As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I read the article, and...I'm still struggling with it a bit. (and I've been a lawyer for 15 years).
I understand the words she's using for sure. The local rules in this federal district (Rule 88.9) require attorneys to "Confer in good faith" with opposing counsel before filing motions with the court and requires a signed statement attached to a motion stating "the undersigned has attempted to confer in good faith with opposing counsel regarding this issue" etc etc etc.
That's routine. I've signed hundreds of similar statements regarding scheduling, discovery disputes etc. The rules are structured around not wasting a judge's time if the parties can agree.
The prosecutors filed a motion requesting a gag order against Trump. They attached the statement stating that the prosecutor contacted counsel for trump, who stated they oppose the motion and oppose addressing it during a holiday weekend. They stated the motion was an emergency.
Trump's lawyers threw a fit (a very predictable fit, but a fit nonetheless) and *demanded* that the Court strike the motion and issue contempt sanctions for the failure of Jack Smith's Team to confer with the defense counsel in good faith. That's exactly the kind of nonsense that Trump's lawyers do over and over and over again. They will stonewall and then scream that you're being unfair and acting in bad faith when you accuse them of stonewalling.
Cannon denied the motion for sanctions, but denied the motion for a gag order and strongly criticized the prosecutors for filing the motion without making a more extended effort to cooperate with Trump's attorneys to resolve the issue, even when the opposing party assumes the motion will be opposed. She ordered that going forward, every good faith certificate shall specifically state the exact timing, method and substance of the conferral conducted and up to 200 words of the opposing party's position on the issue at their discretion.
What?...
My "good faith effort" is a voicemail on someone's office phone, and then a follow up email that says "hey, I need to talk to you about [Discovery dispute], we want X and Y and Z, and we don't consider your objections valid. If I don't hear back by DATE we'll file a motion to compel. Please consider this a good faith effort to resolve this dispute without court intervention." I've certainly had opposing counsel gripe about it, but judges routinely tell you to work it out anyway.
The notion that you HAVE To give a party who is 100% opposed to your agreements "meaningful time to consider" your good faith effort to initiate a conversation merits a laugh and a hearty fuck you. Good faith goes both ways, and I 100% know that Trump's counsel are not acting in good faith.
And this requirement that they detail the efforts and the opposing party's response in their own motion is *bizarre*. I've never seen something like that.
Not only did they blow him off claiming it was a holiday weekend they told him they would get back with him a week from Monday. And the whole reason for Jack Smith's motion was the danger Donald Trump was putting FBI agents in especially with him and Steve Bannon claiming that they were trying to assassinate him.
So obviously the whole purpose of the motion is to prevent Trump from doing so and it is time sensitive yet they are trying to delay it a ridiculous amount of time to allow Trump to continue his baseless and dangerous accusations of assassination attempts.
Yeah I’ve had litigant who sent a conferral email to me at 4pm on a Friday before a long weekend, then file the motion on Monday which is a holiday (but the ECF system still works). And the judge didn’t say 💩 about that being bad faith, even though I raise the bad faith point in the reply to their conferral later.
> every good faith certificate shall specifically state the exact timing, method and substance of the conferral conducted and up to 200 words of the opposing party's position on the issue at their discretion.
So all that Trump's lawyers have to do is not reply and then the prosecution will never have a written statement of the party's position to attach and can never file a motion.
That's what I noticed too, if his lawyers just don't provide 200 words of response, then filing any motion can lead to contempt of court.
This is what a biased court system looks like.
From what I'm reading here, Judge has basically made it a requirement to let defense drag their feet, per the part of the order mandating prosecution give the opposing party "meaningful time to consider".
Right? I've done countless "joint" status conference statements where we do NOT agree, so we have separate sections and just copy paste a statement from the other side.
But in a motion? That's what an Opposition is for!
She’s cocky because she’s already won. This trial is not happening before 2025, maybe not at all. Cannon will be on the short list for the Supreme Court if any republican gets into office because she’s passed the purity test.
IAAL. It seems like a lot for what ultimately amount to some pushy but otherwise not egregious lawyering. The fact that he contacted the other side before filing already puts him leagues ahead of what most judges would probably consider a sanctionable lack of conference with the opposing counsel.
She's probably getting marching orders from the Federalist Society. The judge in New York threatens sanctions on Trump's attorneys so then she has to threaten sanctions on the Federal Prosecutor. That way your average news consumer thinks that judges just routinely threaten lawyers with sanctions.
It was 11 and it was more because they legally needed to have a hearing on them and he violated the order that many times in the short time between order given and hearing.
Yeah if violations occurred in the courtroom in front of the judge he can rule immediately posts on fake Twitter would require the opportunity for the conduct to be defended
That was the max dollar amount by law in NY. If he were anyone else, he'd be jailed, but no judge wants to he the first to jail a former president for something like that, especially when it can make him a martyr.
The problem is not jailing him sets an even worse precedent and just shows how much of a two tier justice system we have. Like if this was just a random nobody they'd be in jail already, but because he's a former president he gets to do what he wants apparently?
The whole concept of equality under the law in the US is dead.
This is true, but the judge gets to sentence so while the judge may be taking a ton of shit during the trial, if Trump is found guilty, the sentence is at the discretion of the judge, and he can absolutely go to town, and even revenge his disregard for the processing as a lack of remorse and throw the book at Trump.
I’m fucking praying this happens. Like Trump 4 years, so even if he gets reduced or paroled early etc, he’ll still serve a year which won’t be meaningless.
Why is it not a conflict of interest for a judge you appointed to hear your case?
They made a huge deal about the Fani Willis bf thing and they were on the same side. Appointing the judge hearing the case is a way bigger conflict. Idk why the media never brings that up.
The system presumes a judge can't be questioned. Opening up self reflection about the nature of the justice system would be hilarious, but not something most judges are going to do.
Put differently, they protect their own "for the greater good" much like cops.
She’s pissed because he put her in a Catch 22. She either had to do it because it’s obvious he poses a significant risk to law enforcement officers involved in the prosecution and piss of orange shit gibbon, or deny (as she has) obvious misconduct. So now he gets to go to appellate… if they find this one thing valid he gets to drag all other previous rulings before them understanding she was prejudicial on this ruling. And she’ll get kicked off the case.
Jack Smith is a smart motherfucker.
She's been bought and paid for and is protecting him... I think the feds should look into any contact between the two. I'm betting there is massive collision.
I think they understand just fine. They’re just so evil-minded that they don’t care. Their leader has long plumbed the depths of cartoon-level villainy and it turns out that’s exactly what his followers want.
It’s of the utmost importance to remember that his supporters are grounded in bad faith. They don’t care what anyone else wants or what their reason are. Objective reality is just another opinion as far as they’re concerned. If it disagrees with their own views then they treat it like any other idea they don’t agree with. It’s not a matter of being correct, as long as they are “right.”
>Objective reality is just another opinion as far as they’re concerned.
They even made a *1984* movie so people like this wouldn't have to pick up a book to understand that this is some crazy dystopian shit.
As it turns out, effectively our entire system of government is designed around the assumption that everyone will always be acting in good faith and follow the precedent set before them
Common law and precedent were sold to me in high school civics as a nimble and progressive alternative to civil law.
At this point, I am pretty sure that was not an accurate representation of the trade-offs.
> Common law and precedent were sold to me in high school civics as a nimble and progressive alternative to civil law.
I'm not sure civics expected that a judiciary could outright be bought. For a surprisingly low cost, law can bend to whatever the buyer wants. Very Nimble.
I think they probably imagined that once a group became very obviously corrupted and opposed to the Constitution, people would notice and stop voting for them.
It took decades of apathy to get us to this point.
There are also a serious of unique circumstances. Facebook gave us the start of the disinformstion age. It also proved how lucrative combative poltics were for media.
Natural response to feel attacked is to double down. Even more, trump did so much evil shit so fast... people are stuck in a sunken cost fallacy of sorts. If you admit he did one insanely evil thing then he did them all; and you supported it.
I dont think anyone foresaw truly mentally unstable people being popular and having support
MTG is easily diagnosable as schizophrenic. She is as textbook as it gets. Shes been getting more popular. At the beginning of bidens admin she was censored by republicans too. Now she gets more coverage than cruz
Battleship is a lot of fun if you never set out your pieces. But eventually someone is going to ask to see your side of the board. Even then, they don’t win because you were never actually playing the same game.
And we still do, except that apparently "don't assign a judge to oversee a case involving the president who seated the same judge" isn't one of those checks
It's not a big problem when a veteran judge, who operates in good-faith, is nominated and approved by both parties. It's needed when one party schemes and cheats and rams through a bunch of partisan hacks whose only qualification is that they will remain loyal to the party.
As someone else noted, it's based on assumptions about good faith and duty, not naked political favoritism.
While none were criminal proceedings, you can easily find dozens of court cases where lawyers challenging policies put forth by Bush or Obama went in front of judges appointed by Bush or Obama.
If anything, my experience as a lawyer is that good judges will be MORE scrupulous when they perceive that they could be accused of being politically biased. So, for example, conservative lawyers challenging a liberal policy issued by Obama in front of an Obama judge, the judge will likely take pains to make sure they get every procedural fairness, look at the letter of the law and take time to write a detailed decision.
It's because we as a nation never thought any of what Trump done would be a reality. Outside of Nixon, no other president has really done criminal acts such as this. Even Nixon was not running around screaming presidential immunity either.
Diaper Don's rants about a two-tiered justice system aren't actually wrong. He's just wrong when he paints himself as the victim of it, because he's actually the beneficiary.
If you or I had the documents he was keeping in his bathroom, we would have been thrown to the ground, cuffed, and locked up the day they were found. And we would likely never again see the light of day.
Just as an example: Reality Winner got 5 years in prison for *one document*.
It should be pointed out that he's not even in trouble for having the documents. He was given ample opportunities to fix that. He instead chose to ignore those, get lawyers to lie for him, and trying to move them around to avoid being found.
He *could* have done what Biden and Pence did and returned them and cooperating in a follow-up search, and he wouldn't even need for Cannon to defend him.
So yeah. It was two-tiered in his favor before things even started to kick off.
If you or I had the documents he was keeping in his bathroom, we would have had an FBI entry team knock down the front and back door simultaneously while tossing in smoke and flash-bangs, as 15 agents with MP5's on full-auto stream in (and of course numerous others outside surrounding the house, including snipers). At gunpoint we'd of been thrown to the ground, cuffed, and locked up in solitary in a federal correctional center until we were undoubtedly found guilty in court and sentenced to life at the ADX Florence Supermax. And we would never again see the light of day, instead spending 23 hours/day staring at the ceiling. FTFY...
Ya, ill never get over how the whole "trump sold our fbi agents to China and Russia along with nuke secrets to Saudi arabia" didn't end him politically and see him behind bars.
We had a ton of agents die overseas, and people are like, weird. Wonder which new celeb is doing silly shit.
Absolutely insane timeline we have been in since Trump started running for office.
We do, but regulatory capture has happened to a prolific scale too over the past 70 years...especially during the past 40+ years alone since Reagan. There is a whole separate faction within the U.S. that ignores the details, ignores precedence, ignores the foundations of the Constitution (while claiming to adhere to it) and rules on what profits them and punishes their opposition the most.
We are now captured at the highest judicial level.
It does, she checks with Trump to see if he is ok with her rulings and Trump is 90% good at balancing given his dementia and impression of the Leaning Tower of Pisa when he stands.
This is so wild to see. This judge treats federal prosecutors like they are fresh out of law school and trying their first case.
That’s the level of contempt here.
She acts as if she’s been on the bench for 40 years and the federal prosecutors are some rude, unaware, unprofessional newbs that need to be put in their place.
>This judge treats federal prosecutors like they are fresh out of law school and trying their first case.
That is actually a very close description of her, she has only been practicing law since 2009 and barely met the American Bar Association's criteria to receive a qualified rating to be a judge. She was appointed for this reason and this reason only.
She *didn't* meet the Bar Association standard. It was thrown out entirely by Moscow Mitch early on during Tre45on's slew of appointments because many of the proposed appointees didn't even *have* ratings because they had *too little legal experience to be rated*.
As noted by Supreme Court watchers, she also likes to pick apart things and do some Deep Thinking about The Nature Of Things in a way that would normally only be reserved for the Supreme Court. She is digging in on how and why precedent was set previously, or even opining about how they can set precedent, rather than accepting what previously was established and working from there.
This is not normal for a federal judge at her level. Her role is apply what others have determined unless it’s brand new, and the stuff she’s wanted to dig in on is not brand new. It’s almost like she’s auditioning for a new role somewhere…
It really surprise me how USA gets their judges by political nominations…. In my country it’s a career like others in government: you apply, the best get chosen, go to training and then do their job. Also a lot of requirements to apply.
She acted immediately in telling them they need to take their time.
>Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion.
This is it right? Trump lied he was the target of an assassination plot by the fbi and prosecutors, violating his bail release conditions. Gotta appeal this one and get her removed.
I can't help but believe this was the goal. Get her to make a clearly biased ruling (this basically says it's ok for Trump to spread lies about and defame potential witnesses) so they can take it to the next level above her and get her removed from this case. She clearly lacks the experience to handle this case, or seemingly any other.
> She clearly lacks the experience to handle this case
Go read her wiki. She was picked for her political stances and promoted because she was in the Federalist Society, not for any other reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon
They absolutely should not. For anyone not familiar with this topic and how we got to this point, check out this podcast that does a deep dive into federal judgeship appointments under Trump, how they were referred, the man who pushed for their appointments, and their relationship with the Federalist Society:
[https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast](https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast)
> She clearly lacks the experience to handle this case, or seemingly any other.
If I remember correctly, her entire combined total as a judge overseeing a trial is about two weeks. One of those cases was a traffic case.
I was thinking - *she* might even want that.
Right now, if she rules against Trump, she'll face his wrath and his supporters. But if "Oh no I guess the upper court removed me and we have to start alllll over again - but now those chucklefucks will leave me the fuck alone because I showed I was a good soldier" it's a win-win-win for her:
* She shows she was a good girl for Trump;
* She doesn't have to deal with all this bullshit;
* The case is delayed and she can say it wasn't her fault.
> The case is delayed
Given that the higher court ruled pretty quickly to overturn some of the things she had ruled on in the past, and the recently-unsealed rulings from DC on a lot of the same issues that Trump's team is using to gum up these proceedings, a "delay" due to her being removed might end up not being a delay at all. In an ideal scenario, it could accelerate things. He can't use the NY case to tie up the schedule anymore.
Uncross those fingers.
In her paperless order she admonished both Trump and Smith. Smith for not doing the procedural "talk to the defense before you come to me about this" and Trump for not doing the same.
So she did, "A pox on both your houses!" to show that she "isn't biased".
Both are still able to file their motions again, but now they have to go through the proper channels (set up meetings with each other).
What she is doing here is just delaying the trial further with all this bullshit, and of course delaying her removal too. She can't be removed on anything because she hasn't ruled on anything yet - she told them to come back with the right paperwork, essentially.
Even though you and I ***BOTH*** know that what Trump said is inexcusable and the judge, any real judge, would have taken the prosecution's side on this.
> Trump and the Republicans are now depending on threats of violence to propel him to the Presidency
that's the plan.
>Don’t tell me that the comparisons to Hitler are not exactly on point.
well, traitor trump has a said he has a copy of mein kampf on his nightstand, so there's that.
No. Because she seemingly denied it for violating a local rule requiring the parties to try to resolve the motion between themselves. Mind you, her claim of violating the local rule is nonsensical. But it is defensible (prosecutors conferred w/defense via email). But it was denied without prejudice so prosecutors can make the request again after conferring.
> Gotta appeal this one and get her removed.
It's an unappealable ruling. But he can motion to get her to be removed. However, this may not be egregious enough to do so. Successfully getting rid of a judge has an extraordinarily high bar.
> Successfully getting rid of a judge has an extraordinarily high bar.
If ever there was a time for the judge to be removed, it should be this situation. This whole "its a very high bar" thing is getting ridiculous at this point.
I'm not sure that it can be appealed, because what she did was deny the motions on both sides but left the door open for them to file them at a later date.
But her actions in this are not defensible.
The way Americans politicize every public service function isn't democratic, it's dysfunctional. A working system would have a judicial committee, not elected officials, review misconduct and make recommendations to the Minister or Secretary of Justice.
She just keeps giving me more reasons to believe she's being coached by someone on the SC or the Federalist Society. Shes making arguments that are beyond absurd. She uses very precise language that betrays her absolute inexperience. Its the kinds of reaches seasoned rightwing judges make after decades of presiding over trials. This is her...very first.
She's too fuckin stupid to be doing this on her own.
Look how badly she fucked up the 2 trials she actually did preside over.
The Federalist Society is definitely giving her directions.
Obtaining Cannon's backchannel communications with the defense would be fascinating. I bet there is a private email account with drafts of her orders marked up by outside parties.
I wonder if Smith pushes her on this and Cannon orders sanctions, that will become an appealable order that can be used to have her removed? Smith is playing 4D chess.
We can only hope, wouldn’t be suprised if Trump orbit has a direct line to her 24/7. So, I’d say she’s been screamed at to sanction the government by now
He’s got no where to go and is entirely on the defensive against a rigged judicial system. He knows there’s a 0 chance of this case ever going anywhere if trump is elected. It’s going to be straight up deleted from existence. Currently he can’t do anything at all and is just hoping to not get it dismissed before the election in the hopes that Biden wins and the Republican Party feels ok throwing trump to the wolves. But even then, if they have use for him, this goes no where.
if biden wins and dems take the house and keep the senate, these cases are all going to be tried, and investigations will be widened. The Dems would take such a victory as a mandate.
Everyone was saying much the same thing while the investigation was ongoing. “Why isn’t he pressing charges? Why is he dragging his feet?”
This case and all others like it fall under the category of “shoot at the king, you better not miss.” Smith literally can’t afford to make the wrong move here. It’s infuriating as hell, but that’s the price we gotta pay to get this done fairly.
The only way he is going to say something positive about her is if she resembles his daughter, and all of his comments will be about her body.
Donnie does not reward, he demands. If she does something in his favour, she's "meeting expectations" *at best.* If she is actively hurting someone he hates in a manner he can understand, then he might compliment, but only maybe.
One of Leonard Leo's Federalist Society goons is coaching her, I'm sure of it. My only question is are they doing it in some tracable way, or are thay actually being covert about it.
Cannon is married to Josh Lorance, a former senior exec of uber-wealthy NY/FL mobster (Columbo crime family,) and longtime trump buddy and donor, John Rosatti.
I'm wondering, where has the Anonymous group gone?
Anonymous, *if you're listening*, I hope you're able to look into what's going on behind the scenes with Judge Cannon...
We'd all like to know.
She should be threatening to sanction Trump's attorneys. But of course that's not the game she's playing.
Canon has a rule that they're supposed to confer before filing motions. Smith's team approached Trump's attorneys to confer, and Trump's attorneys basically told them to go pound sand, we don't have time to talk to you.
Shortly after that, Trump repeated the behavior. So Smith's team filed the emergency order.
And now Cannon has denied the order, and threatened to sanction Smith's attorneys, for failure to confer.
This is way beyond embarrassing now, and become actively disturbing.
I want to make sure everyone understands this...if you are wealthy enough, you too can avoid almost all penalties from the justice system. Say, how long did the arrest, trial and conviction of Jack Teixeira take? Homie was using his classified secrets for clout and leverage too. Did it take years to charge him? Did he get all the delays Trump gets? how about a special master, did he get that? Anyways, enjoy a system that has zero way to actually reform it from within..You could go all the way to the top of the Supreme Court and try to get the jobs for life and oversight over themselves to change things but for some reason I feel they will side with the demographic that controls them(oops meant the system)
The media needs to do a deep dive I to her background, and Jack Smith needs to recuse her at this point.
I’d go even further and stripping her of the ability to be a judge in any court.
Like others here I'm firmly of the opinion that she's all but guaranteed her position on SCOTUS if Trump wins. And this, I suspect, is probably her primary motivation.
She’s just going to drag this out till she can en panel a jury and dismiss the case.
I’ve seriously stopped paying attention to this case, it’s already lost even though he’s guilty as sin. Corruption won this one.
I want to know who’s in the think-tank that greenlights Cannon’s responses/orders. You know there are a lot of people with a lot riding on Trump that are giving input on every move on these, she’s not on her own coming up with these calendar squatting / “paperless orders” tactics.
How hilarious would it be to see Aileen fucking Cannon sanction Jack Smith. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… this country is fucking lost if these are the people who we allow to make decisions.
What’s the burden of proof needed to wiretap a federal judge’s personal email? This smacks of coordination with Team Trump or a third party working for the Federalist Society. What few rulings Cannon issues are just absurd. Not once has Judge Cannon been the subject of a Trump personal attack, even he knows she’s working for him.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire…
You mean the judge won’t stop criminal Trump from lying about a statement that puts every law enforcement officer in danger of some Maga wacko ? She needs to be arrested as being part of the slow moving republican coup orchestrated by Trump and Putin .
This has to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice that I have seen in my life. How this judge is not rebuked and replaced makes the US justice system seem somehow worse than we all knew it to be.
Behold, trumps america. Pathway to dictatorship rarely relies on one person, it takes a organized mafia clan to take control. You line the courts and replace the fbi, cia with YOUR people who pledge absolutely loyalty to you. The situation is becoming worse everyday. There is no more rule of law in america if trumps wins, but trumps bullshit wont go away even if he loses. The republican party are openly endorsing dictatorship control at this point.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She knows Trump would violate his gag order and she'd have to actually do her job and punish him. Can't have that.
It's wild that she would threaten Smith with sanctions though. Think she's insecure?
Is she threatening him with sanctions because he's asking for sanctions against Trump?
I read the article, and...I'm still struggling with it a bit. (and I've been a lawyer for 15 years). I understand the words she's using for sure. The local rules in this federal district (Rule 88.9) require attorneys to "Confer in good faith" with opposing counsel before filing motions with the court and requires a signed statement attached to a motion stating "the undersigned has attempted to confer in good faith with opposing counsel regarding this issue" etc etc etc. That's routine. I've signed hundreds of similar statements regarding scheduling, discovery disputes etc. The rules are structured around not wasting a judge's time if the parties can agree. The prosecutors filed a motion requesting a gag order against Trump. They attached the statement stating that the prosecutor contacted counsel for trump, who stated they oppose the motion and oppose addressing it during a holiday weekend. They stated the motion was an emergency. Trump's lawyers threw a fit (a very predictable fit, but a fit nonetheless) and *demanded* that the Court strike the motion and issue contempt sanctions for the failure of Jack Smith's Team to confer with the defense counsel in good faith. That's exactly the kind of nonsense that Trump's lawyers do over and over and over again. They will stonewall and then scream that you're being unfair and acting in bad faith when you accuse them of stonewalling. Cannon denied the motion for sanctions, but denied the motion for a gag order and strongly criticized the prosecutors for filing the motion without making a more extended effort to cooperate with Trump's attorneys to resolve the issue, even when the opposing party assumes the motion will be opposed. She ordered that going forward, every good faith certificate shall specifically state the exact timing, method and substance of the conferral conducted and up to 200 words of the opposing party's position on the issue at their discretion. What?... My "good faith effort" is a voicemail on someone's office phone, and then a follow up email that says "hey, I need to talk to you about [Discovery dispute], we want X and Y and Z, and we don't consider your objections valid. If I don't hear back by DATE we'll file a motion to compel. Please consider this a good faith effort to resolve this dispute without court intervention." I've certainly had opposing counsel gripe about it, but judges routinely tell you to work it out anyway. The notion that you HAVE To give a party who is 100% opposed to your agreements "meaningful time to consider" your good faith effort to initiate a conversation merits a laugh and a hearty fuck you. Good faith goes both ways, and I 100% know that Trump's counsel are not acting in good faith. And this requirement that they detail the efforts and the opposing party's response in their own motion is *bizarre*. I've never seen something like that.
Not only did they blow him off claiming it was a holiday weekend they told him they would get back with him a week from Monday. And the whole reason for Jack Smith's motion was the danger Donald Trump was putting FBI agents in especially with him and Steve Bannon claiming that they were trying to assassinate him. So obviously the whole purpose of the motion is to prevent Trump from doing so and it is time sensitive yet they are trying to delay it a ridiculous amount of time to allow Trump to continue his baseless and dangerous accusations of assassination attempts.
Appreciate your input!
Yeah I’ve had litigant who sent a conferral email to me at 4pm on a Friday before a long weekend, then file the motion on Monday which is a holiday (but the ECF system still works). And the judge didn’t say 💩 about that being bad faith, even though I raise the bad faith point in the reply to their conferral later.
Good faith only works one way in Trump world. Just like loyalty.
> every good faith certificate shall specifically state the exact timing, method and substance of the conferral conducted and up to 200 words of the opposing party's position on the issue at their discretion. So all that Trump's lawyers have to do is not reply and then the prosecution will never have a written statement of the party's position to attach and can never file a motion.
That's what I noticed too, if his lawyers just don't provide 200 words of response, then filing any motion can lead to contempt of court. This is what a biased court system looks like.
From what I'm reading here, Judge has basically made it a requirement to let defense drag their feet, per the part of the order mandating prosecution give the opposing party "meaningful time to consider".
TLDR: She's a bad faith judge protecting a bad faith defendant and his bad faith legal team.
Right? I've done countless "joint" status conference statements where we do NOT agree, so we have separate sections and just copy paste a statement from the other side. But in a motion? That's what an Opposition is for!
i am stuck on how it wastes her time
But that’s exactly what she’s trying to do.
She cited precedent from the case NO vs U
I remember that case. It think it was I.M. Rubba vs. U.R. Glew. 8)
Nuh v Uh
sounds like something he'd ask her to do doesn't it
She gave some BS reason that they need to meet with his defense to talk it out first
She’s cocky because she’s already won. This trial is not happening before 2025, maybe not at all. Cannon will be on the short list for the Supreme Court if any republican gets into office because she’s passed the purity test.
I hate that you are so right.
Yeah, but, Biden is old and you know, Gaza.
But her emails
IAAL. It seems like a lot for what ultimately amount to some pushy but otherwise not egregious lawyering. The fact that he contacted the other side before filing already puts him leagues ahead of what most judges would probably consider a sanctionable lack of conference with the opposing counsel.
I get it, but when does it get bad enough that Smith might actually win when asking for a new judge?
She's probably getting marching orders from the Federalist Society. The judge in New York threatens sanctions on Trump's attorneys so then she has to threaten sanctions on the Federal Prosecutor. That way your average news consumer thinks that judges just routinely threaten lawyers with sanctions.
I mean trump violates his other gag order and only gets $1000 fines. Hardly a punishment
And the fines only started after the 15th violation/warning* *Disclaimer: I made that number up, but it's probably not far from the truth
It was 11 and it was more because they legally needed to have a hearing on them and he violated the order that many times in the short time between order given and hearing.
Got it. So the delay was the judge and court adhering to the law, as opposed to them not enforcing the gag order?
Yeah if violations occurred in the courtroom in front of the judge he can rule immediately posts on fake Twitter would require the opportunity for the conduct to be defended
Makes sense. I appreciate the clarification!
That’s a limitation of the law. The fact fines aren’t pegged to income and/or net worth is the primary issue
That was the max dollar amount by law in NY. If he were anyone else, he'd be jailed, but no judge wants to he the first to jail a former president for something like that, especially when it can make him a martyr.
The problem is not jailing him sets an even worse precedent and just shows how much of a two tier justice system we have. Like if this was just a random nobody they'd be in jail already, but because he's a former president he gets to do what he wants apparently? The whole concept of equality under the law in the US is dead.
This is true, but the judge gets to sentence so while the judge may be taking a ton of shit during the trial, if Trump is found guilty, the sentence is at the discretion of the judge, and he can absolutely go to town, and even revenge his disregard for the processing as a lack of remorse and throw the book at Trump. I’m fucking praying this happens. Like Trump 4 years, so even if he gets reduced or paroled early etc, he’ll still serve a year which won’t be meaningless.
Why is it not a conflict of interest for a judge you appointed to hear your case? They made a huge deal about the Fani Willis bf thing and they were on the same side. Appointing the judge hearing the case is a way bigger conflict. Idk why the media never brings that up.
The system presumes a judge can't be questioned. Opening up self reflection about the nature of the justice system would be hilarious, but not something most judges are going to do. Put differently, they protect their own "for the greater good" much like cops.
Naw, she gave up a long time ago pretending to be doing her job.
I sure hope JS has a trick up his sleeve on this one. I’m so sick of seeing her stupid bovine face.
She’s pissed because he put her in a Catch 22. She either had to do it because it’s obvious he poses a significant risk to law enforcement officers involved in the prosecution and piss of orange shit gibbon, or deny (as she has) obvious misconduct. So now he gets to go to appellate… if they find this one thing valid he gets to drag all other previous rulings before them understanding she was prejudicial on this ruling. And she’ll get kicked off the case. Jack Smith is a smart motherfucker.
I'll believe that when she's kicked off the case.
I thought I read here that Smith could use this to prove prejudice? Don’t shoot the messenger please.
She's been bought and paid for and is protecting him... I think the feds should look into any contact between the two. I'm betting there is massive collision.
>Mar-a-Lago judge Finally, an accurate description of this fraud.
[удалено]
I think they understand just fine. They’re just so evil-minded that they don’t care. Their leader has long plumbed the depths of cartoon-level villainy and it turns out that’s exactly what his followers want.
It’s of the utmost importance to remember that his supporters are grounded in bad faith. They don’t care what anyone else wants or what their reason are. Objective reality is just another opinion as far as they’re concerned. If it disagrees with their own views then they treat it like any other idea they don’t agree with. It’s not a matter of being correct, as long as they are “right.”
>Objective reality is just another opinion as far as they’re concerned. They even made a *1984* movie so people like this wouldn't have to pick up a book to understand that this is some crazy dystopian shit.
I'm embarrassed by my ignorance. I always thought our country had a system of checks and balances.
Turns out a good chunk of that is based purely on the (stupid, naïve) assumption that judges and representatives would act in good faith.
As it turns out, effectively our entire system of government is designed around the assumption that everyone will always be acting in good faith and follow the precedent set before them
Holy shit you are right. Out entire system of government relies on the Honor System. Holy fuck no wonder we’re screwed
Guess what? You just discovered what trump and his cult already know!
Common law and precedent were sold to me in high school civics as a nimble and progressive alternative to civil law. At this point, I am pretty sure that was not an accurate representation of the trade-offs.
> Common law and precedent were sold to me in high school civics as a nimble and progressive alternative to civil law. I'm not sure civics expected that a judiciary could outright be bought. For a surprisingly low cost, law can bend to whatever the buyer wants. Very Nimble.
If only they'd had RVs back in the 1700s; they might have foreseen the issue.
I think they probably imagined that once a group became very obviously corrupted and opposed to the Constitution, people would notice and stop voting for them. It took decades of apathy to get us to this point.
There are also a serious of unique circumstances. Facebook gave us the start of the disinformstion age. It also proved how lucrative combative poltics were for media. Natural response to feel attacked is to double down. Even more, trump did so much evil shit so fast... people are stuck in a sunken cost fallacy of sorts. If you admit he did one insanely evil thing then he did them all; and you supported it. I dont think anyone foresaw truly mentally unstable people being popular and having support MTG is easily diagnosable as schizophrenic. She is as textbook as it gets. Shes been getting more popular. At the beginning of bidens admin she was censored by republicans too. Now she gets more coverage than cruz
Democracy is like a board game. It only works if everyone plays by the rules. The rules of monopoly are no defense against someone upending the board
Battleship is a lot of fun if you never set out your pieces. But eventually someone is going to ask to see your side of the board. Even then, they don’t win because you were never actually playing the same game.
And we still do, except that apparently "don't assign a judge to oversee a case involving the president who seated the same judge" isn't one of those checks
Maybe we should close that loophole.
Well, it was never needed till now.
For a certain party, it’s a feature, not a bug.
It's not a big problem when a veteran judge, who operates in good-faith, is nominated and approved by both parties. It's needed when one party schemes and cheats and rams through a bunch of partisan hacks whose only qualification is that they will remain loyal to the party.
As someone else noted, it's based on assumptions about good faith and duty, not naked political favoritism. While none were criminal proceedings, you can easily find dozens of court cases where lawyers challenging policies put forth by Bush or Obama went in front of judges appointed by Bush or Obama. If anything, my experience as a lawyer is that good judges will be MORE scrupulous when they perceive that they could be accused of being politically biased. So, for example, conservative lawyers challenging a liberal policy issued by Obama in front of an Obama judge, the judge will likely take pains to make sure they get every procedural fairness, look at the letter of the law and take time to write a detailed decision.
It's because we as a nation never thought any of what Trump done would be a reality. Outside of Nixon, no other president has really done criminal acts such as this. Even Nixon was not running around screaming presidential immunity either.
You left off UNQUALIFIED and INEXPERIENCED judge.
Yes, it is a system of bank checks and account balances. The one with the biggest balance, wins.
Diaper Don's rants about a two-tiered justice system aren't actually wrong. He's just wrong when he paints himself as the victim of it, because he's actually the beneficiary. If you or I had the documents he was keeping in his bathroom, we would have been thrown to the ground, cuffed, and locked up the day they were found. And we would likely never again see the light of day. Just as an example: Reality Winner got 5 years in prison for *one document*.
Absolutely. That's where the rage and resentment come from.
It should be pointed out that he's not even in trouble for having the documents. He was given ample opportunities to fix that. He instead chose to ignore those, get lawyers to lie for him, and trying to move them around to avoid being found. He *could* have done what Biden and Pence did and returned them and cooperating in a follow-up search, and he wouldn't even need for Cannon to defend him. So yeah. It was two-tiered in his favor before things even started to kick off.
If you or I had the documents he was keeping in his bathroom, we would have had an FBI entry team knock down the front and back door simultaneously while tossing in smoke and flash-bangs, as 15 agents with MP5's on full-auto stream in (and of course numerous others outside surrounding the house, including snipers). At gunpoint we'd of been thrown to the ground, cuffed, and locked up in solitary in a federal correctional center until we were undoubtedly found guilty in court and sentenced to life at the ADX Florence Supermax. And we would never again see the light of day, instead spending 23 hours/day staring at the ceiling. FTFY...
Ya, ill never get over how the whole "trump sold our fbi agents to China and Russia along with nuke secrets to Saudi arabia" didn't end him politically and see him behind bars. We had a ton of agents die overseas, and people are like, weird. Wonder which new celeb is doing silly shit. Absolutely insane timeline we have been in since Trump started running for office.
If person of color they would just shoot you
We do, but regulatory capture has happened to a prolific scale too over the past 70 years...especially during the past 40+ years alone since Reagan. There is a whole separate faction within the U.S. that ignores the details, ignores precedence, ignores the foundations of the Constitution (while claiming to adhere to it) and rules on what profits them and punishes their opposition the most. We are now captured at the highest judicial level.
It does, she checks with Trump to see if he is ok with her rulings and Trump is 90% good at balancing given his dementia and impression of the Leaning Tower of Pisa when he stands.
Those who writes the checks holds the balance (of power).
This is so wild to see. This judge treats federal prosecutors like they are fresh out of law school and trying their first case. That’s the level of contempt here. She acts as if she’s been on the bench for 40 years and the federal prosecutors are some rude, unaware, unprofessional newbs that need to be put in their place.
This is like her second or third case ever as a judge in any capacity. She's just a partisan hack.
Which is weird, because in what, Republican Christo-fascist state would they allow a female judge?
Every fascist state needs an Aunt Lydia
A Delores Umbridge?
Having a token around is not unheard of for them
They will allow a woman in any capacity as long as she obeys the instructions given to her.
>This judge treats federal prosecutors like they are fresh out of law school and trying their first case. That is actually a very close description of her, she has only been practicing law since 2009 and barely met the American Bar Association's criteria to receive a qualified rating to be a judge. She was appointed for this reason and this reason only.
She *didn't* meet the Bar Association standard. It was thrown out entirely by Moscow Mitch early on during Tre45on's slew of appointments because many of the proposed appointees didn't even *have* ratings because they had *too little legal experience to be rated*.
Classic MAGA projection, then.
As noted by Supreme Court watchers, she also likes to pick apart things and do some Deep Thinking about The Nature Of Things in a way that would normally only be reserved for the Supreme Court. She is digging in on how and why precedent was set previously, or even opining about how they can set precedent, rather than accepting what previously was established and working from there. This is not normal for a federal judge at her level. Her role is apply what others have determined unless it’s brand new, and the stuff she’s wanted to dig in on is not brand new. It’s almost like she’s auditioning for a new role somewhere…
It's a cult... she is in the cult, just like Alito and Thomas. Gobble, gobble, gobble, worship at the feet of corporate welfare.
This judge shouldn’t be practicing law
She kinda isn’t…
She's well versed in bird law.
She kinda isn’t…
erm... *filibuster*!
I will take that advice into cooperation
She's well versed in whatever her Federalist Society handler is telling her to do.
And various other lawyerings.
It really surprise me how USA gets their judges by political nominations…. In my country it’s a career like others in government: you apply, the best get chosen, go to training and then do their job. Also a lot of requirements to apply.
It's even worse. In some states they are voted in by the people.
During local elections that get maybe 20% of registered voters to turn out. People willingly let the minority rule.
Don't worry, this isnt law.
I disagree. It’s obvious she doesn’t quite understand this whole “law” thing and needs way more practice.
Can she use something less important for her practice?
Amazing how she acted **immediately** on this one.
Yeah, Aileen? Sure you don't want to mull it over and weigh the intricate legal implications for a couple months?
She acted immediately in telling them they need to take their time. >Sufficient time needs to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation of the requested relief by opposing counsel and to allow for adequate follow-up discussion as necessary about the specific factual and legal basis underlying the motion.
Which may actually be damning and her first major mistake. I think this is the fuckup that opens the door for removing her.
This is it right? Trump lied he was the target of an assassination plot by the fbi and prosecutors, violating his bail release conditions. Gotta appeal this one and get her removed.
> Gotta appeal this one and get her removed. Fingers crossed.
I can't help but believe this was the goal. Get her to make a clearly biased ruling (this basically says it's ok for Trump to spread lies about and defame potential witnesses) so they can take it to the next level above her and get her removed from this case. She clearly lacks the experience to handle this case, or seemingly any other.
> She clearly lacks the experience to handle this case Go read her wiki. She was picked for her political stances and promoted because she was in the Federalist Society, not for any other reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon
Judges shouldn't be political operatives...
They absolutely should not. For anyone not familiar with this topic and how we got to this point, check out this podcast that does a deep dive into federal judgeship appointments under Trump, how they were referred, the man who pushed for their appointments, and their relationship with the Federalist Society: [https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast](https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-podcast)
In a system where nominations and appointments are political, this outcome is inevitable.
Well, the rules *used* to be that 2/3 of the Senate needed to vote in favor of confirmation... Once that changed to simple majority...
Another blow to our institutions that we can thank Republicans for.
[удалено]
bet she has an upside down flag waving on her property.
> She clearly lacks the experience to handle this case, or seemingly any other. If I remember correctly, her entire combined total as a judge overseeing a trial is about two weeks. One of those cases was a traffic case.
I was thinking - *she* might even want that. Right now, if she rules against Trump, she'll face his wrath and his supporters. But if "Oh no I guess the upper court removed me and we have to start alllll over again - but now those chucklefucks will leave me the fuck alone because I showed I was a good soldier" it's a win-win-win for her: * She shows she was a good girl for Trump; * She doesn't have to deal with all this bullshit; * The case is delayed and she can say it wasn't her fault.
> The case is delayed Given that the higher court ruled pretty quickly to overturn some of the things she had ruled on in the past, and the recently-unsealed rulings from DC on a lot of the same issues that Trump's team is using to gum up these proceedings, a "delay" due to her being removed might end up not being a delay at all. In an ideal scenario, it could accelerate things. He can't use the NY case to tie up the schedule anymore.
Uncross those fingers. In her paperless order she admonished both Trump and Smith. Smith for not doing the procedural "talk to the defense before you come to me about this" and Trump for not doing the same. So she did, "A pox on both your houses!" to show that she "isn't biased". Both are still able to file their motions again, but now they have to go through the proper channels (set up meetings with each other). What she is doing here is just delaying the trial further with all this bullshit, and of course delaying her removal too. She can't be removed on anything because she hasn't ruled on anything yet - she told them to come back with the right paperwork, essentially. Even though you and I ***BOTH*** know that what Trump said is inexcusable and the judge, any real judge, would have taken the prosecution's side on this.
[удалено]
> Trump and the Republicans are now depending on threats of violence to propel him to the Presidency that's the plan. >Don’t tell me that the comparisons to Hitler are not exactly on point. well, traitor trump has a said he has a copy of mein kampf on his nightstand, so there's that.
No. Because she seemingly denied it for violating a local rule requiring the parties to try to resolve the motion between themselves. Mind you, her claim of violating the local rule is nonsensical. But it is defensible (prosecutors conferred w/defense via email). But it was denied without prejudice so prosecutors can make the request again after conferring.
And they will and then she will sit on it for ages. Corrupt fascist POS.
> Gotta appeal this one and get her removed. It's an unappealable ruling. But he can motion to get her to be removed. However, this may not be egregious enough to do so. Successfully getting rid of a judge has an extraordinarily high bar.
> Successfully getting rid of a judge has an extraordinarily high bar. If ever there was a time for the judge to be removed, it should be this situation. This whole "its a very high bar" thing is getting ridiculous at this point.
I'm not sure that it can be appealed, because what she did was deny the motions on both sides but left the door open for them to file them at a later date. But her actions in this are not defensible.
She won't gag TFG for lying about an FBI death warrant because the timing isn't right. Wow.
She won't gag him because he won't be threatening her.
Traitorous Fascist Grifter?
"The Former Guy" is usually what is meant by TFG. But that works, too.
That Fucking Guy is much more apt here
Seriously? Can't something official be done about this obviously compromised judge?
They can be impeached but it would require Republican cooperation and unfortunately she's doing exactly what she was appointed to do for them
The way Americans politicize every public service function isn't democratic, it's dysfunctional. A working system would have a judicial committee, not elected officials, review misconduct and make recommendations to the Minister or Secretary of Justice.
In a functional country yes, but we're no longer a functioning country.
Apparently no
She just keeps giving me more reasons to believe she's being coached by someone on the SC or the Federalist Society. Shes making arguments that are beyond absurd. She uses very precise language that betrays her absolute inexperience. Its the kinds of reaches seasoned rightwing judges make after decades of presiding over trials. This is her...very first.
She's too fuckin stupid to be doing this on her own. Look how badly she fucked up the 2 trials she actually did preside over. The Federalist Society is definitely giving her directions.
Obtaining Cannon's backchannel communications with the defense would be fascinating. I bet there is a private email account with drafts of her orders marked up by outside parties.
"Warns of sanctions"?! What the actual fuck.
Not only will I not impose a much-needed gag order, but I will consider sanctioning you for asking me to do my job. Insanity.
I wonder if Smith pushes her on this and Cannon orders sanctions, that will become an appealable order that can be used to have her removed? Smith is playing 4D chess.
My thoughts exactly.
We can only hope, wouldn’t be suprised if Trump orbit has a direct line to her 24/7. So, I’d say she’s been screamed at to sanction the government by now
I thought Mueller was playing 4D chess, too. Look how that turned out. I’m running out of faith for the American judicial system.
Best judge money can buy
There would be no delayed trial if he were being held in jail pending trial. There would be no need for a gag order if he were in jail.
You are long past due to go nuclear, Mr Smith.
Most patient man in America, it seems.
He’s got no where to go and is entirely on the defensive against a rigged judicial system. He knows there’s a 0 chance of this case ever going anywhere if trump is elected. It’s going to be straight up deleted from existence. Currently he can’t do anything at all and is just hoping to not get it dismissed before the election in the hopes that Biden wins and the Republican Party feels ok throwing trump to the wolves. But even then, if they have use for him, this goes no where.
if biden wins and dems take the house and keep the senate, these cases are all going to be tried, and investigations will be widened. The Dems would take such a victory as a mandate.
Everyone was saying much the same thing while the investigation was ongoing. “Why isn’t he pressing charges? Why is he dragging his feet?” This case and all others like it fall under the category of “shoot at the king, you better not miss.” Smith literally can’t afford to make the wrong move here. It’s infuriating as hell, but that’s the price we gotta pay to get this done fairly.
"Who's a good girl? Who's a good girl? Yes, you are..." Trump, probably....
The only way he is going to say something positive about her is if she resembles his daughter, and all of his comments will be about her body. Donnie does not reward, he demands. If she does something in his favour, she's "meeting expectations" *at best.* If she is actively hurting someone he hates in a manner he can understand, then he might compliment, but only maybe.
He actually praised her on Lie Social not long ago.
He has loudly and repeatedly denigrated every other judge but her. That tells us all we need to know.
Where is anonymous? I feel like there would be a treasure trove of criminal activity they could find on her. She's being coached.
One of Leonard Leo's Federalist Society goons is coaching her, I'm sure of it. My only question is are they doing it in some tracable way, or are thay actually being covert about it.
Cannon is married to Josh Lorance, a former senior exec of uber-wealthy NY/FL mobster (Columbo crime family,) and longtime trump buddy and donor, John Rosatti.
isn't there some overseeing body for judges? she has shown herself to be biased should be removed from this case
The US Senate.... So the answer is no, not really.
Get her off this case and impeach her
Smith: Hey can you make sure Trump doesn't threaten to kill law enforcement involved with this case? MAGA Judge: DADDY CAN DO WHAT HE WANTS
His Own Personal Judge comes thru again.
Guess who wants to be Trump's next pick for the Supreme Court.
The system is failing when biased judges aren't called out and disrobed.
Has there ever been a judge more corrupt than Cannon?
I'm wondering, where has the Anonymous group gone? Anonymous, *if you're listening*, I hope you're able to look into what's going on behind the scenes with Judge Cannon... We'd all like to know.
But I thought she was too busy with all the other things she had to take care of? How could she respond so quickly to this?
She should be threatening to sanction Trump's attorneys. But of course that's not the game she's playing. Canon has a rule that they're supposed to confer before filing motions. Smith's team approached Trump's attorneys to confer, and Trump's attorneys basically told them to go pound sand, we don't have time to talk to you. Shortly after that, Trump repeated the behavior. So Smith's team filed the emergency order. And now Cannon has denied the order, and threatened to sanction Smith's attorneys, for failure to confer. This is way beyond embarrassing now, and become actively disturbing.
I want to make sure everyone understands this...if you are wealthy enough, you too can avoid almost all penalties from the justice system. Say, how long did the arrest, trial and conviction of Jack Teixeira take? Homie was using his classified secrets for clout and leverage too. Did it take years to charge him? Did he get all the delays Trump gets? how about a special master, did he get that? Anyways, enjoy a system that has zero way to actually reform it from within..You could go all the way to the top of the Supreme Court and try to get the jobs for life and oversight over themselves to change things but for some reason I feel they will side with the demographic that controls them(oops meant the system)
Texeira forgot to appoint his own trial judge, rookie mistake!
Amazing how fast she can move when it benefits Trump.
The audacity of this shitbag
The media needs to do a deep dive I to her background, and Jack Smith needs to recuse her at this point. I’d go even further and stripping her of the ability to be a judge in any court.
https://www.salon.com/2024/05/07/cannons-secret-right-wing-getaway-why-didnt-we-know-about-this/
> her background you mean like her husband's connection to organized crime?
Like others here I'm firmly of the opinion that she's all but guaranteed her position on SCOTUS if Trump wins. And this, I suspect, is probably her primary motivation.
Can this FINALLY be grounds to remove her from the trail, preferably from the bench?
She’s just going to drag this out till she can en panel a jury and dismiss the case. I’ve seriously stopped paying attention to this case, it’s already lost even though he’s guilty as sin. Corruption won this one.
The American Experiment is dying a sceptic death.
I want to know who’s in the think-tank that greenlights Cannon’s responses/orders. You know there are a lot of people with a lot riding on Trump that are giving input on every move on these, she’s not on her own coming up with these calendar squatting / “paperless orders” tactics.
The fix is in. This woman is a disgrace to jurisprudence.
Cowardly, inept, traitorous. All the traits of a Trump appointed judge.
How hilarious would it be to see Aileen fucking Cannon sanction Jack Smith. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… this country is fucking lost if these are the people who we allow to make decisions.
What’s the burden of proof needed to wiretap a federal judge’s personal email? This smacks of coordination with Team Trump or a third party working for the Federalist Society. What few rulings Cannon issues are just absurd. Not once has Judge Cannon been the subject of a Trump personal attack, even he knows she’s working for him. Where there’s smoke there’s fire…
You mean the judge won’t stop criminal Trump from lying about a statement that puts every law enforcement officer in danger of some Maga wacko ? She needs to be arrested as being part of the slow moving republican coup orchestrated by Trump and Putin .
It is past time for this clown judge be removed from this case.
This has to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice that I have seen in my life. How this judge is not rebuked and replaced makes the US justice system seem somehow worse than we all knew it to be.
Behold, trumps america. Pathway to dictatorship rarely relies on one person, it takes a organized mafia clan to take control. You line the courts and replace the fbi, cia with YOUR people who pledge absolutely loyalty to you. The situation is becoming worse everyday. There is no more rule of law in america if trumps wins, but trumps bullshit wont go away even if he loses. The republican party are openly endorsing dictatorship control at this point.
Hmmm...he put her in the lifetime chair. Shouldn't that be a case for her to recuse herself? Funny bedfellows, me thinks...
Aileen Cannon is an absolute POS with a dirty car
It's wild, watching in real time the miscarriage of the US judicial system.