I would prefer he had a Praetorian Guard.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Moderating:
Let’s please take the “fleeing the country” discussion to another thread. It really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which are the proceedings. Thanks.
@Robot_Arm, @Exapno_Mapcase, @Son_of_a_Rich, @Sage_Rat, @silenus
I hope this passes muster with the above moderation, but might the proceedings include Trump surrendering his passport?
All kidding aside, I’d really like to know the purpose of that makeshift curtain in the bathroom. What was it hiding?
I’ll chance that this is relevant.
With the documents issue, we talk a lot about Jared’s $2BN deal with the Saudi’s sovereign wealth fund (and a heap of greenbacks from Qatar), and the LIV Golf thing.
But for any who may not be aware, DJT also authorized the sale of North America’s largest oil refinery (Port Arthur) and 24 distribution terminals to Saudi Arabia’s oil company, ARAMCO. This was an effort to bolster ARAMCO’s impending Initial Public Offering.
So … to the extent the “why” of this all is germane to this thread, his connection – like the Bush family’s – to the House of Saud runs pretty deep.
Sorry to make you wait. I had something I had to attend to.
It passes muster, since it is relevant to the ongoing proceedings. It’s customary for someone indicted on felony charges to surrender their passport, so it’s fair game for this thread.
To clarify, the discussion about Trump fleeing went on for quite awhile. Not everyone who participated in it was named, just the most recent folks who were carrying the ball. It’s just an entirely different discussion to speculate on where he might go if he flees. We generally allow some hijacking, but this was becoming a distraction. Always hard to know where and when to draw the line.
I’ll eat crow if I’m wrong, but I really don’t think he’ll do that. Judges are presumed to be fair and impartial and it’s definitely impugning one’s integrity to suggest bias. The law provides discretion on the issue, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented for her to deny the motion, and for the 11th circuit (a conservative court) to uphold her ruling. And then haven’t you just pissed her off? She already knows that her decisions in the case are subject to appeal - you don’t need to remind her by filing a motion suggesting she won’t do her job right.
Then again, I will concede that this case does present a novel issue: it is the first time in history that a federal judge will have presided over a trial of the person who nominated her to the position (I’ve been in 2 federal court judge’s chambers, and both had framed and on the wall their nomination from the President, along with the roll call vote from the senate)
TWO novel issues, really. Not only is Trump the first POTUS to be indicted, but this judge has ruled in his favor recently so egregiously wrongly that she was overturned and berated by an appeals court, which gives the appearance (at the least) of bias on her part.
For the issue you cited, she should get the benefit of the doubt. For the other one, she should not, in my opinion.
Just as the general population is presumed to not be cannibalistic mass-murderers, but that doesn’t mean you should have spent the night at Jeffrey Dahmer’s house.
She has already found to be unfair, partial, and biased in an official capacity with Trump on this exact same documents case. She doesn’t have any integrity.
Being overturned on appeal doesn’t strike me as a basis to claim that the judge is biased.
Maybe in the court of public opinion, but not legally.
Judges are sometimes wrong. They get overturned by appellate courts. It’s part of the system. It’s not a reason to hold them in disrepute.
Now, if they continue with their mistake, then we have a problem. And, yes, at that point they are too biased to be on the bench.
But just getting overturned - even if it’s a “smack down” - doesn’t preclude that judge from ever considering a case involving the parties ever again. As a lawyer, I couldn’t argue that with a straight face.
This is fair. But it seems to me that this should put her on a shorter leash than a different judge in her position. If she abuses her position as people fear, she already has a strike against her.
Looks like more boxes:
You can just see the top of one on the left, and even more of one on the top right.
I’ll certainly allow you may be right for all the reasons you stated.
But have you read those rulings of the Eleventh against her over the Special Master stuff? We discussed it at length earlier in the thread around post 2,300 and following. I’ve never seen anything like it. Not Cannon’s rulings, and not the reversals by the Eleventh. It was just jaw dropping. I’d encourage you to have a squiz at those.
OK, it’s hiding more boxes…but why?
I really don’t understand your perspective here. Surely we’re well past the default of presuming impartiality.
She was appointed by Trump. In the prior proceedings, there was unanimity among all lawyers commenting on the matter that her actions were blatantly and egregiously contrary to law. The smackdown at appeal concurred. What she did was inexplicable except through bias.
I find it very odd that you “couldn’t argue that with a straight face”.
I agree with Moriarty here. I’ve been in front of my share of terrible judges. In federal court there’s just nothing you can do about it except work really hard to bring them around through persistence, good arguments, and charm. Sometimes they come around, sometimes they don’t. Time will tell (if she remains on the case). I’m not saying she’s not biased and terrible, I’m saying I don’t expect a motion to recuse.
I will certainly defer to your professional status as attorneys and your experience and understand you are probably both right. But damn, it’s a hard pill to swallow.
What kills me is, even in our little backwater county-level State of California courts, judges were selected to try big important cases on the basis of their experience in the courtroom. This just seems so… provincial. I just don’t think she’s up to it.
I can’t disagree with our esteemed attorney Dopers, but I can say this:
To paraphrase PJ O’Rourke: judges get overturned on appeal, but generally within normal parameters.
The rebuke that Cannon got reminds me of the rebukes that Trump “Big Lie” attorneys, and Rudy Giuliani, got in their efforts to overturn the election: they got lit up in flowery language.
Maybe – as “A Few Good Men” reminded us – there is only “objection,” and not a “strenuous objection.”
But there ought to be.
I have a big #2 problem with Cannon (NPI), though it may be nothing more than that: my problem.
I agree with that. Our “random” county court system manages to get the big cases to the best judges. Our federal system is more of a mystery, and the absence of the ability to bump a judge (coupled with appointments for life) really means federal judges are immune from repercussions unless they have their sights set on higher courts.
I just read the 21 page ruling from the 11th.
Yeah, I agree that it was compelling stuff.
She was wrong. Really wrong. She genuflected for a president, and I suspect that whoever wrote that text took glee in exercising judicial power over even a former president of the United States.
But, while it was an egregious error of law, that doesn’t necessarily mean that she will continue to rule in his favor, or that she’s going to try to stop the case from proceeding to a disposition.
One of the overriding messages in that appellate opinion (really, an instruction to her) is that donald trump is just another defendant. His former role does not entitle him to special accommodation.
Now, if she continues to bend over backwards for donald, I’ll call out the bullshit.
But, professionally speaking (and in terms of trying to predict what the government will do), I would start with the presumption that Judge Cannon feels the pressure to get this right, for the benefit of her lifetime reputation. (What does that mean? No more appellate court smackdowns).
And that’s not to say that the Government is happy to have her, or even planned it. I just suspect that in the war room, if somebody talked about getting a different judge, my guess is that Jack Smith would tell them to stop whining.
Exactly.