They would probably enjoy days when they don’t have to see that scowling humanoid.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
that is good news.
here is the latest from judge cannon.
Judge Cannon has entered an order in the Trump docs case directing all current/“forthcoming” lawyers to get in touch with DOJ asap (if they haven’t already) to expedite getting necessary security clearances squared away – compliance notice that they’ve done that due June 20
[Scene: Planet of the Apes (1968)]
Taylor (Charlton Heston): I demand a trial by a jury of my peers!
Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans in ape makeup): Don’t be ridiculous! Where are we going to find twelve blonde millionaire actors who speak in a monotione?
[End scene]
– from the Mad magazine satire that covered all the (up to then) Planet of the Apes movies
I’ll take that bet. Not with this judge. Judge Cannon will probably grant Trump one hell of a lot of special leeway.
He probably did, but he goes through lawyers like a normal person goes through toilet paper.
Totally uninformed non-lawyer here, but this sounds like something that would be done by someone who wants this trial to be appropriately speedy and thorough. I mean, it seems like a good sign.
We’ll see if Trump asks for a 6 month extension and she says, “Yes sir, here is the Diet Coke you asked for as well sir.” So, I’m still not fully optimistic. But I’m maybe a little bit now.
Treats 'em the same way too.
I am also encouraged by that.
My assumption is that when the time comes, Cannon will throw out the attorney client stuff, because that is the obvious play for a biased judge. If she allows it, I may be forced to start giving her the benefit of the doubt.
I’m not swayed by this first order from her, but it is not what I expected and I do find it encouraging.
Trial by the House of Lords was abolished in 1948.
What has been interpreted by courts to mean that? Where is it guaranteed? The phrase doesn’t appear in US law. Courts don’t interpret the meaning of laws that don’t exist.
That is good news. I know Trump has been interviewing, and being turned down by, national security/espionage act lawyers. Obviously that’s likely to do with Trump being the client, and there is a pretty small pool of lawyers with that type of experience. Oh well.
It should also be noted with this Order, Judge Cannon is effectively not recusing herself. Which was very unlikely, but now practically confirmed.
The Sixth Amendment and its subsequent interpretations.
You mean she didn’t immediately walk into court and order that “everybody not named donald trump is presumed guilty, and if your name rhymes with Rack Fifth you’re in contempt of court”??
But she has a lifetime appointment, they said…and this is her shot at becoming a Supreme Court Justice, they said…and she’s a trump judge, they said…
I didn’t expect her to recuse and, to be honest, I didn’t see any grounds for recusal. It sucks that she’s the judge, but lack of experience isn’t grounds for recusal - I can see why there should be an assumption that if she has the job, she’s qualified to do the job ( even if that’s not true ).
I also don’t see previous unpopular and overturned rulings made as part of her job as grounds for recusal. If she or her husband had business dealings with Trump or major Republican donors, or if she had a personal relationship with the defendant or his family, those would be grounds for recusal….but I think there needs to be an external factor not based on her job performance in order to demand recusal.
That said, I’m not happy that she’s the judge and I’m glad the people that want to see Trump convicted have taken a page from his playbook…….by publicly expressing your suspicion of judicial bias, you put the judge under heightened pressure to be fair to your side.
The only Hail Mary argument I could think to make is that donald appointed her. Now, that in and of itself is almost certainly too weak to suggest a personal relationship, but since no other president has ever been indicted, it’s an untested argument.
I do wonder if this hasn’t been the point all along. Somebody is perhaps playing 3 dimensional chess. We sure as hell know it ain’t donald.
But just maybe, maybe, people like Merrick Garland and Jack Smith (who, I heard, was glaring at donald during the arraignment) have a strategy in place.
Others have speculated that this may be just the first indictment for Smith. If he’s playing his weakest hand first, and wins, the other convictions become pretty ironclad.
Heard on Olbermann this morning that Cannon has 14 whole days of trial experience under her belt.
Maybe she’ll inadvertently fuck up in Biden’s favor 
My assumption is that Smith will be quick to appeal anything “creative” the judge does. After the third (or fifth or whatever) overruling by the circuit, he’ll ask for a new judge, and will have solid grounds to be successful. Also, I think the judge knows that is his plan, after being smacked down so harshly before, so she’ll try to appear as non-biased as possible.
My fear is she’ll be extremely fair, up until she directs the verdict to be not guilty.
This is one of the problems with some words in English.
There’s the narrow definition of ‘qualified’, which means she checks off all the boxes to have the position and to execute the duties of the position. The only real qualification in this sense is nomination by the President with Senate confirmation. Cannon clearly is qualified by that notion of the word. Then again, I, without a law degree or any legal experience, would also be qualified if I were to be nominated and confirmed.
Then, there’s the vernacular use of the term, which means “has accumulated study and experience and is thus very likely to perform within the norms of the position and has been shown to be above reproach in professional demeanor and behavior”. There’s clearly been considerable debate about Cannon’s qualifications in this sense of the word.
Then she’ll be ruling against U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. who allowed the Grand Jury to get testimony from Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran.
It’s pretty clear that Corcoran was involved in knowingly deceiving the FBI (“diligent search” my ass) and had knowledge of the crimes being committed (moving boxes of classified documents around). Lawyer-client privilege no longer applies when the lawyer is helping his client bury evidence.
She’d have to make findings of fact on the record. She couldn’t just dispose of the case with a bang of her gavel.
But the law says this is enough because it presumes that the political process will ensure that only qualified people (in your sense) will be both nominated and confirmed.
The law presumes fictions sometimes, but there you go.