Cannon disqualifies herself.

"Prosecutors don't seek slam dunk cases". I listened to the whole video, and he makes valid points about that's what the law says, and he does raise a valid point that the jury hadn't been seated yet but quite literally, that's all prosecutors do. They seek slam dunk cases. He cited that 11th circuit and that opinion basically said 'When in doubt, we side with the government.'

So make no mistake, the government is WAY more powerful than a criminal defendant. We have a 97% conviction rate. No prosecutor can argue in good faith that lady liberty is still blind. Public defenders are swamped with cases, defendants are nominally told to plea guilty.

We have a lot of problems in our legal justice system. I don't see raising these two hypotheticals as an issue to the prosecution. I mean, it might be to them but really it's only an actual problem if the jury agrees and obviously the prosecution doesn't want to take that chance.

To me, a criminal defendant having a way out, is far better to justice than the overwhelming hand for the prosecution. In fact, the more burden placed on the prosecution("beyond a reasonable doubt"), the more sure we are of guilt.

Since the law does say what it says, the hypothetical is extremely unlikely. But it should be entertained anyway, because who knows if the defense is able to raise valid points leaning in that direction. This is not burdensome on the prosecution. It's not like the grand master order.

 

It really sounds like you missed the entire point of Kirshner's explanation which was that she asked the lawyers to make determinations which contradicts the PRA, and some other disparities.

 

Irrelevant, WBK.

 

Are you not understanding what the word installed means or is the issue not understanding how judges in these positions are placed?

Let me know and I’ll be happy to educate you.

 

Your tile is fake news. She hasn't disqualified herself from the case, she's still hearing it.

'Arbitrary Enforcement' Roils Classified Documents Case

'Judge Aileen Cannon noted the selective prosecution of Donald Trump for keeping national defense papers the same week Special Counsel Robert Hur publicly defended his decision not to charge Joe Biden.'

'Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) blasted Hur for letting Biden and his ghostwriter off the hook. “So the ghostwriter purposefully deletes this evidence that seems to be, that shows culpability of Biden’s crimes, and you don’t charge him,” Gaetz fumed. “Why did you not charge the ghostwriter with obstructing justice and deleting evidence? Zwonitzer should have been charged [but] wasn’t. Biden and Trump should have been treated equally [but] they weren’t. And that is the double standard a lot of Americans are concerned about.”'

If Trump's name was Biden, he would not be on trial. You know it, I know it, The American People know it. It's not fair, and it's why a conviction of Trump will not carry the weight you hope, because it's obviously and unjust process with the corrupt goal of rigging the election.

'As Biden skates because Hur ultimately concluded a jury would not convict a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory” despite uncovering evidence that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency” including national defense information, Trump has already spent two days this month in a federal courtroom in southern Florida where he faces 40 criminal counts for violating the Espionage Act, obstructing justice, and attempting to destroy evidence.'

That's because his name is Trump, rather than Biden.

'Trump’s private residence was raided by armed FBI agents, who absconded with 13,000 pieces of “evidence” of which only 102 files contained classified markings; Biden deployed government staff to search for classified records at his home, Penn Biden Center, and University of Delaware for months without the prying eye of investigators and was subjected to gentlemanly searches by FBI agents who helpfully reorganized one sloppy box of evidence found in his garage.'

That's because his name is Trump rather than Clinton or Biden.

“Arbitrary Enforcement” Indeed.

'Cannon repeatedly asked both sides for examples of criminal prosecution for “other officials who did the same.” She questioned the “arbitrary enforcement” of the espionage statute, forcing the government to admit that no other former president or vice president has faced criminal prosecution for keeping similar documents and failing to return them. “This speaks to the arbitrary enforcement…featuring in this case,” Cannon told Bratt.'

 

The PRA says the President is the sole arbiter of what is a personal or presidential record, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that neither the DoJ nor the courts can overrule that. That is the reason for this thread. The judge has laid out those undeniable facts and asked them to determine what facts are contested in this case. That is why people are freaking out. They desperately wanted to get Trump on this despite the law not necessarily being on their side. Remember, Jack Smith has a history of bringing legally dubious political charges and losing the case outright or on appeal. However, he was chosen to go after Trump, likely because he is unethical and does these things, which do wonders for generating headlines. Hence, timing these cases during the campaign to interfere in the election. The NARA official who brought this forward is basically a librarian; she has no authority over the classification of records. She puts together the documents she receives to create the presidential library. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that the DoJ cannot overrule the President's classification.

"Moreover, understanding that juries are judges of the facts, not the law, the proposals shall take care to specify (in incorporated briefing as necessary) exactly what factual questions are reserved for the jury on Counts 1 through 32 in light of the recently argued motions to dismiss..."



This is why they all say she should be removed from the case. They're highly offended that she would put this in writing. Notice they haven't cited the part of the PRA that disagrees with this assessment; they just demand that she be removed from the case. The PRA has no enforcement mechanism; all disagreements are handled civilly, as has been done with every other President that came before Trump. The one time it wasn't was with Bill Clinton, and the Supreme Court ruled that the DoJ and Courts have no role in deciding what a personal or presidential record is when alleged presidential records were discovered hidden unsecured in his sock drawer.

 

No. They decide FACTS.

 

You think Cannon is corrupt? JEEZ, Bill. Pretty bold.

 

Or maybe folks could read any of the zillion articles out there today to understand the situation discussed.

 

This is a great video. It's over 19 minutes long, but the problems with the judge's order are properly explained within the first 9. It's much clearer to me now.

However, it's well worth it to watch it all. It explains why Jack Smith should immediately request the judge's removal. This latest order gives him more than enough arguments to prove that she is biased in favor of Trump. He probably doesn't want to do that because of two reasons: one is that he probably has so much overwhelming evidence to convict, that he believes he can convince a jury despite the Judges' bias. The other is that he might not want to delay the case. But there is always a small risk when a judge is so clearly biased. And he might need to ask for her dismissal by a higher court anyway AFTER the trial has started.

 

And of course one of the facts is whether or not the law is applicable in this case.

 

But that is just your view and that of the people trying to railroad trump.

 

But that would require them to actually do some work to do their own research. Much easier for them to just be told what to think.

 

Disabuse yourself of your misguided beliefs.

 

Yes, because everyone who utters a legal opinion which the Orange Polyp doesn't like is "partisan"...lol

 

You don't hammer out the final jury instructions until the evidence comes in, but before you do the closings.

Oh, and juries don't decide which law they consider. LOL!

 

Knowing Trump he probably sent word to Cannon through corrupt back channels that when (lol) elected in 2024 he'll be considering her for the next SCOTUS justice and the Trump-humper Cannon believes him. lol

Aileen Cannon Under Fire as Trump Witness Speaks Out

Newsweek
https://www.newsweek.com › ... › CNN › Jack Smith

Mar 12, 2024 — Former Mar-a-Lago worker Brian Butler said he came forward after the judge ruled classified documents witnesses could be identified.

 

See post #89. The PRA has no relevance.

 

Weissman is the same guy that was on the Russia Collusion investigation. He's definitely a partisan *********ker.

 

He's a career professional. Which generally means that he holds opinions on Trump cases that the Orange Wart doesn't like. Which means that you automatically conclude that this mans he's "partisan" even though you don't fully understand the issues.

 

Translation... Democrats just understood that if they continue to want to claim Trump did something criminal vis a vis holding onto classified documents post term of office, that Joe Biden not only did the same, but worse. And DOJ is publicly protecting Biden. So, Democrats are still worried that Trump on the ballot will lead to a blowout loss for Biden, and are now clinging to anything, legal or otherwise to retain Biden as the figurehead in chief that they can manipulate and take advantage of.

 

Your opinion simply does not align with the facts.

Biden and Trump: How the two classified documents investigations came to different endings
https://apnews.com/article/classifi...cial-counsel-b5589ea8f066ede51c8138665f108f7a

 

LOL MSNBC/Wiessmann. I have no desire to watch MSNBC just because you couldn't form your own opinion.

 

You should tell Bratt that who spent all of yesterday using the PRA as the foundation of his position at a hearing with Judge Cannon.

Try branching outside of hyperpartisans like Weissmann, Tribe, and MSNBC to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

 

I can't get through the day without having my head cleared up by watching Kirshner and BTC 'legal breakdown'.

Also , Glenn has is own YT channel, which I visit, daily, as well.

He also cleared up the issue of what a prosecutor faces when submitting a recusal motion to the 11th circuit, it has to be overwhelming, the evidence must shout, not whisper. Glenn feels Smith will have it with this one.