This would require all of the jurors to declare Trump “not guilty” even though they believe he broke the law. Not likely. At all.
More likely a hung jury, if there is even one Trump True Believer on the jury. This means he could be re-tried.
Well, she’s either an inexperienced young judge over her head, or a mastermind who can expertly push her agenda through without reproach.
Given what happened in the previous trial… I’m gonna have to lean toward the former.
IIRC the indictment includes laws that, if found guilty, would disqualify Trump from holding federal office. If Cannon really wants to hand Trump the future on a golden platter, making sure he can resume the Presidency has to be a part of it.
As others have said, winners write the history books. Cannon going off the rails to protect Trump could go down as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in the history of this country, or it could be the advent of Real Americans taking back their country from the Woke Mind Virus Crowd.
Arguably yes, though as had been pointed out on the board many times, that has never been tested. As written, the law could be interpreted either way, and it would probably have to go before SCOTUS.
I’d say there is the potential that he might be disqualified. Definitely no guarantee.
Politico has looked at her record. She’s a typical conservative judge - very pro law enforcement, and has no qualms about levying heavy sentences. Not surprising given her history as a prosecutor.
Please.
The Socialist Groomer Woke Mind Virus Crowd.
Does it require a whole lot of smarts to research which appeals of lenient sentences have been rejected by the appeals courts, and by the 11 Circuit in particular? You look up which ones have succeeded and which have failed, and then you base your reasoning process here on the facts in this case that are closest to the lenient sentences that have been upheld. She doesn’t even need to do the heavy lifting–just assign a few smart clerks to spend the next year doing the research and drafting her argument to the appeals court.
This is exactly my fear. How’s is it even remotely without the appearance of potential bias with a judge presiding over a case involving the man who appointed her? It’s completely insane. Add in that she’s already showed undue deference and it’s a no-fucking-brainer.
There is a question about whether the Prosecution has a right to a jury trial in a federal criminal case. (or there was last time I researched it)
I’m not a Cannon fan. But every Federal judge was appointed by somebody. If she was a Biden or Obama appointee, your argument would apply just the same, only the “bias” would be in the prosecution’s favor.
I think her prior rulings are the much stronger argument for bias.
Agree with @Stratocaster - we know a number of Republican appointed judges have ruled against Trump, including some who smacked down (legally speaking) Cannon’s prior overreach. But unlike our Supreme court which has declared itself immune to oversight and above conflicts of interest (huge sarcasm warning just in case on that second bit), Federal judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict. Her prior case showed extremely poor judgement, and the fact she did not recuse herself in this one seems to be more of the same.
Will she go to the worst case scenario? I don’t think so, but she’ll give Trump every single benefit of the doubt in terms of allowable evidence and absolute bottom of the possible sentencing guidelines… IMHO some number of years of prison (very few) all suspended ‘for the good of the country’ or if we’re lucky, to be served instead as some form of house arrest out of respect for the position if not the person of the former POTUS.
There’s also the fact that almost all of the Trump judges are actually McConnell judges. He mostly just blindly signed off on whatever judicial nominees Mitch assured him would give the Federalist Society the biggest boner. They have little-to-no affinity for or loyalty to Trump.
Basically it another example of there being a basic part of the “checks and balances” in the US system of government that really just boils down to a convention that the parties involved will do the right thing, and not cross a line in the sand, with no actual penalties for doing the wrong thing and crossing the line in the sand.
That said (and I realize its not what the OP asked) that if she was a true believer and not concerned about reputation, she could have already torpedoed the case by saying all the documents were privileged.
Torpedoed? More like “gotten herself recused.” No one said she was a dummy. There are far more subtle ways for her jump into the tank for Trump, and we will see on full display during this trial.
I mean how is that any more likely to get recused than a directed verdict? (also can you get recused? I thought you had recuse yourself? again its a just a convention that judges are free to ignore, sure the prosecution could ask her to recuse herself, and she can just say “Go brandon!” and carry right on)
My understanding is that up to some point which hasn’t arrived yet the 11th Circuit can remove her and replace her with another judge. She would have to do some seriously outrageous shit, which is why I suspect she’ll be on best behavior, and even long into the trial she will try to give the appearance of propriety.
Though once the decision is made that’s a moot point right. Where the decision is to throw out the evidence or enter a directed verdict. The only recourse at that point is an appeal, and being wrong is not a reason for appear, you would have to show something procedurally incorrect (as I understand it, though IANAL)
And a substantial portion of the population would eat it up.
Plus the appointment already happened. The president who appointed them doesn’t still have control. We’ve seen example after example of a judge that was brought in by one party but doesn’t rule the way that party thinks they should. There’s usually no downside.
Granted, Trump is the one person who would be vindictive enough to punish a judge who ruled a way he didn’t want. But that would be true of any judge if he ever gets back into power. And we can’t recuse all judges.
It’s very much the bias she’s already shown that is concerning. Here’s hoping that there’s something keeping her on the straight and narrow. And that Smith has a plan if she doesn’t. (Remember, he didn’t bring forth every possible charge.)
You don’t see any difference at all between appointed by a Republican (or Democrat) and appointed by the defendant?