It seems to me that people who are unfamiliar with the criminal justice system have every right to ask questions about procedures they’re not familiar with, such as the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial.
OK, so I have one person saying that the prosecution can appeal if the judge rules for Trump but appears grossly biased but others who say no because double jeopardy applies. I had assumed that double jeopardy applies but that means you could potentially bribe a judge to rule in your favor and there would be no way to appeal it? I mean, you can prosecute for the bribery but would the original verdict have to stand?
On the issue of double jeopardy: a judge can also cancel a jury’s verdict.
(Wiki says the legal term is “judgement notwithstanding the verdict” JNOV)
It’s a rarely used, in cases where the judge decides that the jury acted unreasonably and ignored the facts…
But what happens if the jury is rational, but the judge acts unreasonably and ignores the facts?
Sure, it might destroy the judge’s career. But suppose this Trump-appointed judge decides that career isn’t the most important thing in life. She would rather become internationally famous and written permanently into all the history books-- as the great savior of America who declared Trump innocent.
How could such a decision be appealed? All proper legal procedures were followed during the trial. all laws were obeyed, etc. Would judge Cannon’s decision be final?
Not a federal judge. That’s a lifetime appointment, and they can only be removed if the House impeaches and then the Senate convicts. Good luck getting either of those things to happen, much less both. Cannon is untouchable regardless how rogue she goes. Hell, going rogue could net her a Supreme Court appointment if the next couple elections go red.
On the plus side, it has been posted that if she does go with a directed verdict of innocent (which is no longer called that), apparently that can be appealed. Which I guess means Jeopardy does not attach.
But I’d bet a dollar that she could find a way to fuck the case up in such a way that Jeopardy does attach. I’m a layman so I don’t know any of the technical intricacies, but I’m imagining something along the lines of “That’s some quality evidence you have there. Too bad it’s inadmissible.”
Good point!
In this case, the defendant got lucky.
It isn’t settled that Trump is guilty of what he is specifically charged. Qualified lawyers would have varying opinions. I might think the jury got it right and the judge didn’t. But it wouldn’t be a scientific fact that one party was rational and the other irrational.
Miscreants get away with the great majority of crimes committed. Being fair always creates a high risk in that direction.
Past experience with jailing crooked politicians is that it hasn’t reliably deterred others. DeSantis isn’t going to turn into a moderate, or a saint, if Trump loses while in prison. The only way to stop right wing populism is to defeat it at the polls with, about, I’d say, 52 percent of the vote.
I do admit to having a defense attorney mindset.
Maga nuts no longer seem concerned about the evidence, its flaws, Jack Smith 's wife’s politics etc. Now their support is pure Own the Libs. "I’m voting for him because it drives the libs crazy. " And in this, they’re absolutely right. So 2024 will come down to do we want a government built on spite?
Many have pointed this out and I get it.
Okay, so she can’t lose her job. 
But how well can she function and fit in to the judicial community for the rest of her life if she is seen as a pariah? The one who fucked up The Trial of the Century. The Unprincipled Toady who gave into the Cheeto-Faced-Shit-Gibbon out of some misguided (AND unreciprocated) sense of loyalty. The one who ditched good judgment, justice, and doing the right thing for the 30-second chance to suck the Big Dick’s dick? What would be the point?
I asked this a while ago: what’s in this LONG-TERM for her? And the only marginally satisfactory answer I got was a Supreme Court seat IF he is re-elected. That is a huge long shot.
I strongly agree with this.
Plus, if she’s making outrageous rulings just to support donald (I.e. This juror believes that presidents should be subject to the rule of law? Dismissed for cause! The defense is objecting to evidence because it makes their client look bad? Sustained!) it will be blindingly obvious.
She doesn’t run in D.C. circles. Her fiefdom is south Florida (a blue part of this red state). Does she really want to be seen as a joke amongst her colleagues?
It’s one of the dumbest things in history, but millions of them are True Believers, fully dedicated to Trump personally as a cult leader. We tend to think of these people as being lower status than judges, but there are some congressmen that fit into this category, it’s entirely possible that there can be judges too. She may not be angling for personal benefit, she may think it’s the right thing to do, insane as that is.
I apologize if I’ve missed this, but how do mid-trial appeals of judges’ decisions work? I know that post-trial, the defense can appeal the verdict based on the judge’s error, but the prosecution cannot. If she’s terrible in the middle of the trial, though, can the prosecution say, “Hold up, Your Honor, we think you suck, and we’re pausing this trial until we can get a judge who doesn’t have an ‘I 
Trump’ tattoo”?
Thank you so much for finally seeing my point!
Donald will be dead in a few years, but if Cannon skews the results of this proceeding in his favor, it will be a blot on her career forever. So she keeps the job-- big whoop! Not much fun if the other judges ignore you on the playground and won’t sit with you in the cafeteria.
Oh Lord… if this is the real reason… yikes. If she’s throws the trial for him on PRINCIPLE? 
You are treating a cultist as if she’s not a cultist, and applying non-cultist reasoning to her actions. Why?
Do the other judges regularly hang out? Why would she give a shit what they think? Her job is for life and she has friends outside of work. She has immense power and she gets to use it for decades.
IMO the way they are dragging their feet with the whole process, by the time it does matter, it won’t matter anymore. I’ll be impressed when I see convictions and sentencing.
Even a cultist has to have some sense of self-interest, don’t they? I mean the ones who don’t actually immolate themselves on the front steps of public buildings. However she handles this trial is going to define her public career for the rest of her life. Is she so devoted and short-sighted a cultist that she can’t see the potential long-term splashback on her?
I don’t see my position as “appealing to reasoning” – to me it’s more a case of visceral, gut-level, self-preservation and survival. Operating at a lower level than reasoning. How does skewing for trump support her career survival in the long run?
Let’s ask some of the legal eagles who hang around here? I don’t know anything except what I see on TV. DO judges care what the legal and judicial community thinks of them? Does intra-group collegiality and respect matter to those people? Over a lifetime career?
No.
That’s part of being a cultist: what a reasonable person would consider to be self-interest is subsumed under dedication to the cult’s rules and the cult’s leader.
Inasmuch as there’s self-interest involved, it’s acceptance by the cult leader and the other cultists, and the avoidance of expulsion from the cult. Acceptance by non-cultists can actually be deleterious to the cultist’s self-interest.
It’s a given that portions of the population and of the legal and judicial community will hate your guts, and also that another portion will worship you. That’s just part of the deal when you accept a lifetime judgeship
She doesn’t need to survive. Her job is for life. I’ll grant that most judges have some concern for reputation but that’s irrelevant. She doesn’t give a shit and she has no reason to give a shit and there are no consequences at all.
I’be always believed that she would allow a legit trial to happen. Like you, I think it’s in her obvious self-interest to be seen as competent.
I’m not convinced that she’s a “cultist”. Is it just the fact that she was nominated by trump, and then made that special master ruling, or is there more?
She might not be a good judge, and she may be biased, but the teeth gnashing is over the concern that she’s crazy and going to do the equivalent of flip up her robe and pee on the bench.
I think the worry isn’t warranted at this time.