615
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

On Friday, District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a new order in the Donald Trump classified documents case adding to the mountain of evidence that she is firmly in the former president’s pocket. Trump appointed Cannon in 2020 and the Senate confirmed her appointment in the days after he lost the 2020 election. It’s deeply offensive to the rule of law for judges to bend the law to benefit those who put them on the bench. Sadly, Cannon does just that.

Cannon’s new ruling rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s entirely standard request that she order Trump to state whether he intends to rely on an “advice of counsel” defense ahead of the trial, currently scheduled for May 20. Advance notice of the defense helps expedite a trial because defendants asserting it need to provide additional discovery to prosecutors—raising the defense means that defendants must disclose all communications with their attorneys, as the defense waives the attorney–client privilege.

Judge Cannon’s brief order asserted that Smith’s motion was “not amenable to proper consideration at this juncture, prior to at least partial resolution of pretrial motions” and further discovery.

Sound innocuous? It’s anything but. Instead, it’s part of a pattern we’ve already seen of Cannon laying the groundwork for delaying Trump’s trial—until it’s too late for a jury to be empaneled and the case tried to verdict before the election.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 217 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

must be nice getting to appoint the judge directly involving your criminal case

what a cunt.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 160 points 9 months ago

Why is she being allowed to get away with this? Didn't she already get reprimanded?

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 99 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

She was also separately the judge in an earlier lawsuit that Trump filed trying to stop the government from examining what it obtained with the search warrant, for reasons that made no sense and they couldn't really articulate. The Trump filings were essentially legal nonsense, so this judge took it upon herself to try to weave together something else for them, that still didn't make any sense. She was faffing about with appointing a time consuming special master (not at all appropriate for that situation) and trying to find ways to prevent the government from examining the evidence. Jack Smith played along with her but at the same time appealed the legality of any of this to the eleventh circuit (actually pretty conservative circuit too). When they finally got the case they said this is all legal nonsense, you never should have even taken up this complaint, accused them of just doing all this only because he was a former president. It was a pretty crazy opinion to read, they were not happy with her. Case was dismissed and the government was finally able to examine all the evidence they had seized with the search warrant. Whole charade delayed the investigation by at least 6 months.

And then when the government finally file charges after the investigation is complete, she gets pulled, again, to be the judge in this case (randomly apparently but from a very small potential pool). Ugh. So that's why we have her again. It's been reported Jack Smith has contemplated filing for her removal from the case. It's a tall order though and would also delay things. Potentially could be trying to gather even more evidence for bias before trying to make such a play, or could be trying to see if there's any way he could still get it through in a timely manner while she plays interference for Trump. Either way it's infuriating, as she's tying up probably the most solid criminal case against him, probably trying to delay it past the election.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 70 points 9 months ago

Judges really don't like to discipline other judges in any way. Because they know how presidents are set.

[-] Someonelemmy@lemmynsfw.com 125 points 9 months ago

Precedents.

But your typo still kinda works....

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago
[-] Nougat@kbin.social 18 points 9 months ago
[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 9 months ago

Typo, or clever wordplay?

[-] rambaroo@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Every judge is a corrupt piece of shit who only cares about their own power.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Don’t you already know the answer to this though? 😢

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 103 points 9 months ago

My physical demeanor will change dramatically towards the powerful, wealthy, and forceful if Trump wins another term. I was very ragged through that entire term. And I will be much worse in dealing with it again.

But I refuse to abandon the US to Trump and his toadies and run off to another country.

There will be plenty to take care of here.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

why wait for then to break out the molotovs.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 96 points 9 months ago

It's so sickening that a teabagger like this, being the Fifth Column which is against our Constitution, against freedom, and against America, can have a job within our government even now.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Makes me wish I devoted my life to being a scumbag. Would have guaranteed a high level position in trumps government. Darn shame I feel emotions, really.

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 81 points 9 months ago

Just trying to string it out till the election, then he can pardon himself if he wins or start a civil war if he loses.

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago

He’s going to do both.

[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Remind me: doesn't a pardon include or rather imply an admission of guilt?
Because no guilt, no grounds for pardon, right?
Can pardons be effectively handed out for all kinds of crimes? Or are there crimes, which just can't be pardoned - strictly from a legal point of view of course.

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

True, but what does that matter to him? He’s their god king. It’s all for the sound bite they can parrot.

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

You can be pardoned for crimes you haven't committed yet, legally speaking.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kushia@lemmy.ml 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It sounds absolutely batshit insane that judges can take sides and not be impartial when it comes to politics in the US.

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Well they aren't supposed to, the US government is pretty corrupt

[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago

Seems like it's more of "Jack Smith wants to get this trial going" vs. "Cannon maybe wants to back door delay it a little while."

In any case, I don't think Smith is going to win his fight for a speedy trial. There are just too many was to dilly dally.

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 23 points 9 months ago

Someone wants to be on the Supreme Court.....too bad Trump doesn't really reward loyalty.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Quiet is relative. She's not frothing at the mouth yet, so she's not quite as loud as most Trump-Slurpers.

[-] jas0n@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Ehh, I got that reference.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ratcliff@lemmy.wtf 10 points 9 months ago

You'd be surprised how many lawyers & judges are republicans

[-] Misconduct@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I really don't think I'd be very surprised at this point

[-] SVcross@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I misread and thought that a Camera company was going against Trump.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
615 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3985 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS