Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (40 comments) [356 views]


Voters Doubt Biden’s Leadership and Favor Trump, Times/Siena Poll Finds
President by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 4:06 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [7 views]


US says Israel has agreed to the framework for a Gaza cease-fire. Hamas must now decide
Military by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [8 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (12 comments) [112 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [80 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [28 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [172 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [20 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [100 views]


Crime selectors, pages, etc.
Judge Aileen Cannon Can Absolutely Sink the Federal Prosecution of Trump
By Donna
June 12, 2023 11:31 am
Category: Crime

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


No one here is discussing this, so I'm breaking the ice.


Cited and related links:

  1. rsn.org

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Judge Aileen Cannon Can Absolutely Sink the Federal Prosecution of Trump":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 11:52 am

    Some on the right are all over this, too. Clay was all over it on Clay and Buck today. But, I don't think so. It'll be a good excuse when it turns out that the magic indictment fizzles, eh?


  2. by Donna on June 12, 2023 11:58 am

    If it fizzles early on, it'll be entirely because of Judge Cannon.

    After reading the entire indictment, if Cannon doesn't kill it, it should be a slam dunk.



  3. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 12:03 pm

    You do know that Trump will be able to mount a defense, ain't?


  4. by Curt_Anderson on June 12, 2023 12:16 pm
    I am unworried. Trump got his preferred venue and his preferred judge. So there should be no whining or complaints when Trump is found guilty.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 12:43 pm

    When Kierkegaard describes subjectivity as truth and the leap of faith, Curt? That's you, ma man! Go for it!


  6. by Donna on June 12, 2023 12:52 pm

    "You do know that Trump will be able to mount a defense, ain't?" - Hts

    That won't happen until he finds a lawyer.

    Any defendant can mount a defense. Of course what matters, though, is the strength of the defense. I don't see how any future Trump lawyer will be able to mount a convincing defense.


  7. by Curt_Anderson on June 12, 2023 1:09 pm
    Donna,
    Seriously, how does the defense refute photographic evidence or Trump's own words? By the way Bret Stephens of the NY Times had a funny line about the boxes of classified documents that Trump had piled up in the bathroom. He said it gives new meaning to the term "anal retentive".

    Politically, "whatabout Hillary/Joe Biden/Hunter's laptop" apparently convinces Republicans, but legally it won't fly in the courtroom. I haven't heard anything close to a coherent legal defense of Trump.

    I am not worried about Judge Aileen "Loose" Cannon. She was castigated by her superiors over her last judicial errors. Now chastened, I don't think she wants to be humiliated again.


  8. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 1:14 pm

    Donna,

    The legal team that's defending him on the Stormy Daniels issue is handling the documents thing, ain't?


  9. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 1:23 pm

    "Politically, "whatabout Hillary/Joe Biden/Hunter's laptop" apparently convinces Republicans, but legally it won't fly in the courtroom. I haven't heard anything close to a coherent legal defense of Trump."

    Curt,

    I'm pretty sure that when the Former Trucker's Special Counsel announces that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" not going to be charged, it'll be more than GOPs who will notice.

    You are correct, though, the Hillary stuff and Clouseau stuff ain't worth a thing in Court. But, there's increasing seething against the Swamp all around. As unattractive a candidate Trump is, the Doddering Old Fool is going to have to mount a campaign...and win. Trump may just pardon himself.


  10. by Ponderer on June 12, 2023 1:44 pm

    There's a possibility that she might actually put her sworn duty ahead of sucking Donald Trump's penis. She was excoriated roundly by the state's entire body of judges for her wantonly biased, ignore-the-rule-of-law treatment of Trump already. She ought to be on her best behavior. If she doesn't want to go down in history as one of Donald Trump's biggest suckers and wants to regain some semblance of being an honest and fair judge, she'll do what any law-minded judge would and allow the trial to go forward posthaste. No delays. No benching. The facts speak for themselves.



  11. by oldedude on June 12, 2023 1:54 pm
    I talked about this earlier. trumpsters best chance is the early motions.

    The pictures and what trumpster said? How did they get that information and was it legal or not. Was the warrant legal? Was it too far reaching and ambiguous? If you take down one of these legs of their chair, it comes crashing down. In this case, I don't care about trumpster, but it would be funny if the FBI lied to the courts again and got caught (again).

    If they did that, I don't care what happens to the demigods of the Justice Dept. They deserve to rot in hell. Or pushing boulders up mt Hood (since it's in the states). Or being staked to Pikes Peak (an appropriate setting) and having their livers eaten every day and having it grow back.


  12. by HatetheSwamp on June 12, 2023 1:54 pm

    "There's a possibility that she might actually put her sworn duty ahead of sucking Donald Trump's penis."

    Yeah. I was wondering about that, too. Do you think she do a Lewinsky in camera or in front of the jury?


  13. by Ponderer on June 12, 2023 2:12 pm

    Well that's just what we will find out now won't we.


  14. by Indy! on June 12, 2023 2:50 pm
    As I've already said, I'm not following this at all. I dropped all political "news" programming years ago. But I get the feeling this is just another "walls closing in" moment and somewhere along the line our corrupt "judicial system" will allow Trump to escape prosecution. He will then win the 2024 election in a not-so-stunning repeat of the D's 2016's mistakes and then Trump's first course of action will be to pardon himself on the way to McDonald's for some of their nasty cheeseburgers.


  15. by oldedude on June 12, 2023 3:07 pm
    Of the federal judges in the southern FL district. There is an equal split of those from the obomber/pedojoe eras, and the trumpster era. I don't think there was any shopping at all. luck of the draw. Of course, sheep believe what they want anyway.


  16. by Ponderer on June 12, 2023 3:28 pm

    That's what I heard too, od. There were only like two or three other judges that were in the "lottery" or whatever.

    I still think she should recuse herself though.



  17. by oldedude on June 12, 2023 7:31 pm
    Oh well. You'll be able to be the victim yet again and blame this on something/someone else which is your m.o. So it doesn't affect me whatsoever.


  18. by islander on June 13, 2023 4:50 am

    Teri gives a good synopsis of the Aileen Cannon issue in her Part Two summary and annotations of Trump’s federal indictment. For those who want to know, click the link to read the full report which is excellent !! :

    "1. How bad is it that this case was assigned to Aileen Cannon?

    Answering this question requires predicting the future, which nobody can do. There are too many variables. I will therefore lay out the future possibilities (and probabilities).

    But before we can talk about what might happen, I believe we need to agree on a few facts about the present.

    The indictment paints a vivid picture of a person with no control over his mouth who cannot stop himself from spilling his guts to random people about these super cool top-secret defense documents. Trump is not denying the truth of the allegations in the indictment. His strategy is to argue that: (1) he had the right to have the documents and (2) any investigations against him are political witch hunts designed to “rig” the next election against him.

    (This is, of course, exactly what he tried to do when pressuring Zelinsky to announce an investigation into the Bidens.)

    Trump’s “defenses” will not work in court—and are not intended to work in court.

    But these arguments will resonate with people in the right-wing media bubble who have abandoned democracy and instead have embraced an autocrat (or “strongman,” or “demagogue,” or whatever you wish to call him.)

    People give up on democracy when they believe that they cannot create the country they want to live in using democratic means. Republicans like Tucker Carlson understand that democracy means all citizens can vote, and if all citizens can vote, white men will lose power. People like Tucker Carlson believe that democracy means they will be “replaced” by “others,” so they abandon democracy.

    Once you abandon democracy there is only one alternative: autocracy. Sociologist Max Weber said there are three sources of authority for government: (1) Traditional, or monarchy, (2) Rule of law, or democratic governments, (3) what he calls a charismatic leader, or we might call a demagogue or strongman. Because “traditional” takes time to create, if democracy breaks down, only autocracy can fill the void.

    People who abandon democracy often select the Leader who they think will represent their interests and will create the kind of nation they want to live in. They look to this Leader to break the rules and deliver the results they want. (Or they just become apathetic and stop paying attention.)

    As of right now, Republicans who have abandoned democracy see Trump as the candidate best able to assume the role of Dear Leader. (They will replace Trump with a different autocrat when Trump is no longer around.)

    Once people assume American democracy can’t or won’t work, and they accept Trump as Dear Leader, they are willing to accept Trump’s position is that he had the right to take the documents because he is the True Leader. Moreover, those evil Democrats and Trump haters just want to keep him out of office. (Translation: The Democrats are rejecting the True Leader and want to ruin America.)

    In other words, Trump’s “defense” makes sense to True Believers.

    And now, let’s lay out future possibilities (and probabilities).

    Aileen Cannon, remember, was the judge who made wild and improbable rulings on Trump’s behalf when he filed a lawsuit to shut down the investigation into these stolen documents. She was overturned on appeal and was given a smackdown by the 11th Circuit Appellate court. (The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.) To read more on that, click here.

    Trump’s case was assigned to Cannon by a computer algorithm. The idea behind computer-generated assignments is that people should not be able to select their judge. Given what is at stake for criminal defendants, it’s particularly important that prosecutors not be able to pick the judge. Moreover, federal judges have been confirmed by the Senate, so they have a special status.

    It is possible (but unlikely) that Cannon will recuse herself.

    This is from Joyce Vance: If she doesn’t, it is possible that the DOJ can persuade the Court of Appeals to order her to recuse. Joyce Vance personally litigated a few appeals where she asked the Court of Appeals to order a judge to recuse. She cites precedent in which the 11th Circuit ordered “reassignment” where a judge leans so heavily for a defendant they call their objectivity in the eyes of the public into question.

    Here we have rather extreme facts: Cannon was willing to invent new rules for Trump because of his status as a former president. Moreover, the appellate court was clearly not pleased with how she handled the Special Master case.

    Because of the sensitivity of prosecutors asking for a different judge, Vance suggests the DOJ lawyers will wait for the first bad ruling from Cannon, appeal, and along with the appeal, ask for her recusal.

    So will it happen? Will she recuse or be ordered to recuse? Maybe yes, maybe no. We can take bets.

    If she is recused and a normal judge is assigned, I would say there is a better than 95% chance that Trump is convicted. (Here is how I got that number: Federal prosecutors have a 95% success rate, and this case is unusually strong.)

    Judges like Aileen Cannon, by the way, are why good prosecutors wait to bring cases when they know they have enough evidence to get a conviction. The stronger the case, the less damage a bad judge can do.

    Before we get into the worst case scenario, I’d like to remind you of something from my FAQ page:

    #8: At least indicting Trump would provide some very solid schadenfreude.

    The “indict him right now!” chants are premised on a misunderstanding of what an indictment actually is. An indictment is a formal accusation. It is the start of a long, harrowing process. . .An indictment, does not mean that we all live happily ever after.

    Now let’s assume the worst. Let’s assume that Aileen Cannon oversees the case.

    Possibility #1: Cannon felt humiliated by her appellate court smackdown, and now she wants to rehabilitate her image, so she will (try to) act like a normal judge.

    Judges do not like to be overturned on appeal, and normal judges calibrate themselves to align with the law as outlined by higher courts. The 11th Circuit clearly stated that Trump is not entitled to special rules because of his status as a former president. A normal judge, therefore, would make sure, going forward, not to give Trump special rules because of his former status.

    Moreover, judges in criminal cases are more tightly bound by the rules than judges in civil cases because more is at stake. Pre-trial rulings that are unhinged (like excluding evidence that should be admitted) can be appealed. The defense may try to do sneaky things like force the prosecution to reveal the contents of secret documents to the public which could require derailing the case, so stuff like that may need to be appealed. These will be the normal kinds of delays you can expect.

    So if Cannon acts like a normal judge, she may sympathize with Trump, and her sympathies may show, but the jurors will be shown all the evidence, they will hear from the prosecution and will render their decision.

    If Cannon acts normally, given the strength of this case and the fact that these are top-notch prosecutors, I’d still expect the prosecution to win.

    Possibility #2: Cannon remains on the case. She is furious about her smackdown, she believes the appellate court was wrong, and she goes full-on MAGA.

    The worst-case scenario was offered by Ken White, who suggested she may care nothing about normal things like her reputation or public confidence in the judicial system.

    In that case, she can wait until the jury is empaneled and dismiss the case, and then, because of the rule against double jeopardy, Trump avoids a conviction.

    Hardcore MAGA will celebrate. Everyone else will be enraged: He admitted his guilt in an audio recording, and an unhinged judge dismissed the case, so a jury was never able to make a decision. (“Enraged” may not be strong enough.) The public reaction will not be pretty.

    At this point, most people (I hope) will turn their rage into meaningful democracy-building action by doing what they can to ensure that in 2024, the party that gave us Donald Trump and Aileen Cannon will be roundly defeated.

    (The fact that there is so much at stake suggests that Aileen Cannon may well be ordered to recuse.)

    Here is how this worst-case scenario could endanger our democracy

    There will be some (I can name many of them) who will use their platforms to announce that “This miscarriage of justice means that democracy and rule of law in America is dead.”

    See the problem with this? If you believe democracy is dead, why bother voting? The danger is that people will turn their anger into destructive (instead of constructive) actions.

    Fact: Democracy and rule of law are flawed because human beings are flawed. Democratic societies will always contain members who don’t like democracy. You can’t get rid of them and remain a democracy. (Before you argue with that statement, consider how you might rid of them. There is no way to eliminate democracy-hating people from a society without abandoning rule of law.)

    I have often said that democracy in America will survive if enough voters want it to. People hear this and think I am being optimistic because they miss the significance of the word “if” in that sentence.

    If both sides of the political spectrum give up on democracy, democracy will have no chance.

    (This is not about “faith,” or “hope,” or “optimism.” This is about concluding that democracy, with all of its warts and flaws, is the best form of government.)

    Thus, here is how we get to the worst-case scenario:

    Cannon remains on the case (she may not)
    Cannon throws away her reputation and goes full-on MAGA (she most likely
    won’t, but she might)

    The fearmongers persuade enough voters that democracy is therefore dead and/or doesn’t work. (I would hope that when the time comes to vote, most people who dislike Trump will have the good sense to vote for Biden, even if they irrationally blame the Biden administration for the fact that right-wing extremism continues.)

    Well, nobody ever said that maintaining a democracy was easy.
    terikanefield.com


  19. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 5:19 am

    isle,

    Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing. But, what I did read is DERANGED!

    Once you abandon democracy there is only one alternative: autocracy.

    Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh, man!

    The, as po'd say, EFFIN Founders. Abandoned democracy!!!!! There are many alternatives to democracy. Try, CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, maybe!!!!!? Which is what the United States is.

    Oy freakin vey! isle, how can you fall for this? Didn't they teach Social Studies in your grammar school. How about a little historical nuance.

    I'm amazed that you can make yourself read this stuff but that you BELIEVE it is scary.



  20. by islander on June 13, 2023 5:29 am

    "Dependent on a minority of the population to hold national power, Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.” It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic. There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.

    The founding generation was deeply skeptical of what it called “pure” democracy and defended the American experiment as “wholly republican.” To take this as a rejection of democracy misses how the idea of government by the people, including both a democracy and a republic, was understood when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. It misses, too, how we understand the idea of democracy today.

    theatlantic.com


  21. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 6:24 am

    isle,

    Semantics aside. Do you believe, along with Teri, that the only alternative to what the Founders created is autocracy?

    AND, don't you think that the Dems, especially in the Biden era, have veered toward autocracy as much as the GOPs in the Swamp?


  22. by islander on June 13, 2023 8:20 am

    Another alternative to a democratic form of government is an oligarchy which can quickly turn into an autocracy.

    The old conservative southern Democrats, the State’s Rights party of that time, held to the same beliefs as the Confederates. They both favored a weak federal government being ruled by an elite local oligarchy (land owners) over a democratic form of government. This idea of an elite oligarchy is the kind of ‘ruling class’ the modern GOP believes we should be governed by, hence their attacks on our democracy and the very concept of democracy itself, calling it 'mob rule'.

    The modern Democrats are now the GOP of Abraham Lincoln’s era. The modern GOPs however have made their bed with the old State’s Rights Democrats and Confederates, they would now like to convince people that democracy is an old idea that doesn’t work. The Republicans of today have adopted the position that the super wealthy property owners, that elite class that has accumulated the most wealth should govern the country just as the plantation owners believed they were the elite who should govern the country, after all, they 'owned' the country. The menial workers, the poor, and the blacks were totally unsuitable and too ignorant to have a say in how we should be governed, governing should be left to their betters.



  23. by HatetheSwamp on June 13, 2023 8:31 am

    The modern Democrats are now the GOP of Abraham Lincoln’s era.

    Baha baha bahahahahahahahahahaha baha.

    Lincoln didn't run no banana republic!

    *****

    Now. Your mealy mouthed,baha baha, mumbo jumbo aside. Answer my questions.


  24. by oldedude on June 13, 2023 3:28 pm
    They both favored a weak federal government being ruled by an elite local oligarchy (land owners) over a democratic form of government.

    First, you're in favor of an oligarchy of elitist pricks, it's called the swamp. All your buddies are there. pedojoe, little nancy, burnie, the squad, and all the rest of the limousine liberals that violate the constitution at your whim. They don't believe in any sense of a Republic and never have.

    It's not a "weak" central government. It's a limited (by LAW) central government. If you don't like it, change it. Or perhaps you like a strong central government like PRCc or Russia, or DPRK?

    And yes (kind of), it wasn't "land owners" it was "property owners." That makes a difference. At the time, the average person had (maybe) a second-grade education. Most were "home schooled" by illiterate parents. So what they learned was to till the ground, be a smith of some sort. The requirement of being a property owner never existed in our Republic.


  25. by Ponderer on June 14, 2023 9:14 am

    Isn't "land owners" a subset of "property owners"?


  26. by Donna on June 14, 2023 9:15 am

    That ^^^^^ was mine.


  27. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 9:39 am
    Yes, but not inclusive. Property owners also include businesses and other things. Interesting thing was the farmers on the frontier were given land. They would be considered voters. The idea was that those having an investment in what the government says, are better at having a say in the growth of the nation.


  28. by Curt_Anderson on June 20, 2023 11:41 am
    As I said above Judge Aileen Cannon is unlikely to want to face further humiliation and castigation, so she will not show undo favoritism to the defendant. So far she is not doing Donald Trump any favors with her accelerated schedule.

    This is what was reported in the New York Times. You can find similar reports elsewhere.
    The federal judge presiding over the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump in the classified documents case set an aggressive schedule on Tuesday, ordering a trial to begin as soon as Aug. 14.

    The timeline set by the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, is likely to be delayed by extensive pretrial litigation — including over how to handle classified material — and its brisk pace seems in keeping with a schedule set under the Speedy Trial Act.


  29. by oldedude on June 20, 2023 11:54 am
    That will all be handled in the prelims. It depends on how many exceptions she gets from both teams of lawyers.


  30. by Indy! on June 20, 2023 1:43 pm
    Wow. Got news for you folks - we are already an oligarchy and that's exactly what "both" (🙄) parties want. This is not only my opinion - it has been confirmed by a Princeton study of our government.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Judge Aileen Cannon Can Absolutely Sink the Federal Prosecution of Trump"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page