Interesting. I’ve never seen it outside of bias/conflict and not predicated on rulings but rather personal connection etc
Docs case dismissed!!!
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
You might see it in a sentencing case if, for example, the judge says some inflammatory stuff about the defendant and gets reversed. Or if the judge is just so far off in his or her analysis, that they have no clue what they are doing.
FWIW, they might do this to Cannon, but that decision is well reasoned and thorough. She's just really, really going out on a limb by referring to Nixon's language as dicta when the DC Circuit found it controlling.
Yeah but what you linked is interesting. Usual shit of personal conflicts/connections and of course disregarding app orders but it seems to imply @UncleMark that it could be done to preserve the appearance of fairness and equity. That’s my language. So if there was enough public dissent or suspicion they may reassign not bc of the standard reasons set forth above re conflict/bias but for a more arbitrary/subjective reason.
Don't know what this dicta stuff means, but it sounds like she was bound and determined to find a way to tank this case, whatever it took.
I dont think this issue is very complicated. To be a federal special counsel, you have to be a federal official. Period. Otherwise you get Fani Willis who hired her shack-up mate and gave him big bucks to be the special prosecutor. Andy McCarthy explained it pretty well.
Andy McCarthy on Why Jack Smith Appointment Was Unconstitutional | National Review
The dismissal of the documents case was shocking to many, but our own Andy McCarthy had outlined why this would happen weeks ago.
www.nationalreview.com
They tried the same trick and the trial judge, just like every other trial judge except Cannon basically threw it out. This may sound off the wall, but I think Smith not only anticipated this result but actually wanted it to happen. If you read the decision Cannon makes a point that she encouraged Smith to suggest an alternative remedy to having her dismiss the case and he ignored her.
I think he did so knowing that she would likely rule in favor of Trump and finally present him the oppty to file an immediate appeal to the 11th Circuit. I also think he will attempt to have her recused- we'll see how that works out...
But I don't get the point about DNC speakers having to rewrite their speeches.? The DC case will be returned to Judge Chutkan in early Aug, and IIRC that will precede the DNC. While I assume Trump will try the same tactic with her (and I don't mean to predict how a Judge will respond) I do think she won't play his game. She didn't buy the immunity scheme (and neither did the DC Circuit) so I think she'll rely on all of the previous trial judge's precedents and deny Trump's request for dismissal on the same grounds that Cannon ruled in favor of.
Sio it boils down to conflicting opinions from two different trial judges. On the one hand Cannon who is controversial, and appears to be bucking every previous decision on the issue.There has already been reporting that two of her superiors strongly suggested she recuse herself prior to the start of the trial and she refused.She's already been smacked down (twice) by the 11th Circuit, so they could conceivably do so a third time.
On the other hand Chutkan is a (IIRC) 20 yr, well respected Judge highly thought of by her peers. And more importantly if she denied the Trump request for dimissal she would be on extremely solid ground when it came to trial court precedent. And in contrast to Cannon, Chutkan is well respected by her superiors at the DC Circuit who agreed with her unanimously on immunity and didn't even entertain Trump's appeal for an enbanc hearing.
Sadly the pro-Executive Branch absolutists on SCOTUS decided that Trump was above the law. So all bets are off when it comes to SCOTUS. They might side with him again if the issue made their docket.
I admit all of that is speculation on my part,so I could be mistaken on some,if not all, of my points. But assuming we had conflicting rulings and the respective sides decided to file appeals on respective adverse rulings, is there any method for determining which Judge's opinion is pre-eminent?
Is it a matter of which case gets thru the appellate process quickest, and whether one decision is fast tracked to SCOTUS. And how many Justices (in addition to Thomas) would have to sign on to grant a stay or even accept the case? Esp since it's likely (at least in the DC case) that the appeal would be expedited and Trump would try to get Thomas to sign on while SCOTUS is on vaycay till Oct?
It's really strange how a picture of innocense like Trump is hellbent on making sure that voters don't have the oppty to hear testimony and judge for themselves prior to voting in Nov...
wait, you
and then she cites Thomas’ double dicta. Hell, Thomas statement in the Trump immunity case isn’t even dicta. It’s random gratuitous wink winking to Cannon. It’s like a love letter to Cannon buried in a footnote of a concurrence. “Come hither, Aileen. I have some candy for you.”
That immunity decision is not a compliment. The CA immunity decision is awful and written by judges who didn’t understand the first thing about official immunity.
You really didn't need to go to such much trouble for my comment. I was simply saying that if she had released her ruling the day before the dem convention, it would no longer be an issue for dems and a whole lot of speeches would have to be rewritten since every speech will be about Trump and his legal issues. It was obviously a joke, a poor one at that.
Hillary didn't give hers back willingly, either and, in fact, destroyed them.
So, yeah, charge them. Trump's case would be the strongest of the 4, since he actually was President.
Who cares about after Jan 20? What about now? All this happened before he was President.
There is nothing Constitutionally that says a President can't be indicted for past crimes.
Are you sure? The constitution does not say a president cannot be indicted for crimes in office either. The Nixon DoJ came up with the idea and all DoJs since have abided.
The argument was that a sitting president under trial could not carry out their duties. They are not required to step down, not are they required to be impeached. You really think the Supreme Court wants involved in that?
There is a small Constitutional argument that a president after impeachment can be indicted. Some things that means no indictments before impeachment, but others do not see that as a requirement.
indictment of presidents
Well, I'm sure it's not in the Constitution, but it wouldn't happen because we treat the President like a king. I agree with the SC that Presidents should have immunity on official issues, but if they're breaking laws, then they should be fair game, imo.Are you sure? The constitution does not say a president cannot be indicted for crimes in office either. The Nixon DoJ came up with the idea and all DoJs since have abided.
The argument was that a sitting president under trial could not carry out their duties. They are not required to step down, not are they required to be impeached. You really think the Supreme Court wants involved in that?
There is a small Constitutional argument that a president after impeachment can be indicted. Some things that means no indictments before impeachment, but others do not see that as a requirement.
indictment of presidents
www.law.cornell.edu
You're right - he can be indicted after Jan 20 and I hope he is. But it won't happen. Republicans don't do lawfare like Democrats do.
You are perpetually wrong. They got every email with classified information back in the HRC case. Every one. These weren’t printed documents like the hundred plus that Trump had. You were a “lock her up” guy in 2016 and now you are most definitely a world class hypocrite.
Pence is not a threat to Biden reelection? How about again tell me what right did either have of to even possess the documents outside a skiff. So that in itself is a crime. Also if Biden did share info with his ghostwriter it too is a crime. Biden allegedly also did know he had the documents because he was looking for them. He also was in possession for many years. Not just one or two or even three years.
The DOJ can refile the case today through the local USA and likely have a different trial judge.
From what I read, someone else noticed the documents and notified Biden. Biden returned them and allowed the govt to come search the premises to ensure that no other documents were missed. There is no proof that Biden KNEW he had the documents or was actively looking for them. And even if he was looking to make sure he didn't have any...that is hardly proof that he thought he had documents. Show proof of your accusations outside of republican propaganda.
Contrast that to Trump claiming the documents were his and that he magically declassified them with his mind. Some were then returned after a year of the govt trying and Trump lied that those were all the documents (didn't allow/offer for anyone to search). The govt had to physically go to his residence, where they found even more documents that supposed weren't there according to Trump and his lawyers.
You can make believe in your fantasyland all you want but those situations are not identical.
I
True but that’s kind of a mess. Arguments re evidence during smith’s tenure etc. I think I’d ride out the appeal. Can ask for reassignment but I stick to my opinion that I don’t see grounds save a gesture to appeal to public perception
Last edited:
Why would it be a mess? Professional career lawyers compared to a hired hack on a mission? This isn’t the first case smith has turned into a mess. Bring in a different USA like they did with Cheney and let the chips fall.
It’s certainly a viable option but doesn’t get you anywhere fast. You’re still on the blind rotation m/assignment. And I’m sure there are motions that would arise re all sorts of shit from the prior including challenges to evidence developed under smith
You see from what i have read and or seen is that the FBI had seen and had knowledge of what Trump had and where they were stored. There only request was that they put an additional lock on the room(s). As for the Biden issue, why won't Garland release the the Hur. It is no longer an ongoing investigation?
You apparently need new sources.
They even have video footage of a Trump employee relocating the boxes the day before the raid (trying to hide them??). Claiming it was nothing more than needing an extra lock on the door is the funniest thing I have heard today.
Loading…
www.cnn.com
Trump employees moved boxes at Mar-a-Lago a day before visit from feds
Special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing the Justice Department probes into Trump, including related to classified documents.
www.cbsnews.com
Here is a timeline - https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/t...umps-handling-of-highly-classified-documents/
My point was that if Chutkan denies Trump's request for dismissal, I think her decision would be upheld by DC CA. And also that Cannon's decision will likely not be upheld by the 11th Circuit on appeal.
I'm sure you disagree, you've already expressed your approval of her analisys. I'm not a lwayer so I can't begin to argue the matter.
But I can decide that I prefer to adopt the position of somone who at the very least I consider your equal on the subject. And given that despite being a "leftie" Popock is both a member of the 11th Circuit and personally knows and has argued cases before some of the Justices, I think he might just have insight into that situation that you lack.
You need to stop watching Newsmax, OAN or whatever.
Lying to his own attorney's is part of the Indictment. Lawyer client privilege was revoked because the DOJ prevented evidence that Trump tried to engage his own lawyers in a criminal conspiracy...
"Prosecutors in the special counsel's office have presented compelling preliminary evidence that former President Donald Trump knowingly and deliberately misled his own attorneys about his retention of classified materials after leaving office, a top federal judge wrote Friday in a sealed filing, according to sources who described its contents to ABC News.
U.S. Judge Beryl Howell, who on Friday stepped down as the D.C. district court's chief judge, wrote last week that prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith's office had made a "prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations," according to the sources, and that attorney-client privileges invoked by two of his lawyers could therefore be pierced."
Sources: Special counsel claims Trump deliberately misled his attorneys about classified documents, judge wrote
A federal judge ruled the special counsel has presented evidence that Donald Trump may have broken the law in his handling of classified documents, sources told ABC News.
"As for the Biden issue, why won't Garland release the the Hur. It is no longer an ongoing investigation?"
Sorry but the distinction between official acts/ and non-official acts gift that SCOTUS gave to Trump applies to Biden as well. Biden's interview would be considered an Official act, and Thomas and the gang ruled that nothing pertaining to official acts could be introduced as evidence regarding an unofficial act.
Last edited:
Get in the mix DANC. Wake up!! We’re get em good. Banned from threads. We got it all cookin
Congress has oversight on the DoJ. This has nothing to do with the recent SC decision.You need to stop watching Newsmax, OAN or whatever.
Lying to his own attorney's is part of the Indictment. Lawyer client privilege was revoked because the DOJ prevented evidence that Trump tried to engage his own lawyers in a criminal conspiracy...
"Prosecutors in the special counsel's office have presented compelling preliminary evidence that former President Donald Trump knowingly and deliberately misled his own attorneys about his retention of classified materials after leaving office, a top federal judge wrote Friday in a sealed filing, according to sources who described its contents to ABC News.
U.S. Judge Beryl Howell, who on Friday stepped down as the D.C. district court's chief judge, wrote last week that prosecutors in special counsel Jack Smith's office had made a "prima facie showing that the former president had committed criminal violations," according to the sources, and that attorney-client privileges invoked by two of his lawyers could therefore be pierced."
Sources: Special counsel claims Trump deliberately misled his attorneys about classified documents, judge wrote
A federal judge ruled the special counsel has presented evidence that Donald Trump may have broken the law in his handling of classified documents, sources told ABC News.abcnews.go.com
"As for the Biden issue, why won't Garland release the the Hur. It is no longer an ongoing investigation?"
Sorry but the distinction between official acts/ and non-official acts gift that SCOTUS gave to Trump applies to Biden as well. Biden's interview would be considered an Official act, and Thomas and the gang ruled that nothing pertaining to official acts could be introduced as evidence regarding an unofficial act.
Grandkid duty. I'm currently watching Peppa Pig. God help me.
But what it does have to do with is Cannon's ruling that SC's are illegitimate.That means that until Cannon is overruled on appeal any proceedings involving SCs are suspended. No Hunter Biden conviction, no Pence or Biden investigations. According to Cannon there is no record of any aspect of the Hur investigation because the Hur investigation is illegitimate and doesn't exist.
She temporarily got the MAL case dismissed, but there is no way anyone is going to let her pick and choose on the issue of which SC is "legitimate"...
So someone runs to mommie mod and I get banned for the word wacko. Heres a list of words used just in this conversation. rednecks, idiots, immature, nazi sympathizer, lackey, dumbass, shit throwing, hypocrite just to quote a few. I dont get involved posting in these discussions because its pointless. But I did just this once and after this post, no more. But if wacko requires a ban and nazi sympathizer does not, I see a redneck, immature, lackey, dumbass, shit throwing hypocrite in charge. No need to ban, taking the bi-done high road, I just banned myself.
Don’t go. We could use someone like you.
We got em on the run, coach!!! Goat is babbling like a loon, Mark has locked himself in his double wide, and Kurt is to hammered to even post!!!
Total domination!!!
#DREAMTEAMFOREVER!!!
#WHITEBOYSUMMER!!!
#JUSTICEFORCRAY!!!
Similar threads
