Judge Eileen Cannon dismisses Classified Documents case against Trump

[Evangelicalhumanist]

She has agreed that the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, was wrongly appointed.

Apparently, the United States has no mechanism for dealing with corrupt judges -- she has been working for Trump since the beginning of this case. Unbelievable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

She has agreed that the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, was wrongly appointed.

Apparently, the United States has no mechanism for dealing with corrupt judges -- she has been working for Trump since the beginning of this case. Unbelievable.

I think that this will be appealed, but the problem is that it delays the case. This could cause her to lose her seat. She is probably emboldened by her belief that Trump will be elected and that will save her sorry behind.

Her corruption is without doubt.

 

[fantome profane]

I think there is no doubt that this case will continue and be assigned to a different judge.

Everything depends on who wins the Presidential election, but that was always true.

 

[metis]

She's been kissing Trump's butt all along, thus no surprise.

 

[Revoltingest]

She has agreed that the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, was wrongly appointed.

Apparently, the United States has no mechanism for dealing with corrupt judges -- she has been working for Trump since the beginning of this case. Unbelievable.

Corrupt?
No.
The fact that Trump appointed the judge who'd
adjudicate a case against him isn't at all suspicious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Corrupt?
No.
The fact that Trump appointed the judge who'd
adjudicate a case against him isn't at all suspicious.

No, there is no doubt about her corruption. She was told by her more senior judges that she should turn down this appointment since she had already been reprimanded for earlier work of hers that was overturned in defending Trump. She has clearly delayed the trial as much as possible rather than allowing it to proceed at a reasonable rate. And now she has used a flimsy excuse to dismiss the case knowing that she was going to be removed sooner or later and delaying the case even more. She can dismiss it, but dismissals can be appealed.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, there is no doubt about her corruption. She was told by her more senior judges that she should turn down this appointment since she had already been reprimanded for earlier work of hers that was overturned in defending Trump. She has clearly delayed the trial as much as possible rather than allowing it to proceed at a reasonable rate. And now she has used a flimsy excuse to dismiss the case knowing that she was going to be removed sooner or later and delaying the case even more. She can dismiss it, but dismissals can be appealed.

Fake news!
She's a paragon of virtue & legal brilliance.

Notice:
I've been sarcastic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it important to remember that it was Justice Clarence Thomas's Concurring opinion in Trump v USA, in which he chose to write only so that he could include that direction to Cannon within his opinion. Thomas had suggested that the appointment of Smith as special counsel raised a potential violation of the Constitution’s provisions on appointment power, and how an office may be created.

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Thomas wrote.

As near as I can tell, Special Counsels have been appointed for quite some time now, with no objections from SCOTUS. Surely this can't only be because it's Trump. Surely! Tell me the Supreme Court is not so corrupt as that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it important to remember that it was Justice Clarence Thomas's Concurring opinion in Trump v USA, in which he chose to write only so that he could include that direction to Cannon within his opinion. Thomas had suggested that the appointment of Smith as special counsel raised a potential violation of the Constitution’s provisions on appointment power, and how an office may be created.

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Thomas wrote.

As near as I can tell, Special Counsels have been appointed for quite some time now, with no objections from SCOTUS. Surely this can't only be because it's Trump. Surely! Tell me the Supreme Court is not so corrupt as that!

No, not the entire court. Just six members.

 

[fantome profane]

Corrupt?
No.
The fact that Trump appointed the judge who'd
adjudicate a case against him isn't at all suspicious.

I got that you were being sarcastic. She is clearly corrupt and in the bag for Trump. But we know that based on all the ruling she has made (and all the rulings she has not made), not based on who appointed her. At this level everyone involved is likely to have been appointed by the defendant, or appointed by the defendant's political opponent. We can still and should expect fair and impartial judges. We did not get that in this case.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't know what will happen with the case now. Obviously, if Trump wins election--a strong likelihood now--the case will be dropped by his DoJ. He won't have to do that now, unless the current DoJ decides to revive it with a different judge. It's hard to say what Garland will do. Cannon should be impeached, but I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump nominated her to the Supreme Court. Her future is assured if he takes control of the government in January. That prospect may be what influenced her to issue this preposterous dismissal.

 

[fantome profane]

Here is a thought, if the issue is about Jack Smith not being approved by the Senate why not call an emergency session of the Senate and vote to approve him. This is the perfect time to do it with the Republican Convention happening in Milwaukee.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a thought, if the issue is about Jack Smith not being approved by the Senate why not call an emergency session of the Senate and vote to approve him. This is the perfect time to do it with the Republican Convention happening in Milwaukee.

Naah, just have President Biden, using his new powers just given to him by the USSC, declare that it is official Presidential business and put the trial back on with a new judge.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think it important to remember that it was Justice Clarence Thomas's Concurring opinion in Trump v USA, in which he chose to write only so that he could include that direction to Cannon within his opinion. Thomas had suggested that the appointment of Smith as special counsel raised a potential violation of the Constitution’s provisions on appointment power, and how an office may be created.

“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Thomas wrote.

As near as I can tell, Special Counsels have been appointed for quite some time now, with no objections from SCOTUS. Surely this can't only be because it's Trump. Surely! Tell me the Supreme Court is not so corrupt as that!

The damnable thing about Thomas' opinion here is that neither side brought up the issue for litigation. He just pulled it out of the sky blue. There is a term for this, and one has not been issued since 1911 if I am hearing correctly.

 

[Shaul]

The damnable thing about Thomas' opinion here is that neither side brought up the issue for litigation. He just pulled it out of the sky blue. There is a term for this, and one has not been issued since 1911 if I am hearing correctly.

I don't believe that is correct. I think the Trump lawyers brought up the issue in one of its motions to dismiss.

 

[Shaul]

Here is a thought, if the issue is about Jack Smith not being approved by the Senate why not call an emergency session of the Senate and vote to approve him. This is the perfect time to do it with the Republican Convention happening in Milwaukee.

That wouldn't "cure" the illegality of his original appointment.

 

[fantome profane]

That wouldn't "cure" the illegality of his original appointment.

That is irrelevant. Once he has Senate approval Jack Smith could refill all the charges. This is not a double jeopardy situation.

 

[Shaul]

I don't know what will happen with the case now. Obviously, if Trump wins election--a strong likelihood now--the case will be dropped by his DoJ. He won't have to do that now, unless the current DoJ decides to revive it with a different judge. It's hard to say what Garland will do. Cannon should be impeached, but I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump nominated her to the Supreme Court. Her future is assured if he takes control of the government in January. That prospect may be what influenced her to issue this preposterous dismissal.T

The DoJ cannot re-file this without first appealing Judge Cannon's decision. Any such appeal would take quite some time and would most likely would include consideration of Supreme Court Justice Thomas' opinion which stated Jack Smith's appointment was wrong. These things are highly unlikely to happen.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I don't believe that is correct. I think the Trump lawyers brought up the issue in one of its motions to dismiss.

The issue was not raised by Trump's attorneys at the SCOTUS hearing on Presidential immunity. Thomas' opinion is from the ruling on that case.

 

[Shaul]

The issue was not raised by Trump's attorneys at the SCOTUS hearing on Presidential immunity. Thomas' opinion is from the ruling on that case.

Nonetheless, a Supreme Court Justice opinion would mostly be referenced by any team of lawyers, such as Trump's, fighting the appeal.