Jack has had enough.

I’d like to think Cannon is unsure of herself and inexperienced. If that’s the case, it speaks volumes about the manner in which we select the federal judges. That’s going to require responsibility that nobody exercises. But let’s not appoint unqualified judges simply because of their political beliefs.

 

I can tell by the lack of details you are capable of providing that you are just regurgitating what the hyper-partisan talking heads of MSNBC have told you and that you haven't actually read the preliminary instructions. Jack Smith is the one telling her to ignore the PRA. She is working on instructions that include both the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act as both pieces of legislation apply. You have it completely twisted and 100% wrong.

There is no "requirement" What are you even talking about? "Reprimanded" in what way? In order to appeal, you must have a specific reason to do so, and the appellate court must have the ability to reverse a harm. The appellate courts aren't going to say "Bad girl!"

 

The Constitution is a "civil statute." That doesn't mean it can't be applied to criminal cases. The Presidential Records Act provides guidelines for what the President can do with records from the time during their administration. Pretending it has "no application to the case" is preposterous. Additionally, he has no power to "force her" to provide finalized jury instructions before trial. That's not how criminal trials work. That appeal, if applicable, would have to come later. That's how due process works. I feel like a broken record telling you that you can't violate due process simply because you dislike Trump. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said before it sinks in. That's not how America works. Defendants often dislike jury instructions or the road jury instructions appear to be going, but that doesn't give them the right to demand them upfront. If you want to live in a country with a corrupt justice system, as you are advocating for, I can suggest a few that might be more to your liking.

 

Not so much how "we" select our federal judges as how Trump selected them. Competence didn't enter the equation.

 

An elementary school level understanding of what the PRA says eliminates it as a defense for Trump. For many reasons, on of which being it does not apply to classified docs.

 

That's not true, especially coupled with judicial precedent. It's been interpreted by the courts already as it pertains to a President taking alleged "presidential" records with them when they leave office. Additionally, it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't give Jack Smith the power to have finalized jury instructions so far ahead of trial. That could easily disenfranchise the defendant based on what may or may not happen during trial. Due process is important, even for your political adversaries. Some political ideologies agree with you, but they are incompatible with our democracy. Embrace our democracy, it's a good thing.

 

Cite a case.

 

First, she was the one who introduced the bizarre idea of having each side prepare jury instructions way in advance of when they are typically given. Smith wants her to state whether she is going to allow the introduction of the PRA by the defense in jury instructions, or any way for that matter, so he can immediately appeal it to the 11th circuit and have yet another of her ridiculous rulings overturned.

Cannon called the Mar-a-Lago case a “complex case of first impression.” It is neither. It is historically significant because it involves a former president. But legally, the case is not particularly remarkable. Trump’s nonsensical defenses don’t magically turn a relatively straightforward legal matter into a complex or unprecedented puzzle for her to solve. But her treating it as complex and without legal precedent provides an intellectually dishonest framework for all kinds of potential mischief that goes well beyond this one argument over the Presidential Records Act.

Cannon can mess this case up in dozens of different ways with that kind of justification. Cannon didn’t bury Trump’s Presidential Records Act argument for good. Trump’s argument is the kind we often see judges dispense with categorically before trial in order to streamline arguments, eliminate distractions, and keep the case focused and on track. Cannon was not decisive here, giving Trump the chance to raise the PRA defense later, perhaps after a jury has been seated and jeopardy has attached, meaning Smith would have no avenue for appeal. Despite all the commentary you may be seeing, there is no obvious or surefire way for Smith to get around her on this. Risks abound, as does uncertainty.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/aileen-cannon-trump-jack-smith-presidential-records-ac

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house

Click the tab..........Judge Cannon dismisses Trump’s ‘ridiculous’ claim on dismissing classified documents case

 

She proposed preliminary instructions based on only certain elements of the indictment and only on the elements that are a case of first impression. She was not claiming these would be final. She asked them to expand on their theory of this prosecution as it pertains to the jury. These are not the same things.

LOL. This is the first time a President has been charged with the Espionage Act or for taking records during their administration. This is a case of first impression. Stop reading MSNBC and hyper-partisan sources to justify insurrection and corrupting the courts to target people you disagree with politically. This is a bad habit and it's tiring having to correct you all the time. It is antithetical to our democracy. For the millionth time if you so desperately want to illegally take people off the ballot and violate the due process rights of the accused because you disagree with their politics I can suggest some countries that may be more to your liking.

 

Another reason why reading Chesterton has been discouraged as a waste go time:

“Government has become ungovernable; that is, it cannot leave off governing. Law has become lawless; that is, it cannot see where laws should stop. The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government.” G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils : An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State

 

Do YOU want to revise what this thread is about? It's about instruction for JURORS. It wouldn't be a problem in a case without jurors.

If you are fixated on the fact that minor crimes might not require a jury... this is NOT one of them. These are felonies!

Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."​

 

She asked for jury instructions regarding each side's interpretation of the PRA. There is no place for the PRA in this case.

“What she has asked the parties to do is very, very troubling,” Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge in Massachusetts, said of Cannon. “She is giving credence to arguments that are on their face absurd. She is ignoring a raft of other motions, equally absurd, that are unreasonably delaying the case.”

“The PRA is just not relevant here in any way it all; it provides no defense. To even allow it to be argued at trial would create confusion for the jury,” said Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former U.S. attorney.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati.../20/trump-cannon-judge-pra-jury-instructions/

This is the first time a President has been charged with the Espionage Act or for taking records during their administration.

So what? The black letter law is clear. He has no cover for what he did under the PRA. None. Zero. Nada. He took classified docs that are the property of the US, then violated a subpoena seeking their return, concealing them by various means.

You have absolutely nothing factual to refute what I just wrote. So you'll likely resort to what members of The Following always resort to, disparaging the source.

 

I am just trying to figure out why you would claim that a jury always makes the decision, and that the judge should have known that...Have you never heard of a bench trial before?

 

Smith is lucky he isn't going after a DP presidential candidate before an activist DP judge.
It is never all that difficult to conjure up some excuse to impose sanctions on political opposition using Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11/ Rule 7(b)(3).

Of course Republicans are just too nice to do something that mean.

 

Again I'm puzzled and wondering if you're joking. You consider it plausible that Judge Cannon doesn't know that she's presiding a Jury trial?

That does NOT apply to felony charges. Like I said: EVER! Read the 6th A. I understand YOU might not have read it.... but the judge??? Even in the case of this incompetent judge, that would be a surprise.

The fact that this thread is about Jury instructions might have given you a clue.

 

You said judges dont provide the outcome in ANY criminal case. ANY. Not this case, but ANY case. Do you still stand by that statement?

 

Put...........down..........the...........(mythical, maybe even mystical )...........pipe, thank you, thank you very much!

 

All this because I said "criminal case" when we are talking about a FELONY? God! You need to try to address the POINT made in the discussion, instead of cherry-picking subtleties. YOU claimed that the judge would decide. That is important because obviously she won't. Not only because this is a felony but, most importantly, because the dispute is about juror instructions. THAT is far more relevant than whether I said "crime" in a debate about a felony. Because it shows us that you jumped into the thread without even bothering to find out what it's ABOUT.

 

“It’s clear that she is going in a ridiculous direction,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge from Massachusetts, who says Smith should move for Cannon’s recusal from the case. “The government could be without recourse after a trial begins. … I don’t even know why they indulged her. … I think they need to stop playing games and move to disqualify her.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/05/trump-classified-documents-special-counsel-judge-00150752

This is too important a case to leave to a bag girl like Aileen.

 

The case is about a President who took records with him after leaving the White House. You can't separate that no matter how many hilarious Talking Points Memo articles you regurgitate that only hyper-partisans would read.

 

Cannon’s order suggests that she thinks the PRA is critical to the case — and that parts of the law are open to interpretation.

Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said that’s just not true. He said Cannon seems to continually conflate the PRA with the Espionage Act, which makes unauthorized sharing or handling of national defense information a crime. Baron said the PRA does not influence whether someone can be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

“There is no ambiguity that the classified documents at issue in this case are presidential records,” Baron said. “He wasn’t indicted because he took newspaper clippings. He was indicted because he took documents that were marked as classified.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati.../20/trump-cannon-judge-pra-jury-instructions/

Like Aileen, you are wrong about everything.

 

The hilarity comes in as you flail around regurgitating wrong headed arguments that have been uniformly rejected by legal experts on both sides of the aisle.

“Like the queen in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ Judge Cannon appears to be asking the jury to believe at least two impossible things before breakfast,” Baron said. “First, that a president has unfettered discretion to decide that documents marked ‘top secret’ are his own personal records, just because he decided to keep them for himself. And second, that a president can avoid criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act because he decided that classified records were really his under the PRA. In both cases, the judge profoundly misinterprets the law.”

 

You're quoting Alice in Wonderland. This is not a serious interpretation of the law and has no semblance of reality. It says a lot that you have been unable to state your position with any level of clarity. You just quote snippets of nonsense over and over again. You've provided zero analysis and have failed to present your opinion substantiated with facts. It's just Talking Points Memo, Alice in Wonderland, and a pure hatred of our democracy and due process.

 

And it has gotten worse since his time. I thought we were over-governed in the 1960's. Now i view federal government as an enemy and that is scary. It is a very powerful enemy.

 

Ordinary human beings should always be afraid of government.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." T. Paine

Nevertheless, even now are government can still be checked and reformed by the people -- if they want to.
Better candidates for elected office would help.