Jack has had enough.

There is no legal justification for her potential order as the PRA does not apply to this case, as explained in granular detail by Smith's filing.

 

Please provide a quote. I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Because it has no legal application to this case. See post #81.

 

Now we're supposed to ignore the rule law because academics are speculating that ignorant people will feel bad? LOL!

 

The reason is that the issues are existential. One side wants more power and less freedom, the other side wants less government and more freedom. Government, on the other hand, always wants more government regardless of the side. We are governing ourselves to death and voters support it. We are in big trouble. Trump is just man. Same with Biden. The problem is far far far greater than any one man. It is institutional.

 

The latest decision from Cannon has renewed calls for Smith to try to have her removed from the case. It revolves around Trump and his lawyers' disputed arguments put forward in a motion to dismiss stating that the Presidential Records Act allowed the Republicanundisputed authority to categorize classified materials as his personal property. This would mean Trump did not break any law by removing them from the White House in January 2021.

On Monday, Cannon asked lawyers for Trump and Smith's office team to submit "competing scenarios" laying out possible jury instructions regarding the interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, including whether a president "has sole authority" to categorize records as "personal or presidential" during their time in office.

The move was criticized as potentially asking a jury to lean towards Trump's views of the Presidential Records Act, or allow Cannon to dismiss the case entirely, without giving Smith a chance to appeal against any decision to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jack-smiths-lose-lose-situation/ar-BB1kiM2d

 

It's the Privileged Class supporting the MIC's forever wars!

 

Not according to Judge Cannon. See my link.

The latest decision from Cannon has renewed calls for Smith to try to have her removed from the case. It revolves around Trump and his lawyers' disputed arguments put forward in a motion to dismiss stating that the Presidential Records Act allowed the Republican undisputed authority to categorize classified materials as his personal property. This wouldmean Trump did not break any law by removing them from the White House in January 2021.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jack-smiths-lose-lose-situation/ar-BB1kiM2d

 

Sorry, what is a MIC.

 

Military Industrial Complex
President Eisenhauer warned us of this industry.

https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervi...865B2A2771ACDD3D1F74865B2A2771ACDD3&FORM=VIRE

 

The PRA is a civil statute and thus has no application in a criminal trial. She finally rejected Trump's motion to dismiss because it was baseless.

 

Cannon Denies Trump Presidential Records Act Dismissal Bid For Now

The judge in Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago records case on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss from the former President that had little chance of succeeding, but set the case up for further delay.

Denying that motion — which held that the Presidential Records Act somehow allowed Trump to hold onto reams of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago — was the straightforward part. But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for the Southern District of Florida made two other decisions in the brief, three-page ruling: she denied a motion from the special counsel for a ruling on competing sets of jury instructions she had requested, and she left the door open to revisit the issue during or after trial.

The decisions come after Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded rulings from Cannon on Trump’s motion to dismiss and on the jury instructions in a fiery, late-night Tuesday court filing.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...residential-records-act-dismissal-bid-for-now

But it caused an unnecessary delay so mission accomplished for Aileen.

 

The judge denied Trump’s request to dismiss the charges but the PRA still stands and the jury will be able to hear it from the Defense.

 

It has no application to the case.

More generally, the Superseding Indictment specifies the nature of the accusations against Defendant Trump in a lengthy speaking indictment with embedded excerpts from investigative interviews, photographs, and other content. For these reasons, accepting the allegations of the Superseding Indictment as true, the Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v)—either as to Counts 1 through 32 or as to the remaining counts, all of which state cognizable offenses.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.431.0.pdf

 

The jury will be allowed to consider Trump’s privilege under the PRA to keep personal presidential records. Your title is misleading.

 

A **** house lawyer are you? The jury will decide.

 

Got a source for that?

 

Quote! Do you not know what "quote" means?

You said: "Smith wanted the judge to silence the defense from talking about the PRA"

Show a quote in which he asks the judge to silence the defense.... Easy enough. Or were you just trying to BS us? If you made that up, simply admit it.

 

The PRA does not apply in a criminal case and does not give Trump any privilege with respect to documents that are the property of the US, not Trump.

 

Cannon added that her jury instruction order was simply an attempt “to better understand the parties’ competing positions” in what is a “complex case of first impression.”

The only person who thinks the case is complex is Cannon. People who understand the law do not.

 

Good for Smith , indeed. She is described as lacking experience ....particularly in a case like this. Plus she seems to have a bias.

 

If the judge had agreed with Jack-ass then the Defense would not be able to mention the PRA effectively silencing the Defense. Too bad you are most likely not going to get your speedy conviction before November.

 

If the defense is relying on the PRA to get Trump off they might as well advise Trump to plead guilty because it is no defense in a criminal trial at all. The mistake you make is believing Trump when he says the PRA applies to the case. It doesn't. Educate yourself.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/r...d.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf

 

A Trump hater using a source to educate me is hilarious.

 

No!!! If the judge agrees with Jack Smith, Jack Smith will not be FORCED to write instructions to the jury in which they would basically be told that they must exonerate Trump based on the PRA, because the accusation is NOT about the PRA. This has NOTHING to do with what the defense can or can't say in THEIR allegations. These are instructions to the jury. Now it's clear you were talking nonsense. And taking your claim seriously was a complete waste of time. Please try to do better.

In any case, this is enough to demonstrate that the judge is not only biased (which wouldn't matter as much in a case as strong as Jack Smith's), but is completely incompetent!