this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024

224 points (98.7% liked)

politics

18930 readers

3097 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

224

"A lot of frustration": Legal expert calls out Judge Cannon's "unprofessional" shot at prosecutor (www.salon.com)

submitted 3 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The copy editor let slip by two repeated words or phrases.

[–] proper@lemmy.world 57 points 3 months ago (3 children)

“Judges have a lot of (i say) Judges have a lot of discretion”

Just read it like foghorn leghorn and it works.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just read it like foghorn leghorn and it works.

Also a good method for making any news featuring that awful senator John Kennedy more life-like.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wish you could buy his voice for text to speech

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

He should narrate erotic fiction. Just listen to him oozing raw lust and sex appeal in Congress! 😂

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

[curses] Get out of my brain!

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

At least it’s not AI bullshit. I’ll take human error over processed rhetoric any day.

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Definitely the most important part of this story. Glad you're here to point out the big stuff.

[+] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At this point, Jack Smith has nobody to blame but himself.

What does Cannon have to do to finally make him realize that the fix is in and he needs to have her recused?

She has made multiple egregiously wrong rulings in his favor.
She is openly hostile to the prosecution team in court.
Her method of handling motions are to either postpone them indefinitely or to shape the rulings to both benefit trump and avoid creating an appealable issue.
She is now actively entertaining motions to have Smith removed from the case and/or have the case thrown out on frivolous grounds that have already been litigated to death.
She has already all but stated her intentions of not ruling on some motions until after trial begins so when she dismisses the case based on those motions, double jeopardy will already be attached and Trump walks free.

How much more hostile can she be, short of hiring a hitman to have him publicly assassinated? He can't even claim to be worried about her being hostile to him at trial in retaliation, because she's already as hostile as she can be now.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At this point, Jack Smith has nobody to blame but himself

Categorically and obviously false. Knowing about her corruption doesn't make it his fault. Especially since there's virtually nothing he can do about it.

[+] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Especially since there’s virtually nothing he can do about it.

He can ask for her recusal, and file an appeal when she inevitably refuses. He hasn't even tried that, and at this point, the valid reasons why have all vanished. There's no chance this case is going to trial before the election. She's already as hostile as she can be towards the prosecution. And she's holding hearings regarding having him removed from the case. He literally has nothing to lose, but he's doing exactly nothing to even try to have her removed. If he were trying and failed, then I'd agree with you. But he isn't. What the fuck is he waiting for?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

He can ask for her recusal, and file an appeal when she inevitably refuses

Yeah, because when that doesn't work, and it won't, there's no way both she and the violent Trump cult retaliate against him for trying 🙄

He hasn't even tried that, and at this point, the valid reasons why have all vanished

Yeah, because an already belligerent judge becoming openly hostile helps his case and he isn't getting enough death threats already 🙄

There's no chance this case is going to trial before the election

And thus no chance it ever happens unless Trump loses again and the inevitable second coup attempt isn't successful.

She's already as hostile as she can be towards the prosecution

Wanna bet? A thousand bucks says she's still trying (unsuccesfully) to appear impartial and will become much worse in reaction to him stating the obvious facts to the contrary.

And she's holding hearings regarding having him removed from the case

Does that sound to you like the action of a well-adjusted person who won't react to valid criticism by abusing the power she has over him and the case?

He literally has nothing to lose

Except for one of the most important and on paper strongest court cases in the history of the country. Just tiny things like that.

What the fuck is he waiting for?

For people more powerful than him to protect the case from the inevitable fallout of an attempt doomed to failure.

Tl;Dr: you're right about what SHOULD be, but wrong about what IS on all points.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, because when that doesn’t work, and it won’t, there’s no way both she and the violent Trump cult retaliate against him for trying 🙄

And what at this point could they possibly do that they're not doing already?

Yeah, because an already belligerent judge becoming openly hostile helps his case and he isn’t getting enough death threats already 🙄

She has scolded the prosecution publicly every step of the way. She bends over backwards to rule in Trump's favor. She's already said she was going to delay ruling on some motions until after the trial starts, putting the case at high risk of double jeopardy. She has long since passed being "openly hostile" and is neck deep in "intentional sabotage". How much more hostile could she possibly get without calling for his assassination in the town square?

There’s no chance this case is going to trial before the election

And thus no chance it ever happens unless Trump loses again and the inevitable second coup attempt isn’t successful.

Which could at least possibly have been avoided if Smith had filed a motion to recuse when it became obvious the fix was in.

She’s already as hostile as she can be towards the prosecution

Wanna bet? A thousand bucks says she’s still trying (unsuccesfully) to appear impartial and will become much worse in reaction to him stating the obvious facts to the contrary.

So she'll bend over backwards to rule in Trump's favor, ignore the obvious fact-based arguments brought up by the prosecution, give them a tongue lashing at literally every hearing for the most trivial of matters, rule against the prosecution at every turn, then give the jury instructions that would basically guarantee an acquittal.

How is that different than what she's doing now?

And she’s holding hearings regarding having him removed from the case

Does that sound to you like the action of a well-adjusted person who won’t react to valid criticism by abusing the power she has over him and the case?

Which means his options are to (a) take it on the chin and virtually guarantee that Trump walks because the fix was in all along and she dismissed the case first chance she got once double jeopardy attached, or (b) Motion for her recusal and have at least a chance of having it reassigned to an impartial judge.

He literally has nothing to lose

Except for one of the most important and on paper strongest court cases in the history of the country. Just tiny things like that.

Which is 100% guaranteed with Cannon in charge. Smith has no chance of winning already as long as she's on the bench.