At this point she could cry out "Hail our Fuhrer, Trump!" and do a Nazi salute, and it still wouldn't be enough to remove her. Oversight is fucked in the judiciary.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
390 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19659 readers
4218 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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! 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.
- 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.
- 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Actually, she answers to the 11th Circuit, and she's already been reprimanded by them twice. If Jack Smith brings a viable example of bias before them one more time, it's third strike, and she's out.
The problem is, many of her actions are completely within the scope of her duties, and she's basically doing "death by 1000 cuts." Hopefully Smith can make a cogent case for her removal soon.
ETA: at least one (maybe both) of those reprimands gave her the benefit of the doubt for being so new at adjudication. I don't imagine the 11th Circuit will be so generous again.
Thank you, I was under the impression that she was helping baby hands and there were no consequences for what she was doing. That's good to know, I'll look up the specifics later, unless you have an article in mind you could link me to.
I listen to the Legal AF podcast (irritating side comments, great and pretty accurate legal analysis, approachable even for an ignorant boomer) to stay abreast of the goings on. I haven't listened in the last few days, because I simply need a break, but I would guess they've already covered these new developments.
Legal AF's clickbait episode titles kill me, but the information is top notch.
Cleanup on Aisle 45 and Jack are both excellent sources of accurate information as well.
Daily Beans is also worth listening to.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
If Jack Smith brings a viable example of bias before them one more time, it’s third strike, and she’s out.
This is the first time I've heard of this.
IANAL. I heard it from lawyers on the Legal AF podcast. Take that for what you will.
I'm skeptical of this but would love to be surprised.
What are the chances that she randomly draws Trump's cases twice. Of all people? It's shady as fuck.
And this right here is why it matters which president we vote for. Because they decide if we get judges like Aileen Cannon.
Would this cause a mistrial? I have no idea.
No clue. My guess is since they haven't even gotten to the official trial (set for March), she'd be swapped out for one of her counterparts, or the 11th Circuit would hear the case instead.
ETA: at least one (maybe both) of those reprimands gave her the benefit of the doubt for being so new at adjudication. I don’t imagine the 11th Circuit will be so generous again.
I doubt the 11th Circuit will do anything except wring their hands.
I heard that part from practicing lawyers with decades of experience, so unless you're a lawyer, I'll go with their assessment.
I mean, not that I blame you for going with their word over mine, but let's come back a few months from now and see how things shake out. I'd love to be wrong.
Believe me, I understand the cynicism. Listening to them is the only thing that has given me hope in these proceedings.
I thought one decision on a previous case was overruled for the judge but what were the other decisions she's been reprimanded for? Not trying to sound antagonist just I only heard of a single instance a higher court impacting her and was a previous case, the only thing that comes up for her with reprimand was when she reprimanded Jack Smith, but it was recent so that's probably why. Mean I do hope she was, if anyone was more pronounced for carrying water for Trump they'd have pole indents in their shoulders from the work.
The only 11th Circuit adverse ruling I've found for this case is from her gaffe in Sept. 2022. It's possible there's been another smaller one that media outlets just ignored, but I don't know.
The other definite instance was from a different case in June 2023, and the 11th circuit ruled that what she did was a grave "structural error," which I gather is significantly bad.
So they might be different cases, but going before them again and having your (at best) inexperience on display again is not a good look for a judge handling a case so novel and important to the entire country.
Actually, oversight is fucked everywhere (unless you’re poor)
Trump appointed her. Idk why she gets a say in anything regarding his case. It seems there's still no adults handling this child.
Trump is getting his delay one way or another. Cannon is so deep in his pocket that even in her worse-case scenario, her recusal or removal, would start everything over at 0.
The judge that he put into a local district in his lame duck period? Surely legal proceedings wouldn't let that judge rule on his case, the person that gave her a lifelong judge position. Nah....
Legal system so big on ethics.
Very ethical slave catchers.
I think Special Counsel is playing the long game with that inexperienced hack.
Jack Smith does not want to remove Cannon. Or he shouldn't at least. Not at this point, anyway.
By far, the best possible outcome is still for Jack Smith to convict Donald Trump in Aileen Cannon's Florida courtroom. As long as Cannon doesn't start conducting the trial in a way that actually prevents Smith from winning that conviction, keeping her in place is in everybody's best interest.
This morning's (11/07/'23) headlines are all about how Trump verbally attacked the judge in his fraud trial in New York yesterday. Trump has repeatedly accused Judge Engoron of being partisan and biased, to the press and now in his sworn testimony. MAGA eats that shit up. The more Trump looks like a victim to them, the more riled up they get in his defense.
It seems to me that "The Case of the Stolen Nuclear Secrets" is going to be much simpler and easier for people to understand than "The Case of Strategically Shifting the Valuation of Heavily Leveraged Real Estate Properties for Various Tax and Loan Purposes." Considering even just the evidence that has already been made public in this case (photos of boxes of classified documents haphazardly stacked in a spare bathroom; audio recordings of Trump bragging that he shouldn't be sharing a classified brief he'd illegally kept) the chances of a conviction are strong.
If Trump gets convicted by a jury in a Florida courtroom run by so seemingly biased a judge as Cannon, it's going to be a lot harder for him to claim it's all rigged against him by the Democrats. It's going to be a whole lot harder to work that conviction into the whole victimhood narrative that Trump is currently thriving on.
The opinions of the public matter much less than getting an unbiased trial, do they not?
If Trump gets out of his crimes because of a biased judge, what does the opinion of the uninformed masses matter?
As long as Cannon doesn’t start conducting the trial in a way that actually prevents Smith from winning that conviction, keeping her in place is in everybody’s best interest.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified-documents trial has faced renewed calls to recuse herself from the case after she reprimanded Special Counsel Jack Smith's team for a word count on their legal filings.
The frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary has pleaded not guilty to 40 charges in connection to the classified documents case and has repeatedly called the trial a political witch hunt.
Stephen E. Smith, legal professor at Santa Clara University in California, added that the chances of the Department of Justice seeking Cannon's removal is "unlikely to the point of wholly unlikely."
Cannon said in a recent hearing that she was open to moving the classified documents trial as the timing of the other criminal investigations involving Trump may complicate the current schedule.
There was also the added complexity of establishing secure rooms in which both prosecutors and defense lawyers can review the highly sensitive documents found at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
In response, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman posted on X: "Biased or not, Cannon simply doesn't have game; and she masks it with prickly remonstrations of the government.
The original article contains 939 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!