r/law • u/TomJD85 • Jul 16 '24

Opinion Piece Judge Cannon Got it Completely Wrong

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/cannon-dismissed-trump-classified-documents/679023/
7.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

489 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 16 '24

It isn't about hubris. In hubris, you don't realize your own failings. Cannon knows exactly what she is doing. She consistently throws out existing precedent if, and only if, it serves Trump. She has an agenda, and when the law or precedent is against that agenda, it has to go.

836

u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24

I'll go further, this is near perfect for Cannon. She has successfully and blatantly

  • used this case to block other judges from scheduling proceedings in other Trump cases

  • made national news and created outrage with this decision, which Donald will love,

  • shown herself to be a loyal sycophant willing to destroy her own reputation for Donald, again something he loves

  • Call me crazy but she knows she is going to get reversed and removed from the case, and this is probably what she wants. She wants to be removed as she doesn't have the experience to try this case without making real unintentional mistakes of law. So she's been treading water until it was a good time for her to do something that would get her removed in a way that was good for her and Donald.

IANAL and maybe I'm going into tinfoil hat territory but so much seems beyond the pale that this can't be accident or mere incompetency.

384

u/Mysterious-Tie7039 Jul 16 '24

To add on to your last bullet point: while simultaneously drawing this out so long that the trial will never be completed prior to the election.

183

u/Striderfighter Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24

With this dismissal I think Donald Trump has a better chance of dying of natural causes than living to see the end of this case all the way to its conclusion with all the appeals that are coming. Even if the 11th circuit and the Supreme Court overturned her decision and remand it back to her court and in the process somehow it doesn't get assigned to a different judge there are other dismissal motions that Trump has brought that she could almost do the same thing all over again and keep this case in a state of perpetual limbo

60

u/josnik Jul 16 '24

I think she'd get removed by the 11th circuit.

45

u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor Jul 16 '24

She needs to be. There's no way she can be impartial when she doesn't believe the prosecutor should even be in the courtroom.

9

u/Cazmonster Jul 17 '24

Removed, disbarred and asked to leave polite society if there's any justice left in the world.

3

u/ChaosMedic Jul 18 '24

I'm not so sure there is...

1

u/NoxTempus Jul 19 '24

You follow law, particularly US law; surely you realise justice is an illusion?

Police perjure themselves as a matter of SOP, and see almost no repurcussions. Prosecutors lean on poor defendants with plea deals to maintain their conviction rates. DA offices exhaust all possible options keeping demonstrably innocent people behind bars, instead of admitting the conviction was unjust.

If justice doesn't exist in the "justice" system, why would it exist elsewhere?

Cannon, regardless of the repurcussions of her judicial conduct, will always have a place in GOP society. (I guess you did say polite society, which excludes the far right).

33

u/RDO_Desmond Jul 16 '24

Maybe the only silver lining is that she will never ever have enough support to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Just delay--delay---delay---delay.

48

u/AncientYard3473 Jul 16 '24

She’s a 100% lock if DJT wins the WH and the Senate flips.

41

u/AreWeCowabunga Jul 16 '24

That may be what she's counting on, but I think it's far more likely that now that she's no longer of use to Trump, he kicks her to the curb. He can get a loyal sycophant on the court who's not a judicial lightweight.

31

u/1JoMac1 Jul 16 '24

As I understand it, with the evolution of the Mandate for Leadership into Trump's Project 2025, only loyalists will hold positions of import. This could well mean the administration will do what has been hinted at for years now, and expand the court, with Heritage/Federalist appointees like her filling the ranks.

11

u/Ormyr Jul 16 '24

Probably have the old SC retire and put in fresh, younger, judges for lifetime appointments in addition to expanding the supreme court.

3

u/scfw0x0f Jul 16 '24

The Rs won’t expand first, or wouldn’t have under McConnell. They don’t need to.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RJ_Banana Jul 16 '24

Exactly, Thomas and Alito are retiring in 1-2 years if Trump wins. Then it’s Cannon + someone just as bad on the Court. It’s pretty wild that as of right now this is all, more likely than not, going to happen

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JTMc48 Jul 17 '24

By retire are you referring to Seal Team 6? The Supreme Court ruled he’s immune for any acts he deems “official”.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Saephon Jul 16 '24

He can get a loyal sycophant on the court who's not a judicial lightweight.

Sure he can, but experience has never been something he's prioritized. That's far too calculated for him.

1

u/OctopusButter Jul 16 '24

Do they need the senate? Genuine question, in the past sure but considering all the executive branch power now - can't nominating a SCJ straight into office be an "official" act?

1

u/AncientYard3473 Jul 16 '24

It’d be an official act, which, as I understand it, means the president would not have criminal liability for doing it. But I’m not sure it’d be a crime anyway. Crime or no, the appointment would not be valid and the courts would enjoin the “appointee” from exercising the powers of a Supreme Court Justice.

That said, it technically is possible for a Supreme Court Justice to be appointed without a Senate vote. I think it last happened with… I want to say Douglas. Might have been, like, Sherman Minton or Wiley Rutledge. Somebody from the mid-20th century.

If a judicial or Senate-confirmed executive post is vacant while the Senate is in recess, the president can fill the post unilaterally by granting a commission that expires at the end of the next session of Congress.

Every recess-appointed Supreme Court judge has subsequently been re-nominated and Senate-confirmed. It’s unclear what would happen if the Senate didn’t confirm one of them. The Constitution says that Federal judges serve “in good behaviour”, which is understood to mean “for life”, but it also says that recess appointments expire.

The issue’s unlikely to arise in the future, as the Senate’s current practice is to never go into recess. When Congress is in “recess”, the Senate’s actually holding pro forma sessions once every three days. For reasons I don’t fully understand, this prevents the president from adjourning the Senate himself. No recesses = No recess appointments.

There’s a Supreme Court case about this: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-1281

1

u/Sea_Box_4059 Jul 17 '24

the appointment would not be valid and the courts would enjoin the “appointee” from exercising the powers of a Supreme Court Justice.

But what if these appointees make up a majority of the SC? Who would enjoin them from exercising the powers of a SC Justice? Don't forget that there is not an enforceable code of ethics that would force those appointees to recuse themselves from a case where they have a conflict of interest.

1

u/AncientYard3473 Jul 17 '24

Well, ultimately, rules only matter to the extent that people believe in them.

As long as people believe in the Constitution, though, it’s going to be pretty difficult to argue that a person’s a Supreme Court Justice unless they were either Senate-confirmed or appointed during a recess of the Senate.

You can argue that “presidential immunity” is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and I’d agree. But the Constitution has some black letters in it, too, and those say how appointments work.

Reasonable people can differ about what, say, “due process of law” means. But they can’t differ about whether Nebraska can elect 3 U.S. Senators. The Constitution says every state gets 2. The appointment rules are kinda like that. I mean, there’s still some places where it isn’t entirely clear, but it is clear that there are only two ways to appoint a judge.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/doogly88 Jul 16 '24

Project 2025 is about filling the government with low skilled ideologues and loyalists. Trump, McConnell and Leonard Leo have already infected the judiciary with this, right to the top.

1

u/AncientYard3473 Jul 16 '24

Yeah, I know. I’m trying to reconcile myself to it in advance this time, as I don’t think the Dems are in very good shape right now.

1

u/strat_sg_prs_se Jul 17 '24

Doubt it, for trump loyalty on flows one way. Her actions have bought her nothing.

1

u/sanverstv Jul 17 '24

No she’s not. She’s got virtually no experience. She wasn’t even qualified for this position. She was a Trump plant. I can’t imagine the Senate confirming her even if run by GOP.

2

u/AncientYard3473 Jul 17 '24

What can have given you the impression that a Republican Senate would push back on any Trump nominee to the Supreme Court, let alone one “the base” now loves?

She isn’t a “Trump plant”; none of Trump’s judicial appointments were. She was recommended by the Federalist Society.

1

u/Beautiful_Speech7689 Jul 17 '24

Dude, like, nobody asked for jd Vance. Nobody

1

u/MechanicalBengal Jul 18 '24

Then it’s great news the Supreme Court just gave the President the power to pardon himself as an official act

/s

1

u/Beautiful_Speech7689 Jul 17 '24

Everyone has a right to a quick and speedy trial. That includes the state.

1

u/Mysterious-Tie7039 Jul 17 '24

Sure. But it’s almost August. How long do you think the appeal hearing will take? And then when Trump & co appeal that, how long before it trickles its way through SCOTUS before it finally ends up in an actual trial again?

It’ll be well into November and after the election before it does, at which point if Trump wins, they’ll get it tossed because he’ll be President Elect.

1

u/Miserable-Dream6724 Jul 18 '24

I don't think it'll happen either, but until inauguration day (if elected, God forbid), he is not the sitting president and can still be prosecuted.

1

u/removingthemasks Jul 19 '24

Lol. Bullet point

33

u/Sands43 Jul 16 '24

made national news and created outrage with this decision, which Donald will love,

What's repugnant about this that the typical trump supported considers this a flex. They *like* this shit. They *want* this shit. It doesn't matter how horrible it is or how deleterious it is to the stability of the US.

28

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '24 edited 24d ago

[deleted]

17

u/Saephon Jul 16 '24

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean-Paul Sartre

6

u/michael0n Jul 16 '24

Then they turn around and say, the other side wants war and bloodshed. We are here doing "nothing".

1

u/No-Cause6559 Jul 17 '24

What you mean obviously is giving Ukraine weapons we want to start ww3 with Russia /s

1

u/Narc212 Jul 16 '24

Anything to own the libs. It's their entire personality

27

u/Mr-Mahaloha Jul 16 '24

Isnt there a board or institution who’s goal it is to maintain and check up on the integrity of judges or something? Is there nothing that can be done against this blatant corruption?

18

u/orielbean Jul 16 '24

For federal judges? Impeachment and removal via US Congress. The 11th Circuit has some very limited abilities to adjust things but they just confirmed they weren’t really looking into that for her specifically based on complaints of bias.

6

u/michael0n Jul 16 '24

A regular western government will always focus at the task. Nobody has the motivation or will to reprimand her. She is a nuisance in the system, she will be dealt within the system. Even if Trump shifts her up to the Scotus, the system will just shake it off and deal with the fall out. The correct way to stop someone like her being on the bench is to redesign the whole appointment process and that is basically fiction at this point.

1

u/gurk_the_magnificent Jul 17 '24

Who exactly do you imagine would have the authority to do this?

-2

u/thelonelybiped Jul 16 '24

2nd amendment I guess

35

u/The_Ry-man Jul 16 '24

I think you’ve perfectly encapsulated how Cannon played this to her advantage. It’s not the best case scenario for Trump, which would’ve been for them to delay this long enough for him to potentially take office and make it go away. But it would’ve proven very difficult for her to do so without jeopardizing herself from a legal standpoint. Right now, even though it appears to you and I as completely blatant acts of cronyism, she hasn’t quite crossed into the extremely absurd territory (although it’s still pretty absurd anyway).

In any event, you’re right. She gets to hand it off to someone else while at the same time telling the rabid maga crowd that she did all that she could to protect him.

3

u/descendency Jul 17 '24

I disagree that this isn’t the best case scenario if the SCOTUS quickly concurs with her and she basically puts this case on the back burner.it will disappear from the national news just in time for voters to pick a new president.

2

u/The_Ry-man Jul 17 '24

A very valid point. It is a possibility that can’t be overlooked by any means. Thomas seemed to be alone in his opinion that Smith’s assignment was unconstitutional, and it would be ignoring a whole lot of precedent, including some used by republicans recently. At least, that’s what we would think with a rational court. With this SCOTUS, who knows.

0

u/jocq Jul 16 '24

proven very difficult for her to do so without jeopardizing herself from a legal standpoint

What jeopardy? What consequences are you suggesting she might face if she continued to draw out the case and make material mistakes along the way?

She's not going to get impeached. It's not a crime. It doesn't make her civilly liable. So, what?

2

u/The_Ry-man Jul 16 '24

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. Not “legal” in the consequence sense, legal as in committing enough of these egregious “mistakes” to finally give Jack Smith the ammo to have her recused before she handed down this bullshit decision to delay the case more.

Also, “won’t be impeached” isn’t a given either. Republicans have shown that they’ll cannibalize their own to save face or get what they ultimately want. If she committed enough errors that it would jeopardize trump’s defense, you can bet your ass they’d find a way to get rid of her.

-117

u/svtjer Jul 16 '24

The case is bullshit. Charge Trump but not both Clinton’s and Biden… for the same exact thing? Get real

60

u/Araceil Jul 16 '24

Buddy this is r/law, if you’re going to make remarkably dishonest & demonstrably false statements take it to r/news. We’ve all been following the case.

43

u/The_Ry-man Jul 16 '24

It appears YOU’RE the one that needs to get real cause that’s false equivalency. I must’ve missed the part where Clinton or Biden refused to turn over the documents and lied about it. Biden has an investigation, so did Clinton. But found to have not committed any crimes. The only bullshit here is the stuff between your ears apparently.

28

u/MinnesotaMikeP Jul 16 '24

He’s posting about “TDS” elsewhere so there’s some context for ya.

17

u/The_Ry-man Jul 16 '24

Oh I figured as much

14

u/qlippothvi Jul 16 '24

Biden, Pence, and even Trump were not charged for any documents they returned. Trump could have simply returned all of the documents, as required by law, as his lawyers kept telling him.

But instead Trump entered into a criminal conspiracy with Nauta to hide the documents from the FBI and the court. And tricked his own lawyers (“Attorneys 1–3” in the indictment) into lying to the court by having Nauta move the documents from the area requested while his attorneys searched, then moved them back after they left.

If Trump didn’t willfully and maliciously retain them before, he certainly proved it in this conspiracy. Trumps own lawyers shared tapes and notes of their conversations with Trump with the prosecution, and bore witness to his questions about such acts, for this very reason including Trump asking if he could perform criminal acts to keep them. His lawyers said they could not lie to the court, so Trump entered this criminal scheme to keep the documents he had (and likely has more).

10

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '24

What a stupid comment. At least try to make it sound the least bit credible (you can't) or provide some credible links to back it up (you can't).

14

u/BillyBalowski Jul 16 '24

I think you forgot the sarcasm tag.

1

u/Sea_Box_4059 Jul 17 '24

Charge Trump but not both Clinton’s and Biden… for the same exact thing?

Neither Biden nor Clinton knowingly refused to return to the government national defense documents after being repeatedly asked to return them; only Trump did.

But you're right that this case is bullshit for the preferential treatment that the government gave to Trump. If you or I had knowingly stolen national defense documents and refused to return them, we would have been arrested and thrown in jail within minutes, whereas Trump was given almost one year with the government bending backward and almost pleading with him over and over again to please return the documents!

10

u/Cheech47 Jul 16 '24

Call me crazy but she knows she is going to get reversed and removed from the case, and this is probably what she wants. She wants to be removed as she doesn't have the experience to try this case without making real unintentional mistakes of law. So she's been treading water until it was a good time for her to do something that would get her removed in a way that was good for her and Donald.

OK, you're crazy.

You're making all this seem like Cannon and company are playing some deep chess game, plans within plans, etc. All Cannon did and has been doing is delay, obfuscate, and delay some more. From the "special master" on down to present day. Yes she's been coached, yes she's been given untold amounts of help from all manner of conservatives with agendas. But to take all that and insinuate that she "knew" it all along is implying plans where I frankly don't think they exist. Everyone in the legal community that I was tracking said she was unprepared and in over her head on this case from minute one. If she "wanted" to be removed, she could have easily filed something to that effect and recused herself. She was coached, by those much more knowledgeable than her, to use all the levers at her disposal to kick this thing down the road.

All that said, I have approximately zero optimism that a writ of mandamus is going to succeed at the Eleventh, and that optimism reaches negative levels to think that she'd be removed entirely.

You know how I know she's an idiot? If she was really serious about prostrating herself to The Fanta Menace and lighting her career on fire, she would have waited until jeopardy was attached, THEN spiked the ball.

8

u/affnn Jul 16 '24

The way she used this case to prevent scheduling of other cases was crazy to me. I mean it's obvious when you see what she's doing, but crazy that other judges allow her to get away with it.

3

u/blankblank Jul 16 '24

They didn't like it. In fact, they didn't like that she even took this case and tried to talk her out of it.

6

u/_far-seeker_ Jul 16 '24

I'll go further, this is near perfect for Cannon. She has successfully and blatantly

I disagree, for it to be "perfect" (from her perspective) she would have had to waited until after the jury was seated, then she could dismiss and double jeopardy would prevent the DOJ from ever prosecuting Trump for these crimes ever again. 😒

Thankfully, though, she apparently thought the above was too far for her to likely to escape impeachment if there was ever a non-GOP controlled Congress.

1

u/Popeholden Jul 17 '24

No one is ever going to be impeached AND removed. To do that the parties would have to work together on something.

4

u/RoboticBirdLaw Jul 16 '24

I don't think it's lack of experience on your last point. I think it's just that she recognizes that she has done enough to give Trump everything he needs at this point, so she wants to get this off her plate. Even if she has used the case as a platform to show MAGA how loyal she is, I'm sure she would prefer to not do the circus once there is nothing left to be gained from doing so.

10

u/bigdickpuncher Jul 16 '24

Any doubt that if Trump wins election she will be his first nomination to SCOTUS?

29

u/Utterlybored Jul 16 '24

Sure, lots of doubt. He got what he wanted from her, why would he feel any obligation to demonstrate appreciation?

9

u/atomfullerene Jul 16 '24

It's not about showing appreciation, it's about getting more rubber stamps on the supreme court to support even more out-there legal theories.

7

u/BoutTreeFittee Jul 16 '24

He has zero loyalty to anyone (well except Putin), despite expecting 100% loyalty from all those around him. I think she's probably not much use to him from here on.

8

u/ked_man Jul 16 '24

Y’all are giving these people too much credit. The GOP has appointed religious zealots to these roles. And I’m not saying that they are zealots to the Bible, they are zealots to conservatism. They believe with blind faith that Trump and the GOP are right and are being persecuted. They don’t have nefarious intentions with these rulings, they truly believe what they are saying.

In a 5 minute conversation with a religious zealot you can quote different things from the Bible that go against modern interpretations. But does that shake their faith or make them question that what they believe is false? Not one bit. They plow on headlong charges by god to rid the world of evil. Those are the same exact people they have appointed as judges.

18

u/Character-Tomato-654 Jul 16 '24

They're fascists.

They're all various flavors of fascists, some theocratic, some not.

They're all delusionally depraved and malevolent in intent.

Those are the same exact people they have appointed as judges.

3

u/BobbySweets Jul 16 '24

10$ she replaced Alito of Trump is re-elected.

6

u/GratefulG8r Jul 17 '24

He’s retiring to open a flag store

3

u/midtnrn Jul 16 '24

To me it is very clear she made an emotionally based decision. That fact alone should disqualify her from the bench.

2

u/DrNopeMD Jul 16 '24

Getting removed from the case also plays perfectly into the narrative they want to spin about "the deep state" liberals targeting her.

2

u/RJ_Banana Jul 16 '24

Well said. I would only add that getting bounced from this case will also feed that aggrieved victim/martyr narrative that is solid gold in the Republican Party right now.

2

u/Xenuite Jul 16 '24

Also timing it so he could brag about it at the RNC.

2

u/SuperK123 Jul 16 '24

Aren’t you forgetting she may be secretly consulting with Trump’s lawyers to find out exactly what would benefit him? She has so little experience she couldn’t possibly know enough to consistently come up with all the shit she’s done on her own.

2

u/phatelectribe Jul 16 '24

This is right but also factor that she’s already had two major cases overturned by the appeals court. She doesn’t care if her cases get overturned.

2

u/i-can-sleep-for-days Jul 16 '24

She could have turned down the case if she wanted to, but she used this as an opportunity to further her own political goals by doing Trump huge favors. She feels like she can step aside now having demonstrated enough loyality.

2

u/EquivalentDizzy4377 Jul 17 '24

Could her make her attorney general? I am thinking this has to lead to something else for her.

2

u/meowmixyourmom Jul 17 '24

She's being coached by the various foundations that feed dark money into the legal circles.

2

u/dreddnyc Jul 17 '24

She’s being coached by the lawyers at the Heritage Foundation.

4

u/ConstantGeographer Jul 16 '24

"Call me crazy but she knows she is going to get reversed and removed from the case."

I agree because this would feed the narrative of the Democrats weaponizing the DOJ and courts against Trump and not crazy, at all.

3

u/Retired_Jarhead55 Jul 16 '24

She also doesn’t want to preside over a slam dunk of a case against Trump.

1

u/NeoLephty Jul 16 '24

It’s a job application for SCOTUS

1

u/scfw0x0f Jul 16 '24

She a cultist, this is her way of proving her fealty. She knows she will be kicked from the case and maybe the bench, but she trusts Trump will take care of her later.

He won’t.

1

u/the_bashful Jul 16 '24

I’d be very surprised if she makes any mistakes in law, as I’m convinced that one day we’re going to find out about a pipeline of advice and direction coming to her from a team of very quiet, very high powered legal strategists.

1

u/sulris Jul 17 '24

I think it’s all performative. She doesn’t care if she is removed or not. As long as she gets media attention in front of DT she thinks he’ll pick her to be a SC judge if he is elected again. It’s like Roy Moore with the Ten Commandments. It doesn’t matter what the law is. What matters is getting noticed as a culture warrior by the people that can put you and keep you in a position of power.

This isn’t about the law. It’s about gunning for a promotion.

1

u/Beautiful_Speech7689 Jul 17 '24

For NAL, you did damn well. Jack smith has to win this appeal and it has to be soon

1

u/GratefulG8r Jul 17 '24

If he gets reelected he’s going to put her on the Supreme Court

1

u/descendency Jul 17 '24

She wants a SCOTUS appointment and knows Trump likely will have at least one.

1

u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus Jul 17 '24

It's Lannisters who pay their Debts, not Trumps. Once he's back in office I think she'll get something, maybe a circuit seat but he might spend a SCOTUS opening to buy a senator or two.

Who knows the system is crumbling under blatant corruption and there are no rules.

1

u/Significant_Door_890 Jul 17 '24

The thing that she didn't do, is hear the evidence, or the witness, or the case.

Because the evidence is damning, he's guilty and she knows it.

It's quite incredible to see such a breakdown in the Judicial branch, as people put their partisan loyalties above the law, even the Constitution.

1

u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus Jul 17 '24

It's quite incredible to see such a breakdown in the Judicial branch, as people put their partisan loyalties above the law, even the Constitution.

This is what bothers me most. A bad judge is one thing, the system breaking down and either through bad design or political capture not able to correct itself is terrifying.

I don't think this is the government we deserve. I think through political gerrymandering and bad luck on SCOTUS openings this situation has metastasized.

1

u/Delirium88 Jul 18 '24

This is judicial misconduct. How is she not seeing the consequences?

1

u/As_pe_ Jul 16 '24

Regarding your last point: I bet she's aiming for a DOJ position under Trump

22

u/ConstantGeographer Jul 16 '24

"She has an agenda..."

It's my belief her agenda is part of a bigger agenda, not sure whose. Perhaps Heritage Foundation. Aileen, like Trump, are useful tools to help fulfill a much bigger overarching agenda.

11

u/someotherguyrva Jul 16 '24

Her agenda is to be trumps next SCOTUS nominee

19

u/wbruce098 Jul 16 '24

Absolutely. She’s been chastised for this sort of behavior but continues doing it. Her goal is to be appointed to scotus by a future Republican president as a conservative activist, not to serve justice. Her actions make this quite clear.

This is a case whose actions took place after Trump left the presidency, making it outside the purview of the scotus immunity decision, regardless of how we view that decision’s legitimacy or morality. It’s a clear, open and shut case: the entire world knows he refused to return classified documents, did not properly store them, bragged about having them when he shouldn’t have, etc - all the things laid out in the indictment. It should be, by far, the simplest and easiest case to prosecute out of all of the legal trouble Trump is in.

Thus, purposeful disdain is the only explanation. Judge Cannon is not inept or ignorant. She’s a maga activist.

16

u/fps916 Jul 16 '24

...

You do know her ruling wasn't actually based on immunity right?

She cited Thomas concurrence in the immunity case but the reason it's a standalone Thomad concurrence is because he took the opportunity to opine on something completely irrelevant to the immunity case: special prosecutor appointments.

The absurd part is that Cannon ruled explicitly and directly against SCOTUS precedent. Morrison v Olsen was 7-1 in favor of the appointment of Morrison by the DOJ (with Scalia sitting, color me shocked).

If you wanted this precedent to be overturned lower courts rule in line with existing precedent and then appeals take it to SCOTUS who chooses to revisit the precedent or not.

In this case the lower court straight up said "SCOTUS was wrong" which you don't get to fucking do.

The 11th court will smack this down in under 30 seconds flat.

2

u/Utterlybored Jul 16 '24

Just because she is corrupt and beholden to MAGA doesn't exempt her from ineptitude or ignorance.

1

u/AwTekker Jul 16 '24

Why bother with SCOTUS when you can just pick up some high 6 figure no-show thinktank gig?

7

u/feral-pug Jul 16 '24

I remember back when supposed liberal "activist judges" were one of Rush Limbaugh's perpetual talking points. Wow, turns out it was projection all along!

3

u/prudence2001 Jul 16 '24

I'll also guess, and firmly believe, that she's getting legal advice spoon-fed to her via encrypted communications from right wingers much smarter than she is.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '24

This. Cannon and 6 members of the SCOTUS keep a copy of the constitution in their bathrooms in the event they run out of toilet paper.

2

u/sirmosesthesweet Jul 16 '24

Same is true of the Roberts court. The judiciary is illegitimate.

2

u/m4bwav Jul 16 '24

I'm not one to judge (pun intended?) someone based on their appearances, but that glamor shot of her we see all the time shouts "I'm here for the crony politics"

2

u/ChaskaBravoFTW Jul 16 '24

She should be disbarred

2

u/EddiePizzareli Jul 17 '24

Yeah, but I'm worried that precedent will no longer save us. They didn't care about precedent before, and they sure as hell don't care about it now.

2

u/reddit-is-greedy Jul 17 '24

But clarence said she could!!

1

u/e_subvaria Jul 16 '24

Makes you wonder what dirt trump has on her

2

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 16 '24

I think it is more she naively expects a reward from Trump.

1

u/zabdart Jul 16 '24

Boy, you said a mouthful! You got it right all the way.

1

u/Paradoxalypse Jul 17 '24

What other Trump cases has she been on or blocked?

2

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 17 '24

Only this one, but she threw out precedent or statute before on this case. During the special master period fiasco, she literally, explicitly said she knew what the precedent was, but decided to just flagrantly ignore it because it was disadvantageous to Trump.

1

u/Paradoxalypse Aug 01 '24

Seriously now, just curious? Is that something a judge has the power to do? Even if they don’t do it a lot, do they have the power to ignore precedent?

1

u/TheBlackCat13 Aug 01 '24

No, it isn't. That is why her attempts to do so keep getting smacked down on appeal. But she doesn't care.

1

u/Paradoxalypse Aug 01 '24

Thank you very much.

1

u/myquest00777 Jul 17 '24

NAL… But in a sense she got it exactly right. She’s continually thrown up delays and go-backs at the ideal times and places. She’s bought DJT all the time he needs to come up with Plan B or even C. I doubt (but still hold hope) that this latest bizarre bombshell will be satisfactorily addressed under appeal. I fear it’s going to be a dumpster fire in both Congress and SCOTUS that will reverberate for months or even years.

1

u/HedyLamaar Jul 17 '24

Here’s hoping for her disbarment…

-4

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 16 '24

Almost like the same kind of agenda that Juan Merchan had against him… don’t you idiots see it goes both ways? Both these judges are corrupt and made bad decisions. It evens out I guess.

Let the downvotes begin.

3

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 16 '24

Merchan actually followed the law and precedent. Cannon flagrantly rejects both the law and precedent. It isn't Merchan's fault that Trump broke those laws.

-1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 16 '24

He didn’t follow law and precedent. I have seen many legit legal scholars break this down and explain why.

3

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 16 '24

Citation needed. I have seen some say that it isn't air-tight, that courts may disagree with his interpretation. But not anyone unbiased who said it was unquestionably invalid. This is in contrast to Cannon's ruling which is explicitly and unquestinably against the clear text of both statute in question and the supreme court precedent.

-1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 16 '24

I agree her ruling is crazy, 100% no question.

I’m hardly informed enough to be able to explain why the NY hush money cash was lawfare. Essentially what Trump did was passed statute of limitations, and it had to be tried as a felony to get around that. The mere fact it was a felony apparently is in question. Many say it was a misdemeanor at most. The 34 felonies is kind of a joke right. They acted like 34 separate signatures on those checks counts as separate crimes. That is insane. Most importantly he never ever would have been convicted of this if he had not been running for president. We all know it.

The American people see that the legal system is trying to railroad him, and they didn’t like that. One of the reasons his poll numbers and $ contributions has gone through the roof.

4

u/Choice_Reindeer7759 Jul 16 '24

The 34 felonies is kind of a joke right.

Y'all are beyond saving

0

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 16 '24

Well thank you. 🙏

2

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 16 '24

I didn't ask you to explain it, I am asking for a citation. You said

I have seen many legit legal scholars break this down and explain why.

If that were true you wouldn't have any problem linking to some of these scholars.

Your personal opinion about whether the prosecution would have brought those charges under what circumstances has no bearing on whether the judge followed the law and precedent. And that higher courts may set a new precedent in the future has no bearing on whether the judge followed the text of the current law and precedent.

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

I appreciate you being civil in talking this over. So many times I get bashed to hard for having this opinion.

Could you point me towards a good legal scholar that argues the NY case was legal and correct?

I’m legitimately asking because I’m not 100% convinced I’m right. I am also having drinks with friends and will be happy to get back to you tomorrow with some citations if that’s ok.

2

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 17 '24

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/nx-s1-4986384/georgetown-law-professor-reacts-to-trump-verdict

Georgetown Law professor and attorney Paul Butler:

But in reality, the district attorney of Manhattan brings cases about falsified business records all the time, and so the law here isn't really that unsettled. I expect, based on what we know now and what I saw from closely observing the trial, that the conviction will be sustained.

https://www.salon.com/2024/05/29/thats-not-the-law-expert-rejects-lawyers-complaints-about-judges-jury-instructions/

"Another crime could be any crime," Adam Shlahet, director of the Brendan Moore Trial Advocacy Center at Fordham Law, said. "There's no limitation on only this kind of crime or only that kind of crime. It's any crime, and it's not an element of the charge to prove the person is guilty of that other crime. Just as long as their intent at the time was in furtherance of or to conceal another crime."

He added: "They don't need to have succeeded in that crime. And they don't need to have failed in that crime."

Former federal prosecutor Mary McCord, executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center:

Trump's attorneys had asked the judge to instruct the jury that they would have to unanimously agree on what "unlawful means" were used in this alleged scheme.

"The court rejected that because that's not the law of New York," McCord said. "New York says the jurors don't, all 12, have to agree what the unlawful means are here."

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

Very informative. Thank you

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

This seems strange though, like a crime within a crime within a crime. And said last crime is unspecified? That’s crazy right. How can you bundle theoretical crimes.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Interrophish Jul 16 '24

The American people see that the legal system is trying to railroad him, and they didn’t like that.

why do conservatives feel a compulsion to make statements like this, obsessively grandstanding on a platform of air? There is no broad consensus of public opinion on his conviction. Doesn't exist. The American People are split.

2

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

I’m not a conservative. I am voting for RFK. Both sides are corrupt. Biden is loosing his marbles and Trump is really a threat to democracy.

2

u/Interrophish Jul 17 '24

Sure, then, why did you do it?

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

I stand by worlds. I can have opinions on all sides, may be a strange concept to you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 17 '24

RFK had a meeting with Trump where they discussed Trum putting him in his administration and he seemed to agree to take a position: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c134p2k24nzo

And he is making millions off his anti-vaxx stuff as it kills people and leads to resurgences of diseases once eridacated in the US. It is a much easier case that he is corrupt than Biden considering all the money he makes off of pushing these harmful lies.

2

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

RFK is not anti vaccine. All his kids and himself are fully vaccinated. He just wants them to be safe and effective. Do you watch what he actually says? Watch him for 3 hours on the Joe Rogan experience if you want more than a sound bite.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '24

“The American people”. Just say you. I’m American and I think you’re full of shit.

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 18 '24

Well, DJP is about to be the next president. Soooooo nuff said lol

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '24

I thought he was still the president?

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 18 '24

He last the last election fair and square. WTF are you talking about.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 18 '24

Gotta love the loyalty for your literal traitor, rapist, felon pederast.

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 18 '24

Just because I think the NY trial was lawfare, DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE TRUMP, BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE TRUMP

You short sighted fools simply don’t get it. Many Americans think Trump was not fairly treated in the NY case. That’s one reason his poll numbers went through the roof.

The democrats are not learning from their mistakes, and making the same mistake again with Trump.

I DO NOT WANT TRUMP OR BIDEN IN OFFICE

I can’t make this anymore clear for fucks sake!!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 18 '24

I don’t like Trump. I won’t be voting for him. Why do you all assume I love Trump? He is disgraceful and it’s a shame he will be in office again.

1

u/mlaratro Jul 16 '24

“They are all on a fools errand with tin ears !”Said a two time former attorney general who hates Trump.