Breaking! Judge Eileen Cannon Tells Jack Smith to GFY! --- Declines His 'Unprecedented and Unjust' Opposition Filing Against Her Jury Instructions

[d0gbreath]

It is Smith, not Cannon, who is insisting on a ruling about jury instructions now.

She started it.

 

[BluesLegend]

On what grounds?

He's a corrupt shit stain Democrat.

 

[Billo_Really]

Prepare for an unprecedented liberal meltdown after this smackdown. Jack Smith went to far this time. Read the order posted in the link.

Her instructions were ludicrous! This has nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. That fucking **** can go to hell!

 

[westwall]

On what grounds?

Ethical violations up the wazoo for one. Add to that his continued illegal altering of evidence, and withholding exculpatory evidence should not just see him disbarred, but imprisoned for corruption.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ethical violations up the wazoo for one. Add to that his continued illegal altering of evidence, and withholding exculpatory evidence should not just see him disbarred, but imprisoned for corruption.

Dem's don't care, it's GET TRUMP at any cost.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This Bidenista is going to be PISSED!

Is he laying down is a pile of vomit, or are those his curtains?

WTF is behind this unhinged psycho?

 

[Seymour Flops]

She started it.

Did you intend for that to sound so childish to be humorous?

Smith is the one who is insisting on a ruling right now on what the jury instructions will be, which seems absurd, and is certainly not required by any law or court case

 

[WEATHER53]

Did you intend for that to sound so childish to be humorous?

Smith is the one who is insisting on a ruling right now on what the jury instructions will be, which seems absurd, and is certainly not required by any law or court case

This witch hunt bullshit has rolled along uninterrupted and now a judge won’t join their party and lib loons are in a massive hissy fit pearl clutch and couch faint

 

[d0gbreath]

Did you intend for that to sound so childish to be humorous?

Smith is the one who is insisting on a ruling right now on what the jury instructions will be, which seems absurd, and is certainly not required by any law or court case

Yes, I did.

They don't even have a jury yet, much less a trial date. Smith just doesn't want her to say: "Remember that the defendant is a former US president, with presidential immunity, while deliberating."

 

[BlindBoo]

Tell us, MagicMike: What precedent is the 11th circuit going to rely on to over-rule Cannon's decision not to decide jury instructions before the trial even begins, and a jury is even selected?

I've never heard of that happening, let alone being mandatory.

If, for example, the Court concludes—as posited in Scenario (a) in the Court’s order—that under the Espionage Act a former President is authorized to possess any document that the jury determines qualifies as a personal record as defined by the PRA, that would wrongly present to the jury a factual determination that should have no legal consequence under the elements of Section 793. Likewise, if the Court concludes—as posited in Scenario (b)—that a President has carte blanche to remove any document from the White House at the end of his presidency; that any document so removed must be treated as a personal record under the PRA as an unreviewable matter of law; and that, also as a matter of law, a former President is forever authorized to possess such a document regardless of how highly classified it may be and how it is stored, that would constitute a “clearly erroneous jury instruction that entails a high probability of failure of a prosecution,” Wexler, 31 F.3d at 129, and the Government must be provided with an opportunity to seek prompt appellate review.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf

 

[Seymour Flops]

If, for example, the Court concludes—as posited in Scenario (a) in the Court’s order—that under the Espionage Act a former President is authorized to possess any document that the jury determines qualifies as a personal record as defined by the PRA, that would wrongly present to the jury a factual determination that should have no legal consequence under the elements of Section 793. Likewise, if the Court concludes—as posited in Scenario (b)—that a President has carte blanche to remove any document from the White House at the end of his presidency; that any document so removed must be treated as a personal record under the PRA as an unreviewable matter of law; and that, also as a matter of law, a former President is forever authorized to possess such a document regardless of how highly classified it may be and how it is stored, that would constitute a “clearly erroneous jury instruction that entails a high probability of failure of a prosecution,” Wexler, 31 F.3d at 129, and the Government must be provided with an opportunity to seek prompt appellate review.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.428.0_1.pdf

That is not a precedent, that is Smith’s argument that the judge should take this unprecedented action.

His argument boils down to unless the judge does what I want her to I might lose this case. As you know, Smith has a long record of losing cases that he brought for the publicity against politicians. He has been admonished by courts many times for his unorthodox prosecution.

So I don’t know why he’s so concerned about losing this case. He seems to enjoy losing.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, I did.

They don't even have a jury yet, much less a trial date. Smith just doesn't want her to say: "Remember that the defendant is a former US president, with presidential immunity, while deliberating."

Humor noted, well done!

I doubt very seriously judge Cannon would say that. That would really be falling on her sword to ensure that Trump is not convicted. An appellate court has ruled that Trump does not have presidential immunity in this case. If the Supreme Court rules that he does, Then Cannon would simply dismiss all charges. She is not going to invent law or precedent to help Trump. Just because the prosecution is doing so to hurt him.

 

[BlindBoo]

That is not a precedent, that is Smith’s argument that the judge should take this unprecedented action.

His argument boils down to unless the judge does what I want her to I might lose this case. As you know, Smith has a long record of losing cases that he brought for the publicity against politicians. He has been admonished by courts many times for his unorthodox prosecution.

So I don’t know why he’s so concerned about losing this case. He seems to enjoy losing.

Several precedents are cited throughout his recent filing. It will be going up the chain. The incompetence of the judge will be brought to the forefront.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Several precedents are cited throughout his recent filing. It will be going up the chain. The incompetence of the judge will be brought to the forefront.

Name one precedent that says a judge has to finalize jury instruction before the case even starts.

Smith wants to force Cannon to hand him a win by finalizing jury instructions that will make conviction more likely.

He also hopes to swap Cannon for a TDS judge who will ignore the law.

 

[boevans]

Get ready for the appellate court to boot Judge Cannon's butt through the goal posts and out of the stadium. Removed from the case.

 

[Nostra]

Jury instructions usually come right before jury deliberations. This seems like loose cannon is attempting to taint the jury early on.

You really are clueless. All she did was rule on something Jerk Smith asked for, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

Her instructions were ludicrous! This has nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. That fucking **** can go to hell!

Cry more.

 

[Nostra]

Get ready for the appellate court to boot Judge Cannon's butt through the goal posts and out of the stadium. Removed from the case.

When? Give us a date.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Get ready for the appellate court to boot Judge Cannon's butt through the goal posts and out of the stadium. Removed from the case.

For what purpose? Be specific what she did wrong.

 

[Nostra]

For what purpose? Be specific what she did wrong.

She triggered Dimwinger morons,