Well if Trump loses we still have to get through the inevitable plethora of lawsuits he will file because the election was stolen. He will argue that any and all charges should be thrown out because of the rigged election while simultaneously declaring himself the leading Republican nominee for 2028. He has no choice than to run for President for the rest of his life and use that as a (surprising effective) shield against accountability. The best we can hope for is that his allies tire of this absurdity and abandon him. But hoping for that is starting to feel like Jesse from Breaking Bad screaming “he can’t keep getting away with it!”
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
And if he wins in November he will keep getting away with it forever and ever.
That’s what I fear happening more each day.
She’s just making shit up now.
She could have ruled on this from the bench, back when it was introduced. “This has been thoroughly adjudicated, multiple times. Motion dismissed.”
Very frustrating. I believe our experts when they say she has done nothing that yet rises to recusal. I just hope she hits the tripwire soon.
I’d be curious what she’s expecting other than that 100% comes from the DOJ budget of the Executive Branch?
“Biden cuts us a check from his personal Burisma account and send it thru his personal attorney’s LLC”
From the linked article:
Pearce criticized the merits of the defense’s argument – highlighting that the last eight special counsels have been funded and overseen through the same process as Smith’s…
“Nuh-Uh. I’m not falling for that Stare Decisis shit. Clarence Thomas warned me about you. If every previous Special Counsel killed somebody, would your argument give you carte blanche to take a life, too??”
–Make-believe Judge Cannon (who’s still a damn sight better than The Real Thing)
I’m a bit confused. Is the defense argument that the prosecution is funded by the government, therefore it is invalid? This seems ludicrous on it’s face. And Cannon is actually considering this, and using it to delay further?
AIUI, the defense’s argument is that Jack Smith wasn’t a Senate-approved appointment.
Which in no way invalidates all the other rulings made with respect to other special counsel appointments by many other judges.
My prediction: In the end, she’ll deny the defense’s motion. But not before she’s chewed up a lot more time pretending it’s a motion worthy of hearing.
Here’s a Lawfare article if you want to get into the weeds: A dispatch from Judge Cannon’s hearing on the legality of the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The author, who has attended all these hearings, didn’t mention funding so that part didn’t catch her eye.
But you don’t need to read it. Judge Cannon is not dumb or incompetent, it’s more sinister than that. She understands the issues, the law, asks intelligent questions, and everything that an appellate Judge would do. Except she’s a trial court Judge and this is not the place for this. Trump has to file the motion to preserve it for appeal where they can do all this briefing/hearings on appeal. At trial, Cannon just needs to dismiss it since it’s so obvious at the trial court stage. That’s how this normally works.
She’ll dismiss Trump’s motion because the law is clear, and she knows it, but not before indulging in a long delay under the guise of being thorough.
I agree it’s more sinister. But I disagree about her intelligence. She makes a lot of really dumb mistakes. Here are some:
I didn’t know about that, and I hear ya. She’s certainly not an experienced Judge which would definitely lead to more mistakes than an experienced one. She just seems better fitted as an appellate Judge than a trial Judge (I shudder the thought, but I hope you get what I mean).
And he shouldn’t be. Because, you know, the whole separation of powers that our government is supposed to be founded upon. Which also means it is none of her business how Jack Smith is funded either. Stay in your lane, Cannon!
It’s from the Appointments clause. Defense claims Jack/Special Counsel is a principal officer, and, like other principal officers - Cabinet Secretaries, Ambassadors, Judges - need the advice and consent of the Senate to be appointed. That was not done in this case with Jack, and he should be remove/case dismissed.
They made this argument after claiming he wasn’t a principal officer and a bunch of other inconsistent crap, but that’s the last argument put forth to the Judge. To be honest, with most things Trump, I’m not even clear if this actually their argument. I think so.
What I find especially amusing about her error failing to swear in the panel of prospective jurors is that if she was on good terms with her staff, that’s the sort of thing for which we courtroom menials exist to help. A quiet, unobstrusive assist from a clerk reminding the judge of her oversight would have saved her a ton of time and court resources. And embarrassment.
I can’t recall where, but I do remember reading how nasty she is to her staff and how she churns through them.
LOL, I do, more than you can ever know and more than I can ever say.
You did great at parsing the argument, IMHO. Thanks for taking a stab!
I’m waiting to see if (eventually) Cannon grants Trump’s motion to suppress prior Trump attorney Evan Corcoran’s notes that so clearly demonstrate Trump’s intent to obstruct the investigation. The issue of admissibility was previously heard and carefully ruled upon by DC Circuit Court Judge Beryl Howell. She is widely regarded as one of the best and most qualified judges in the country.
It may be technically true that Howell and Cannon are on an equal footing with respect to rank within the judicial system, but in the real world… No.
If Cannon makes a ruling undoing Howell’s previous one, I suspect that’s the sort of ruling that would get Smith to appeal to the Eleventh.
Almost certainly here: Cannon Fodder: Law Clerks Quit On Judge Aileen Cannon
Thank you! That piece is far more in depth than whatever it was I read, but the time frame is about right. Insightful.
Whenever I come across a Congressional Research Service report as a source, I get just a skosh giddy (8pp PDF).
Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors,
Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress
My takeaway is that there’s zero meritorious argument on the funding side. That seems clear.
It further seems clear that in the last 30-50 years, the AG has been accumulating consistently more autonomy with regard to Special Counsels.
While I can see a universe in which this could be thought to raise separation of powers issues, the Summary (p2 – 1pp) makes me skeptical that this argument would be persuasive.
Newsweek’s coverage on Smith’s responses seems to fall directly in line with this, and cites no less an authority than Bill Barr (AG v1.0 – GHW Bush) for having established relevant precedents on Special Counsel app’ts without Congressional deference.
Mandatory disclaimer: as always, Aileen Cannon.
Thanks for posting that. The CRS are always great. For anyone wondering, if you could only have one source to learn about these types of things, go with CRS.
I would just add that was written in 2013, so there’s been 11 more years of special prosecutors and everyone is cool with it.
Clearly not everyone…