Cannon seemed to invite Trump to raise the argument again at trial, where Jack Smith can’t appeal, expert says

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected one of former President Donald Trump’s motions to dismiss his classified documents case.

Cannon shot down Trump’s motion arguing that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague when applied to a former president.

Cannon after a daylong hearing issued an order saying some of Trump’s arguments warrant “serious consideration” but wrote that no judge has ever found the statute unconstitutional. Cannon said that “rather than prematurely decide now,” she denied the motion so it could be “raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.”

…

“The Judge’s ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ‘legal’ as our native language,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote on Substack, calling part of her ruling “deliberately dumb.”

“The good news here is temporary,” Vance wrote. “It’s what I’d call an ugly win for the government. The Judge dismissed the vagueness argument—but just for today. She did it ‘without prejudice,’ which means that Trump’s lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case. In fact, the Judge seemed to do just that in her order, essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial.”

  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    3417·
    9 months ago

    Many, many people turned out for the primaries. Just to find their polling places closed or their name purged off registered voter roles.

    People DID show up for 2016. The DNC railroaded Hillary through anyways. If you’re going to remember history, remember WHY it went poorly, ffs.

    • Hominine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1811·
      9 months ago

      In such huge numbers right? You have evidence of this as it’s not conspiracy right?

      I remember this noise being made too and it had no basis back then, but again, please feel free to provide the evidence.

        • Hominine@lemmy.worldEnglish
          236·
          9 months ago

          There is plenty of evidence, but your dumb ass didn’t listen when it was fresh, either. Fucking grow up and realize Democrats aren’t your friend either unless you make a HEALTHY six figures or more. You’ll sound much less like a willfully ignorant piece of shit.

          So name calling in lieu of evidence? If that’s all you got MotoAsh, I’m glad you put it on the table.

          I guess the irony of stolen elections claims without evidence is just lost on some churlish segment of the left.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          91·
          9 months ago

          Removed. You can attack Democrats all you want, but don’t attack other users.

          Civility.

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      104·
      9 months ago

      It wasn’t purged voting lists, it was pre-committed superdelegates for the DNC. They didn’t need to give a shit what happened at the poles.

      • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
        64·
        9 months ago

        If you remove the super delegates from the primary, Clinton still handily beat sanders. If you give sanders every super delegate of a state of a primary he won to him, Clinton still handily beat him.

        It was never close, she beat him by 12 percentage points.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      159·
      9 months ago

      I remember history. None of that happened. Bernie lost by 8M votes. This was a decade ago, move on and stop spreading Russian propaganda.

      • Morgoon@startrek.website
        108·
        9 months ago

        The chair of the DNC was forced to resign because the Democrats were caught conspiring against Sanders theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders “She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.”

        Sanders supporters sued the DNC and their defense was picking the Democratic nominee was free speech and that they had every right to, “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.”

        Despite article IV section 5 of the DNC charter stating, “The chairperson is required to exercise impartiality and evenhandedness in the preparation and conduct of the presidential nomination process, specifically between the presidential candidates and campaigns. It is important that all parties involved adhere to these guidelines to ensure a fair and just process for all candidates.”

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          72·
          9 months ago

          You’ll notice and nowhere in your link does it say anything about purging voter rolls and closing polling places.

          • Morgoon@startrek.website
            32·
            9 months ago

            I didn’t say they did? But they did argue in court that the Primaries are just a show and that they’re going to nominate whomever they decide. And WikiLeaks revealed that they were conspiring against Sanders.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              51·
              9 months ago

              Thank you that was the link I was going to get too. And yes, HRC still won, but it is not arguable that the DNC didn’t put their thumb on the scale for her which is - very plainly - anti-Democratic.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          53·
          9 months ago

          The only lawsuit the Sanders campaign filed was withdrawn on further clarification over use of DNC voter targeting systems. Again, you are spreading misinformation.