing everything she can to just give Dummy Tbags a win.

Blatant corruption.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago

Obstruction of justice*

[–] stoly 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I guarantee that it'll come back to bite her. The judiciary does not take kindly to rogue judges.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Ahh yes. Just like all those penalties for Matthew Kacsmaryk that will arrive aaaaany day now.

Federal judges serve for life. There’s not a whole lot anybody can do about this.

[–] techt 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What are you basing this on?

[–] stoly 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Courts self manage their own judges. Usually an appeals court or a state supreme court will punish judges for misconduct. At the Federal level, I'm not sure if it starts at an appeals court or the SCOTUS, but they can definitely punish and remove federal judges as well. Impeachment is also an option, but that's a hard one to do.

[–] techt 8 points 8 months ago

I hear you, and those things seem nice at a glance, but I don't agree with your sense of guarantee. We're seeing an upending of things that "usually" happen, or that "definitely can" happen, especially with "self-managed" entities such as the SCOTUS. Have you seen judges actually get held accountable recently, even locally?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 months ago (3 children)

i don't want to hear about Jack's feelings, i want to hear about his results

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nah, this is good to hear about - I don't really care about his feelings either but Cannon is a corrupt and incompetent judge.

[–] grue 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Cannon is a corrupt and incompetent judge.

Corrupt, yes, but I'm not so sure about incompetent. If she were incompetent then there would be tricks to help Trump that she missed, but as far as I know she's executed every opportunity for corruption perfectly.

Do you have evidence that she's anything less than a goddamned veritable virtuoso of corrupt traitorousness?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

I Am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise
I Am Jack's Inflamed Sense of Rejection
I Am Jack's Smirking Revenge

[–] stoly 8 points 8 months ago

The article is editorializing through that headline and it is based on the magazine's or the author's interpretation of the filing. No way that Jack Smith has expressed emotions publicly on this matter.

[–] stoly 24 points 8 months ago (4 children)

She's going to eventually get herself removed from the bench and possibly disbarred for this abusive behavior.

[–] FenrirIII 21 points 8 months ago

I'll believe it when I see it.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

Then she will get a raise and be on fox news for a decade

[–] minkymunkey_7_7 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

She ain't gonna do shit and Trump will never face any real consequences ever except from historians 30 years after the next Great War. After the last literal 11th hour reduced bailout it suddenly became all clarity and nihilistic wisdom to me. Trump has already destroyed America. It's already too late.

[–] stoly 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Trump didn't destroy the country. He just stepped into the gaping wound that the narcissists that populate this land left open.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

More like he stuck his greedy little hands in there and pulled out the entrails.

[–] dhork 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

She'll just get a commentator gig on NewsMax, which will likely pay a lot more. Or, she could go to Fox, but would probably have to bleach her hair first.

[–] stoly 6 points 8 months ago

Sure, but she won't be an attorney or judge, which is the good thing. NewsMax is a bubble that we can ignore.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

Yeah. We all are. Her having any part of that case has been a total farce.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Special Counsel Jack Smith went toe-to-toe with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon over her requests for jury instructions in Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

In a scathing filing submitted Tuesday, Smith accused Cannon of operating on an “unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise” when she requested that the parties in the case draft different versions of their proposed jury instructions based on their competing interpretations of laws governing classified materials and presidential records.

“If the Court concludes […] that a President has carte blanche to remove any document from the White House at the end of his presidency; that any document so removed must be treated as a personal record under the PRA as an unreviewable matter of law; and that, also as a matter of law, a former President is forever authorized to possess such a document regardless of how highly classified it may be and how it is stored, that would constitute a “clearly erroneous jury instruction that entails a high probability of failure of a prosecution,” the special counsel added, noting that they would appeal if such a decision were made.

Smith also argued that the proposed scenarios align not with established legal interpretations but with Trump’s post hoc justifications for keeping the documents.

There is no basis in law or fact for that legal presumption, and the Court should reject Trump’s effort to invent one as a vehicle to inject the PRA into this case,” Smith wrote.

Cannon, who was appointed by Trump to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2020, has been criticized for her apparent indecision and slow-walking of major decisions in the case — allowing Trump’s defense team to languish as the former president seeks to delay his criminal trials through the November election.


The original article contains 594 words, the summary contains 296 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

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

Wake me up when actual consequences follow... So far it has just been a horrible tease

[–] someguy3 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

she requested that the parties in the case draft different versions of their proposed jury instructions based on their competing interpretations of laws governing classified materials and presidential records. 

Can someone inform me how jury instructions are normally created?

This "defendant and prosecutor write your jury instructions" seems like a blatant attempt to get the more favorable one to Trump (the lawyers will always try the most extreme reading) and then try to wipe her hands clean.