Jack has had enough.

It wouldn't be the first time she had tried to do so and it wouldn't be the first time a higher court called her out for her bull **** and put a stop to it.

 

And Smith has had his boo-boos, too. He doesn't have a stellar reputation.

I wonder why an incompetent attorney was chosen to prosecute the biggest Federal case in United States history?

 

Looks like she's doing her best....and it is a clean cut case, truly amazing in America in 2024. The case will survive but won't get to any jury this year IMO. I've posted that back when she drew the case last year.

 

Looks like Smith didn't have the silver bullet, after all.

 

We shall see, regardless, it's going to be a while.

 

He's hardly incompetent. He's got an excellent track record. Your favorite judge, on the other hand, has virtually no criminal trial track record at all. You should be asking yourself why Trump nominated her.

 

Not excellent. He had a conviction thrown out and was rebuked by the chief justice. That's far from excellent.

I'm starting to believe that the machine knew they probably couldn't convict Trump, so they picked incompetent prosecutors so they could blame the loss on incompetence and wouldn't have to admit Trump is guilty.

 

One conviction thrown out? Anyone without an absolutely perfect win record is not excellent? And what conviction are you talking about? Just making sure it isn't the story I'm thinking of.

 

Looks like Jack's headed for Mandamus City, the kind with the writ attached.

Good for him, and it's about time.

 

All of the legal commenters I'm hearing from are saying he was waiting for a "third strike." It's not necessary, but apparently a pretty common practice to do that before going over a judge's head, just to play it safe and make sure you have good justification. I don't know how she's going to respond, but she's already been smacked down by the higher court for ****ing up this case before, and it will happen again if she doesn't remedy her corrupt order.

 

He charged the defendant with the WRONG CRIME...lol

That isn't a rocket scientist.

 

So you aren't going to answer the question and we are going to go back to you not understanding what a writ of mandamus is? Got it. Sounds like a plan.

 

What's a writ of mandamus have to do with anything? Smith can't issue a writ of mandamus.

 

. . . that's what he would go to the higher court for, dude. And he explicitly mentioned this. You'd have fewer questions if you caught up.

 

He could ask for it. There's no guarantee that he'll get it.

 

They can certainly attempt to guide to one with their rulings or lack thereof. Why do you opposing opposing councils having to argue points of law in a trial? Who do you think due process applies the state or the defendant?

 

I'm glad you are at least finally starting to realize that he CAN go over her head. You had claimed before that he couldn't.

 

I assume your hyper-partisan source has never read legal motions before. The cited quotes are very tame and don't elevate to the hyper-partisan assessment. It's actually very common when appealing to a judge to reconsider. And certain language needs to be there in order to protect your ability to later appeal.

 

I never made that claim...lol

That writ of mandamus can go both ways. He can get slapped with one, too. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

 

He literally mentions the potential for a writ of mandamus. That's not tame.

 

Yes. You did. When I brought up him going over her head, you said he had no choice but to go with whatever she commanded. And good luck thinking up creative excuses for that fantasy scenario you are now talking about. Now THAT will be a hoot.

 

I said he has no chance of getting Cannon fired.

 

Which also isn't true. This isn't the first grievous mistake Cannon has made during this trial.

 

Oh, it's very true. The only way to "fire" Cannon is for her to be impeached and removed by Congress...lol

 

It isn't the only way to get her fired from the case, dude. You keep shifting goalposts.