She started it.It is Smith, not Cannon, who is insisting on a ruling about jury instructions now.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
She started it.It is Smith, not Cannon, who is insisting on a ruling about jury instructions now.
He's a corrupt shit stain Democrat.On what grounds?
Prepare for an unprecedented liberal meltdown after this smackdown. Jack Smith went to far this time. Read the order posted in the link.
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.On what grounds?
Dem's don't care, it's GET TRUMP at any cost.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.
This Bidenista is going to be PISSED!
Did you intend for that to sound so childish to be humorous?She started it.
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 faintDid 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.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
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.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.
That is not a precedent, that is Smith’s argument that the judge should take this unprecedented action.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.
Humor noted, well done!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."
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.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.
Name one precedent that says a judge has to finalize jury instruction before the case even starts.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.
You really are clueless. All she did was rule on something Jerk Smith asked for, Simp.Jury instructions usually come right before jury deliberations. This seems like loose cannon is attempting to taint the jury early on.
Cry more.Her instructions were ludicrous! This has nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act. That fucking **** can go to hell!
When? Give us a date.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.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.
She triggered Dimwinger morons,For what purpose? Be specific what she did wrong.