214
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
214 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2710 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Two things:
Jack Smith has to file a motion to have her removed at this point. I understand that under normal circumstances, you don't want to piss off the judge. But how much more adversarial can she be at this point? She's literally trying to have him removed from the case. At this point, Smith has nothing left to lose. What else could she do to him? Have him deported?
This has got to be appealed if/when she rules that he has no authority to prosecute. If she rules that special prosecutors have no authority to bring these cases and that ruling were allowed to stand, wouldn't it invalidate other cases brought by special prosecutors? Or at the very least give those convicted grounds for having their convictions thrown out?
The role of a district court judge is to do two things:
Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.
Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That's it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.
That, and he got to appoint his own judge. And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up. And he's got all sorts of national security secrets, but is still walking around free. And he's got virtually unlimited resources, but isn't considered a flight risk.
Only 3?
I assume Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett are guaranteed to back him. Kavanaugh likely will, and Roberts if he thinks he can get away with it while maintaining his thin veneer of legitimacy.
Roberts has Legitimacy?
“Thin veneer of legitimacy.”
He doesn’t have legitimacy, but he likes to pretend he does. Enough that he sometimes votes against the other conservative justices when it’s going to be 5-4 vs 6-3 anyway.
Edit: As chief justice I think Roberts has a better understanding of the legacy of his court, and it has caused him to be at least somewhat less gung-ho about the blatant partisan nature of the court. But definitely not always.
Thomas and Alito: "Are we a joke to you?!"
Yes, but it's not very funny.
Trump has, in my humble opinion, something on the judge or the judge's family from his time in the office of the president and access to warrantless wiretapping all US Americans from LEO/CIA/NSA information.
Trump, in my humble opinion, has found and used private information to flex on the judge.
That, or she’s a True Believer.