Jack has had enough.

What is uncommon is for a judge to issue an order that is in clear violation of the law.

 

Please provide evidence that the prosecution is political.

Here is evidence that it is not political:

Jack Smith is a registered independent. Garland is a centrist.

Garland is allowing the prosecution/investigation of Joe's son to continue and has lasted over 6 years.

Garland has defended Trump twice in court.

Garland has prosecuted a number of democrats.

What was that about 'political'?

 

She's holding some good moves, but in this chess game, he's got a queen which has cornered her, she has only one right move.

Let's see if she takes it.

I don't know anything about boxing, but I do know a little about chess

 

I think he may even be going for a queen's sacrifice. He's DARING Cannon to take HIS queen. He has a countermove ready.

 

The PRA that Trump keeps citing, the one signed in to law by Jimmy Carter years after Nixon tried to take hundreds of presidential records with him to CA, says the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Don claims it says.

 

Furthermore, even though resolution of the threshold legal question is purely a matter of law, the Court should be aware at the outset that Trump’s entire effort to rely on the PRA is not based on any facts. It is a post hoc justification that was concocted more than a year after he left the White House, and his invocation in this Court of the PRA is not grounded in any decision he actually made during his presidency to designate as personal any of the records charged in the Superseding Indictment. Accordingly, before turning to the jury instructions, the Government below provides the Court with the factual context surrounding Trump’s attempt to inject the PRA into these proceedings. Importantly, Trump has never represented to this Court that he in fact designated the classified documents as personal. He made no such claim in his motion to dismiss, in his reply, or at the hearing on March 14, 2024, despite every opportunity and every incentive to do so. As discussed below, the reason is simple: he never did so. Instead, he has attempted to fashion out of whole cloth a legal presumption that would operate untethered to any facts—without regard to his actual decisions, his actual intent, the unambiguous definition of what constitutes personal records under the PRA, or the plainly non-personal content of the highly classified documents that he retained. There is no basis in law or fact for that legal presumption, and the Court should reject Trump’s effort to invent one as a vehicle to inject the PRA into this case.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/r...d.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf

Mic drop.

 

Have you got a link, I'd like to read up on it.

 

Yet she is a judge and Smith isn't.

 

Her potential order is in line with precedent. Smith's current argument is that Trump never told anyone he declared the documents personal, and therefore, the PRA is not at issue in this case. However, precedent says records become.personal by virtue of taking them home. A prior president did just that, and like Trump, there was no record provided to the court of that president ever telling anyone they were deeming them personal. There's no required mechanism for that. Smith knows this, but it's detrimental to his case so he's having a tantrum as he sees his case fall apart quicker than anticipated.

The PRA was passed after the Espionage Act and clearly defined how a president can handle records at the conclusion of their administration. It is relevant to this case despite Jack Smith pretending otherwise.

 

Last I looked, judges have more power and authority than a prosecutor.

 

You have posted "Cannon has issued an order that is in direct violation of the law?"
Are you serious -- or not?

So again: Should Smith have his grand jury indict U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon? Is that a tough question?

 

The evidence is the type and timing of the prosecution. This is a prosecution of an individual, not a crime. It is obvious to everyone but you. Why would you think that being a liberal "registered independent" is evidence of anything. What happens to Hunter Biden has nothing to do with anything related to Trump. By the way, what is a "registered independent?" I always thought that the purpose of registering for a political party was to vote in its primary election. There is no independent primary. You can do better than that. Incidentally Hunter's travails are also political prosecution. You can't see that?

 

He can certainly give that a try.

 

Ordinary Americans across the spectrum find the current level of partisan political persecution repulsive and frightening.

“Donald Trump has consistently attracted the support of a handful of left-wing activists and writers. Some of them were die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters who believed, much like the Weimar communists, that Trump would hasten the social crisis that would open the door for their revolution. A somewhat different faction on the left today believes electing Trump is a necessary price for punishing Joe Biden for his Zionism.

“Most of Taibbi’s reasons for ignoring the right are familiar ones employed frequently by lifelong Republicans. He argues that Democrats “are being organized around a more potent but also much dumber, more cultlike ideology,” an idiosyncratic reading of a political landscape in which Donald Trump is the subject of conservative propaganda depicting him as literally Christlike.

Taibbi likewise maintains that Trump is the victim of “lawfare” and whatever authoritarian impulses he may harbor pale beside those of the Democrats: “The Democrats’ ambitions are significantly more dangerous than those of the Republicans. From digital surveillance to censorship to making Intel and enforcement agencies central players in domestic governance — all plans being executed globally as well as in our one country — they are thinking on a much bigger and more dangerous scale than Republicans.”
NEW YORK MAGAZINE, THE NATIONAL INTEREST, INTELLIGENCER, Left-Wingers for Trump Remain Deeply Confused Matt Taibbi thinks Republicans are powerless, By Jonathan Chait, who’s been a New York political columnist since 2011, April 2, 2024.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/matt-taibbi-why-republican-trump-left-wing.html

 

Oh wait there are no bench trials so we can no ignore Obregon's fining Trump base on an opinion that was at least idiotic and at worst fraudulent?

 

Smith?
Fed up with Cannon?
AWWWWW ................
He understands now how it feels to realize a judge has an agenda.
You know, like Engoron has with Trump.

Course, we also know Smith has his political agenda, "get trump, no matter what it takes"

 

"We know" is Trumper shorthand for "We have no evidence". Trump losing is all that they need.

 

Why shouldn’t the jury hear about the Presidential Records Act?

 

Cheese and Rice, and you take this **** seriously?

 

Because...

 

"We know" is politispeak for we're conservatives, we've done the research and it tells us ......
"You know" is conservative politispeak for "bet this triggers liberals "

 

LOL! No. I was right the first time. “Research”?

 

The defense can talk all day long about it, if they want. But Trump is NOT being charged under the PRA, and she is forcing the prosecutor to give instructions to jurors as if he were. And, even worse, instructions based on an inaccurate interpretation of the PRA.

 

Whenever a corrupt bipartisan ruling political class acts to undermine public support for the institutions that allow it to survive and function it is certainly serious.

“On this week’s Amicus podcast, I talked with Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He is the author of, most recently, How Antitrust Failed Workers, published by Oxford University Press. His writing on the subject of political trials has been extensive, including a law review article from 2005 in which he detailed the defining aspects of political trials, and several recent articles cautioning against allowing the current Trump lawsuits to become versions of the same. His view is that the so-called insurrection clause trials over Donald Trump’s eligibility to remain on the ballot risk similar politicization and blowback.”

“You have to think about them in political terms: What is the impact of these cases and claims going to be on the public now? It’s tempting to talk about Democracy with a capital D, and one can do that, but I’m more interested in political psychology. Are these efforts going to backfire and help Trump? Or, even if they’re successful, are they just going to cause long-term damage because half the population or 40 percent of the population feel like they’ve been disenfranchised? Maybe Republican officeholders will feel that now they have a basis for retaliating against Democrats.”

“Unfortunately, there’s a sense in which this is a further cycle in the degradation of American liberal democracy,”
SLATE, JURISPRUDENCE, The One Set of Trump Lawsuits That Should Just Not Be Happening, BY DAHLIA LITHWICK, NOV 13, 20235:53 PM. (Emphasis mine)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/11/trump-lawsuits-mistake-ballots-colorado-minnesota.html

Is this all this stupidity an entirely bad thing?
Only for very committed partisan warriors when they finally get what they are begging for.

 

Smith wanted the judge to silence the defense from talking about the PRA. Why?