At the rate things are moving, DonOLD will "give up the ghost" before he ever goes on trial for the federal charges. Does it truly take so many years to collect the evidence needed to proceed with a court case? I think not
Didn't she have a sort of mentoring judge assigned to her after her first smackdowns from the 11th Circuit? You know he's got stuff to say, in writing, about this particular decision.
Is it like I am in a position of authority and so I interview a nominee and probe her with subtle questions mostly about myself and then if answered correctly put this someone in a position of authority but not more authority than my authority and then having correctly answered questions mostly about myself and my doings lets me do my doings myself?
I did not read Judge Cannon's opinion and order tanking the Trump documents case, but I have just finished reading the appellant's brief filed yesterday by the lawyers representing the United States. Given that they are a group of people who know what they are doing, it appears very clear that Judge Cannon has made the wrong ruling.
Whether she ruled as she did through inexperience, misunderstanding, or an unstated bad faith position to undermine the government of the United States, does not matter. It is likely the appeals court will overturn her decision and send the case back down to the district court for further proceedings. If the appellate court removes her from the case, I would not be surprised.
She demonstrates a deep misunderstanding and even ignorance of language, usage, history, and the law. Whatever her motives, she is not qualified to remain as the judge on this case. She may not be qualified to be a judge on any case, but I do not know the nature of her docket.
One thing that came to mind repeatedly as I read the government's brief is that it might be useful to Judge Cannon for some friendly party to remind her that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
She just figured that if the Supremes can ignore precedent ad libitum and invent whatever bullshit it takes to reach a foregone conclusion, why can't she? That's how Calvinball is played, isn't it?
Wasn't Ken Starr appointed as Special Counsel for something or other way back in the 90's? Obviously it's only constitutional when it's done by Repugnicants, right?
I am not a lawyer or a judge (even though I watch ALL the Law and Orders), but would it be a bad thing for a judge to say "Hey, this is beyond my scope of expertise, I'ma need another judge to handle this case". Can a judge even do that? I can't believe anything would make her look worse than this current shitshow.
She could have avoided those land mines and just stepped aside due to a perceived conflict of interest since trvmp and her mob connected husband had prior dealings.
But she didn’t because she is corrupt and in the bag for
Yes. In fact, the senior federal judge in Florida (not her boss per se, but close), approached her before the case and implored her to step aside--citing the magnitude and complexity of the case, her gross inexperience, and insufficient facilities for viewing classified information in her little backwater district court. But she's a special one and wouldn't listen to the stern advice of her much more experienced colleague. Hubris? somewhat. But corruption seems the more likely explanation.
She wants in on the Clarence Thomas School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want Billionaires to Fly Them to Exotic Vactions and Pay for Their RVs Too.
They could, but I’m thinking hubris would not let them do it. Also makes them look like they don’t know how to do their jobs before they have a chance to prove it. Another reason judges shouldn’t have lifetime appointments.
Thirdly, she's up against Trump and his army of murderous infants. Were she to step down voluntarily, they--and he--would savage her. She knows who nominated her and why she was put in place, dutiful minion that she is.
I'm plowin' through. Easy going, so far, as I'm still in the Table of Authorities. On p. 21, my favorite citation so far: "P. Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004)".
Implication is the judge may need some schooling on what specific words mean.
"The district court’s rationale would likewise raise questions about hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch, including in the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, and Labor."
I'm just afraid that the court will run with this and invalidate most of the government.
"One thing’s for sure: We gotta make sure Donald Trump doesn’t become president in the meantime."
This ^^^^^über alles.
At the rate things are moving, DonOLD will "give up the ghost" before he ever goes on trial for the federal charges. Does it truly take so many years to collect the evidence needed to proceed with a court case? I think not
Think..... Trump's strategy is delay, appeal, delay, appeal.
Hasn't she done well for him?
The Wheel on the Wagon is Broken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvPqsx2GlWs
Jack Smith reminds me of the song 'Bad, Bad Leroy Brown'.
And right on cue, PAB is painting the walls red.
Or something...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0rKQkvh2c
Didn't she have a sort of mentoring judge assigned to her after her first smackdowns from the 11th Circuit? You know he's got stuff to say, in writing, about this particular decision.
Someone explain "rigged" to me please.
Is it like I am in a position of authority and so I interview a nominee and probe her with subtle questions mostly about myself and then if answered correctly put this someone in a position of authority but not more authority than my authority and then having correctly answered questions mostly about myself and my doings lets me do my doings myself?
RIGGED!?!?
Ta, Evan. I hope Loose Cannon gets her ass handed to her, and your concluding paragraph is perfect.
I did not read Judge Cannon's opinion and order tanking the Trump documents case, but I have just finished reading the appellant's brief filed yesterday by the lawyers representing the United States. Given that they are a group of people who know what they are doing, it appears very clear that Judge Cannon has made the wrong ruling.
Whether she ruled as she did through inexperience, misunderstanding, or an unstated bad faith position to undermine the government of the United States, does not matter. It is likely the appeals court will overturn her decision and send the case back down to the district court for further proceedings. If the appellate court removes her from the case, I would not be surprised.
She demonstrates a deep misunderstanding and even ignorance of language, usage, history, and the law. Whatever her motives, she is not qualified to remain as the judge on this case. She may not be qualified to be a judge on any case, but I do not know the nature of her docket.
One thing that came to mind repeatedly as I read the government's brief is that it might be useful to Judge Cannon for some friendly party to remind her that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Clarence Thomas is the reason, she took his direction and went with it, as assuredly it will get to the Extreme Court.
She just figured that if the Supremes can ignore precedent ad libitum and invent whatever bullshit it takes to reach a foregone conclusion, why can't she? That's how Calvinball is played, isn't it?
Garland never should've allowed Smith to file this case in Florida.
Wasn't Ken Starr appointed as Special Counsel for something or other way back in the 90's? Obviously it's only constitutional when it's done by Repugnicants, right?
It was totally legal because Starr was investigating a Democrat.
I am not a lawyer or a judge (even though I watch ALL the Law and Orders), but would it be a bad thing for a judge to say "Hey, this is beyond my scope of expertise, I'ma need another judge to handle this case". Can a judge even do that? I can't believe anything would make her look worse than this current shitshow.
She could have avoided those land mines and just stepped aside due to a perceived conflict of interest since trvmp and her mob connected husband had prior dealings.
But she didn’t because she is corrupt and in the bag for
Yes. In fact, the senior federal judge in Florida (not her boss per se, but close), approached her before the case and implored her to step aside--citing the magnitude and complexity of the case, her gross inexperience, and insufficient facilities for viewing classified information in her little backwater district court. But she's a special one and wouldn't listen to the stern advice of her much more experienced colleague. Hubris? somewhat. But corruption seems the more likely explanation.
She wants in on the Clarence Thomas School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want Billionaires to Fly Them to Exotic Vactions and Pay for Their RVs Too.
They could, but I’m thinking hubris would not let them do it. Also makes them look like they don’t know how to do their jobs before they have a chance to prove it. Another reason judges shouldn’t have lifetime appointments.
Thirdly, she's up against Trump and his army of murderous infants. Were she to step down voluntarily, they--and he--would savage her. She knows who nominated her and why she was put in place, dutiful minion that she is.
If she owes loyalty to anyone, it’s the Federalist Society. She’ll be a judge long after Trump is in hell.
More's the pity. Do judges get disbarred?
That last bit can not occur soon enough.
I'm plowin' through. Easy going, so far, as I'm still in the Table of Authorities. On p. 21, my favorite citation so far: "P. Peters, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004)".
Implication is the judge may need some schooling on what specific words mean.
"The district court’s rationale would likewise raise questions about hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch, including in the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, and Labor."
I'm just afraid that the court will run with this and invalidate most of the government.
Yeah. I thought, “feature, not bug.”