• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Trump Document indictment (as opposed to other indictments)

Seriously, how can he keep getting off scot-free? (As if the guy running The Matrix hasn't thrown enough wrenches in our storyline already.) At this point it seems inevitable that he will win -- all logic aside. The best we can hope for is his heart finally saying "Nuh-uh. No more."
 
JayUtah said:
Justice Thomas all but instructed Judge Cannon to dismiss the case on appointments grounds. This signals he is willing to support the argument in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Remember whenever there is a judge up for appointment at the Senate, and they always say things like, "I can only rule on the case in front of me"?

Yeah, that's not what Thomas thinks. He provides an advisory ruling on a case not presented to his court.
 
We are watching the Trump dictatorship establish itself in real time. He will avoid all legal repercussions and once elected (by minority popular vote, possibly fixed in some districts) will do just as he promised--weaponize government to destroy his enemies and perceived enemies. I predict that we will be involved in WWIII pretty quickly once he is annointed, since utilizing the fattened military industrial complex is traditionally how dictators keep the economy from imploding...although without NATO it will be an interesting dynamic.
 
pgwenthold said:
Remember whenever there is a judge up for appointment at the Senate, and they always say things like, "I can only rule on the case in front of me"?
Click to expand...

That's already problematic. On the one hand, a lawyer will most often answer any question with, "It depends." And for good reason. Law, like many other professions, must consider many details that are not presented at first blush. In confirmation hearings, prospective judges don't like answering hypotheticals because it reveals their policy preferences. They will say that this is not how the law works. Except that law school is literally taught using hypotheticals, and that's what exams in law schools and on the bar exam are composed of: given some set of facts, what does the law say about it?

Yeah, that's not what Thomas thinks. He provides an advisory ruling on a case not presented to his court.
Click to expand...

This is what Justice Thomas does more than the other justices. He blatantly signals what kinds of cases he wants brought before the Court so that he can apply his policy preference to them. Judges do this too with scientific evidence: they signals what science should be done and what conclusions it should reach, and pseudoscientists dutifully go out and create it for them. https://www.npr.org/sections/health...on-pill-mifepristone-retraction-supreme-court

Thankfully concurrence reasoning is not precedential. For now Judge Cannon can cite to Justice Thomas all she wants, but the appeals court will compel her to respect the binding precedent that authorizes the appointment of special counsels and prosecutors.

ETA: The passages in the Thomas concurrence are on matters not brought before the Court, briefed, or argued. Hence they are what lawyers call "dicta," and not part of the legal reasoning in the case. Judge Cannon's use of Justice Thomas' dicta as justification for a sweeping dismissal of charges on novel grounds is just as shaky as it sounds.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
The only silver lining is that Smith can appeal immediately.
Click to expand...
This might actually be beneficial in a way.

The case has been stalled for a long time as Trump's minion has wasted time ruling on motions that should have been dismissed a long time ago. And Smith made no effort to try to have her removed (likely because if he was unsuccessful it would have made the prosecution's situation worse.)

But now she has taken the step to dismiss the indictment, an appeal might finally break the deadlock. Smith can appeal, and assuming they follow precedent, things will be decided in the prosecutor's favor.

Now, with all the steps the case will now have to go through, the case certainly won't be decided before the election. But all the legal discussions might just keep things front and center during the election.

Not a perfect solution, but like you said, a silver lining.
 
Segnosaur said:
The case has been stalled for a long time as Trump's minion has wasted time ruling on motions that should have been dismissed a long time ago.
Click to expand...

That's true in a practical sense. We all know what was going on. But from the legal perspective you're never going to get a judge recused for "taking her time" and "being extra careful" on a high-profile case. You need clear error.

And Smith made no effort to try to have her removed (likely because if he was unsuccessful it would have made the prosecution's situation worse.)
Click to expand...

If you recall, a party in an ongoing manner gets only one shot to force the recusal of the judge. If Smith had jumped the gun, he would have been stuck with Cannon until the end.

Not a perfect solution, but like you said, a silver lining.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the cloud is still there. I love how Rep. Matt Gaetz is already stumping for Judge Cannon to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
 
Wait a second...

If you can't have the attorney general appointing a "special counsel" to deal with cases like Trump, does that mean that Hunter Biden's case will also get dismissed, since (if I remember correctly) he was prosecuted by another special counsel?
 
Unbelievable. The only good thing that may come from this is if the case is reinstated and Cannon gets her ass kicked to the curb.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Wait a second...

If you can't have the attorney general appointing a "special counsel" to deal with cases like Trump, does that mean that Hunter Biden's case will also get dismissed, since (if I remember correctly) he was prosecuted by another special counsel?
Click to expand...

I don't think their appointments actually are equivalent. In particular, David Weiss, the special counsel prosecuting Hunter, was already a US Attorney. That means he already had investigative and prosecutorial powers. His appointment only really expanded jurisdiction for that specific investigation, one which was already underway before his appointment as special counsel, it did not grant him new powers. In contrast, Jack Smith was not a federal prosecutor at the time, so his appointment granted him powers that he did not otherwise have in any jurisdiction at all. So it's not obvious to me that Cannon's ruling would apply to Weiss.

On a purely practical level, the Hunter case isn't in Cannon's jurisdiction, so her ruling wouldn't have any effect unless the case makes it to the Supreme Court and her position is upheld. Only at that point would one need to determine if Weiss's appointment also runs afoul of Cannon's decision.
 
JayUtah said:
The only silver lining is that Smith can appeal immediately.
Click to expand...

Smith can ask to have a different judge assigned as part of his appeal, if his appeal argues that the case was improperly dismissed. The appeals court justices can consider the request if they accept the argument.
Click to expand...

Yes to both, and the prosecutor is likely to win the appeal and get a new judge.

But don't expect the new trial to begin in 2024, even if the appeals court gives it the highest fast track priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom