Docs case dismissed!!!
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
You and Cannon have a lot in common.
So, should Biden's taking documents from the SCIF as a Senator be overlooked? And he kept taking them after that as a VP, correct?
I agree it looks like Trump stonewalled, but it also looks like Biden knew the law, but ignored it.
Just to add another thought. Should it not also be "so obvious" by AG Garland, that an appointed SC investigating the former President and likely opponent of your boss, needs to be approved by the Senate?
It seems incredible to me that a former appeals court judge on the DC circuit doesn't have firm grasp of how special counsels work under the current law.
He shouldn’t have had them. His and Pence’s cases are a bit more serious than HRC’s because they may have veeen deliberate, but the precedent was set and without aggravating factors and with returning them they were going to be prosecuted. Plus Biden couldn’t be until 2025. Trump’s case is many times more serious. It shouldn’t be allowed to go without accountability.
Sessions wasn't the AG for the political opponent of Trump.
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Let's not drag this down into the same shitthrowing we already have going on.
Then I guess the AG should have had the Senate approve Smith in one the biggest, unprecedented cases of all time against a former President who is also the political opponent of his boss.
People can be pissed at Cannon but should be pissed at Garland.
I don't understand. Am I being unreasonable to think Garland probably should have gotten Senate approval for such a big case?
That’s never been necessary. This will likely be reversed. I listened to several legal scholars earlier, left, right and center, and the consensus is reversal. They could be wrong, but they seemed confident.
That may or may not be the case. The question is about the legitimacy of Smith's appointment. If that was bogus, then wouldn't Mueller's been as well?
I suppose but I am not a legal expert (shocker!) and am trying understand the legal parts of the dismissal. And so I am here asking.
I will say I don't think it's open and shut. She probably will be reversed, but it's not like her reasoning is entirely illogical.
Maybe. Was there ever an argument made against Mueller at the time that his appointment was illegitimate? Was there a ruling that it was? Or was it never challenged?
Thanks. I'd like to know what the grounds would be for making that reversal. Where is Cannon wrong?
Me, I think she saw her opportunity and she took it. Even if she is reversed, there will still be a load of time involved. And if she's removed, I would assume the case would essentially go back to square one with a new judge. Cannon did her job -- she's guaranteed this will never see the light of day before the election.
I don't understand the argument for removal. Unless a dismissal can't be undone procedurally, and therefore starting over is the only option. I know very little about federal procedure.
I don’t understand why people think she’ll be removed. App Ct leans slightly conservative at least by apptmt last I was aware fwiw.
I had it on in the background doing work and I didn’t catch the details of the arguments, mostly just their predictions at the end. Plus I'm not a lawyer. I’m sure our lawyers here will sum up some arguments both ways.
They've reversed her twice already. I've read that at some point they'll get tired of her shit and give the case to someone else. May be wishful thinking from the Kommie Kommentators I listen to.
Ive never heard of that. Illegal conduct. Evidence of extrajudicial bias. Fing up rulings ain’t it
Yes, it was challenged. Went to DC Circuit. Cannon discusses the case in her opinion.
Each circuit can reassign a case based on their own standards. It's not in the FRCP although there are some statutes, I think, re bias/conflict. Here's an article discussing some 11th Circuit standards:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4546&context=umlr
She says the Mueller case wasn't well reasoned b/c it assumed the SCt decided the issue in the Nixon case. She says they were wrong because the Nixon language cited was dicta (which isn't binding on lower courts).
Can’t open but yes bias/conflict/illegal conduct not shitty rulings is what I’m familiar with. And bias is a high bar
Legal rulings aside, the optics was/is bad for Garland and Biden. And Trump reminded the world of it everyday.
Thanks for the cliff notes. My head is hurting with all this legal stuff. I'm sticking to my stock market job.
No, it can be something like they don't think the lower court judge will enforce their order in the right way. I've seen it happen in the 7th Cir a few times with the shitty district court judges. I asked one time, didn't win the appeal so it didn't matter.
Try this? Not sure why Google keep giving me those chrome extension links.
Reassigning Cases on Remand in the Interests of Justice, ...
University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repositoryhttps://repository.law.miami.edu › cgi › viewcontent
by JD Colan · 2018 · Cited by 1 — This Article describes the general principles underly- ing the Eleventh Circuit's reassignment practices and then questions why reassignment is ...
Similar threads
