Yeah. My impression of her is she's the bare minimum of qualified and wasn't glaringly objectionable so got approved fairly easily. Trump appointed some that were actually rated not qualified. I don't remember if any of them got confirmed. I remember reading her application for the job and it was fairly unimpressive. Like seems like she had nothing in the section about having given speeches. Her list of published items includes something in El Nuevo Herald about tomatoes. This is a link to her application: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Cannon%20SJQ%20-%20PUBLIC.pdf
She'll sabotage and fuck this up any way she possibly can, as much as she possibly can, for as long as she possibly can -- and then, once she's exhausted all the possibilities and everyone's patience, she'll lift her skirt and show him her day of the week granny panties.
We all know this. We all knew this the minute she got assigned to the case.
I for one have been hoping she’d try to ratfuck it so hard the 11th would yeet her right off the case, and sooner rather than later. Alas, it looks like she’s figured out that she has to at least create a little smokescreen.
Is there some reason the prosecution can't request or demand recusal or change of judge? This woman was APPOINTED BY THE DEFENDANT. How is that not a CLEAR conflict of interest?
There’s a difference between what you and I think of as obvious reasons for recusal and what judicial thinking and precedent does. Someone linked a very good popehat article downthread.
I’m still mostly convinced she’s going to cross the line and get the boot, but she’ll do some damage before she goes.
The fact that Smith didn’t file charges that Trump disseminated information makes me wonder if the January 6 case is the one that really matters to him. He’s going to let Cannon play her games and delay and embarrass herself and meanwhile Trumps going to go to jail in DC. The indictment for Jan 6 seems much more serious overall and certainly the one Trump is most afraid of.
In terms of potential for never seeing the light of day again, the docs case is about five hundred times more serious, but it's also likely to drag on for years of discovery and wrangling over really quite complicated evidence and witness conflict questions in front of a barely-out-of-the-wrapper judge who has already shown some willingness to encourage shenanigans. So, yes, in terms of the chance Trump actually sees a trial and it doesn't go his way, the D.C. case is far, far scarier for the Defendant.
I'll settle for one of the dozens of employees "the boss" thinks are loyally in his gang knows, because let's not kid ourselves, even made guys have ambitions and jealousies.
Fun thing that Liz Dye and Andrew Torrez pointed out on Opening Arguments today:
In the 1/6 Conspiracy case - the one with an adult judge - Trump has made it clear that he will not abide by an order of protection for the discovery content. (Presumably he plans to post the home addresses of the grand jurors on his social media, with a note to "get wild!" or some such.) OK, cool, Trump thinks he can defy the order because the judge will not dare to find him in contempt and revoke his recognizance - i.e., send him to the pokey. But.
It's not Trump who will be cited for contempt: it's his lawyers. The order will (most likely) require them to track what content Trump sees, and ensure that he removes none of it. It will hold them accountable for his violations. And nobody - not Trump, not the MAGAs, no one - gives a rat's ass what happens to his lawyers.
Problem: Then he wouldn't have representation and his trial could not go ahead. It's almost like that Chicago murder case that was recounted in Dummy: sometimes the law is its own enemy.
I propose that each time he violates her order, he call him before her and make him explain what he has done. I tend to agree with Andrew and Liz that he will not be locked up. But he can be scolded by a tough mother, and I think he would explode. He's on the verge of a nervous breakdown now.
(I know, I said when he was inaugurated he would soon have a nervous breakdown. He has proven to be even less introspective than anyone thought. But there are a few things he cannot abide, and being chastised by a woman when he cannot lash back might be the hardest of them all for him to handle.)
The order makes it clear. Yes, Trump is the one who would publish confidential info - the lawyers would not do that. But the lawyers are who would be held responsible.
How long before the 11th Circuit gets called in?????
And since they are talking about Tudor documentaries below, I just want to say I saw the Barbie movie and it was great! If the content were available, I would watch Kate MacKinnon 24/7 into infinity, Will Ferrell is always a hoot, and I like the main storyline. I thought Ryan did well with his part, and Barbie rules.
i don't understand how she hasn't been removed from her job, let alone this case - she's been sanctioned for her actions and impropriety, isn't that enough for the government to recuse her ass??
For Christ sake, just go ahead and shoot somebody on 5th Avenue, so they can go ahead and drag you away in restraints like Hannibal Lecter.
Hell, I'll even take the bullet if it will finally get this shit show over with.
I fully expect Cannon to fuck this up, but when she does, I equally expect the legal profession to riot.
She's a piece of work. I love how she clearly thinks she's writing SMART LEGAL WORDS and yet cancels out her own logic. So on brand for MAGA world.
Gosh it's like making a judiciary primed for corruption and accountable to no one was a bad idea, actually.
Yeah. My impression of her is she's the bare minimum of qualified and wasn't glaringly objectionable so got approved fairly easily. Trump appointed some that were actually rated not qualified. I don't remember if any of them got confirmed. I remember reading her application for the job and it was fairly unimpressive. Like seems like she had nothing in the section about having given speeches. Her list of published items includes something in El Nuevo Herald about tomatoes. This is a link to her application: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Cannon%20SJQ%20-%20PUBLIC.pdf
Yeah, I wrote this one off as soon as she got hold of it. At least there's still DC and Georgia.
Aileen is starting to quack again... DUCK!
Of all of Trumps lawyers, Aileen Canon has been one of his better ones.
It helps when you're on the federal payroll. Those checks keep coming no matter what.
I figure she is just "paying back" the "liberal DC judge" so that Republicans can make a case that ALL judges are bias
Ohio Issue 1 has been defeated in secial election.
Republican scum go down to defeat, and aborton is safe in Ohio for now,
"All this does is turn Roe back to the individual states."
*Individual states decide*
"No, not like that."
Was it a squeaker, or did it get beaten like a rented mule?
Yes - 42%
No - 57%
Like a squeaky rented mule!
Stolen like every election TFG loses.
I believe the mule is out of the barn and on its way to kick mucho Republican ass...
As long as it's not Donkey-xote.
Just looked. 13 points is a pretty solid drubbing for a thoroughly ratfucked election in a red state. Good.
Now a 15 point drubbing.
And they moved a bunch of polling places within a week of the election. Seriously ratfucked.
Ta, Liz. Another Michele (one L) Bachmann style crazy eyed BananaRepublican™️ brought to you by Drumpf.
"She's got...Marty Feldman eyes!"
It's Aileen Cannon.
She's crazy, mean, and a Trump enabler.
She'll sabotage and fuck this up any way she possibly can, as much as she possibly can, for as long as she possibly can -- and then, once she's exhausted all the possibilities and everyone's patience, she'll lift her skirt and show him her day of the week granny panties.
We all know this. We all knew this the minute she got assigned to the case.
I for one have been hoping she’d try to ratfuck it so hard the 11th would yeet her right off the case, and sooner rather than later. Alas, it looks like she’s figured out that she has to at least create a little smokescreen.
Is there some reason the prosecution can't request or demand recusal or change of judge? This woman was APPOINTED BY THE DEFENDANT. How is that not a CLEAR conflict of interest?
There’s a difference between what you and I think of as obvious reasons for recusal and what judicial thinking and precedent does. Someone linked a very good popehat article downthread.
I’m still mostly convinced she’s going to cross the line and get the boot, but she’ll do some damage before she goes.
I bet she hasn't figgered long. Trump idiots lack the basic equipment not to f up.
The fact that Smith didn’t file charges that Trump disseminated information makes me wonder if the January 6 case is the one that really matters to him. He’s going to let Cannon play her games and delay and embarrass herself and meanwhile Trumps going to go to jail in DC. The indictment for Jan 6 seems much more serious overall and certainly the one Trump is most afraid of.
In terms of potential for never seeing the light of day again, the docs case is about five hundred times more serious, but it's also likely to drag on for years of discovery and wrangling over really quite complicated evidence and witness conflict questions in front of a barely-out-of-the-wrapper judge who has already shown some willingness to encourage shenanigans. So, yes, in terms of the chance Trump actually sees a trial and it doesn't go his way, the D.C. case is far, far scarier for the Defendant.
I had an Air Force friend (I was Army) in language training who mishandled classified material while at FS Berlin. He drew 12 years in Leavenworth,
Admittedly, he "mishandled" it by selling it to the Stasi, but still. Who the F knows what Trump did with it. I am hoping Smith knows.
I'll settle for one of the dozens of employees "the boss" thinks are loyally in his gang knows, because let's not kid ourselves, even made guys have ambitions and jealousies.
Fun thing that Liz Dye and Andrew Torrez pointed out on Opening Arguments today:
In the 1/6 Conspiracy case - the one with an adult judge - Trump has made it clear that he will not abide by an order of protection for the discovery content. (Presumably he plans to post the home addresses of the grand jurors on his social media, with a note to "get wild!" or some such.) OK, cool, Trump thinks he can defy the order because the judge will not dare to find him in contempt and revoke his recognizance - i.e., send him to the pokey. But.
It's not Trump who will be cited for contempt: it's his lawyers. The order will (most likely) require them to track what content Trump sees, and ensure that he removes none of it. It will hold them accountable for his violations. And nobody - not Trump, not the MAGAs, no one - gives a rat's ass what happens to his lawyers.
Idk. I've come around on the idea that he will almost certainly get too froggy and end up remanded to prison to await trial. Lol if so.
LOL to the googolplex power.
Well, it would certainly put a different look on all those delay tactics.
Problem: Then he wouldn't have representation and his trial could not go ahead. It's almost like that Chicago murder case that was recounted in Dummy: sometimes the law is its own enemy.
I propose that each time he violates her order, he call him before her and make him explain what he has done. I tend to agree with Andrew and Liz that he will not be locked up. But he can be scolded by a tough mother, and I think he would explode. He's on the verge of a nervous breakdown now.
(I know, I said when he was inaugurated he would soon have a nervous breakdown. He has proven to be even less introspective than anyone thought. But there are a few things he cannot abide, and being chastised by a woman when he cannot lash back might be the hardest of them all for him to handle.)
I believe she would remand him.
And his guards? Ain't gonna happen.
Were you one of those who said he'd never be charged?
Nope. But I was and still am skeptical that a jury will convict.
The order makes it clear. Yes, Trump is the one who would publish confidential info - the lawyers would not do that. But the lawyers are who would be held responsible.
How long before the 11th Circuit gets called in?????
And since they are talking about Tudor documentaries below, I just want to say I saw the Barbie movie and it was great! If the content were available, I would watch Kate MacKinnon 24/7 into infinity, Will Ferrell is always a hoot, and I like the main storyline. I thought Ryan did well with his part, and Barbie rules.
i don't understand how she hasn't been removed from her job, let alone this case - she's been sanctioned for her actions and impropriety, isn't that enough for the government to recuse her ass??
Federal judges can deputize their dogs in order to allow them into the Courthouse; they’re a bit too indulged, if you ask me.
FFS - now i'm madder
She wasn't sanctioned, just very soundly reversed.
Maybe there's a magic number of errors like 37 before she's assigned to traffic court.
With our luck, it's 42.
we need to review that number downwards
Not if Kevin Smith has anything to say about it.