Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Cannon shouldn't be allowed to preside over traffic court.
Split Thread Trump Document indictment (as opposed to other indictments)
- Thread starter Checkmite
- Start date
-
- Tags
- donald trump
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Biden will certainly be immune from any actions taken within the scope of his Presidential authority.
Yet, Biden was not President when he announced that Hunter's laptop was "Russian disinformation" during the 2020 campaign. Neither were the 50 odd "intelligence officials" that signed that letter claiming as such. That's election interference plain and simple. If you believe this will not be prosecuted once Biden is out of office, you may be mistaken. The precedent has already been established.
CarbShark
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2021
- Messages
- 690
There is nothing illegal about saying that, and, because the chain of custody of the physical laptop is questionable, it may be true.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
How is Biden's comment election interference?
Were Trump's false claims election interference when he claimed in 2016:
Or during the 2018 midterms:
Or in 2020:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Still in love with the thought of actual political prosecutions based on nonsense, falsehoods, and thoroughly unreasonable double standards, eh?
Last edited:
That's what happens when you are in a cult and gulled by the media you are directed to consume.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,860
I don't see how the SC ruling even remotely affects the Documents' case: at question is whether Trump could withhold the Documents he took from the National Archives or the Agencies they belong to, and what care he had to take to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing them.
The violated those laws criminally, and not while in Office.
Nothing Official about it.
The violated those laws criminally, and not while in Office.
Nothing Official about it.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Its already been mentioned (by JayUtah among others) about how the immunity case affects the documents case.
The case was not in the "Trump is king" ruling itself. The problem is that Clarence "Pubic Hair" thomas wrote a concurring opinion that basically stated "I agree that Trump should be king. Plus maybe lower court justices should look at how prosecutors are picked... wink wink".
Thomas' opinion is not legally binding, and judges should give it little consideration. (It was even a bit shady for Thomas to give that advice, since the supreme court is only supposed to rule on issues they are presented with rather than act proactively.) But it was enough for Cannon to kill the indictment.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,860
Cannon just jumped off the train when it was slowing down - she had realized a long time ago that this could hurt her more than it would help, and Thomas gave her a fig leaf to make her excuses and leave.
No one who take national security seriously thinks that this means that what Trump did was legal.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
I just don’t get how technicalities involving the sourcing of the Special Prosecutor should ever result in an outright dismissal of all charges.
Whether the Special Prosecutor was sourced from The Hague, or any other jurisdiction, the evidence gathered and charges brought seem to remain unaffected - he’s just the leader of a team. The Constitution ensures due process, and due process was granted Trump regardless of where the Special Prosecutor was sourced, barring misconduct that can be proven.
Dylan penned a song “Everything Is Broken”, and I’m starting to feel that way about the U.S. legal system. I may start a thread about that using an analogy in the near future.
Whether the Special Prosecutor was sourced from The Hague, or any other jurisdiction, the evidence gathered and charges brought seem to remain unaffected - he’s just the leader of a team. The Constitution ensures due process, and due process was granted Trump regardless of where the Special Prosecutor was sourced, barring misconduct that can be proven.
Dylan penned a song “Everything Is Broken”, and I’m starting to feel that way about the U.S. legal system. I may start a thread about that using an analogy in the near future.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
future Justice
Defense attorney Scott Greenfield wrote, "I tried. Oh lord, I tried to give Judge Cannon the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was just inexperienced. Maybe she just wasn’t all that bright. Maybe she was trying to be as meticulous as possible after the Eleventh Circuit ripped her a new one for her monumentally bizarre ruling in the search warrant proceeding. Or maybe her bench was the quid to Trump’s quo."
Defense attorney Scott Greenfield wrote, "I tried. Oh lord, I tried to give Judge Cannon the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was just inexperienced. Maybe she just wasn’t all that bright. Maybe she was trying to be as meticulous as possible after the Eleventh Circuit ripped her a new one for her monumentally bizarre ruling in the search warrant proceeding. Or maybe her bench was the quid to Trump’s quo."
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
One is red; one is yellow
She should not be the bailiff at a traffic court in a town with one stoplight.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
Because charges were brought by someone without the legal power to bring charges (according to her ruling). If that is correct, then dismissal is the only option. To do otherwise would be a due process violation, because the courts can't accept charges from someone without the authority to bring charges. The legal dispute here isn't going to be whether dismissal is the right remedy if Smith was improperly appointed (there's no real question there), it's going to be whether he was improperly appointed.
Assuming her ruling stands, I believe ths is not a dismissal with prejudice. Charges could still be filed by someone who did have proper authority, but the process has to start over. So it's not a get out of jail free card for criminals.
Tero
Philosopher
This was pretty much her last ruling. If it starts again, she will not be on this case. The SC can rule whatever they feel like. The DOJ still functions.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,860
Actually, the Appellate Court would have to take an extra step to not send it back to Her Court if they decide that her dismissal was unjustified.
The hurdle to send it to a different Judge are much higher than just demand that the case be heard again.
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,785
It does, however, give Trump a chance to use the ruling at the Republican Convention, which undoubtedly is why she released the ruling yesterday.
Tero
Philosopher
Yes, on Thursday night Trump will declare he was saved by God and that Cannon ruling was also God.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
I think that's correct. But any decision to overturn her ruling at the Appellate Court is likely to be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court by the defense. A decision to uphold her ruling would probably be appealed by Smith. Prosecutors can't appeal verdicts but they can appeal some procedural rulings like this before trial. So this is likely going to the SC either way, but if the trial continues it's likely to still be Cannon. Dismissing a judge generally requires a conflict of interest (that Trump nominated her isn't enough) or some actual violation of the law, not just a bad ruling.
But he will do it in a way that makes it clear, he doesn't actually believe in god.