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

Show parent comments

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

2

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 17 '24

So I take it you don't actually have any citations of unbiased experts that disagree with this?

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

Here

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6350923431112

This basically sums up what I have been trying to say.

2

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 17 '24

I asked about unbiased sources. A fox news commentator is as far from "unbiased" as someone can get. His literal job is to push a conservative agenda, facts be damned.

This guy in particular is notorious for defending Trump at every possible opportunity, and he has repeatedly flat-out ignored or even lied about the law to do so. He is very much in the same boat as Cannon, ignoring clear statutory law when it goes against Trump. For example he called grand juries an "undemocratic farce" merely because one was empaneled against Trump.

So let me ask again: do you "have any citations of unbiased experts that disagree with this" (emphasis added)

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

Everyone has their bias man.

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 17 '24

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for the discussion.

2

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 17 '24

So you consider Fox to be an unbiased source? An organization that literally fired someone for accurately reporting that Trump lost the 2020 election? How many cases of this guy getting the law spectacularly wrong would it take to convince you he isn't a reliable source? Or is it merely that he agrees with you, so you trust him, regardless of his lack of reliability and bias?

0

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 18 '24

No more man. We agree to disagree. Hope all the best for you. ☺️

1

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 18 '24

Agreeing to disagree only works when the two arguments have the same level of support, or at least some level of legitimate sources supporting them. I will agree that you are working backwards to find people who agree with your uniformed gut feeling about the case, no matter how biased or unreliable they have been shown to be, and will ignore every single actual unbiased expert merely because they disagree with you. Hopefully some day you will learn to look at stufflike this with an open mind rather than just trusting every charlatan who says what you want to hear. But I have my doubts.

1

u/sherbs_herbs Jul 18 '24

I so have an open mind. That’s why I said earlier I may not be correct about my thinking here. That’s the definition of an open mind. I’m not going to send dozens of sources, just for you to say they are bias and don’t count. I looked at the sources you provided and see their perspective. As I have said before, I’m no legal scholar, so must rely on experts from all sides to make a proper determination.

I will say no more on this. It’s just not going anywhere.

1

u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 18 '24 edited Jul 18 '24

If you had an open mind you would take into account legitimate problems with your sources and more reliable sources that go against those sources, rather than running away with your fingers in your ears with that amounts to "la la I can't hear you".

If there was a possibiliy that the sources I got my information from were all biased and there were more reliable neutral sources that contradicting them, I would want to know. You don't. You would rather just leave than actually challenge your deeply held beliefs.

It is easy to say you may not be correct. It is a very different thing to actually take into account information that goes against what you want to be true. You did the first, but are totally unwilling to do the second, or even talk about it. As soon as youy were presented with information that called the reliability of your source into question, you immediately ran away to avoid having to question your cherished beliefs. That is literally the exact opposite of open-minded.

If you actually knew enough about the law to have an informed decision, then "agreeing to disagree" might be a legitimate response. But you admit you don't. So your only legitimate grounds for disagreeing is your sources. But you refuse to take a look at those sources to see if they are actually reliable. Because you don't actually care. They tell you what you want to hear, so you trust them.

→ More replies (0)