Judge Cannon just dismissed Smith's classified documents case against Trump

[kyzr]

It doesn't matter what the Appeals court does, SCOTUS will just rule in favor of Trump.

Then that is what the LAW demands. I hope the ruling will be 9-0.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. The point is that Jack Smith is illegitimate

* per one judge, in one courtroom. No other court is bound by this decision. Her decision runs counter to ALL precedent and is now under appeal.

2. Trump did not incite anything

Clearly false. They can just roll tape and put his tweets up, and the jury will clearly see that he did.

The incendiary tweets about Mike Pence -- sent while he KNEW his violent cult was assaulting polie officers -- will be especially interesting to the jury.

Which is why you don't want these things to go to trial. You KNOW he is guilty.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then that is what the LAW demands. I hope the ruling will be 9-0.

Which law?

Can you cite it?

U.S. Code: Table Of Contents

www.law.cornell.edu

WW

 

[frigidweirdo]

Judges are supposed to be neutral politically. They just call balls and strikes.
The fact that you don't like the call is irrelevant.
We don't like the calls of Engeron.

The appeals process should confirm that any political bias is removed, one way or another.

But judges clearly aren't neutral politically, judges get where they are, at the top, by catching the eye of a president, who is definitely not neutral.

It's a mess of a system.

 

[kyzr]

Which law? Can you cite it?

WW

No, I'm not a lawyer, but here is a good discussion that man'splains it:

Jonathan Turley on dismissal of Trump's classified docs case: This is a seismic decision | Fox News Video

Fox News contributors Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley joined 'America's Newsroom' to discuss their take on a Florida judge dismissing Trump's classified documents case.

www.foxnews.com

 

[kyzr]

* per one judge, in one courtroom. No other court is bound by this decision. Her decision runs counter to ALL precedent and is now under appeal.

Clearly false. They can just roll tape and put his tweets up, and the jury will clearly see that he did.

The incendiary tweets about Mike Pence -- sent while he KNEW his violent cult was assaulting police officers -- will be especially interesting to the jury. Which is why you don't want these things to go to trial. You KNOW he is guilty.

1. Very true, judge Cannon made an interpretation of law, the appeals courts will say if she's right or wrong

2. The FBI said no incitement

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report

The FBI has not found evidence of an "organized plot" to overturn the election, and it hasn't found any evidence that Trump organized the violence.

www.businessinsider.com

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report​

3. Incendiary tweets about Mike Pence? You mean this?? (Hint: Not incendiary)

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-hearing-today-trump/card/trump-s-tweet-about-pence-seen-as-critical-moment-during-riot-fmPxoFkeoTKxi0NqPLCL

"Mr. Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m., after the riot was under way: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” That was a reference to the vice president’s refusal to block the certification of President Biden’s election win in the joint session of Congress that day."

Trump requested the National Guard to keep the peace, Nancy Pelosi takes responsibility for the Capitol riot because she denied his request. Maybe Nancy should be prosecuted instead of Trump?

MSN

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6 in video shot by her own daughter​

 

[krichton]

The problem is a matter of proper oversight. Which is lacking if the position is created without an act of Congress. It's more than just Senate confirmation. I was previously in error in other posts on that matter. What Justice Thomas indicated goes beyond just the Senate and through the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. This is a matter of separation of powers and not allowing the executive unlimited and unauthorized prosecutorial powers. All of which fits nicely into this Court’s trend towards addressing the imbalances of decades of terrible policies and practices.

Oversight has never been requirement. Does it even matter that the Supreme Court has already ruled it's constitutionality in US vs Nixon when the constitutionality of the special counsel was brought up as a defense? Going after the special counsel is a time honored tradition of lawyers for criminals like Trump and it's always dismissed, but they do it anyway, because it's sort of like a hail marry for the defense. This decision will be reversed.

 

[Rogue AI]

Oversight has never been requirement. Does it even matter that the Supreme Court has already ruled it's constitutionality in US vs Nixon when the constitutionality of the special counsel was brought up as a defense? Going after the special counsel is a time honored tradition of lawyers for criminals like Trump and it's always dismissed, but they do it anyway, because it's sort of like a hail marry for the defense. This decision will be reversed.

Like the Supreme Court ruled on Roe? Think it through next time. This is a matter of separation of powers.

 

[krichton]

1. Very true, judge Cannon made an interpretation of law, the appeals courts will say if she's right or wrong

2. The FBI said no incitement

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report

The FBI has not found evidence of an "organized plot" to overturn the election, and it hasn't found any evidence that Trump organized the violence.

www.businessinsider.com

FBI finds no evidence that Trump and his allies were directly involved with organizing the violence of the Capitol riot: report​

3. Incendiary tweets about Mike Pence? You mean this?? (Hint: Not incendiary)

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-hearing-today-trump/card/trump-s-tweet-about-pence-seen-as-critical-moment-during-riot-fmPxoFkeoTKxi0NqPLCL

"Mr. Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m., after the riot was under way: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.” That was a reference to the vice president’s refusal to block the certification of President Biden’s election win in the joint session of Congress that day."

Trump requested the National Guard to keep the peace, Nancy Pelosi takes responsibility for the Capitol riot because she denied his request. Maybe Nancy should be prosecuted instead of Trump?

MSN

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6 in video shot by her own daughter​

I doubt many people would ever claim Trump "organized" what happened, but did he hope that his followers would end up doing what they did? Absolutely. Did Trump incite the riot, absolutely. Did he sit in the white house watching the entire thing unfold on television while he did nothing? Absolutely. Did he ignore Kevin McCarthy's call begging for him to call off his cult? Absolutely.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I'm not a lawyer, but here is a good discussion that man'splains it:

Jonathan Turley on dismissal of Trump's classified docs case: This is a seismic decision | Fox News Video

Fox News contributors Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Turley joined 'America's Newsroom' to discuss their take on a Florida judge dismissing Trump's classified documents case.

www.foxnews.com

Remind me in the morning and I’ll post the United States Code passed by Congress.

On my phone right now.

WW

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Nah, it's more fun to mock your stupid ass.

Troll.

 

[westwall]

Troll.

Yeah, that seems to be your specialty, Mr. Multiple sock puppet running Aldo raine.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Yeah, that seems to be your specialty, Mr. Multiple sock puppet running Aldo raine.

Troll.

 

[westwall]

Troll.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Troll.

 

[westwall]

Troll.

 

[kyzr]

I doubt many people would ever claim Trump "organized" what happened, but did he hope that his followers would end up doing what they did? Absolutely. Did Trump incite the riot, absolutely. Did he sit in the white house watching the entire thing unfold on television while he did nothing? Absolutely. Did he ignore Kevin McCarthy's call begging for him to call off his cult? Absolutely.

You can type lies. Try proving what you type, like this:

Trump requested the National Guard to keep the peace, Nancy Pelosi takes responsibility for the Capitol riot because she denied his request. Maybe Nancy should be prosecuted instead of Trump?

MSN

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6 in video shot by her own daughter​

 

[kyzr]

Remind me in the morning and I’ll post the United States Code passed by Congress.

On my phone right now.

WW

Reminder #1

Don't post the code, just who you think the appeals court will support, either Cannon or Jack Smith.

Justice Thomas seems to be supporting Cannon

 

[WorldWatcher]

Reminder #1

Don't post the code, just who you think the appeals court will support, either Cannon or Jack Smith.

Justice Thomas seems to be supporting Cannon

First or all thank you very much for the reminder, appreciate it.

You said: "Then that is what the LAW demands. " So I asked for a cite and you referred me to a Trump supporter.

So posting the code is important. You appeared to be taking you determination about what the law said based, not on what the law said, but what someone told you the law said. I prefer to read the law and make my own judgements.

Clearly Congress has authorized the AG under 18USC515 and 18USC533 the ability to hire special attorneys and to charge them with investigating and prosecuting crimes. And a clear text reading of 533 shows that those special attorneys do not need to be existing US Attorneys because it notes they have the same type of powers as US Attorneys which wouldn't be needed if the selection pool were limited to US Attorneys since US Attorneys already have the powers of US Attorneys.

On page 2 of her ruling Judge Cannon acknowledges that SC Smith is an "inferior" officer not a "principle" officer. Principle officers required Senate confirmation, inferior officers do not. This is important since we have the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2 that says: "...But the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments". In section 28 of the United States Code, that is what Congress did.

Now my opinion:
#1 Judge Cannon has been stalling this case for over two years from the time of the search warrant (Aug 2022) and the initial indictment (Jun 2023). She was a young inexperience Judge whose own collogues advised her she didn't have the experience and expertise to handle such a case and she would be better off turning it over to a judge with actual experience. Either through hubris or politics she refused.

#2 Judge Cannon has already been reversed twice in this case by the 11th Circuit Court for her handling of the case and as a result she has refused to make (a) timely decisions and (b) to issue actual written orders. Instead issuing paperless orders than can't be appealed. She has refused to hold required evidentiary and CIPA hearings to delay, delay, delay the progression of the case to trial and finally released a paper ruling to dismiss the case of 93 pages on the day the RNC Convention started. An action to close the case and render all pending motions as moot. In lieu of ruling on motions, what hearings she has held have often been to cause delay and spend time on frivolous issues. Even allowing none participants in the case standing to present arguments during the hearing (not witnesses, but has participants with standing to argue) which is pretty much unhear of in trials of fact (Federal District Courts). This was the ruling SC Smith has been waiting for because now it gives cause for him to take it to the 11th (again).

#3 She spends 93 pages in her order to dismiss, she spends only a couple of paragraphs simply dismissing the United State Code (i.e. the applicable law at issue) and provides little to no actual law or case precedent citing's to actually justify the dismissal. 93 pages of fluff, lacking cites and substance. She actually ignores many cases from other more experienced Judges upholding the AG's power to appoint special attorney's to investigate and prosecute criminal actions over the last 50 years including by Bill Barr (Trump's Attorney General).

#4 So, IMHO, she will likely be reversed (again) and SC Smith's appointment will be upheld. Now whether the case will be remanded back to her court or whether the 11th will apply a 3-strikes rule saying, and I paraphrase, "we gave you 2 chances to get your shit together, with this 3rd strike we are removing you from the case" is TBD. But you can bet that SC Smith's appeal will go into detail on the history of the appointment of special counsels, and cite the numerous cases where the AG's power has been upheld.

#5 And on a side note I think it's hilarious that the DOJ in it's announcement of the appeal put a thumb in Judge Cannon's eye. That said that the DOJ has authorized Special Counsel Jack Smith to appeal. But according to Judge Cannon's ruling Smith isn't a Special Counsel and therefore has no power to bring actions for the government to court. Yet the DOJ has authorized Jack Smith the proceed with the appeal as Special Counsel for which (according to Cannon) he has no power to do. Is it just me that sees the irony in that?

WW

 

[kyzr]

View attachment 978754

View attachment 978755

First or all thank you very much for the reminder, appreciate it.

You said: "Then that is what the LAW demands. " So I asked for a cite and you referred me to a Trump supporter.

So posting the code is important. You appeared to be taking you determination about what the law said based, not on what the law said, but what someone told you the law said. I prefer to read the law and make my own judgements.

Clearly Congress has authorized the AG under 18USC515 and 18USC533 the ability to hire special attorneys and to charge them with investigating and prosecuting crimes. And a clear text reading of 533 shows that those special attorneys do not need to be existing US Attorneys because it notes they have the same type of powers as US Attorneys which wouldn't be needed if the selection pool were limited to US Attorneys since US Attorneys already have the powers of US Attorneys.

On page 2 of her ruling Judge Cannon acknowledges that SC Smith is an "inferior" officer not a "principle" officer. Principle officers required Senate confirmation, inferior officers do not. This is important since we have the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2 that says: "...But the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments". In section 28 of the United States Code, that is what Congress did.

Now my opinion:
#1 Judge Cannon has been stalling this case for over two years from the time of the search warrant (Aug 2022) and the initial indictment (Jun 2023). She was a young inexperience Judge whose own colleagues advised her she didn't have the experience and expertise to handle such a case and she would be better off turning it over to a judge with actual experience. Either through hubris or politics she refused.

#2 Judge Cannon has already been reversed twice in this case by the 11th Circuit Court for her handling of the case and as a result she has refused to make (a) timely decisions and (b) to issue actual written orders. Instead issuing paperless orders than can't be appealed. She has refused to hold required evidentiary and CIPA hearings to delay, delay, delay the progression of the case to trial and finally released a paper ruling to dismiss the case of 93 pages on the day the RNC Convention started. An action to close the case and render all pending motions as moot. In lieu of ruling on motions, what hearings she has held have often been to cause delay and spend time on frivolous issues. Even allowing none participants in the case standing to present arguments during the hearing (not witnesses, but has participants with standing to argue) which is pretty much unhear of in trials of fact (Federal District Courts). This was the ruling SC Smith has been waiting for because now it gives cause for him to take it to the 11th (again).

#3 She spends 93 pages in her order to dismiss, she spends only a couple of paragraphs simply dismissing the United State Code (i.e. the applicable law at issue) and provides little to no actual law or case precedent citing's to actually justify the dismissal. 93 pages of fluff, lacking cites and substance. She actually ignores many cases from other more experienced Judges upholding the AG's power to appoint special attorney's to investigate and prosecute criminal actions over the last 50 years including by Bill Barr (Trump's Attorney General).

#4 So, IMHO, she will likely be reversed (again) and SC Smith's appointment will be upheld. Now whether the case will be remanded back to her court or whether the 11th will apply a 3-strikes rule saying, and I paraphrase, "we gave you 2 chances to get your shit together, with this 3rd strike we are removing you from the case" is TBD. But you can bet that SC Smith's appeal will go into detail on the history of the appointment of special counsels, and cite the numerous cases where the AG's power has been upheld.

#5 And on a side note I think it's hilarious that the DOJ in it's announcement of the appeal put a thumb in Judge Cannon's eye. That said that the DOJ has authorized Special Counsel Jack Smith to appeal. But according to Judge Cannon's ruling Smith isn't a Special Counsel and therefore has no power to bring actions for the government to court. Yet the DOJ has authorized Jack Smith the proceed with the appeal as Special Counsel for which (according to Cannon) he has no power to do. Is it just me that sees the irony in that?

WW

WOW, thanks for such a detailed summary. I don't know if Meese's opinion explains the Law or not.

5. Can the appeals courts say that Jack Smith doesn't have "standing" to appeal, if Cannon is right?

4. If you are right, the appeals court will rule for Smith, but then it goes to the USSC, where its 50/50 which way it goes. No matter, if Trump wins in November can he or his AG dismiss the case? I would think so.

3. As Turley said in his video, both sides have good arguments. He did not subscribe to the Meese opinion that Taylor Swift has more legal authority because Smith was not approved by the Senate. If memory serves, after a new president takes office all the US Attorneys resign and get replaced by the new president.

2. Cannon may be replaced if the appeals court think she is being blatantly partisan. No matter, she got the case past the election. Similar to Biden getting a pass on mishandling classified documents because he's too old and senile to stand trial.

1. Cannon stood strong. I give her credit. The partisan democrat judges, Merchan & Engeron, will also get overturned even though they arguably did their jobs of hanging felonies and massive fines on Trump before the election. We'll see how Chutkin handles the J6 case now that Smith's authority has been challenged. Any prediction?