• ganksy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “To make this crystal clear, if trial begins and Judge Cannon makes a ruling that is legally erroneous in the middle of the trial, resulting in a not guilty verdict, prosecutors cannot appeal the verdict,” he explained. “That’s why Jack Smith wants a ruling before trial, so he can appeal.”

    Holy shit! That’s a hell of a loophole. Just what trump was looking for.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s double jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same crime twice and that is clearly what Trump and Cannon are counting on.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a jury trial it should really only be double jeopardy when the jury comes to a non-guilty verdict. In all other cases both sides should reserve the right to appeal.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How does it feel to be a federal judge and have the vast majority of legal scholars and prosecutors be so fundamentally critical of your orders it’s like they are calling you incompetent, corrupt, or both? And you wonder why you lose clerks?

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cannon doesn’t give two shits about that or she wouldn’t be blatantly siding with the defendant who nominated her.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My “guess” is that Jack Smith has decided it’s now or never to get rid of Judge Cannon. It’s clear she is dragging this out intentionally. Once Judge Cannon responds that she will not “speed things up” , Jack Smith will go to the Appellete Court and ask to have her removed . That she will give a shit about.

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, then she’ll just be a federal judge who is known to be overturned easily and not to be trusted by her colleagues

                • snooggums@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Long term most of the damage can be mitigated, but the delays and the possibility of being able to ruin a case with a bad ruling in the middle of the trial that can’t be undone is still doing damage.

                  If she can delay until after the election, that has an impact that can’t be overturned.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      100 bucks says they deny his appeal and what he says comes true. 100% like Trump and co want and all the GOP. These whole things a joke.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’ve already overturned her twice. They know she’s an incompetent hack & beholden to Trump.

        I said it yesterday, she wants to be removed at a late enough stage of the trial that it will take another judge past the election to get up to speed on the case.

        • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s important to note too that the ones overturning her were appointed by conservative presidents. It’s that blatantly bad.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why do people keep calling her incompetent? As far as I can tell, she’s been doing her job – being a blatantly corrupt ally of Trump – perfectly.

          What opportunity to skew the trial in Trump’s favor has she not taken advantage of? 'Cause that’s the true measure of her being incompetent.

          • paddirn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, this seems more on the order of weaponized incompetence, it’s giving the appearance of incompetence for a specific purpose so she can try to avoid claims of corruption or bias. Otherwise, she’s doing the job she was put in there to do, that’s why Trump and the GOP were so hot on getting all those Judges appointed.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know a whole bunch of Trump people are in prison right and they’ve already been working on seizing his assets in increments of $100 million

        I’m as jaded as anyone about the leniency the justice system keeps showing to Trump, but it’s not like everything has been going exactly his way

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            100% agreed

            Everyone’s treating it like business as usual. The third floor of the building is engulfed in flames, and the manager on duty is saying “Well we need to finish the staff meeting, dealing with the fire is on the agenda yes, but we have other business to take care of also.”

            Anyone dealing with anything Trump related should have 24/7 security from the Justice Dept, and everything else on their plate they should get a pass on. If some drug dealers they were also trying a case for need to wait, that’s okay.

        • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not as though his peons getting locked up means fuck about dick to him. They were always cannon fodder. They served their purpose.

    • downpunxx@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      lol, she doesn’t care, even if she wanted to rule in favor of the prosecutors, which she clearly does not, the alternative is to be put on blast, and have all her family members put on blast and threatened for the rest of their lives. clerks? cmon man.

      • Neato@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So her options are to A) side with the fascist mob and throw away democracy and all her credibility and potentially her job, or B) do her job faithfully and put herself and her family at the same risks all her colleagues have been doing.

        Yeah, I guess federal judges really only look out for themselves at all costs and have no pride in their responsibility or love for their country. Like, I expect that from her because we’ve seen she’s a sympathizer, but that’s not what we should expect from federal judges.

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          She had no qualifications to be a federal judge at this level, so there should be no expectation that she would behave as other federal judges, who until recently, were seasoned and well tested judges with decades of experience.

        • Hominine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re very welcome, glad to share the gospel according to Harry. Also thanks for banging out that killer summary, I should have done that myself but excuse excuse.

            • Hominine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              From my view, it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of any one take, even from someone as well credentialed as Harry.
              To that point, one bugbear I am wary of is the inherent cover that lawyerly types tend to give to the Justice system writ large: namely, that it can self-police and correct for biases or bad actors. No legal source I’ve followed has yet to grapple with this blind spot specifically.
              Which is to say, I’m right there beside you in being hesitant to overinvest in any one outcome.

              With that, I’ll throw one more resource at you, and that is the Serious Trouble podcast. The cadence from this crew is much slower, but they bring a fair bit of levity to the table alongside some deep perspective from the angle of defense, and so I look forward to each episode. My hope is they will dive into a discussion around mandamus also, as I am just as flummoxed as you when it comes to understanding specifics.

              Have a good one, and thanks again for the thoughtful conversation.

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Although I’m not a lawyer, I suspect this analysis is correct because it is completely depressing and so matches up perfectly with reality.

      Portugal has one of the best golden visa programs in Western Europe.

    • baru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The GA case will fall apart because of the affair between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade.

      Yep consenting adults being romantically involved is not an affair.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      there is absolutely nothing stopping her from simply ignoring Smith until the trial, waiting until the jury is seated, then essentially dismiss the case for whatever reason she wants once double jeopardy is attached and the dismissal is not appealable. If she is willing to endure the professional fallout from that decision, there is literally nothing Smith can do to stop her.

      Could Smith split the pile of stolen files in half and simply pursue charges on half the files? Assuming jeopardy is attached on the case for the first traunch of the files and Trump is found innocent because of Cannon’s trickery, Smith could then file a new case with the second traunch of the files and no jeopardy from the prior trial would apply because he’d be seeking prosecution on “new” files?

    • havocpants@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The GA case will fall apart because of the affair between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. She committed ethics violations regarding her affair and the cover-up that should get her disbarred, and I think even the worst of Trump’s lawyers should and will be hopping all over that if they even have a shred of competency.

      I don’t know much about the US legal system, but I don’t understand how this affair has any bearing on the legitimacy of the case being brought against Trump?

      I presume Fani Willis could be removed, but the case against Trump would still continue under a new DA?

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The 11th Circuit has previously acted with haste to correct Cannon’s errors when those have been brought before the 11th Circuit. And this one is the most glaring error of all, by a longshot.

        Smith is going to put something before the full circuit. He’s already put down on paper several times about how Trump just wants to delay everything for as long as possible, and this kind of error only serves that purpose.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    “You heard evidence during the trial that President Trump exercised that authority, at times verbally and at times without using formal procedures, while he was President,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the hypothetical jury instructions. “I instruct you that those declassification decisions are examples of valid and legally appropriate uses of President Trump’s declassification authority while he was President of the United States.”

    I think that being in Trump’s proximity must warp your perception of reality; he is so at odds with the factual world and so strident in how aggressively he puts forth his own personal reality which changes day to day, that the brain just can’t cope with it and cognitive dissonance becomes the whole of its operation. I can think of no other reason why a team of actual real-life lawyers would submit something like this and say with a straight face that the judge should be handing it out as the official jury instructions.

    • Mirshe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they believe they won’t have to, I’m almost sure of it - or at least, that it won’t matter in the long run. The hope is that they keep the meter running long enough for Trump to win in November, and then they don’t have to worry about how stupid they look because I’m sure Trump has promised them nice cushy desks at the DOJ when he wins.

  • downpunxx@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    remember kids, when it comes to accountability and the republican standard bearer, it’s gonna be lucy with the football all the way down.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Special counsel Jack Smith’s team on Tuesday pushed back against an order the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

    That’s remarkably poorly worded or a word got left out. Journalism has gone to shit for quality editing. I’ve been hassling the editor at Ars Technica for fucking years about it. One thanked me. The current one seems to treat me as an annoyance for pointing out mistakes. Do your job and I won’t email you.