Jack has had enough.

Special Counsel Jack Smith Is Done With Judge Aileen Cannon And Lets It Show

In a new filing that bluntly confronts U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, Special Counsel Jack Smith takes a new tone of incredulousness and disdain for her mishandling of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.

The issue at hand is her failure to have yet ruled on Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss based on his inane, unprecedented, and counterfactual reading of the Presidential Records Act. Instead of rejecting the argument out of hand, Cannon not only is entertaining it but ordered the two sides to propose jury instructions based on two different deeply flawed interpretations of the PRA.

That set up an nearly impossible challenge for Smith: How do you draft jury instructions that are so wrong on the law without looking like an idiot, undermining your own case, and pissing of the judge?

The answer: You can’t.

So Smith went all in, no longer trying to placate, educate, or hand-hold Cannon.

Smith ripped her interpretations of the PRA: “both of the Court’s scenarios are fundamentally flawed and any jury instructions that reflect those scenarios would be error.” He said her “legal premise is wrong” and her requested jury instructions “would distort the trial.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/special-counsel-jack-smith-aileen-cannon-trump-pra

Not a great idea to antagonize a Trump toady but some things need to be done. She's made it clear she is unqualified to be on this case from the standpoint of experience, an understanding of the law, and a lack of impartiality. Good for Smith that he has called her out.

 

Should Smith have his grand jury indict U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon?

 

Oh shocking democrats are now attacking judges that don't provide the outcome they desire, after accusing republicans for doing the same thing for months. Now they are championing officials who are doing the same thing, also after months of accusing Trump of the same. Pot meet kettle, once again.

 

Judges don't provide the outcome in ANY criminal case. Jurors do. And Judge Cannon not knowing this reveals her lack of experience. As well as her bias.

 

WRONG LOL. It's called a bench trial.

 

You're wrong, as usual... In fact, the dispute is precisely about about jury instructions.

 

LMAO.

"Courts and counsel often prefer bench trials, which can be more efficient and easier to navigate than jury trials, in part because the judge both acts as the finder of fact and rules on matters of law and procedure"

With bench trials, the judge plays the role of the jury as finder of fact in addition to making conclusions of law. In some bench trials, both sides have already stipulated to all the facts in the case (such as civil disobedience cases designed to test the constitutionality of a law). These cases are usually faster than jury trials because of the fewer formalities required. For example, there is no jury selection phase and no need for sequestration or jury instructions.

A bench trial (whether criminal or civil) that is presided over by a judge has some distinctive characteristics, but it is similar to a jury trial. For example, the rules of evidence and methods of objection are the same in a bench trial as in a jury trial. Bench trials, however, are frequently more informal than jury trials. It is often less necessary to protect the record with objections, and sometimes evidence is accepted de bene or provisionally, subject to the possibility of being struck in the future.

It's ok to just admit you were wrong.

 

Trump suffers setback as appeals panel rejects Cannon ruling

A three-judge appeals court panel has granted the Justice Department’s request to block aspects of U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling that delayed a criminal investigation into highly sensitive documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

The panel ruled that Cannon, a Trump appointee, erred when she temporarily prevented federal prosecutors from using the roughly 100 documents — marked as classified – recovered from Trump’s estate as part of a criminal inquiry.

Trump suffers setback as appeals panel rejects Cannon ruling
The panel ruled that Judge Aileen Cannon erred.
www.politico.com

Either she made the erroneous ruling out of loyalty to Trump or out of stupidity. No matter which it is she's unqualified.

 

Are you serious! I was even thinking I might not be getting a joke you were trying to make.

No! This is NOT a bench trial. As a matter of fact, the DISPUTE between Jack Smith and the Judge is about instructions to jurors. There are no jurors in bench trials. That alone should have given any informed poster a clue. Clearly you're not.

 

**** what Jack Smith wants. If his case won't stand up to the law then he either did a shitty job of preparing his case, or he had no case to begin with.

The rules are in place to protect the defendant, not help the prosecutor.

 

Unless Trump is the defendant, then that's EXACTLY what you want the judge to do.

You're all mad because this judge is protecting Trump's rights vice trampling them.

 

She's asking him to provide jury instructions that ignore the actual law. It isn't the first legal mistake she's made involving the case . . . it wouldn't even be the first that got slapped down. She's obviously gearing up to dismiss the case the moment the jeopardy attaches. If Smith goes over her head to take care of that, it will be successful. No question.

 

Jack Smith had an entire conviction overturned because he charged the defendant with the wrong crime and also received a rebuke from the chief justice of the Supreme Court. He doesn't look like a "smart cookie".

Funny how all the prosecutor's that have gone after Trump are corrupt, incompetent, or both.

I wonder if that's intentional.

 

So says Jack Smith. Maybe he's the one that has it wrong.

Smith is going to "go over her head"? He has that much power. The judge isn't letting him do what he wants, so he's going to get her fired, or something?...lol

 

Moreover, it is vitally important that the Court promptly decide whether the unstated legal premise underlying the recent order does, in the Court’s view, represent “a correct formulation of the law.” ECF No. 407 at 2. If the Court wrongly concludes that it does, and that it intends to include the PRA in the jury instructions regarding what is authorized under Section 793, it must inform the parties of that decision well in advance of trial. The Government must have the opportunity to consider appellate review well before jeopardy attaches.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/r...d.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf

IOW, if Cannon is going to stick by her erroneous ruling she needs to give Smith time to appeal. Again. He should file a motion to have her removed for obvious prejudice.

 

Lying Jack's case is a farce and has always been a farce.

When you have the facts, argue the facts.
When you have the law, argue the law.
When you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table in outrage.

Lying Jack is pounding the table.

Lying Jack gets a Wade on Fani like pounding in the FL case he is using in an illicit attempt to fix another election for Bribed Joe.


Trump Administers A Trump Sized Ass Whuppin To Lying Jack In The FL Case.

Lying Jack will be lucky to escape prison if he fails to fix the election.

One big problem that Lying Jack has been trying to dodge around is that this is a Presidential Records Act (PRA), case. PRA has no criminal penalties and the President enjoys tremendous discretion over Presidential Records.

Trump has two very powerful arguments that the lying fake news media and Lying Jack Smith have been pretending do not exist in this case:

'First, Trump correctly notes that the PRA does not give the archivist authority, during the president’s term in office, to second-guess a president’s determination that materials are his private property.'

'Second, Trump relies on the “Clinton Socks Case” (Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration), a lower-court ruling that involved neither agency records nor prosecutorial authority. As I’ve previously related (see here and here), President Clinton collaborated with a historian to make an oral history of his administration (later published as a book). They made tapes that Clinton never designated as classified (though parts of them surely should have been), at least some of which he is said to have kept in a sock drawer. Clinton took the tapes with him (in addition to various items of furniture, china, etc.) when his term was over. Years later, the group Judicial Watch sought to force the archivist to retrieve the tapes.'

Bill the Zipper also swiped WH furniture and china making a similar argument that Trump is. LBJ also swiped many items of WH furniture, but in those days these things were handled quietly rather than with armed raids by a Bribed Demented Joe's corrupt dirtbags of the FBI. When Nixon confirmed with the Secret Service that LBJ had stolen a bunch of furniture, he instructed them to just quietly and gradually, steal it back. The issue was resolved, with LBJ at times expressing puzzlement and everyone else expressing ignorance as to what LBJ was referring to when he claimed that this or that was missing. But, Nixon wasn't trying to fix an election or put a political opponent in jail. Bribed Demented Joe is the only US president to stoop this level, and quite frankly Bribed Joe needs to be stripped of his assets and put into prison for his vile assault on our Constitutional Liberal Democracy.

Now Judge Cannon has correctly 'homed in on the question of whether the former president was in “unlawful possession” of the documents and has instructed the parties to assume that either of two scenarios is a correct statement of the law.

Normally where caselaw is well established and the issues have been litigated a number of times, the court simply pulls up a set of jury instructions that has been proven by appeal and uses them. Lying Jack and the Fake News Media not withstanding, this is not settled law, so the first thing the Court needs to determine is what instructions the jury will receive, and the Good Judge has asked for briefs from Lying Jack and the Trump team based on the two possible instruction sets. The scenarios are (simplified):

'(1) The jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president and decide, using the PRA’s definitions, whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that that the record is personal or presidential.'
Or,
'(2) Under the PRA, while a presidential term is ongoing, only the president has authority to categorize records as personal or presidential, and neither a court nor a jury may review that decision. Moreover, because the PRA defines no “formal means” by which a president must make that categorization, it must be inferred from a former president’s retention of a record that he had categorized it as personal while president.'

Now, Lying Jack and his staff promptly laid eggs on reading this order. The second scenario flows naturally from the statutes and is what Trump has been arguing the entire time. While the Lying Jack and the Coordinating Fake News Media has been hitting the American People with yet another disinformation campaign, Trump's stance is very plausible and is one of the two possible approaches that the Court may decide for finding fact in this case. Using standard 2, all 32 counts are as over and spent as Wade is after a Sexcation with Fani in the Wine Country on the GA taxpayer's dime.

https://archive.ph/D3PfQ#selection-957.121-973.255

 

Smith is going to mess around and get slapped with a contempt charge.

 

Smith is getting scared. He knows that if Trump gets elected, Trump's coming for him...lol

 

You should spend less time loling and more time learning. It is called a writ of mandamus.

 

If Trump's elected, and Lying Jack hasn't resigned by the time Trump is re-sworn in, he'll be promptly fired.

Good Judge 'Cannon has directed the parties to submit proposed jury instructions assuming each scenario is a correct statement of the law — even if a party disagrees. It will be interesting to see what' Lying Jack 'Smith proposes. Even though it would be understood that he is “reserving counterarguments” to appeal an unfavorable ruling by Cannon, I don’t see how he can concede, even for the purposes of argument, that this is a correct statement of the law.'

'Even the first scenario must concern prosecutors. Obviously, it would allow a jury to convict Trump: The jury could make its own determination that the records were presidential, not personal, and therefore that the law required them to be archived and that Trump could not lawfully retain them. But Cannon’s premise in this scenario seems to be that the PRA controls.' Lying Jack, 'of course, wants to argue that since these are agency records, there should be no need to evaluate them under the PRA because they can’t conceivably be the personal records of the president.'

 

You think Smith can get Cannon fired?...lol

 

Keeping his job is going to be the least of Smith's problems.

He's going to have to find an attorney and start preparing his defense.

 

Another reading fail. Try again: writ of mandamus. Learn.

 

So, IMO, regardless of what happens at appeals level now, Cannon has found or been shown ways to delay this trial possibly into 2025+ before a jury is convened. She may as well be on the defense team of lawyers, Smith's has a high bar to get her dismissed but he may be able to force her hand in the looooonnng run. This was a slam dunk case based on the laws charged and the facts, she fubarred it quite well. She's got to be in the tank now if she was not before, she's destroyed all credibility as a judge.

 

The judge ****ed up Smith's case?...lol