-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump's Judge Indefinitely Postpones Trump's Trial In FL
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
I agree, this is much more difficult. That is why I think that Alina Habba is the one they should look at. She is not just a sympathizer or a pundit, she is a paid spokesperson for Trump concerning this and other legal matters. Trump is directing her as to what he wants her to say. Now, even with that, it will still be difficult to prove that Trump specifically directed her to say this specific thing and that that thing is a violation of the gag order, but not impossible. I think she is the best shot.
You are not the only one saying this. But to be honest I just don't understand that, at least as it relates to the gag order.
I am assuming that the judge in this case has the proper motivations. He doesn't want to put Trump in jail for the sake of putting him in jail. He wants to stop Trump from saying things to intimidate or influence the witnesses or the jury. And I don't see how a delayed sentence will accomplish that. The judge could sentence Trump to jail after the trial, and Trump could just keep on talking, and the judge could sentence Trump to more time, and so on. But I assume this judge want Trump to shut up now (or weeks ago). If the threat of jail has not done that, a night in jail would. Put Trump in jail for one night, sleeping on the cots that prisoners sleep on, eating the food that prisoners eat, using the facilities that prisoners use, and all this without his phone. And then when he gets out tell him that the next time he will be in there for a week. That would get the job done.
Well one consideration is that when Trump appeals claiming bias and unfair treatment the state will have a long list of examples where Trump was given LOADS of leeway.
I think courts all know Trump is a problem, a liar, corrupt, a threat, and the republican nominee. Special rules apply.
If this jury convicts, and there is no violence, and Trump appeals, I can’t see him winning there. He’s gotten away with a lot, and overturning a conviction by a jury would be too much.
Of course I understand they need grounds. That’s the point. Many posters here think the judge should recuse herself because of the mere fact Trump appointed her. Those posters ignore the legal standards required for recusal and disqualification.You certainly aren't helping.
The question where why didn't the prosecutors move to have her removed? Because they need grounds. Don't you understand this?
Your views as an expert on legal matters seems inconsistent with the legal experts hired by CNN, NBC, NpR, and other media that I have viewed. Some things you say are consistent, but not your attitudes about Cannon's actions.
I've been listening to this podcast and it is quite informative. They explain why Cannon can't be removed until she makes another decision on at least one of the many motions she' has before her, and isn't responding to. And she will need to respond in a wat that can be appealed, whic has happened twice already. She has been reversed twice by the 11th ccircuit. If she is reversed a third time THEN there is a basis to move for her removal. She's been avoiding responding to the motions that are piling up. So there's nothing Smith can do. And now that Cannon has postponed the trial we have no idea when, if ever, she will set a date. Judges have a lot of discretion, and they are given trust by the system. There is quite a bit of concern about this judge, and whether it is bias, or inexperience, or both, we aren't certain.
I’d also say a lot of the concern about the judge is media-driven and not based in reality. I have no love of Trump, but as an experienced litigator, this judge’s actions have pretty much been par for the course.
I’ll check out the podcast. Thanks.
You're ignoring common sense to believe that
there's no potential conflict of interest here.
Trump gave her the job. Loyalty is a risk.
Your saying that if this specific situation isn't
in the law, then it's OK. That's bunk
It looks crooked.
There are rules in the legal system, and much of the conduct by judges is an honor system., They are elected in many places and can be removed by vote. Appointees tend to get terms, even life long terms, and they are largely left to their own ethics. We see in the caee of Alito and Thomas on the SC that they have not been disclosing gifts, which is a breach of ethics. They don;t face any consequences, but it's enough that they act with disdain for the ethics rules. Thomas should have recused from hearing the immunity case due to his wife's activities and his awareness of her beliefs. It is just the appearance that recusal is necessary.
Cannon should have recused die to her lack of experience, and/or her bias, or both. She no doubt lacks experience, and given her two reversals she may be in over her head. How she was appointed and approved doesn't seem to be due to her exprience, but her support for Trump. That she was selected was a fluke, and the case would surely be farther along if she wasn't assigned.
How is that?
Not according to analysts on numerous networks. Their assessment is that much of her rulings have been mistakes and careless, and/or lack of experience. That she is sitting on many motions without making rulings is strange. They aren't sure if the delay is deliberate, or her inexperience, or bias. We see in the New York and DC cases that they can procede quickly. The DC case was stayed due to Trump's immunity claim, which was denied. Why the SC took this issue is not understood. It's surely been questioned whether it's the far right justices covering Trump, which ia itself highly unethical.
This all illustrates why we need serious reform for how judges get nominated and selected. The simple majority in the senate has allowed a lot of unqualified judges on seats, and this can't be good for the nation or justice. I want a bipartisan panel that reviews and selects nominees, and then a 67% minimum vote by the senate. This will ensure fewer on the extremes of politics being on important court, expecially the SC.
I think our friend wants to justify having
a Trump friendly judge be the one to
decide his fate. Make America grate again.
You’re ignoring legal standards that must be met.
Are you looking for a response?
Sharing for educational purposes:
www.lawfaremedia.org
What Does the Law Say About Recusing Judge Cannon?
Having Judge Cannon recused based on her history and perception of bias is a difficult task.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Sharing for educational purposes:
What Does the Law Say About Recusing Judge Cannon?
Having Judge Cannon recused based on her history and perception of bias is a difficult task.
Am I correct in that it is based on federal law and not Florida law?
Actually, I'm unaware of any specific legal standards,
rather than ignoring them. However, I'm skeptical of
your claim that this is an acceptable situation.
I observe that the law is a slippery & writhing thing.
Every law, document, ruling, clause, jot, & tittle is up
for debate. Personal agendas creep into everything.
Consider SCOTUS justices, ostensibly the greatest
legal minds the profession has to offer. They disagree
about even the basics.
Last edited:
Correct.
What basics do they disagree about?
I'm surprised you'd ask, being a lawyer.
Abortion rights, eg, Dobs v Jackson.... & Roe v Wade.
Property rights, eg, Kelo v New London.
The list goes on.
As I thought, none of those are “basic.”
I wondered if there'd be such a lame response.
*Shrug* You’re watering down of such complicated issues isn’t surprising.
Your misunderstanding them isn't surprising.
To defend Trump, one must abandon both
knowledge & reason.
I’m not defending Trump. Not once have I defended Trump. Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
We also all know you hate lawyers. Maybe more than cops? Not sure.