this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
41 points (95.6% liked)

Politics

400 readers
328 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As reported by legal analyst Adam Klasfeld on BlueSky, Cannon denied an emergency motion filed by attorneys representing Trump codefendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, who were both implicated in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Cannon also set a date of Friday, January 17th for a hearing on whether to authorize the release of Smith's final report on the documents case, which she dismissed last year after finding that Smith was not properly appointed as special counsel.

Unless further legal challenges arise, the United States Department of Justice can release the first volume of Smith's final report as soon as Tuesday, January 14th.

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Did he deny her a post or something? I don't get it.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

It means it’s probably nothing in the report that we don’t already know, or that what is in the report that we get to see, there won’t be much to cause Trump any trouble.

She didn’t suddenly turn against Trump. It’s just that the report is probably gonna be worthless from a legal perspective.

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

That makes more sense.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 4 points 1 week ago

Plus she also gets to say she wasn’t entirely biased.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Even if the report has all new evidence that damns trump, he will just say that there isn't anything there and it absolves him. It's not like the contents will be reported to his base.

[–] GroundedGator 4 points 1 week ago

She's trying to save face. She has no power or jurisdiction here.

Once she dismissed the case and it headed to the 11th on appeal, she lost any actual ability to do anything regarding the case with the exception of orders she made that were not on appeal (there were none).

Additionally she has no power to release volume 2 of the report. That power is only held with the DOJ. Jack Smith even stated that it should not be released as long as the case against the conspirators still survived. Releasing that report would likely damage the case against them. However, if that happens, it would likely mean Trump would not need to pardon them to stop the prosecution. While the report may be seen as a threat to Trump, anyone who supports him refuses to believe he did anyone wing and I doubt anyone who would actually read it would have a change of heart.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

This article made no sense to me until I realized there are two volumes of the report. The motion to suppress the release of Volume 1 was denied, and could be released by the DoJ as early as tomorrow. There will be a hearing Friday whether to authorize the release of Volume 2. Without this context, the timeline and headline made zero sense.