Tbh I kinda want her to do it, if for no other reason than to remove all possible doubt as to her bias. Also because it puts the ball in the appellate court, which would probably just undo much or all of whatever Cannon did.
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
155 points (98.1% liked)
politics
18034 readers
4089 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.
- 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!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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
If she did it, the judgement would immediately be appealed and she would get her pee pee slapped hard and the judgement would be overturned. Maybe, if the gods are good, she'll be removed from the case. It seems unlikely that she will take that chance though since she can cause more delay by staying where she it, but who knows, she doesn't seem to be the sharpest crayon in the box so maybe she will do it.
The whole point of this is just to delay until the election when Trump, should he be reelected, can undermine the whole thing. It's clear that the attorney general can appoint a special council when an investigation by DoJ directly could present a conflict of interest. Making a bad ruling here might work for her though. Having the ruling appealed would certainly delay things at least a few weeks or a month and that could take us to the end of July before it was overturned and/or sent back down to her court.
If the appeals court does finally decide to give her the boot, it would take quite a while to get a new judge appointed and a new trial underway. There would be no chance of a decision before the election and that is the whole goal. Plus, then she'd probably be free to go on the right wing talk circuit and make piles of money while still supporting Trump.
It seems unlikely that she will take that chance though since she can cause more delay by staying where she it, but who knows, she doesn’t seem to be the sharpest crayon in the box so maybe she will do it.
She has two goals:
-
To entertain all of the ridiculous motions to get the charges dismissed that Trump makes and deny them. This is for the purpose of cover so she can point to those rulings as a defense against accusations of bias, while also delaying the trial until after the election in the hopes that Trump wins and orders the DOJ to drop the charges.
-
If and when the case does go to trial, then she'll entertain and grant a motion to dismiss once a jury is seated so double jeopardy attaches and Trump walks anyway. She's already openly all but said as much, as she is intentionally waiting until the start of the trial to rule on some defense motions.
Plus, then she’d probably be free to go on the right wing talk circuit and make piles of money while still supporting Trump.
The appellate courts removing her from the case won't mean she stops being a judge. Only impeachment and removal can do that, and there's zero chance that 2/3 of the senate is going to vote to remove her from the bench. Her seat is secure. She's basically trying to angle for a seat on the Supreme Court, knowing that two judges are likely going to be replaced during the next term and this is her best shot at getting one of them, while also knowing full well that her job is secure even if all of this blows up in her face. In her mind, she's basically gambling with house money.
At this point, she's already delayed things enough to push any ruling past the election. There's less and less downside to having her removed as the date gets closer.
All this for what should be the easiest case against Trump. Did he store boxes full of classified documents on his personal property? Yes. Did he declassify them before leaving office? No. Did he have the right to store them? No. We should be done here.
"Aileen Cannon agrees to continue to caress Trumps balls as she gears up to be the next appointed SCROTUS judge."
American Meritocracy™ friendos!
I have my money on that too. She is pushing for a seat.
Aileen is just so very compromised.
Nah she's just corrupt.
PorqueNoLosDosGirl.gif
And a goddamned idiot
if she declares it unlawful, it'd be appealed, wouldn't it. She really has no legal grounds. It will also force an appeal to throw her off the case. But, she will succeed in further delay before another judge is assigned.
Then that gets challenged up to the Supreme Court, who after next week, won't be hearing cases again until October, and won't be deciding new cases until June, 2025...
The Supreme Court has already set the precedent, of course. But, if they took the case, you'd know the fix was well and truly in. It would lead to the largest balance of powers issue the country has ever seen.
When can we go back to putting people on trial for treason? This cunt needs to be on that list
Treason has VERY specific legal definitions, which is why we didn't see it dropped on any of the January 6th combatants:
US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
In this case, Treason only applies if the people are working in concert with an entity which has declared war against the United States, or is in open hostility to the United States.
Trump, for all his insanity, hasn't declared war on the US, so his adherents TECHNICALLY don't fall under the definition of capital "T" "Treason".
This is why they get slapped with "sediton" instead. :)
"§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)"
Of course she is
This is the best summary I could come up with:
At the center of Trump’s argument is the claim that the Attorney General Merrick Garland does not have legal authority to appoint someone as special counsel who hasn’t confirmed by the Senate.
The Justice Department says the attorney general has ample authority to appoint “inferior officers,” which would include special counsels.
Cannon’s handling of the Trump case has been closely watched, as critics say she is taking too long to settle legal challenges from the former president, aiding his quest to delay any trial past the November election.
In addition to granting the hearing on the legitimacy of Smith’s office, attorneys representing non-profit groups and former government officials will join the in-person debate Friday, having been allowed by Cannon to file their own arguments on the matter.
Another group that will also be allowed to make oral arguments tomorrow says that in order for an individual to be qualified as special counsel under the Justice Department, they would need to be a permanent employee, which Smith is not.
Almost inverse from Trump, Biden argued that special counsel David Weiss was unlawfully appointed because he was already in the federal government and therefore not fully independent.
The original article contains 725 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!