Aileen Cannon thread

I unblocked him a few weeks ago. Won’t make that mistake again.

But to address this absurd troll of a thread, getting sexually aroused and excited because of politics doesn't seem like a very healthy mental state.

 

Utter nonsense.

Smith is fed up with Cannon as she is essentially serving as part of the defense team. Trump publicly offering her a SCOTUS seat while she sees his case is another Trump crime.

It appears she is doing everything possible to both delay this trial until after the election and allow a jury to be seated so double jeopardy attaches and then dismiss it for her benefactor's sake. All while using strategy she is not smart enough or experienced enough to employ, likely being spoon-fed to her from the Federalist Society.

We can only hope someone got a warrant to tap her phones during this process.

 

This is an overly generous description of the judge. She seems to be in way over her head in this complicated and politically charged case. She has presided over only 4 criminal cases that went to trial - that’s 14 days of trial experience and has been reversed twice in this case in very strong language by the conservative 11th District.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/summo...-initially-oversee-documents-case-2023-06-09/

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/article269511242.html

Aileen Cannon - Wikipedia.

Not her only mistakes

Aileen Cannon, the judge in the Trump documents case, made multiple errors in an earlier trial

Federal judge in Trump case has limited track record in criminal cases, hews closely to DOJ sentencing recommendations

 

Sounds eerily similar to Fani appointing her boytoy to prosecute the former President.

 

I agree. He is not qualified to be handling that case.

 

He's not holding press conferences or ranting on social media. He's documenting his concerns through the appropriate process so that he can have all her bizarre/erroneous decisions and slow-walking on record for when he has to go to the appeals court.

 

Love for the U.S. Constitution and love of the defeated indicted former president are mutually exclusive.

 

I know little of the process of federal pleadings but Smith does not make public media appearances and submitting pleadings to the judge would seem to be the way to do it (short of appeals to the District court) and the fact that it is publicly accessible is more about transparency of court proceedings- to the degree that they are.

 

I know you only care about "go team" so this is really pointless; however, I can tell you that if Biden were on trial, with a Biden-appointed judge hearing his case, and bending over backwards to rule in his favor consistently (even ignoring the law like her interpretation of the PRA), I wouldn't be praising the judge. I'd be in favor of a more neutral (and experienced) judge hearing the case.

At this point, she's either choosing to act as an extension of the defense or she's in over her heard. It very well may be the latter considering how little trial experience she has to do date, but she's certainly not acting in the best interest of the country to try and bring this to trial before the election.

To answer your question though, Jack Smith is trying to get a ruling on her insane PRA interpretation because if she allows that to go forward after the jury is seated then double jeopardy would attach and there would be no grounds to appeal even if she erroneously (whether intentional or not) interpreted the law.

 

If the PRA does allow a President to declare anything as a personal record simply by virtue of removing it from the White House, how far does that extend? Is everything that's owned by the US Government also personal property of the President? Can Biden take the Resolute Desk home? What about priceless artifacts like the Declaration of Independence?

 

I always find it strange that anything that benefits "Your Team" we all tend to give the benefit of doubt and have faith the party involved is acting with the most noble interests, but when it comes to the other side, everything and I mean everything is because of what party was in charge when they were put into the position they are in. I know it is not always the case, but I would like to try and think that these folks actually believe what they are doing is the right thing by the law, not some greater cause because of their "political association". We wouldn't have appeals and higher courts to move to if interpretation of the law is always the same. Is that just living in a fantasyland? Like the NY Judge, I think he is a whack job, but I want to think he is following his interpretation of the law not some greater need to help "His" side. Now prosecutors and lawyers, not so much!!

 

Well, the Clinton's did take all the "W" from all the computers!!! lol

 

The "fiction" to which Smith referred was the notion that the highly classified documents could be considered Trump's mere personal records. The Judge used the phrase "unprecedented and unjust" in her response to Smith asking that the Court make a decision about the jury instruction prior to trial (due to the double jeopardy concern).

 

There's no "winning her over" as she's already demonstrated that she's not going to be impartial. Based on that, there's no downside to documenting in writing how over her head (or biased) she is.

I know I'm not going to be able to convince you since you can only look at scenarios from the lens of whether something helps or hurts Trump, but I've formed my view based on a number of lawyers and former prosecutors who are all confused and concerned about her decisions and slow walking to date.

 

…… with the investigator asserting JB is incompetent to stand trial.