Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
From what I've read on the subject, the judge's options are basically to force DOJ to prosecute the case, which sounds about as silly as you'd think, or to at least go on record explaining their reasons for dismissal. The fact that it's a quid pro quo is already on record, but there doesn't seem to be much the judge can do about it.
Basically, the DOJ can give "Because fuck you that's why" as the reason and there's not a lot the judge can do about it. But it gets it on the record.
I've read that there is another option: the judge can order that a special prosecutor be assigned to take over the case. It is unusual, but then again, so is a slew of prosecutors resigning rather than sign the request for dismissal, which they know is improper.
The judge can rule that the reasons given by the current DoJ are not sufficient to simply wipe away the indictment, which was given by a Grand Jury. Yes, Grand Juries typically vote to indict, but in order to do that the prosecutor must at least show up with enough evidence to secure it.
Could the judge not also switch it to "With prejudice" so that they can't bring the charges again? Wouldn't be the best scenario because he would essentially get off scott free, but it would also prevent Trump from being able to hold the threat of future prosecution as blackmail
My understanding is that Trumps DOJ specifically filed it for dismissal without prejudice so they could retain the option to charge him again (Implicitly, to hold as blackmail over him)
The judge could do that, but that would be an admission that the underlying reasons for dropping the prosecution after getting the indictment were acceptable to the judge. Which he might not want to sign off on, if he doesn't like what the prosecutors told him.
Well it also removes the power they have over him in the quid pro quo. If they can't bring the case again, he no longer has to hold up his end of the deal, and so it forces the DOJ to make a statement of whether the case truly is not worth pursuing.
I heard that is the most likely scenario, but I don't know if I'd say it's the "best" scenario. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to see criminals prosecuted for their crimes.
Judge Eileen Cannon rules. Who cares if it doesn't make sense and has zero precedent behind it!
He has the opportunities for sanctions, so there's that
Anything that slows these fuckers down is good. If these fascists are forced to deal with this, then that’s one less week enacting a political prosecution on someone innocent.
If they're smart they'd say that. Someone will probably lie and perjure themselves (which is why they prefer people to quit so there's no labor violation to take to court).
I don't get how Eric Cook can take this quid pro quo.
My limited understanding of the law is that jeopardy attaches once a jury is empaneled. So, if the case is dismissed, prosecutors can recharge him, which I imagine is exactly why Trump wants to do it this way.
Trump could just issue a pardon and make the case moot.
JFC the fact that criminals can't even crime properly.....
GOV. HOCHUL: “.. the alleged conduct at City Hall that has been reported over the past two weeks .. cannot be ignored. Tomorrow, I have asked key leaders to meet me at my Manhattan office for a conversation about the path forward, with the goal of ensuring stability for the City of New York.”
This meeting being held, and publicized, is to build on record consensus, so she can pull the trigger on this asshole, and remove the Mayor from his elected position for the first time in the 235 year history of New York City.
"You see, Your Honor, I, uh, made a backroom deal with the corrupt POTUS. Do you, um, have a problem with that?"
Elon and DOGE probably has enough access to federal records on hand to dig up dirt on literally anyone in the US right now.
NYC’s mayor warms to Trump and doesn’t rule out becoming a Republican
I’m sure this has nothing to do with it.
They should stream it live like all court hearings and trials and SC deliberations should be for transparency (except for jury deliberations)