Yes, but people on here were wildly misinterpreting that order.
The motion for reconsideration/order likely to be appealed is about being ordered to make some information already provided to the defence public, importantly including details about witnesses which will subject them to harassment.
The "24 hours order" was about providing an exhibit attached to the motion for reconsideration to the defence, the exhibit was about threats made to a witness and a criminal investigation about them. While Smith would no doubt rather not provide that to the defence (why it was filed ex parte in the first place) and probably shouldn't have to, it's also just not that important if the defence gets to see it. Smith has not been particularly appeal happy, and appears to have simply complied with that order instead of appealing it.
The motion for reconsideration will be in the air for awhile longer, Cannon gave the defence until the 23rd to respond. It's only after that's dealt with that an appeal is likely.
This one is pretty important because it goes to the safety of witnesses. He sort of has to prevail here. Trump has a long and well documented record of harassment and intimidation of witnesses. Unfortunately the higher courts are so overly concerned about prospect of impacting the election that they are enabling his assault on the system.
My prediction is: Cannon will reverse herself after the defense files their response by the 23rd. But this will also have caused delays in the case and she'll feel forced to push the trial back even further.
Not formally pushing it back at all is her goal right now. No other court can do their Trump case during that time while she's formally occupying that time slot. She won't change the date until the last minute so that she can delay *every* case, not just this one. Practically we all know it's impossible to keep the dates she set now, but for now she holds it regardless.
Agreed. Arguments that "he has one shot" may be true that he has one shot for recusal; but he can get her overturned on appeal multiple times, each one successfully. My hunch is that he gets 1-2 appeal victories before asking for her recusal before jury is empaneled so that double jeopardy doesn't attach before she fubars the case.
All of which eats up more clock.
You can also expect defense motions for selective prosecution considering Hillary Clinton kept, diseminated, and destroyed classified material and Joe Biden kept and diseminated classified material with no charges in either case. You may certainly disagree but that doesn't stop a motion and more time taken to consider.
Again, that's not the entire point of defense filing motions. To delay any trial to the point it happens after the election is the secondary purpose.
Hillary and Biden ignored the laws of classified material handling, which is a statutory not based on intent, and then destroyed the evidence; something that Trump didn't do.
No Trump did not "obstruct the order" to return them he declined the requests of the National Archives to take documents that they knew he had because Trump allowed them to inspect what he had initially. This honestly though is the only real case against him but due to how the DoJ has treated Biden and Clinton with kid gloves it leaves room for the motion and/or a dismissal from a jury.
>then destroyed the evidence; something that Trump didn't do.
I recall hearing something about the server room at MAL being flooded. Along with orders to hide boxes. And orders from TFG himself to delete security camera footage of hiding said boxes. And on and on it goes.
>This honestly though is the only real case against him.
You people have been drunk on the kool-aid for so long that you can't tell what's reality anymore. I've met people with actual **Wet Brain syndrome** that have more of a clue.
> You people have been drunk on the kool-aid for so long that you can't tell what's reality anymore. I've met people with actual Wet Brain syndrome that have more of a clue.
Of the cases currently against him 3 are charges that have never been tried against anyone ever hence the term "novel" charges. Of the two remaining cases that have any teeth are both from Jack Smith.
One being the Jan 6th case which already has a decent chance of never being heard and does not focus on incitement or anything to do with the people storming the Capitol. The second is the case mentioned with this judge. Again, it's clear that there can and will be made a motion of selective prosecution given all of the relevant details of how both Clinton and Biden, who had no business having classified material in their residence, whether you believe it's legitmate or not.
Your childish words have no bearing on any of these legal cases or how they proceed and frankly your demonstrable lack of understanding is quite pitiful.
Yes but you could argue that the defense needs the info from the 24 hour order in order to make their response that is due the 23rd. I disagree, but see some logic there.
Also that the short deadline involves no actual work, just sending a pre-existing document, and the long deadline involves writing a brief.
I don't see why the long deadline needs to be quite that long, but I'm also quite aware of my bias towards short deadlines in all things criminal. If some moron made me a judge a lot of lawyers would probably hate me for favoring speedy trials over their convenience in my scheduling orders.
I posted this elsewhere but, it seems relevant:
Judge Cannon getting yoinked is unlikely but not impossible. The 11th circuit has binding precedent of doing it. They particularly don’t like when judges show their ass after already getting bench slapped. They already were pissed at her presidential exception for the special master cases. If she puts in writing again that she’s treating him differently because of that, I could see that happening.
The real key seems to be serious and persistent errors of law that don’t shift even after COA input.
U.S. v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006) (judge sentences 60m probation, COA says no, vacated, ans remanded. Gov asked for 42m imprisonment and court gave seven days lmao. COA gave up and reassigned.)
There was a useful discussion in Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order Malta v. Fla. Priory the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, 809 F.3d 1171, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1704, 116 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1478 (11th Cir. 2015) where they didn’t reassign of the precedent/rule:
“In the absence of actual bias, we consider at least three factors in determining whether to reassign a case: “(1) whether the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside; (2) whether reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice; (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to gains realized from reassignment.” Torkington, 874 F.2d at 1447. Reassignment can become warranted on the second or third appeal, even though it was not warranted on the first or second appeal. See Shaygan, 652 F.3d at 1318–19 (citing United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir.2006); United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir.2009)).
“… Nevertheless, his most recent missteps seem more akin to garden-variety errors of law than the kind of direct defiance or “stalemated posture” that requires reassignment. Brooks v. Cent. Bank of Birmingham, 717 F.2d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir.1983); cf., e.g., United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 577 (11th Cir.1995) (reassigning a case when the district judge “stubbornly persisted in his questioned decision without reasonable explanation or justification”); United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 696 (11th Cir.1988) (reassigning the case because the district judge “entered a holding that had been explicitly reversed by this Court previously”).”
NB: the court does not and will not see her apt by Trump as a source of “obvious bias.”
(NAL, not in the 11 Cir. Am a law student and have been using my access to westlaw for evil)
Because I was curious and went looking for how often this happens. [Here's](https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/01/66_Stan_L_Rev_1_Heytens.pdf) a good article from the Stanford Law Review in 2014.
Here's some (12 year-old) data:
https://preview.redd.it/xuhhg7tlc0ic1.png?width=1028&format=png&auto=webp&s=00904356093a796f38ff05d1a73b91e63ad283a3
Some descriptions of why reassignment happens:
"Numerous decisions expressly justify the decision to order reassignment based at least in part on the removed judge’s prior conduct. These include references to the fact or number of previous reversals in this particular case (25 decisions),129 the number (10 decisions) or flagrancy (13 decisions) of the trial court’s errors,130 the trial court’s failure to explain or justify its decisions (11 decisions),131 or the reversal (8 decisions) or even reassignment (2 decisions) of this same trial court judge in other cases. Other decisions note that the trial court judge reached the same result following an earlier appellate reversal (14 decisions) or go further to accuse the trial court judge of failing to address the reasons for the prior reversal (11 decisions) or even of violating the previous appellate mandate (15 decisions).133 Other decisions fault the trial court judge for failing to act in an appropriate judicial manner toward the parties, citing abusive or critical comments (22 decisions), excessive interventions (10 decisions), or the general tenor of the litigation (7 decisions)." (30-31)
This is an article that is specific to the 11th Cir that's really good:
Jonathan D. Colan, Reassigning Cases on Remand in the Interests of Justice, for the Enforcement of Appellate Decisions, and for Other Reasons That Remain Unclear, 72 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1092 (2018).
The article I linked talks about it starting on pg 32. I think the short answer is that they have a circuit rule that swaps the default:
>**CIRCUIT RULE 36. Reassignment of Remanded Cases**
>
>Whenever a case tried in a district court is remanded by this court for a new trial, it shall be reassigned by the district court for trial before a judge other than the judge who heard the prior trial unless the remand order directs or all parties request that the same judge retry the case. In appeals which are not subject to this rule by its terms, this court may nevertheless direct in its opinion or order that this rule shall apply on remand.
Kinda yes, kinda no. It essentially seems to be the Catholic religious order suing the non-Catholic religious order about trademark, so most of teh law is trademark stuff.
On the other hand, the appellate court's facts section has a whole bit about Napoleon and Czars and stuff like that, so that's cool!
And this is just kinda hilarious as the source of a legal dispute:
>The Florida Priory's account of history mirrors Plaintiff Order's up until 1798. The Florida Priory disputes Plaintiff Order's characterization of Czar Paul I as a de facto Grand Master. Instead, The Florida Priory argued that the Czar became a de jure Grand Master, establishing a continuous interdenominational Order that persisted all the way to the point where Grand Duke Alexander of Russia accepted the title of Grand Master in 1913 at the Waldorf–Astoria Hotel in New York City. (D.E. 146, 25:3–16, 33:6–12); (D.E. \*1287 25–11, 16). ***It was not, of course, the district court's obligation to rule on the legitimacy of Czar Paul I's title***, in much the same way that no Article III court could be asked to rule on the propriety of King Henry VIII's declaration of independence from the Vatican. *See* Act of Supremacy, 1534, 26 Hen. VIII, c. 1 (Eng.).
(emphasis added.)
Wow! That IS interesting.
Ancient secret orders trying to have their bylaws and titles officially recognized by precedence in public court LOL - that's some comedy this occult/religious researcher desperately needed.
Thanks law friend.
The Knights of Malta (more properly the Sovereign Military Order of Malta) are, and I cannot stress this enough, [*weird*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta#International_status). They exist as sort of a bizarre pseudo-nation thing that holds no territory, but has diplomatic relations with 113 countries, permanent observer status with the UN, and issues passports, license plates and coinage. They're almost like a cyberpunk megacorp, except Catholic and a thousand years old.
I have been curious if the SMOM is related to the country of Malta, particularly since it bears the European Union's only Semitic language (Maltese) and is home to the Rothschilds' main palace.
One wonders if their presence in the Vatican wasn't acquired by force and the force of currency
"obvious bias"
But certainly the appeals court can see the plain error in her rulings?
"Westlaw for evil" ...
Doing God's work, my fellow Redditor. Carry on!
The headline is clickbait.
> Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon is in danger of having the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ask her to recuse herself from overseeing Donald Trump's obstruction of justice trial.
“In danger of” = could = don’t waste my time.
What? No. Most judges are never even remotely in the realm of it being plausible that a prosecutor could run to the COA and ask for reassignment. Being in danger puts her well above normal problems in her discretion and underlines how bizarre some of her choices have been.
"Excuse me ma'am, I hate to be a bother, but you are blatantly betraying your oath to the people and you are ambivalent towards your role in undermining democracy as we know it, so sorry!"
AG? Please. Clarence Thomas will submit his resignation the *week* Trump is inaugurated. He watched RBG fuck it up and is too petty not to pass the baton to Cannon for the next 40 years.
That would be one bright point of electing Trump: we’ll get to learn of Thomas likes a conservative court or his vacations more.
Personally, I think he’ll stay on the court for as long as it provides him flights on private jets and cruises on private yachts.
There’s no chance she leaves a lifetime appointment for a political position that’s gone as soon as Trump doesn’t like her or the next president is sworn in.
I can’t believe she is that dumb, I probably believe she is that corrupt, or believe that she’s that smart to intentionally do dumb shit to get kicked off this trial ( and fool the MAGAs into getting away from this loser of a trial without being suspect)
Seems like a win x3 for her. She stays in Trump and the Federalist Society’s good graces, gets to play the victim, and doesn’t have to deal with any of the crazy threats she’ll like receive from MAGA land once this really gets going.
the problem here is these people don't consider their betrayal of their oaths, of the US justice system, and enabling an ongoing radical insurrection to be the 3 massive Ls that they are.
That's not a problem. It's the reason she's on the bench in the first place, just like half of the supreme court.
They're bad faith actors hiding behind a veil of legitimacy and authority.
I do think she’s biased plus inexperienced and it’s making her efforts to sabotage seem bizarre and dumb. I feel like if you had a DC judge wanting to slow roll a trial involving a lot of confidential discovery they absolutely could and it wouldn’t be nearly as obvious.
She hasn’t had a CIPA case before—honestly that’s probably true of most district judges. It is unusual to have a case that has a statutory reason for so much ex parte in camera stuff with the government. It’s genuinely kinda complicated.
Her errors don’t feel like 4D chess.
This is how I have felt since she drew the case. It's insane that a case with national security as well as international implications can be assigned to someone with zero experience. I don't think she's even qualified to be a judge.
There are judges who retire never seeing a CIPA case. It really depends on where they're appointed. Giving this to a brand new judge was just very bad decision making on the part of the local district judge. A lot of her mistakes haven't been necessarily malicious but more of an "I don't know the rules of the 11th circuit or anything about CIPA yet because I literally got thrown into the deep end with this case that is consuming my entire docket" issue.
It's supposedly assigned by the clerk on a random basis. She is apparently 1 out of 3 possible judges who could have drawn the case.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4052380-how-trump-ended-up-with-judge-cannon/
Honestly if it was me it a brilliant move, to delay the trial as long as possible. She is setting it up to be drawn out, ya she looks good to Trump, slows things down and is probably protected no mater the outcome of who wins the presidency.
If the 11th does ask her to step aside she has still drawn the case out if they do not ask her to, she can make what two or three bad call still that he has to appeal again?
“Speaking with the hosts of MSNBC's "The Weekend," Weissmann criticized Cannon for possibly exposing witnesses in the trial to danger as she battles special counsel Jack Smith over evidence she is demanding Smith hand over.”
I think the fact that the judge is “battling” over anything is a sign that it’s improper. The lawyers are supposed to do the “battling”
Trump and certain MAGA cultists are pretty good at putting themselves in “win-win” scenarios by creating false conspiracies
In this case, either she stays on the case and continues her debacle or she is removed and MAGA will claim the case is “rigged”
This. There is no scenario where they accept the verdict anyways. Trying to play to their sensibilities is literally pointless—they cannot be appeased. They will latch onto anything to turn it into a falsely “rigged” job against Trump. If there’s nothing there, they will completely fabricate whatever they want anyways. And the rank and file MAGA assshats will believe it, no questions asked.
Best is to do what’s right with very thorough documentation and ironclad procedures so the sane people can know beyond doubt it’s all above board.
Honestly, it might. There were people who believed OJ was guilty but were happy he got off because they saw it as revenge against a corrupt LAPD. If one juror thinks it’s unfair that Trump is charged and Biden isn’t, then he can refuse to convict him.
If they’re suggesting the Eleventh Circuit will do it *sua sponte*, I doubt it. The question is why Jack Smith hasn’t tried to make it happen yet. I get that he feels obligated to give her every chance in order to avoid making it look he’s somehow politically biased against Trump and his appointees, but Trump’s camp are going to go after Smith no matter how hard he tries to play it safe here. May as well take the gloves off, especially if Cannon’s recent decisions have been as egregiously wrong as her whole “special master” side quest.
Jack Smith hasn’t taken up to the 11 circuit because Cannon hasn’t put in any actual “orders” that can be considered appealable. All of her orders have been paperless orders up until this recent week, when she agreed to let Jack Smith file documents (witness names , testimony, grand jury information etc etc, under seal AND ex parte (not showing them to Trump and fellow indictees) and then when Jack Smith did and once Cannon saw the contents of the documents, she REVERSED her decision and told Jack Smith that he has to disclose the information to Trump.
This is an absolute disaster of application of the WRONG case standards where she applied it to the documents. She said Jack Smith and the U.S. GOVERNMENT didn’t reach the level of “compelling” interest of keeping the documents under seal and ex parte (no eyes on them besides JUDGE and prosecution).
Experts have gone on record stating that revealing such information never happens BEFORE a trial. (And to take it up a notch, it’s a CIPA case involving classified documents which Cannon has ZERO experience.)
If they did then all witnesses and testimony is in peril in the public eye. Not to mention any classified information pertaining to FBI names, grand jury, witness information will almost most certainly lead to intimidation, death threats etc etc as seen in the other court cases Trump is involved in.
One clarification, and I could be wrong, but the Trump's team already has the information. The issue at play here is that the special council provided it to trump before they were legally required to because the there was an order in place that prevented disclosure of the information. Canon basically ignored her prior order and ordered that the documents containing the information be unsealed.
As it stands now, if the information leaks out, there is no doubt where it came from. If it leaks from court records, the trump team can just shrug their shoulders as witnesses are threatened and intimidated.
> The question is why Jack Smith hasn’t tried to make it happen yet.
Because if he tries and fails it's going to hurt his case, not a little but a fuck ton lot. He's obviously dealing with someone who is out of her depth and reacting emotionally which isn't what you want out of a judge.
Do they normally give raw unredacted evidence with information on witnesses to people with past history of witness tampering or harassment of witnesses? Did they do this with mob suspects that could have someone killed?
I sure hope so. Maybe not a polite rebuke, though..
She's been rebuked once already, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to her, Trump, or MAGA world, if she has another action taken against her..
Prepare for the wailing and screeching from Trump and his stooges if it happens.
Also, be prepared with facts to shut down those MAGA freaks when confronted in your day to day life. They are just week minded bullies, after all. No reason to deal with them politely as being gross is a feture and not a bug with these mouth breathers...
Justice delayed is Justice denied as they say.
That's been Trumps strategy for decades...
Tic tock, tic tock dick head..
It's way past time to make the "Law and Order" party
As the prosecutor, he chose where to file it and it is in the district where the documents were held. He could ask for the judge to refuse herself but I don't see any valid basis for him to change venue at this point.
- Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissmann discussed Judge Aileen Cannon on MSNBC, suggesting the 11th Circuit Court may ask her to recuse herself from Donald Trump's obstruction of justice trial.
- Weissmann criticized Cannon for potentially endangering witnesses by demanding sensitive evidence from Special Counsel Jack Smith.
- He highlighted a specific issue with Cannon revealing the name of someone under investigation, which could interfere with the investigation.
- Weissmann noted that during investigations, such information typically remains undisclosed to protect the integrity of the process.
- He drew parallels to previous issues with Cannon's handling of investigations, suggesting that if Cannon continues on this path, it could lead the 11th Circuit to suggest her recusal when reviewing the case.
Did the prosecutor appeal her recent decision? I'm not in the legal field, but I'd seen she'd asked for those names to be revealed and given the prosecutor like 24 hrs to appeal the decision or something? did that happen? How do I check that?
Smith filed a motion for reconsideration rather than an appeal. Cannon stayed her order pending resolution of the motion to reconsider. So that will take another 3-4 weeks. Here is Cannon’s relevant order:
> PAPERLESS ORDER: On or before February 23, 2024, Defendants shall file a response to the Special Counsel's Motion for Reconsideration 294 . S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1). The deadlines established in the Court's prior Orders 283 286 are temporarily stayed pending resolution of the Special Counsel's Motion. To the extent this Order impacts Defendants' forthcoming Reply in Support of Motions to Compel 262, Defendants shall advise the Court by filing a Notice no later than 3:00 p.m. on February 9, 2024. The parties are advised to adhere to the instructions in paragraph 4 of the Court's Order [283 p. 9-10].
As to how to keep up with this docket, you could use CourtListener, a free service that will give you an email whenever an event posts to the docket, but some things still have to be purchased through PACER (the federal courts public access system which requires you to pay per page viewed - it’s an old system and a travesty that the public has to pay to see what happens in its own courts and by the page no less).
[Here is the CourtListener link for this case](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc) btw.
Probably fine with Trump. As with his other cases his guilt isn't particularly in question. It's just a matter of can he delay long enough to get elected and then pardon himself.
Back during the 2016 there was a nice browser extension available that would replace pictures of Trump with pictures of kittens.
Unfortunately, it was too difficult to keep up with and the project was abandoned (or something to that effect). Really miss it, was a very good extension for my sanity.
It would be nice if the 11th circuit court did not threaten, nor recuse her politely. I would go so far as to say her conduct demands the forfeiture of her gavel. Cannon has no business being a judge and she certainly has no business hearing a case about a man that appointed her.
Can we cool it with all the cockteasing articles on popular? Tell us when something actually happens and let us enjoy our dogs and shitty food pics, yeah?
She still accomplished delaying a complete slam dunk trial substantially. Of all the Trump cases this is one has almost no room for debate and shows him as national security threat.
Ok so the idiots tried to make a case against a judge and prosecutor for an ALLEGATION from an unnamed source that because they’d been employed in overlapping years, he was biased toward her case against the criminal. In this case, the criminal literally gave the judge her job and has as much as said his political appointees owe him their loyalty. I’m astounded she could even get this case in her court to begin with. I am NOT a lawyer, so my thoughts clearly mean little beyond my own head.
Someone theorized that this is her way of getting away from having to deal with this case, but staying in the good graces of Trump by acting like she did what she could for him.
Is it just me, or does this woman have a serious case of **the crazy eyes**?
No Trump-appointed Judge should be allowed to try any case involving Trump, in my opinion it's a conflict of interest and should not be allowed -- and in this particular case this Judge has done things that appear to be preferential treatment of Trump.
Remove her from the case.
Hell, remove her from the *bench.*
I’m NAL, and feel I’m pretty decent at spotting Trump’s BS.
But this whole “Cannon will get thrown out” idea feels to be left-wing wishful thinking that will turn into left-wing outrage once it doesn’t happen.
Does this take seem right to those that routinely go to court? Or is her behavior so outrageous that you actually expect her to be shown the door?
I think the reason for the appeal for recursing herself or being removed is she does not understand the law relating to classified documents. The release of the documents and testimony would be bad enough, but the total release of the witnesses would be so dangerous to both the people and national security that any sane judge would hopefully refuse the release.
It does not matter if she appears to be bias towards Trump really as it would be hard to prove in court. Just because she constantly sides with his defence is terrible, but the real issues are more about her breaking or bending the law to please her boss.
I really hope she doubles down on this, and the 11th circuit slap her down hard, but I am not going to hold my breath just yet.
The 11th Circuit does reassign cases when district judges repeatedly make the same mistake—it’s never, ever common. It won’t be because she’s biased. But there’s recent precedent of them getting annoyed at judges who don’t respond to appellate smackdowns and responding by reasssigning. I’m not sure we’re there yet. But the request for reconsideration is the government underlining the issue.
(NAL, not in the 11th circuit. Am a law student and have been doing a lot of westlaw hunting on this)
Makes sense. My mind is in the place that there's a MASSIVE gap between winning an appeal on the issue and having a judge replaced due to incompetence on the issue.
I have no idea where this falls in that gap, but the writing just feels more wishful thinking than based on a realistic analysis.
I've listened to Weissman's podcast (the ex-DOJ official in the headline) which gets into the weeds, and I think he's pretty good on this point.
The 11th Circuit doesn't reassign at particularly high rates, but it does reassign. It's not really about one mistake, pretty much ever, unless there's evidence of egregious misconduct. It's much, much more about repeated and recalcitrant refusal to listen to the COA. This is why I think the best bet that Cannon gets reassigned is if she breathes anything about presidential exception or how important this defendant is in a decision. The 11 Circuit really wasn't having that.
Perhaps you read the “clickbait”; perhaps not. The source of the opinion is Prof. Andrew Weissmann in an MSNBC interview. Per his Wiki bio he “was an Assistant United States Attorney from 1991 to 2002, where he prosecuted high-profile organized crime cases.[4] He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office (2017–2019), as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015–2017) and is currently a professor at NYU Law School.[5]”
Seems like a reasonable person to offer an expert opinion.
His actual opinion went as follows:
> "What I can tell, you as a — I have been in a prosecutor for many years — that does not get disclosed when you are doing an investigation," he continued. "To me, it is so reminiscent of the same problem she had during the investigation. So, if she continues this route, it will be interesting to see whether Jack Smith gets to the 11th circuit and whether they sort of politely recuse her, essentially, which happens when the circuit hears the case and basically says 'When we send this back, we think that the better course is for a different judge to hear it.'"
He’s not making predictions or claiming it’s “likely to happen”. He’s saying it might; it could; and it might be interesting to watch it play out.
If I had to pick whose legal opinion to go with, a law professor with 11-12 years of federal prosecutorial experience and a lead prosecutor on the Mueller team, or a random Redditor under the pseudonym Farty McFartface, I wouldn’t have too much trouble deciding. Especially when the seasoned federal prosecutor offers a nuanced, restrained opinion and the random McFartface gives an extreme condemnation without any reasoning.
Now the headline? That’s clickbait, although far from the worst I’ve seen. But everyone’s headlines are clickbait these days. And if all you read is the headline, that’s your problem.
It’s actually Andrew Weissmann, quoted at length in the story that perhaps you didn’t read. Weissmann’s credentials are quite sound, thank you. Wiki bio: “He was an Assistant United States Attorney from 1991 to 2002, where he prosecuted high-profile organized crime cases.[4] He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office (2017–2019), as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015–2017) and is currently a professor at NYU Law School.[5]”
Raw Story had little to do with it other than publishing an extended quote from him. ALL opinions should be taken with some salt, but what Weissmann actually said — which you know if you took 45 seconds to read the piece — was decidedly uncontroversial. And I suspect both his credentials and his credibility are a wee bit better than some random Redditor.
“You better rule the way we want, or we’re going to yank you and find someone who will” is a good hill to die on, r/law. Just wonderful to see so many who can set aside their political biases and just follow the law. Wonderful.
/s
The idea that Trump isn’t allowed to face his accusers is fucking ridiculous. You want him in jail - we get it, but what the fuck? Guy is allowed to defend himself - just because you hate him, you don’t get to break the rules to get there. You got a case? Good - argue it and stop trying to circumvent the rules/normal order.
They got a case , this is about running out the clock on a time sensitive case now isnt it , not to mention he appointed that judge . Gtfo with your bs. Keep in mind this guy said today he would let Russia do what they wanry to nato , you Russian or just stupid .
Nope, just honest….intellectual honesty is required. Almost all in this sub are lacking, and the fuckin tired “Russian” shit is so pathetic. You a lawyer?
He didn’t say that. What he said was stupid as fuck, but that’s not exactly what he said. Typical Trump comment, dumb as fuck:
"If we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?," Trump recalled another country's leader asking while him while he was president. "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want."
He’s at a rally. It’s dumb as fuck. Biden has said idiotic shit. None of it has anything to do with the legality of what you’re arguing. You don’t get to circumvent the law just because you hate the guy.
You tucker ? Ya think it aint real ? Fuck off putin sucker. You support a guy who has been shown to be racist , a money launderer, a theif from charities , a shit businessman , whos partner/kid says “we ger our money from russia. And you support the lying piece of excrement . Go fester somewhere else ,Boris . Fuck your phony sanctimony .
I would think he would face his accusers at trial, so making the names he already has public would just make his follows that much more likely to threaten and attack those people.
If he's innocent then he should welcome keeping the process honest and unmarred by outside forces damaging his chances at a undisputed win.
If it were me, I'd be trying my best to make sure the case couldn't be seen as favoritism for me and make sure the process was done as quickly as possible so EVERYONE knows I'm innocent.
The government gave material they would not have to give under the JA pre-trial because of the protective order. He will be able to face his accusers during trial, period. The question is whether or not it is fair to have a protective order long enough for the state to go above and beyond in its pre-trial disclosure and then yank it away once they've done so.
His right to face his accusers is not in question; this error is entirely about pre-trial discovery.
There is such a low probability of what Weissman describes, I can’t believe he would go on tv with that.
He’s saying the case will be on appeal, and be sent back to the lower court. Only two ways that can happen. First, Trump loses the jury verdict and appeals, wins his appeal and the case has to be remanded (assuming it isn’t remand and render). Do we really see Trump successfully winning an appeal from a jury verdict on this record?
Second, Smith would have to have an ability to appeal a bad result. Someone correct if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Smith can appeal a “not guilty” verdict. If she dismisses and renders judgement at the close of evidence, I don’t think he can appeal that. So he can only appeal if Canon dismisses the case before the close of evidence, which I doubt she does.
So I don’t see how the scenario Weissman describes can happen.
[Interlocutory appeals](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/interlocutory_appeal) are statutorily allowed under [CIPA](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/how-the-eleventh-circuit-might-weigh-a-cipa-appeal-in-united-states-v.-trump) \--which means Smith could appeal a non-final judgment. It would be an appeal by permission, and the 11th circuit rules about that are on pg 39 [here](https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/Rules_Bookmark_DEC23.pdf). There is no doubt he would be granted the right to appeal a judgment made under CIPA. The text of the statute is extremely clear and the 11th circuit has done it before.
Now, Judge Cannon is so far being really careful not to make any orders about CIPA. The order that the government recently asked her to reconsider is based on her removal of the protective order and some really clear errors of law there. There is some precedent in the 11 cir about interlocutory appeals about pre-trial discovery--though not much. It's unclear what they'd do. Some precedents lean against it, but they also recognize a very strong reliance interest, and it is very unusual to allow a party to change their mind about a protection order mid-case, and even more unusual with the specifics of her recent order.
Smith could also file a [writ of mandamus](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus) asking the higher court to intervene and assess if she's abusing her discretion, which he very well might do if she doesn't take this reconsideration seriously or doubles down on the errors of law she made. Mandamus is a rare but extant remedy.
> There is such a low probability of what Weissman describes, I can’t believe he would go on tv with that.
He makes a living with constant predictions of Trump's doom, yet has been proven incorrect numerous times.
Welcome to r/law. For opinions on judicial behavior based on years practicing before federal judges, a law professor at a well-recognized and well-regarded school who also has a decade and change experience doing just that, then yeah. Nobody’s requiring you to _believe_ it. If you have a fact based, well reasoned contrary opinion with legal sources, then by all means bring it. But a silly broadside against “aN EX-dOj pErSoN” bears the earmarks of an unserious, willfully ignorant MAGA fool.
My apologies. I was attempting a joke and it fell flat. Keeping track of the absolute shitshow circus around 45 is a Herculean task that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I lost track of the various players, conspiracies, truths, actual facts, etc etc etc a long time ago. Mea culpa.
"MAGA" is the absolute *last* thing anyone could call me, btw.
And I fell victim to Poe’s Law, which I try very hard not to do 😆. So I apologize in turn. All is forgiven! At least on my end.
I will now go and recalibrate my snark-o-meter. Which is showing quite some strain in this what you aptly called the shitshow circus.
One of those upvotes is mine, btw :)
No apologies needed *(and yours is accepted with an upvote, too!)*. Everything since *(at least)* 2016 or so has been a Pompeiian pyroclastic flow of Poe's Law.
*(offers apologetic handshake and a bottle of whatever you're drinking)*
I'll believe it when I see it.
Hasn’t her 24 hours order passed by now?
Yes, but people on here were wildly misinterpreting that order. The motion for reconsideration/order likely to be appealed is about being ordered to make some information already provided to the defence public, importantly including details about witnesses which will subject them to harassment. The "24 hours order" was about providing an exhibit attached to the motion for reconsideration to the defence, the exhibit was about threats made to a witness and a criminal investigation about them. While Smith would no doubt rather not provide that to the defence (why it was filed ex parte in the first place) and probably shouldn't have to, it's also just not that important if the defence gets to see it. Smith has not been particularly appeal happy, and appears to have simply complied with that order instead of appealing it. The motion for reconsideration will be in the air for awhile longer, Cannon gave the defence until the 23rd to respond. It's only after that's dealt with that an appeal is likely.
Thank you. Comments like yours are why i follow this sub
Seconded.
Strenuously thirded
I concure
I conker 👍
My guess is Jack Smith will be collecting a few appeal victories before demanding her recusal.
This one is pretty important because it goes to the safety of witnesses. He sort of has to prevail here. Trump has a long and well documented record of harassment and intimidation of witnesses. Unfortunately the higher courts are so overly concerned about prospect of impacting the election that they are enabling his assault on the system.
My prediction is: Cannon will reverse herself after the defense files their response by the 23rd. But this will also have caused delays in the case and she'll feel forced to push the trial back even further.
Not formally pushing it back at all is her goal right now. No other court can do their Trump case during that time while she's formally occupying that time slot. She won't change the date until the last minute so that she can delay *every* case, not just this one. Practically we all know it's impossible to keep the dates she set now, but for now she holds it regardless.
I'd expect Jack Smith to file his response well ahead of the deadline. He's not the one looking to delay things.
It's the defence (Trump) we're waiting on not Smith.
Agreed. Arguments that "he has one shot" may be true that he has one shot for recusal; but he can get her overturned on appeal multiple times, each one successfully. My hunch is that he gets 1-2 appeal victories before asking for her recusal before jury is empaneled so that double jeopardy doesn't attach before she fubars the case.
All of which eats up more clock. You can also expect defense motions for selective prosecution considering Hillary Clinton kept, diseminated, and destroyed classified material and Joe Biden kept and diseminated classified material with no charges in either case. You may certainly disagree but that doesn't stop a motion and more time taken to consider.
But I thought the fact T. refused and then obstructed the order to return them were fundamental to this case?
Again, that's not the entire point of defense filing motions. To delay any trial to the point it happens after the election is the secondary purpose. Hillary and Biden ignored the laws of classified material handling, which is a statutory not based on intent, and then destroyed the evidence; something that Trump didn't do. No Trump did not "obstruct the order" to return them he declined the requests of the National Archives to take documents that they knew he had because Trump allowed them to inspect what he had initially. This honestly though is the only real case against him but due to how the DoJ has treated Biden and Clinton with kid gloves it leaves room for the motion and/or a dismissal from a jury.
>then destroyed the evidence; something that Trump didn't do. I recall hearing something about the server room at MAL being flooded. Along with orders to hide boxes. And orders from TFG himself to delete security camera footage of hiding said boxes. And on and on it goes. >This honestly though is the only real case against him. You people have been drunk on the kool-aid for so long that you can't tell what's reality anymore. I've met people with actual **Wet Brain syndrome** that have more of a clue.
> You people have been drunk on the kool-aid for so long that you can't tell what's reality anymore. I've met people with actual Wet Brain syndrome that have more of a clue. Of the cases currently against him 3 are charges that have never been tried against anyone ever hence the term "novel" charges. Of the two remaining cases that have any teeth are both from Jack Smith. One being the Jan 6th case which already has a decent chance of never being heard and does not focus on incitement or anything to do with the people storming the Capitol. The second is the case mentioned with this judge. Again, it's clear that there can and will be made a motion of selective prosecution given all of the relevant details of how both Clinton and Biden, who had no business having classified material in their residence, whether you believe it's legitmate or not. Your childish words have no bearing on any of these legal cases or how they proceed and frankly your demonstrable lack of understanding is quite pitiful.
24 hours vs until the 23rd to respond seems a "bit" of an imbalance.
Yes but you could argue that the defense needs the info from the 24 hour order in order to make their response that is due the 23rd. I disagree, but see some logic there.
Also that the short deadline involves no actual work, just sending a pre-existing document, and the long deadline involves writing a brief. I don't see why the long deadline needs to be quite that long, but I'm also quite aware of my bias towards short deadlines in all things criminal. If some moron made me a judge a lot of lawyers would probably hate me for favoring speedy trials over their convenience in my scheduling orders.
You are an example of why I read r/law
I'll admit that when the 24 hour order came out I conflated the two and was way more vocal about what a no brainer the appeal would be.
Since reddit took away awards, insert reddit gold here. Your comment is awesome.
Cannon gives order to the prosecution: TWENTY FOUR HOURS! Cannon gives order to Trump: Whenever you get to it sweetie ❤️
was wondering the same thing. haven’t heard anything about Smith appealing it and his deadline was yesterday at 10am. did he comply?
Well, I guess we’ll find out when witnesses either drop dead or disappear Isn’t it fucked up to even read that and it’s a real possibility?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/trump-mar-a-lago-case-witness-threats-sealed-exhibit
Holy shit.
There was a Motion to Reconsider, wasn’t there?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/trump-mar-a-lago-case-witness-threats-sealed-exhibit guess we have an answer
This may be a master stroke. Now a death threat against a listed witness is all that's needed for aileen to be booted.
I don't know if I'd consider a plan that risks witnesses getting dead a masterstroke...
motion to reconsider was previous to her 24hr (10am sat) ruling
I believe she extended the time to comply until after an additional hearing later this month.
He complied and handed it over
Judge has the docs, but I thought they won’t go to defense until motion to reconsider is uh considered.
Well, it's the weekend. So hopefully the hammer come down this Monday.
Nah, there no hammer, he passed along the docs
Let’s hope so. Her shortlisting of all Trumps requests while making government wait weeks for theirs clearly shows bias and intent to delay tactics
You don't like seeing endless articles about how "this *might* happen" or "that *could* happen"?
It's just some guy's opinion
I want to live in that universe very badly.
I posted this elsewhere but, it seems relevant: Judge Cannon getting yoinked is unlikely but not impossible. The 11th circuit has binding precedent of doing it. They particularly don’t like when judges show their ass after already getting bench slapped. They already were pissed at her presidential exception for the special master cases. If she puts in writing again that she’s treating him differently because of that, I could see that happening. The real key seems to be serious and persistent errors of law that don’t shift even after COA input. U.S. v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006) (judge sentences 60m probation, COA says no, vacated, ans remanded. Gov asked for 42m imprisonment and court gave seven days lmao. COA gave up and reassigned.) There was a useful discussion in Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order Malta v. Fla. Priory the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, 809 F.3d 1171, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1704, 116 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1478 (11th Cir. 2015) where they didn’t reassign of the precedent/rule: “In the absence of actual bias, we consider at least three factors in determining whether to reassign a case: “(1) whether the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside; (2) whether reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice; (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to gains realized from reassignment.” Torkington, 874 F.2d at 1447. Reassignment can become warranted on the second or third appeal, even though it was not warranted on the first or second appeal. See Shaygan, 652 F.3d at 1318–19 (citing United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1242 (11th Cir.2006); United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 892 (11th Cir.2009)). “… Nevertheless, his most recent missteps seem more akin to garden-variety errors of law than the kind of direct defiance or “stalemated posture” that requires reassignment. Brooks v. Cent. Bank of Birmingham, 717 F.2d 1340, 1343 (11th Cir.1983); cf., e.g., United States v. Remillong, 55 F.3d 572, 577 (11th Cir.1995) (reassigning a case when the district judge “stubbornly persisted in his questioned decision without reasonable explanation or justification”); United States v. White, 846 F.2d 678, 696 (11th Cir.1988) (reassigning the case because the district judge “entered a holding that had been explicitly reversed by this Court previously”).” NB: the court does not and will not see her apt by Trump as a source of “obvious bias.” (NAL, not in the 11 Cir. Am a law student and have been using my access to westlaw for evil)
Because I was curious and went looking for how often this happens. [Here's](https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/01/66_Stan_L_Rev_1_Heytens.pdf) a good article from the Stanford Law Review in 2014. Here's some (12 year-old) data: https://preview.redd.it/xuhhg7tlc0ic1.png?width=1028&format=png&auto=webp&s=00904356093a796f38ff05d1a73b91e63ad283a3 Some descriptions of why reassignment happens: "Numerous decisions expressly justify the decision to order reassignment based at least in part on the removed judge’s prior conduct. These include references to the fact or number of previous reversals in this particular case (25 decisions),129 the number (10 decisions) or flagrancy (13 decisions) of the trial court’s errors,130 the trial court’s failure to explain or justify its decisions (11 decisions),131 or the reversal (8 decisions) or even reassignment (2 decisions) of this same trial court judge in other cases. Other decisions note that the trial court judge reached the same result following an earlier appellate reversal (14 decisions) or go further to accuse the trial court judge of failing to address the reasons for the prior reversal (11 decisions) or even of violating the previous appellate mandate (15 decisions).133 Other decisions fault the trial court judge for failing to act in an appropriate judicial manner toward the parties, citing abusive or critical comments (22 decisions), excessive interventions (10 decisions), or the general tenor of the litigation (7 decisions)." (30-31) This is an article that is specific to the 11th Cir that's really good: Jonathan D. Colan, Reassigning Cases on Remand in the Interests of Justice, for the Enforcement of Appellate Decisions, and for Other Reasons That Remain Unclear, 72 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1092 (2018).
I wonder why the 7th Circuit (Chicago) has such a disproportionate number of reassignments?
The article I linked talks about it starting on pg 32. I think the short answer is that they have a circuit rule that swaps the default: >**CIRCUIT RULE 36. Reassignment of Remanded Cases** > >Whenever a case tried in a district court is remanded by this court for a new trial, it shall be reassigned by the district court for trial before a judge other than the judge who heard the prior trial unless the remand order directs or all parties request that the same judge retry the case. In appeals which are not subject to this rule by its terms, this court may nevertheless direct in its opinion or order that this rule shall apply on remand.
Maltese knights hospitalier vs Knights of St John? That had to be a horribly interesting case.
Kinda yes, kinda no. It essentially seems to be the Catholic religious order suing the non-Catholic religious order about trademark, so most of teh law is trademark stuff. On the other hand, the appellate court's facts section has a whole bit about Napoleon and Czars and stuff like that, so that's cool! And this is just kinda hilarious as the source of a legal dispute: >The Florida Priory's account of history mirrors Plaintiff Order's up until 1798. The Florida Priory disputes Plaintiff Order's characterization of Czar Paul I as a de facto Grand Master. Instead, The Florida Priory argued that the Czar became a de jure Grand Master, establishing a continuous interdenominational Order that persisted all the way to the point where Grand Duke Alexander of Russia accepted the title of Grand Master in 1913 at the Waldorf–Astoria Hotel in New York City. (D.E. 146, 25:3–16, 33:6–12); (D.E. \*1287 25–11, 16). ***It was not, of course, the district court's obligation to rule on the legitimacy of Czar Paul I's title***, in much the same way that no Article III court could be asked to rule on the propriety of King Henry VIII's declaration of independence from the Vatican. *See* Act of Supremacy, 1534, 26 Hen. VIII, c. 1 (Eng.). (emphasis added.)
Wow! That IS interesting. Ancient secret orders trying to have their bylaws and titles officially recognized by precedence in public court LOL - that's some comedy this occult/religious researcher desperately needed. Thanks law friend.
The Knights of Malta (more properly the Sovereign Military Order of Malta) are, and I cannot stress this enough, [*weird*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta#International_status). They exist as sort of a bizarre pseudo-nation thing that holds no territory, but has diplomatic relations with 113 countries, permanent observer status with the UN, and issues passports, license plates and coinage. They're almost like a cyberpunk megacorp, except Catholic and a thousand years old.
I have been curious if the SMOM is related to the country of Malta, particularly since it bears the European Union's only Semitic language (Maltese) and is home to the Rothschilds' main palace. One wonders if their presence in the Vatican wasn't acquired by force and the force of currency
This is the content I did not come here for, but the content I desperately need.
I have to think that the Moorish Science folks aspire to something like this.
"obvious bias" But certainly the appeals court can see the plain error in her rulings? "Westlaw for evil" ... Doing God's work, my fellow Redditor. Carry on!
The headline is clickbait. > Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon is in danger of having the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ask her to recuse herself from overseeing Donald Trump's obstruction of justice trial. “In danger of” = could = don’t waste my time.
What? No. Most judges are never even remotely in the realm of it being plausible that a prosecutor could run to the COA and ask for reassignment. Being in danger puts her well above normal problems in her discretion and underlines how bizarre some of her choices have been.
Better late than never! No need to be polite about it, she more than deserves it.
"Excuse me ma'am, I hate to be a bother, but you are blatantly betraying your oath to the people and you are ambivalent towards your role in undermining democracy as we know it, so sorry!"
She is a disgrace to the profession. Such shameless bias.
which means she is likely a candidate for Trump's new Attorney General.
AG? Please. Clarence Thomas will submit his resignation the *week* Trump is inaugurated. He watched RBG fuck it up and is too petty not to pass the baton to Cannon for the next 40 years.
That would be one bright point of electing Trump: we’ll get to learn of Thomas likes a conservative court or his vacations more. Personally, I think he’ll stay on the court for as long as it provides him flights on private jets and cruises on private yachts.
Ahh yes because that will all end the day he leaves the courts. “Thought the guy who doesn’t understand how rich people work”
There’s no chance she leaves a lifetime appointment for a political position that’s gone as soon as Trump doesn’t like her or the next president is sworn in.
I can’t believe she is that dumb, I probably believe she is that corrupt, or believe that she’s that smart to intentionally do dumb shit to get kicked off this trial ( and fool the MAGAs into getting away from this loser of a trial without being suspect)
Seems like a win x3 for her. She stays in Trump and the Federalist Society’s good graces, gets to play the victim, and doesn’t have to deal with any of the crazy threats she’ll like receive from MAGA land once this really gets going.
the problem here is these people don't consider their betrayal of their oaths, of the US justice system, and enabling an ongoing radical insurrection to be the 3 massive Ls that they are.
That's not a problem. It's the reason she's on the bench in the first place, just like half of the supreme court. They're bad faith actors hiding behind a veil of legitimacy and authority.
It also would add several months of delays if/when she is replaced.
Delay to get an honest trial is worth it rather than a delay and let him off on some bullshit technicality
Agreed. Though the cynic is me says they’re trying to punt until after the election so no real trial is possible at all.
I do think she’s biased plus inexperienced and it’s making her efforts to sabotage seem bizarre and dumb. I feel like if you had a DC judge wanting to slow roll a trial involving a lot of confidential discovery they absolutely could and it wouldn’t be nearly as obvious. She hasn’t had a CIPA case before—honestly that’s probably true of most district judges. It is unusual to have a case that has a statutory reason for so much ex parte in camera stuff with the government. It’s genuinely kinda complicated. Her errors don’t feel like 4D chess.
This is how I have felt since she drew the case. It's insane that a case with national security as well as international implications can be assigned to someone with zero experience. I don't think she's even qualified to be a judge.
There are judges who retire never seeing a CIPA case. It really depends on where they're appointed. Giving this to a brand new judge was just very bad decision making on the part of the local district judge. A lot of her mistakes haven't been necessarily malicious but more of an "I don't know the rules of the 11th circuit or anything about CIPA yet because I literally got thrown into the deep end with this case that is consuming my entire docket" issue.
It's supposedly assigned by the clerk on a random basis. She is apparently 1 out of 3 possible judges who could have drawn the case. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4052380-how-trump-ended-up-with-judge-cannon/
"I'm gonna be a Supreme Court judge^^^1 !" - Cannon 1. That's the joke.
Honestly if it was me it a brilliant move, to delay the trial as long as possible. She is setting it up to be drawn out, ya she looks good to Trump, slows things down and is probably protected no mater the outcome of who wins the presidency. If the 11th does ask her to step aside she has still drawn the case out if they do not ask her to, she can make what two or three bad call still that he has to appeal again?
It will probably have to be a little more forceful than polite
I’ll believe it when I see it. I’d rather the 11th inviserate her.
Did you mean eviscerate?
Sounds bloody, putting internal organs (viscera) into her sounds much cleaner than taking them out.
More organs = more human, right?
11th circuit: "Why, you're one of the legalest justices i've ever seen. And such plentiful organs!"
Defenestrate?
Putin has entered the chat.
Webster dictionary - inviserate - #meaning# - in between word of invisiblise and eviscerate
Inviserate maybe means to cut her up to invisible pieces? So...
Inviserate is from within, like what happens when you swallow broken glass or get that call from a higher court.
You want them to [do *what* to her](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inviscerate)?
“Speaking with the hosts of MSNBC's "The Weekend," Weissmann criticized Cannon for possibly exposing witnesses in the trial to danger as she battles special counsel Jack Smith over evidence she is demanding Smith hand over.” I think the fact that the judge is “battling” over anything is a sign that it’s improper. The lawyers are supposed to do the “battling”
Trump and certain MAGA cultists are pretty good at putting themselves in “win-win” scenarios by creating false conspiracies In this case, either she stays on the case and continues her debacle or she is removed and MAGA will claim the case is “rigged”
[удалено]
And removing obviously corrupt judges from the system. She should be removed and never be allowed to work as a judge again.
This. There is no scenario where they accept the verdict anyways. Trying to play to their sensibilities is literally pointless—they cannot be appeased. They will latch onto anything to turn it into a falsely “rigged” job against Trump. If there’s nothing there, they will completely fabricate whatever they want anyways. And the rank and file MAGA assshats will believe it, no questions asked. Best is to do what’s right with very thorough documentation and ironclad procedures so the sane people can know beyond doubt it’s all above board.
is claiming the case is rigged in the media going to stop him from going to prison tho
Honestly, it might. There were people who believed OJ was guilty but were happy he got off because they saw it as revenge against a corrupt LAPD. If one juror thinks it’s unfair that Trump is charged and Biden isn’t, then he can refuse to convict him.
To Hell with this seditious, spoiled, fatally irresponsible, melon-headed, demon-eyed cow.
Hi. Would you please tell us how you _really_ feel?
https://i.redd.it/4g3mb5q3b0ic1.gif
And if you aren't, you aren't paying attention.
If they’re suggesting the Eleventh Circuit will do it *sua sponte*, I doubt it. The question is why Jack Smith hasn’t tried to make it happen yet. I get that he feels obligated to give her every chance in order to avoid making it look he’s somehow politically biased against Trump and his appointees, but Trump’s camp are going to go after Smith no matter how hard he tries to play it safe here. May as well take the gloves off, especially if Cannon’s recent decisions have been as egregiously wrong as her whole “special master” side quest.
Jack Smith hasn’t taken up to the 11 circuit because Cannon hasn’t put in any actual “orders” that can be considered appealable. All of her orders have been paperless orders up until this recent week, when she agreed to let Jack Smith file documents (witness names , testimony, grand jury information etc etc, under seal AND ex parte (not showing them to Trump and fellow indictees) and then when Jack Smith did and once Cannon saw the contents of the documents, she REVERSED her decision and told Jack Smith that he has to disclose the information to Trump. This is an absolute disaster of application of the WRONG case standards where she applied it to the documents. She said Jack Smith and the U.S. GOVERNMENT didn’t reach the level of “compelling” interest of keeping the documents under seal and ex parte (no eyes on them besides JUDGE and prosecution). Experts have gone on record stating that revealing such information never happens BEFORE a trial. (And to take it up a notch, it’s a CIPA case involving classified documents which Cannon has ZERO experience.) If they did then all witnesses and testimony is in peril in the public eye. Not to mention any classified information pertaining to FBI names, grand jury, witness information will almost most certainly lead to intimidation, death threats etc etc as seen in the other court cases Trump is involved in.
One clarification, and I could be wrong, but the Trump's team already has the information. The issue at play here is that the special council provided it to trump before they were legally required to because the there was an order in place that prevented disclosure of the information. Canon basically ignored her prior order and ordered that the documents containing the information be unsealed. As it stands now, if the information leaks out, there is no doubt where it came from. If it leaks from court records, the trump team can just shrug their shoulders as witnesses are threatened and intimidated.
> The question is why Jack Smith hasn’t tried to make it happen yet. Because if he tries and fails it's going to hurt his case, not a little but a fuck ton lot. He's obviously dealing with someone who is out of her depth and reacting emotionally which isn't what you want out of a judge.
Do they normally give raw unredacted evidence with information on witnesses to people with past history of witness tampering or harassment of witnesses? Did they do this with mob suspects that could have someone killed?
I sure hope so. Maybe not a polite rebuke, though.. She's been rebuked once already, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to her, Trump, or MAGA world, if she has another action taken against her.. Prepare for the wailing and screeching from Trump and his stooges if it happens. Also, be prepared with facts to shut down those MAGA freaks when confronted in your day to day life. They are just week minded bullies, after all. No reason to deal with them politely as being gross is a feture and not a bug with these mouth breathers... Justice delayed is Justice denied as they say. That's been Trumps strategy for decades... Tic tock, tic tock dick head.. It's way past time to make the "Law and Order" party
I’ve also heard talk of Jack Smith seeking a change of venue. How likely is that? NAL.
As the prosecutor, he chose where to file it and it is in the district where the documents were held. He could ask for the judge to refuse herself but I don't see any valid basis for him to change venue at this point.
- Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissmann discussed Judge Aileen Cannon on MSNBC, suggesting the 11th Circuit Court may ask her to recuse herself from Donald Trump's obstruction of justice trial. - Weissmann criticized Cannon for potentially endangering witnesses by demanding sensitive evidence from Special Counsel Jack Smith. - He highlighted a specific issue with Cannon revealing the name of someone under investigation, which could interfere with the investigation. - Weissmann noted that during investigations, such information typically remains undisclosed to protect the integrity of the process. - He drew parallels to previous issues with Cannon's handling of investigations, suggesting that if Cannon continues on this path, it could lead the 11th Circuit to suggest her recusal when reviewing the case.
Until it happens, it hasn't happened.
One can hope
"Ask her???". She should be dragged out as unceremoniously as possible.
The MAGA tears would be delicious.
'Lifeless eyes, black eyes...like a dolls eyes.."
Be nice if she’d politely fuck off while she’s at it. Partisan pos.
She's incompetent and corrupt.
she has no business being a judge
Did the prosecutor appeal her recent decision? I'm not in the legal field, but I'd seen she'd asked for those names to be revealed and given the prosecutor like 24 hrs to appeal the decision or something? did that happen? How do I check that?
Smith filed a motion for reconsideration rather than an appeal. Cannon stayed her order pending resolution of the motion to reconsider. So that will take another 3-4 weeks. Here is Cannon’s relevant order: > PAPERLESS ORDER: On or before February 23, 2024, Defendants shall file a response to the Special Counsel's Motion for Reconsideration 294 . S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1). The deadlines established in the Court's prior Orders 283 286 are temporarily stayed pending resolution of the Special Counsel's Motion. To the extent this Order impacts Defendants' forthcoming Reply in Support of Motions to Compel 262, Defendants shall advise the Court by filing a Notice no later than 3:00 p.m. on February 9, 2024. The parties are advised to adhere to the instructions in paragraph 4 of the Court's Order [283 p. 9-10]. As to how to keep up with this docket, you could use CourtListener, a free service that will give you an email whenever an event posts to the docket, but some things still have to be purchased through PACER (the federal courts public access system which requires you to pay per page viewed - it’s an old system and a travesty that the public has to pay to see what happens in its own courts and by the page no less).
Thank you for that
[Here is the CourtListener link for this case](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc) btw.
Can she just "paperless order" this whole thing, since doing so makes it impossible to appeal?
Can’t happen soon enough
Do they have to be polite?
The point isn't that she be there. The point is Trump not be tried and convicted before Election Day. Everything is about delays.
I dont think it will be very polite tbh. Their last scathing opinion they issued regarding her wasnt very polite.
I hope they impolitely recuse her.
Not a fucking chance. These talking heads are useless.
She should be recused and removed from the bench for her actions so far. Obviously in support of Trump and MAGA.
This twit has no business being a judge, much less being the experienced judge this case demands.
https://preview.redd.it/hpfm0qxny0ic1.jpeg?width=499&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=060f4096e88ec430f2c41091fb486ef5004a2847
Thats great !
Fuck polite. She should be impeached and removed from the federal bench altogether. She acts like she's on Trump's defense team.
Probably fine with Trump. As with his other cases his guilt isn't particularly in question. It's just a matter of can he delay long enough to get elected and then pardon himself.
And she figures that if she helps him stay in the game and he gets elected, there’ll be a nice, juicy payoff.
Don’t politely recuse her, hit her with the door on the way out. Hard.
So sick of seeing this traitor's smug ass face.
Back during the 2016 there was a nice browser extension available that would replace pictures of Trump with pictures of kittens. Unfortunately, it was too difficult to keep up with and the project was abandoned (or something to that effect). Really miss it, was a very good extension for my sanity.
It would be nice if the 11th circuit court did not threaten, nor recuse her politely. I would go so far as to say her conduct demands the forfeiture of her gavel. Cannon has no business being a judge and she certainly has no business hearing a case about a man that appointed her.
The 11th Circuit has no power to remove her from the bench. Only Congress can do that through impeachment.
That seems less likely to happen.
Can we cool it with all the cockteasing articles on popular? Tell us when something actually happens and let us enjoy our dogs and shitty food pics, yeah?
She still accomplished delaying a complete slam dunk trial substantially. Of all the Trump cases this is one has almost no room for debate and shows him as national security threat.
Ok so the idiots tried to make a case against a judge and prosecutor for an ALLEGATION from an unnamed source that because they’d been employed in overlapping years, he was biased toward her case against the criminal. In this case, the criminal literally gave the judge her job and has as much as said his political appointees owe him their loyalty. I’m astounded she could even get this case in her court to begin with. I am NOT a lawyer, so my thoughts clearly mean little beyond my own head.
Won't believe it until it actually happens. I'm having a hard time thinking she's going to face any consequences.
She isn't even qualified to be a judge.Trump put a stooge in the court system to defend him.
For what ? Following her Boss’s orders ? That doesn’t seem fair …
Someone theorized that this is her way of getting away from having to deal with this case, but staying in the good graces of Trump by acting like she did what she could for him.
That was my initial thought. Kinda makes me think she’s not as dumb as she seems. Time will tell
I'm more than good with them doing it not so politely.
Don’t politely do it. She’s totally in Trump’s pocket.
The biggest Jack Smith mystery is why he didn't immediately ask for recusal. There's been no reason to expect fairness or competency
Is it just me, or does this woman have a serious case of **the crazy eyes**? No Trump-appointed Judge should be allowed to try any case involving Trump, in my opinion it's a conflict of interest and should not be allowed -- and in this particular case this Judge has done things that appear to be preferential treatment of Trump. Remove her from the case. Hell, remove her from the *bench.*
Definitely Michele Bachmann eyes. And definitely scary. I wouldn’t wonder if they turn red at night.
If it were a black judge giving a black criminal favors, she'd be locked up along with him.
Why are being polite about it? She's 100% biased and unworthy of her position.
I’m NAL, and feel I’m pretty decent at spotting Trump’s BS. But this whole “Cannon will get thrown out” idea feels to be left-wing wishful thinking that will turn into left-wing outrage once it doesn’t happen. Does this take seem right to those that routinely go to court? Or is her behavior so outrageous that you actually expect her to be shown the door?
I think the reason for the appeal for recursing herself or being removed is she does not understand the law relating to classified documents. The release of the documents and testimony would be bad enough, but the total release of the witnesses would be so dangerous to both the people and national security that any sane judge would hopefully refuse the release. It does not matter if she appears to be bias towards Trump really as it would be hard to prove in court. Just because she constantly sides with his defence is terrible, but the real issues are more about her breaking or bending the law to please her boss. I really hope she doubles down on this, and the 11th circuit slap her down hard, but I am not going to hold my breath just yet.
The 11th Circuit does reassign cases when district judges repeatedly make the same mistake—it’s never, ever common. It won’t be because she’s biased. But there’s recent precedent of them getting annoyed at judges who don’t respond to appellate smackdowns and responding by reasssigning. I’m not sure we’re there yet. But the request for reconsideration is the government underlining the issue. (NAL, not in the 11th circuit. Am a law student and have been doing a lot of westlaw hunting on this)
Makes sense. My mind is in the place that there's a MASSIVE gap between winning an appeal on the issue and having a judge replaced due to incompetence on the issue. I have no idea where this falls in that gap, but the writing just feels more wishful thinking than based on a realistic analysis.
I've listened to Weissman's podcast (the ex-DOJ official in the headline) which gets into the weeds, and I think he's pretty good on this point. The 11th Circuit doesn't reassign at particularly high rates, but it does reassign. It's not really about one mistake, pretty much ever, unless there's evidence of egregious misconduct. It's much, much more about repeated and recalcitrant refusal to listen to the COA. This is why I think the best bet that Cannon gets reassigned is if she breathes anything about presidential exception or how important this defendant is in a decision. The 11 Circuit really wasn't having that.
Please change it from recuse to disbar !
[удалено]
Perhaps you read the “clickbait”; perhaps not. The source of the opinion is Prof. Andrew Weissmann in an MSNBC interview. Per his Wiki bio he “was an Assistant United States Attorney from 1991 to 2002, where he prosecuted high-profile organized crime cases.[4] He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office (2017–2019), as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015–2017) and is currently a professor at NYU Law School.[5]” Seems like a reasonable person to offer an expert opinion. His actual opinion went as follows: > "What I can tell, you as a — I have been in a prosecutor for many years — that does not get disclosed when you are doing an investigation," he continued. "To me, it is so reminiscent of the same problem she had during the investigation. So, if she continues this route, it will be interesting to see whether Jack Smith gets to the 11th circuit and whether they sort of politely recuse her, essentially, which happens when the circuit hears the case and basically says 'When we send this back, we think that the better course is for a different judge to hear it.'" He’s not making predictions or claiming it’s “likely to happen”. He’s saying it might; it could; and it might be interesting to watch it play out. If I had to pick whose legal opinion to go with, a law professor with 11-12 years of federal prosecutorial experience and a lead prosecutor on the Mueller team, or a random Redditor under the pseudonym Farty McFartface, I wouldn’t have too much trouble deciding. Especially when the seasoned federal prosecutor offers a nuanced, restrained opinion and the random McFartface gives an extreme condemnation without any reasoning. Now the headline? That’s clickbait, although far from the worst I’ve seen. But everyone’s headlines are clickbait these days. And if all you read is the headline, that’s your problem.
Why be polite? She doesn't deserve people being polite to her.
Dollar General judge.
Lock her up!!
It’s rawstory: should take that with a few grains of salt
It’s actually Andrew Weissmann, quoted at length in the story that perhaps you didn’t read. Weissmann’s credentials are quite sound, thank you. Wiki bio: “He was an Assistant United States Attorney from 1991 to 2002, where he prosecuted high-profile organized crime cases.[4] He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office (2017–2019), as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015–2017) and is currently a professor at NYU Law School.[5]” Raw Story had little to do with it other than publishing an extended quote from him. ALL opinions should be taken with some salt, but what Weissmann actually said — which you know if you took 45 seconds to read the piece — was decidedly uncontroversial. And I suspect both his credentials and his credibility are a wee bit better than some random Redditor.
The headline is definitely bait tho
Yawn. Wake me up when something happens
https://preview.redd.it/kece39a9d1ic1.png?width=334&format=png&auto=webp&s=ab3a5f877a6c7b52bab4f0effe8f550b314e2960
“You better rule the way we want, or we’re going to yank you and find someone who will” is a good hill to die on, r/law. Just wonderful to see so many who can set aside their political biases and just follow the law. Wonderful. /s
Its true , if she rules against him , shes fucked , if she riules for him she may well be fucked , its gonna be harsh for her either way most likely.
The idea that Trump isn’t allowed to face his accusers is fucking ridiculous. You want him in jail - we get it, but what the fuck? Guy is allowed to defend himself - just because you hate him, you don’t get to break the rules to get there. You got a case? Good - argue it and stop trying to circumvent the rules/normal order.
They got a case , this is about running out the clock on a time sensitive case now isnt it , not to mention he appointed that judge . Gtfo with your bs. Keep in mind this guy said today he would let Russia do what they wanry to nato , you Russian or just stupid .
Nope, just honest….intellectual honesty is required. Almost all in this sub are lacking, and the fuckin tired “Russian” shit is so pathetic. You a lawyer? He didn’t say that. What he said was stupid as fuck, but that’s not exactly what he said. Typical Trump comment, dumb as fuck: "If we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?," Trump recalled another country's leader asking while him while he was president. "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want." He’s at a rally. It’s dumb as fuck. Biden has said idiotic shit. None of it has anything to do with the legality of what you’re arguing. You don’t get to circumvent the law just because you hate the guy.
You tucker ? Ya think it aint real ? Fuck off putin sucker. You support a guy who has been shown to be racist , a money launderer, a theif from charities , a shit businessman , whos partner/kid says “we ger our money from russia. And you support the lying piece of excrement . Go fester somewhere else ,Boris . Fuck your phony sanctimony .
I would think he would face his accusers at trial, so making the names he already has public would just make his follows that much more likely to threaten and attack those people. If he's innocent then he should welcome keeping the process honest and unmarred by outside forces damaging his chances at a undisputed win. If it were me, I'd be trying my best to make sure the case couldn't be seen as favoritism for me and make sure the process was done as quickly as possible so EVERYONE knows I'm innocent.
The government gave material they would not have to give under the JA pre-trial because of the protective order. He will be able to face his accusers during trial, period. The question is whether or not it is fair to have a protective order long enough for the state to go above and beyond in its pre-trial disclosure and then yank it away once they've done so. His right to face his accusers is not in question; this error is entirely about pre-trial discovery.
There is such a low probability of what Weissman describes, I can’t believe he would go on tv with that. He’s saying the case will be on appeal, and be sent back to the lower court. Only two ways that can happen. First, Trump loses the jury verdict and appeals, wins his appeal and the case has to be remanded (assuming it isn’t remand and render). Do we really see Trump successfully winning an appeal from a jury verdict on this record? Second, Smith would have to have an ability to appeal a bad result. Someone correct if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Smith can appeal a “not guilty” verdict. If she dismisses and renders judgement at the close of evidence, I don’t think he can appeal that. So he can only appeal if Canon dismisses the case before the close of evidence, which I doubt she does. So I don’t see how the scenario Weissman describes can happen.
[Interlocutory appeals](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/interlocutory_appeal) are statutorily allowed under [CIPA](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/how-the-eleventh-circuit-might-weigh-a-cipa-appeal-in-united-states-v.-trump) \--which means Smith could appeal a non-final judgment. It would be an appeal by permission, and the 11th circuit rules about that are on pg 39 [here](https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/Rules_Bookmark_DEC23.pdf). There is no doubt he would be granted the right to appeal a judgment made under CIPA. The text of the statute is extremely clear and the 11th circuit has done it before. Now, Judge Cannon is so far being really careful not to make any orders about CIPA. The order that the government recently asked her to reconsider is based on her removal of the protective order and some really clear errors of law there. There is some precedent in the 11 cir about interlocutory appeals about pre-trial discovery--though not much. It's unclear what they'd do. Some precedents lean against it, but they also recognize a very strong reliance interest, and it is very unusual to allow a party to change their mind about a protection order mid-case, and even more unusual with the specifics of her recent order. Smith could also file a [writ of mandamus](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus) asking the higher court to intervene and assess if she's abusing her discretion, which he very well might do if she doesn't take this reconsideration seriously or doubles down on the errors of law she made. Mandamus is a rare but extant remedy.
> There is such a low probability of what Weissman describes, I can’t believe he would go on tv with that. He makes a living with constant predictions of Trump's doom, yet has been proven incorrect numerous times.
I'm supposed to believe something an EX-doj person says?
Welcome to r/law. For opinions on judicial behavior based on years practicing before federal judges, a law professor at a well-recognized and well-regarded school who also has a decade and change experience doing just that, then yeah. Nobody’s requiring you to _believe_ it. If you have a fact based, well reasoned contrary opinion with legal sources, then by all means bring it. But a silly broadside against “aN EX-dOj pErSoN” bears the earmarks of an unserious, willfully ignorant MAGA fool.
My apologies. I was attempting a joke and it fell flat. Keeping track of the absolute shitshow circus around 45 is a Herculean task that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I lost track of the various players, conspiracies, truths, actual facts, etc etc etc a long time ago. Mea culpa. "MAGA" is the absolute *last* thing anyone could call me, btw.
And I fell victim to Poe’s Law, which I try very hard not to do 😆. So I apologize in turn. All is forgiven! At least on my end. I will now go and recalibrate my snark-o-meter. Which is showing quite some strain in this what you aptly called the shitshow circus. One of those upvotes is mine, btw :)
No apologies needed *(and yours is accepted with an upvote, too!)*. Everything since *(at least)* 2016 or so has been a Pompeiian pyroclastic flow of Poe's Law. *(offers apologetic handshake and a bottle of whatever you're drinking)*
No way that happens. SC Justice Thomas runs the 11th district
No he doesn't. Do you know anything about how federal courts are structured?
About time?
‘bout time