Cannon disqualifies herself.

No, it's an experienced prosecutor's view with 30 years experience prosecuting federal cases.

 

I don't need an apologist news site to opine about what they want you to believe. The facts are from the testimony by the prosecutor Hur, who determined that Joe was too feeble minded in his opinion that he could be held cognitively responsible.

 

Please note their are hundred such and they don't all agree. Pretending other wise is just silly.

 

That’s not a fact determination.

 

They don’t understand that a judge doesn’t get to make it up on the fly, which is what Cannon has been doing. This is only complicated because of the identity of the Defendant. But she’s unnecessarily complicated it.

 

Well, you need someone who knows what they’re talking about tell you the truth even if you don’t want to listen. And no, that’s not what Hur found.:.read his report.

 

But whether or no a law is applicable is a fact a jury may consider in deliberation of a case.

 

No, it’s not. I’ve tried jury trials and that is NOT how it works. You’re confused.

 

You understand the concept of jury nullification correct? You Mean to tell me you don't think juries should consider whether some one is actually subject to the law in question? You really think prosecutors should be able to charge you with theft for taking your stuff out of your House.

 

I understand that some kooks don't understand their function as jurors. The rest of your didn't make sense.

 

Fine me one legal scholar or experienced prosecutor who contradicts Kirschner on the point made.

Watch the video, and the evidence is clearly illustrated, and, in my view, irrefutable.

 

State the point. You wouldn't watch a hyper-partisan Fox News pundit. Don't expect people to watch your silly video.

 

I think he’s referring to an experienced former federal prosecutor, not a “pundit” who’s typically a journalist.

 

I wouldn't expect someone who is hyperpartisan to watch it (the tip off or your hyperpartisanship is your calling the video 'silly'). You do realize law is law, not left or right, it is what it is and all Glenn did was point it out in way that can be understood.

 

So you can't summarize his points? They must not have been very intelligent or laid out well. Thus, I'll stick with my assessment that the video is silly since nobody has been able to take anything intelligent from it and introduce it into this thread.

 

Yes we know and we also know that you still think the Russia hoax is true and that there is no evidence of Biden wrong doing so what you believe is pretty much meaningless when it comes to legal matters. Oh and there were two on Laura Ingram show tonight.

 

Of course you didn't understand it. Sorry dude but charging some one with a crime they cannot under current law commit is just bogus.

 

I couldn't help noticing how you changed the subject. https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepo...rt_is_being_misrepresented_it_does/?rdt=42673

 

Cannon thinks if Trump's elected she's a shoe-in for the next SCOTUS opening and is qualified to boot. lol

'Special counsel slams idea that Trump could claim classified docs as personal records'
Source: abc news

'Accepting such an argument would be "pure fiction," the special counsel argued.'

By Pierre Thomas, Jack Date, and Alexander Mallin
April 3, 2024, 12:11 AM


"Special counsel Jack Smith, responding on Tuesday to the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's classified documents case, urged her to reverse course on entertaining the idea that Trump had any personal ownership over the classified materials he has been charged with unlawfully possessing.

In a late-night filing replying to an order last month from Judge Aileen Cannon requesting proposed jury instructions that appeared to accept at face value what legal experts have argued is one of Trump's most fringe defenses -- that the former president had unchecked ability to claim all classified records as his personal property -- Smith argued that accepting such an argument would not only be "pure fiction," but "meritless and fatally undermined" by all the evidence gathered by the government as part of their case.

Among that evidence, according to Smith, are interviews with Trump's own Presidential Records Act representatives and "numerous" high-ranking officials from the White House, none of which "had heard Trump say that he was designating records as personal,"

"To the contrary, every witness who was asked this question had never heard such a thing," Smith's office said.

Smith's office repeatedly urged Cannon that if she continued to entertain such an interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, she "must inform the parties of that decision well in advance of trial" -- suggesting they'd seek relief from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already overturned her rulings twice in the case."

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-c...dges-order-trump-documents/story?id=108748626

 

Well thats how democracy works now don-cha-know. The people can choose, but only if they choose correctly.

 

Actually, that's a misrepresentation of Hur's report. And, it goes without saying, a deflection from the point of the article I linked to.

 

It should be apparent to everyone by now the specious comparisons between Biden's and Trump's docs cases are meant to provide a counter narrative to obfuscate Trump's overt criminality.

 

Not according the Hur's testimony to congress.

 

Translation... Our team is above the law that we use to punish anyone and everyone who challenges our power....

 

His testimony was largely about defending his inappropriate, politicized commentary for which he was excoriated by Dems questioning him.