Cannon strikes again.

[justoffal]

by finally ruling on something, smith now has something to appeal, to the 11th,

the widest and most dangerous release of classified information since benedict arnold and this guy will NEVER answer for it.

Oh....please stop with bs drama.

 

[BackAgain]

Will Cannon Even Rule On It?

This happened late Friday before the holiday weekend so I’m assuming many of you didn’t see it: In the Mar-a-Lago case, Special Counsel Jack Smith moved to modify the terms of Donald Trump’s release, asking the court to prohibit him from further attacks on federal law enforcement.

The latest parry arises from Trump’s blatantly false and highly incendiary claims that President Biden effectively ordered Trump’s assassination by dispatching a FBI kill team to do the Mar-a-Lago search. It’s batshit crazy stuff, and Smith is asking U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon … sigh … to order a stop to it.

It’s not a gag order per se; it’s a modification of Trump’s terms of release, which keeps him out of jail pending trial. So it doesn’t have the same First Amendment issues that might accompany any order against a non-criminal defendant.

Yesterday, Trump filed a big, over-the-top response, asking for Smith’s motion to be stricken and any DOJ lawyers associated with its filing be sanctioned.

In a normal case, this would be set up a big showdown in front of Cannon – and either side might end up appealing her ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is of course not a normal case. Cannon’s M.O. so far has been simply not ruling on pending motions. Hard to have a showdown in front of the judge when the judge is a no show.
New Trouble Is Brewing In The Mar-a-Lago Case

Judge declines to bar Trump from making comments about law enforcement

WASHINGTON, May 28 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday refused a request by prosecutors to impose a gag order barring Donald Trump from making inflammatory comments about law enforcement, after Trump's campaign falsely claimed the FBI was authorized to assassinate him during its search of his Florida estate.
Special Counsel Jack Smith previously asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to modify the Republican presidential candidate's conditions of release, saying his "false and inflammatory" comments about the FBI could subject the bureau and trial witnesses to "threats, violence and harassment."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge...ng-comments-about-law-enforcement-2024-05-28/

Smith should have asked the 11th Circuit to remove Cannon months ago. This, after her second, highly prejudicial ruling in Trump's favor was slapped down. We are seeing what a rogue legal system hijacked by Trumpists looks like in real time.

 

[berg80]

The question would appear to have been resolved long ago. Indeed, Judge Maryellen Noreika at the federal court in Delaware rebuffed Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss his firearm prosecution based on the appointment and appropriation of Special Counsel David Weiss out of hand, pointing to the defendant’s lack of standing to challenge the appointment, as well as the long history of special counsels who were “appointed since 1999 who were funded by this appropriation: John Danforth, Patrick Fitzgerald, Robert Mueller, John Durham, Jack Smith and Robert Hur.”

In a brief memorandum order in April disposing of the motion, Judge Noreika noted that Paul Manafort challenged the appointment of Robert Mueller and lost in both the Eastern District of Virginia and the District Court in DC. And she didn’t even require a hearing on the issue, much less the assistance of rando amici. (For some reason, the rando amici were much less interested in the case involving the president’s son than in the Republican demigod.)

Take A Wild Guess Which Federal Judge Is Hosting Amici At A Motions Hearing? - Above the Law​

Take your time, NBD.

abovethelaw.com

Meese and Co's ridiculous argument is shredded here.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.429.0.pdf

For Cannon the merit of the argument, and the virtually unprecedented decision to allow amici to non-government parties with no direct interest in the case, is far less important than coming up with another reason to delay the trial.

 

[berg80]

The slow-walking of the Trump prosecutions works in two different ways. The obvious one is to push his trials past the election in the hopes he will win and use the powers of the presidency to make this all go away. The other way, less obvious, is to do the slow-walking itself so slowly that no single moment or decision can be targeted for public scorn and derision. It has the effect of keeping the pressure from building by obscuring what is happening.

So it’s important to be very clear each time that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon stalls the case again. I can’t speak to her intent, but who needs to when her actions are so clear. This week alone she has:

(1) Taken the highly unusual step of allowing third parties not involved in the case, friends of the court in the parlance, to participate in upcoming arguments over whether the case against Trump should be dismissed. This is virtually unheard of in a criminal case or anywhere outside of oral arguments at the appeals level.

(2) Reshuffled the entire pre-trial schedule on her own yet again, giving extraordinary amounts of court time to hearings, including potential evidentiary hearings, on pre-trial matters that other judges would simply rule on based on the written filings.

(3) Delayed indefinitely – but promised to reschedule at some point in the future! – a highly unusual two-day evidentiary hearing on some of Trump’s most tendentious claims.

Don’t Let Aileen Cannon’s Sleight Of Hand Fool You

it’s important to be very clear each time that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon stalls the case again.

talkingpointsmemo.com

We already know the reaction to a Biden appointed judge doing something equivalently hyper-partisan would be apoplectic. But because Cannon's decision is just the latest in a series of outrages committed by Trump acolytes this is not getting the attention it deserves.

 

[BackAgain]

The question would appear to have been resolved long ago. Indeed, Judge Maryellen Noreika at the federal court in Delaware rebuffed Hunter Biden’s motion to dismiss his firearm prosecution based on the appointment and appropriation of Special Counsel David Weiss out of hand, pointing to the defendant’s lack of standing to challenge the appointment, as well as the long history of special counsels who were “appointed since 1999 who were funded by this appropriation: John Danforth, Patrick Fitzgerald, Robert Mueller, John Durham, Jack Smith and Robert Hur.”

In a brief memorandum order in April disposing of the motion, Judge Noreika noted that Paul Manafort challenged the appointment of Robert Mueller and lost in both the Eastern District of Virginia and the District Court in DC. And she didn’t even require a hearing on the issue, much less the assistance of rando amici. (For some reason, the rando amici were much less interested in the case involving the president’s son than in the Republican demigod.)

Take A Wild Guess Which Federal Judge Is Hosting Amici At A Motions Hearing? - Above the Law​

Take your time, NBD.

abovethelaw.com

Meese and Co's ridiculous argument is shredded here.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.429.0.pdf

For Cannon the merit of the argument, and the virtually unprecedented decision to allow amici to non-government parties with no direct interest in the case, is far less important than coming up with another reason to delay the trial.

She is doing the right thing.

And the same issue has been now presented to our SCOTUS anyway.

The appointment of these “special” prosecutors is facially unconstitutional.

 

[Billiejeens]

The slow-walking of the Trump prosecutions works in two different ways. The obvious one is to push his trials past the election in the hopes he will win and use the powers of the presidency to make this all go away. The other way, less obvious, is to do the slow-walking itself so slowly that no single moment or decision can be targeted for public scorn and derision. It has the effect of keeping the pressure from building by obscuring what is happening.

So it’s important to be very clear each time that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon stalls the case again. I can’t speak to her intent, but who needs to when her actions are so clear. This week alone she has:

(1) Taken the highly unusual step of allowing third parties not involved in the case, friends of the court in the parlance, to participate in upcoming arguments over whether the case against Trump should be dismissed. This is virtually unheard of in a criminal case or anywhere outside of oral arguments at the appeals level.

(2) Reshuffled the entire pre-trial schedule on her own yet again, giving extraordinary amounts of court time to hearings, including potential evidentiary hearings, on pre-trial matters that other judges would simply rule on based on the written filings.

(3) Delayed indefinitely – but promised to reschedule at some point in the future! – a highly unusual two-day evidentiary hearing on some of Trump’s most tendentious claims.

Don’t Let Aileen Cannon’s Sleight Of Hand Fool You

it’s important to be very clear each time that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon stalls the case again.

talkingpointsmemo.com

We already know the reaction to a Biden appointed judge doing something equivalently hyper-partisan would be apoplectic. But because Cannon's decision is just the latest in a series of outrages committed by Trump acolytes this is not getting the attention it deserves.

Public scorn like the $100 million dollars in support and a jump in the polls

 

[berg80]

Public scorn like the $100 million dollars in support and a jump in the polls

No one doubts the devotion of the rubes nor their willingness to foolishly be parted with their money.

Trump’s felony conviction has hurt him in the polls​

Trump’s felony conviction has hurt him in the polls

But will it last?

www.vox.com

 

[Billiejeens]

No one doubts the devotion of the rubes nor their willingness to foolishly be parted with their money.

Trump’s felony conviction has hurt him in the polls​

Trump’s felony conviction has hurt him in the polls

But will it last?

www.vox.com

So, no actual public scorn.
Okay

 

[Billiejeens]

No one doubts the devotion of the rubes nor their willingness to foolishly be parted with their money.

Trump’s felony conviction has hurt him in the polls​

Trump’s felony conviction has hurt him in the polls

But will it last?

www.vox.com

Is "rubes" code for people who love and support our Constitution ?

 

[Blaster]

Cannon for SCOTUS.

 

[Lesh]

No there isn't you twit. The judge even said, you don't have to find Trump guilty of any crime to convict. That corrupt piece of shit is a traitor to the Constitution.

That’s not even close to true

 

[berg80]

The appointment of these “special” prosecutors is facially unconstitutional.

It has repeatedly been found to be constitutional by multiple appeals courts. But I do understand your need to find fault with the process by which your Dear Leader is being prosecuted since the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.

 

[berg80]

So, no actual public scorn.
Okay

So no actual bump in the polls.
Okay.

 

[BackAgain]

It has repeatedly been found to be constitutional by multiple appeals courts.

Once upon a time “separate but equal” was also found to be “Constitutional” for a very long time. It was still wrong, legally and logically.

But I do understand your need to find fault with the process by which your Dear Leader is being prosecuted since the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.

Lol

There is no evidence of guilt.

 

[berg80]

Judge in Trump Documents Case Rejected Suggestions to Step Aside​

Shortly after Judge Aileen M. Cannon drew the assignment in June 2023 to oversee former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida urged her to pass it up and hand it off to another jurist, according to two people briefed on the conversations.

The judges who approached Judge Cannon — including the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Cecilia M. Altonaga — each asked her to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge, the two people said.

But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties. Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment, only to be reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel.
Judge in Trump Documents Case Rejected Suggestions to Step Aside

Duh. Of course she wanted the case. What a great chance to express her gratitude to the convicted felon otherwise known as the Orange Menace. And express her gratitude she has. In ways so egregiously obvious the 11th Circuit Court vacated her order to appoint a special master. One of her earliest efforts to delay the case.

 

[berg80]

Judge questions Trump lawyers, prosecutors about Jack Smith appointment

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — Former president Donald Trump’s attorneys argued in federal court here Friday that the classified document case against him should be dismissed because the top prosecutor in the case was improperly appointed.

The long-shot argument is based on a legal premise pushed in some conservative circles that the Senate should have approved Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the federal investigations against Trump.

Smith’s team called that argument “unsound” and said Garland has clear authority to appoint lawyers to fulfill Justice Department functions. Similar challenges to other recent special counsels, including Robert S. Mueller III, have been rejected in court.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati.../21/trump-cannon-jack-smith-pretrial-hearing/

If we have learned anything about conservative judges it's they give no regard to sound legal precedent if going against it fits their ideological desires.

But now that Cannon and the conservatives on the SC have ensured the three criminal trials Trump faces will be delayed until after the election she may throw Smith a bone to give the appearance of impartiality. Though that bridge has been burned.

 

[berg80]

For Judge in Trump Documents Case, Unusual Rulings Are Business as Usual

Reaching back to the early 1970s, courts have repeatedly rejected efforts like Mr. Trump’s to question the legality of independent prosecutors. Those have included the Supreme Court upholding the appointment of Leon Jaworski, one of the special prosecutors who investigated the Watergate scandal, in a decision that was largely focused on the issue of President Richard Nixon’s claims of executive privilege.

Judges have also tossed efforts to invalidate the work of special counsels like Robert S. Mueller III, who examined connections between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, and David C. Weiss, who has brought two criminal cases against Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son.

Despite this record, however, Judge Cannon has decided to consider the constitutionality of Mr. Smith’s appointment anew — and not on the merits of written briefs, but rather at an expansive hearing that will spill across two days. The proceeding might go beyond the normal process of merely making arguments and could include, as the judge recently wrote, the “presentation of evidence,” though it remains unclear what evidence she meant.

In another unusual move, Judge Cannon is allowing three lawyers who have filed what are known as amicus or friend-of-the-court briefs to argue in front of her for 30 minutes each. While these outside parties — referred to as “amici” — are commonly permitted to make their case directly to judges in appellate courts like the Supreme Court, that is not the standard practice in trial courts.
For Judge in Trump Documents Case, Unusual Rulings Are Business as Usual

The polite way to describe Aileen is she is inexperienced and over her head, causing repeated mistakes in her legal reasoning that happened to favor Trump. The not so polite way to describe Aileen is she is Don's sock puppet.

 

[berg80]

Is "rubes" code for people who love and support our Constitution ?

It's not code at all. It's a word used to describe someone unsophisticated enough to financially support the orange makeup wearing moral degenerate running for prez. The guy who possesses a resume that would make it impossible to be elected dog catcher in any small town in America. Small town people usually frown on adulterers who fornicate with stars of pornographic films and steal money from charities. Did I mention he's a convicted felon?

 

[berg80]

Whether or not Trump ultimately prevails in challenging Smith’s constitutional authority to prosecute him, his defense may have come closer to achieving other goals over two days of oral arguments.

The first, and most frequently discussed, is delay.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has already indefinitely postponed Trump’s trial for alleged Espionage Act violations over his possession and retention of classified documents at the Mar-a-Lago resort, and this multi-day hearing over a longshot legal challenge has only pushed his reckoning in the case further off on the calendar.

As an added bonus for Trump, this delay comes in the form of conversation his lawyers want to keep in the public eye: Attorney General Merrick Garland’s role in supervising the special counsel and the money that funds Smith’s prosecution.

As for the broader battle, Trump’s overarching effort to declare Smith unconstitutionally appointed remains a longshot, but Cannon made a blockbuster remark on Monday suggesting that the “limitless” funding of the special counsel’s office implicates serious separation of powers concerns for her.

The Long and Storied History of Special Counsels in the United States​

During the first day of arguments, prosecutor James Pearce noted most of the courts agree with the special counsel: Eight judges unanimously rejected the notion that attorneys general lack the power to appoint special counsels in four separate criminal cases. Moreover, the U.S. tradition of special prosecutors dates back roughly a century and a half to then-President Ulysses S. Grant in the 1870s, and though the forms and practices of these appointments have varied, never once has a judge considered them unconstitutional.

Trump’s Special Counsel Hearings: Judge Appears Concerned Over Jack Smith’s Funding

Key takeaways from Donald Trump's challenges to Special Counsel Jack Smith's authority in the classified documents case.

www.justsecurity.org

Given that stare decisis no longer matters to many conservative judges, preferring to design rulings around their radical judicial philosophy, one never knows how this will be resolved.

 

[berg80]

They note that a similar argument failed in a challenge to the appointment of Robert Mueller, who was tapped as special counsel by the Trump administration Justice Department to investigate potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign. Lawyers for President Joe Biden’s son Hunter also unsuccessfully challenged the appointment and funding of special counsel David Weiss before a trial this month that resulted in the younger Biden being convicted of federal gun charges.

https://www.kxan.com/news/political-news/ap-motion-after-motion-puts-trump-florida-case-in-slow-motion-as-3-day-hearing-begins/

But hey, that was a Dem.