If republicans run the Senate she would, no question.Nominated but doubt she’ll get past committee hearings
There are lots of judges, seems easy for them to avoid the appearance of a conflict.You are implying that judges cannot be impartial. Obviously there are some who are not but if we don’t have that kind of basic trust in them then the whole system needs to be reworked until the trust can be restored.
His filing in response to her request basically called her a moron.Has Jack Smith even actually publicly said anything against Cannon? I haven't seen anything.
No, I’m saying the standard is ‘impropriety or the appearance of impropriety’ and owing your job to someone would clearly fall under the latter in my opinion.You are implying that judges cannot be impartial. Obviously there are some who are not but if we don’t have that kind of basic trust in them then the whole system needs to be reworked until the trust can be restored.
I get how for litigation while in office the president can’t be limited to only judges they didn’t appoint but once out of office it should be absolute common sense that your cases can’t be handled by someone who owes their job to you.
Donny's Judges have been slapping him down quite often.You are implying that judges cannot be impartial. Obviously there are some who are not but if we don’t have that kind of basic trust in them then the whole system needs to be reworked until the trust can be restored.
They can be impeached and removed, but that's rare and usually only for criminal offenses outside of the job.It's silly this woman could be on the bench for 30 more years and there is nothing that can be done to get rid of her. Trump will likely make her a supreme court justice if he wins. Probably promising that too her already through back channels.
Exactly. You could very easily choose someone the litigant didn’t personally hire. It’s not hard.There are lots of judges, seems easy for them to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
So not really, he isn't talking shit about her to the media. Just poor language in a filing.His filing in response to her request basically called her a moron.
The language was excellent and more polite than she deservedSo not really, he isn't talking shit about her to the media. Just poor language in a filing.
Link? (Or a better description I can search for?)The language was excellent and more polite than she deserved
I think the text is in this thread already but instead of calling her a fucking corrupt moron (accurate) he instsad wrote "if the court wrongly concludes that it is [the correct formulation of law]..."Link? (Or a better description I can search for?)
Oh I think the language in the filing was completely appropriate. It was professional, it just showed how incompetent she is.So not really, he isn't talking shit about her to the media. Just poor language in a filing.
Not even poor language, just accurate language which (indirectly) pointed out her complete ineptitude, which she took quite personally in her response.So not really, he isn't talking shit about her to the media. Just poor language in a filing.
I instruct you, however, that, as to a former President, even if he lacks a security clearance, lacks a need to know classified information, and stores information outside of a secure facility, he is authorized to do so if the classified information is contained within a “personal record,” within the meaning of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), a statute that establishes the public ownership of presidential records and ensures the preservation of presidential records for public access after the termination of a President’s term in office.
I further instruct you that a President has unreviewable authority to designate any record whatsoever as personal, regardless of whether it meets the statutory definitions I have just provided. I further instruct you that, if, before the end of his term in office, a President transfers records from the White House to any location other than the National Archives and Records Administration, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment, he has necessarily exercised his unreviewable authority to designate those records as personal and, as a matter of law, he is authorized to possess them and you may not find him guilty.
I'm really confused by this...so these are hypothetical instructions to a jury? I haven't been watching the developments like a hawk unfortunately. Too depressingTo me the best lines are on pages 21 and 22 where after informing Cannon she is a moron he creates the draft instructions she requested.
And:
Chef’s kiss.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that impeachment/removal is a nonexistent remedy.They can be impeached and removed, but that's rare and usually only for criminal offenses outside of the job.
Yes, Judge Cannon, in her infinite wisdom, ordered the Defense and Prosecution to draft hypothetical final closing jury instructions regarding the Presidential Records Act.I'm really confused by this...so these are hypothetical instructions to a jury? I haven't been watching the developments like a hawk unfortunately. Too depressing
One was to let the jury review all documents in question (screw top secret). Second, PRA gives the president the right to claim documents are personal.I'm really confused by this...so these are hypothetical instructions to a jury? I haven't been watching the developments like a hawk unfortunately. Too depressing
That's understandable as her instructions make no sense in law.I'm really confused by this...so these are hypothetical instructions to a jury? I haven't been watching the developments like a hawk unfortunately. Too depressing
1) What is being released right now is minimally-redacted grand jury testimony, which is being released including revealing names and actions of potential witnesses mentioned in the testimony, but it is not a release of the actual classified files - which would have gotten her rapidly reversed and possibly punted from the case.How are the contents of classified papers relevant to the case? I thought the issue wasn’t what he took but rather that he took something that wasn’t his and lied about giving it back.
'Everyone knows about them now so the can't be classified, case dismissed'How are the contents of classified papers relevant to the case? I thought the issue wasn’t what he took but rather that he took something that wasn’t his and lied about giving it back.
How would a jury be qualified to make that determination. Seems like this would come from the DOD or somewhere that says these documents were classified for national security. You don't need the contents of the docs just the reason they were classified, which would be a separate document.One of the charges is along lines of unlawful possession of national defense information and national security documents (which is a crime under the espionage act, regardless of whether the documents are classified or not), but the contents are relevant to determine if they meet that definition