Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

No way! Two entrenched democrats quit?!

---

Why wouid Cannon hire "extended democrats" as clerks?


(Btw, I'll wait for better sourcing before believing this story is true)

---

Most Fed employees are democrats.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.

---

Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?

---

maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).

---

There are 7 motions that were filed in February that still aren't even docketed a month later because of the special redaction process she put in place for this case.

Oh, she's certainly sitting on things.

---

Good. The only way this **** will stop is if republicans start pushing back against blatant lawfare.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.

---

Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?

---

maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).

---

There are 7 motions that were filed in February that still aren't even docketed a month later because of the special redaction process she put in place for this case.

Oh, she's certainly sitting on things.

---

Good. The only way this **** will stop is if republicans start pushing back against blatant lawfare.

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

So why did Cannon hire entrenched democrats? No republicans want to love in Fort Pierce?


(Hint: these weren't entrenched democrats)

Im Gipper said:

---

So why did Cannon hire entrenched democrats? No republicans want to love in Fort Pierce?


(Hint: these weren't entrenched democrats)

---

I already said Fed employees are overwhelmingly democrats. If not, good.

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.

---

Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?

---

maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).

---

There are 7 motions that were filed in February that still aren't even docketed a month later because of the special redaction process she put in place for this case.

Oh, she's certainly sitting on things.

---

Good. The only way this **** will stop is if republicans start pushing back against blatant lawfare.

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

Your "point" is utter nonsense.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

She's currently got her 2 usual clerks plus 2 extra temp clerks - almost assuredly specifically because of this case.

---

Hmm. Maybe Cannon is leaning towards granting at least in part a motion to dismiss?

---

maybe. I'm honestly surprised that she hasn't just done the usual article III judge thing, taken it all under advisement, and then sat on it until the case no longer has political value (I.e. issue orders/opinions after the election).

---

There are 7 motions that were filed in February that still aren't even docketed a month later because of the special redaction process she put in place for this case.

Oh, she's certainly sitting on things.

---

Good. The only way this **** will stop is if republicans start pushing back against blatant lawfare.

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

Your "point" is utter nonsense.

---

That's no revelation

Quote:

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

As a private citizen.

Here you got the State itself being used to conduct a politically motivated prosecution of its chief political rival.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Not sure if this an issue. The documents he was charged with are vaguely described in the indictment. You'll have to do a little sleuthing to put together what you can about who created each document and who owns the information contained in it.

---

That would be a NO. Defense having to sleuth to find Brady material. Plus, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES ARE PART OF THE ARTICLE II CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Let's go back over that pesky separation of powers issue, shall we?

On which planet does any Executive Branch agency is authorized to become POTUS? With all of the powers afforded thereto?

No where. Either POTUS has plenary power or that office does not.

---

The PRA only applies to documents actually for the person of the President, the person of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President (not the Executice Branch)

Lots of documents, most documents, from executive branch agencies fall under the Federal Records Act. That's not what determines whether something would be a "federal record" or a "presidential record."

I don't think the government is arguing that these documents are not "presidential records" and rather "federal records", but the FRA applies to executive branch agencies if that's what you're trying to get at

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

As a private citizen.

Here you got the State itself being used to conduct a politically motivated prosecution of its chief political rival.

---

Sometimes a wealthy individual will have even more legal resources available to him than the state.

At any rate, Cannon would be ignoring precedent to say there isn't any judicial review possible of the documents.

Quote:

---

Accordingly, in turn, the Court observes that Armstrong II does not necessarily foreclose judicial review of a decision to denominate certain materials "personal records" of a former President. Such judicial review may be available to ensure that Presidential records are not disposed of as personal records at the end of an Administration and that, instead, all Presidential records fall subject to the Archivist's " affirmative duty to make such records available to the public." 44 U.S.C. 2203(f)(1) (emphasis added).

---

https://casetext.com/case/american-historical-assn-v-peterson

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

"On the right is Judge Cannon"

As other commenters have noted, imagine a judge asking the prosecution in a murder case to prepare jury instructions to assume that the murder took place during The Purge.

That's the nonsensical direction this is headed.

---

nonsensical?

The judge or the original filing?

---

The Judge is going to have to very carefully craft an order to try to get around what the 11th Circuit already said in 2022 when Trump sued after the Mar-A-Lago raid. Or, I guess she can just choose to ignore it.

If she adopts one of those two theories in any kind of order, the government will probably mandamus her at the 11th Circuit faster than her clerk can post the order online.

Quote:

---

We cannot discern why Trump would have an individual interest in...any of the...classified documents...Even if we assumed that Trump did declassify some or all of the documents, that would not explain why he has a personal interest in them.

Trump does not have a possessory interest in the documents at issue...he neither owns nor has a personal interest in the documents

---

---

Just a question, given your scenario how is Jack Smith going to demonstrate a legitimate entitlement to compel Cannon to hurry up. And if I read it correctly his mandamus must possess two essential characteristics, that being that it must be a duty of public in nature. So what would be his justification? He can't say it's the duty of the court to get this done before the election, that will never stand, and as you well know Smith isn't entitled to a speedy trial for any reason, and his political deadline was set by his own actions of dragging his feet for two years to try and get the trial in the middle of the primaries schedule and before the election. Now that crunch time is nearing, suddenly he wants to get in a hurry and mandamus her to act quickly? Just not seeing where he can reach the bar for mandamus. The 11th is a little heavy with Trump appointments and very heavy with republican appointments. Biden's stupidity in attacking the SCOTUS during the SOU might not set well with enough judges to tell Jack Smith to GF himself.

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

As a private citizen.

Here you got the State itself being used to conduct a politically motivated prosecution of its chief political rival.

---

Sometimes a wealthy individual will have even more legal resources available to him than the state.

---

No wealthy individual could spend what the government has spent trying to destroy Donald Trump. Stop with these unhinged posts.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

As a private citizen.

Here you got the State itself being used to conduct a politically motivated prosecution of its chief political rival.

---

Sometimes a wealthy individual will have even more legal resources available to him than the state.

---

No wealthy individual could spend what the government has spent trying to destroy Donald Trump. Stop with these unhinged posts.

---

TDS never stops. It keeps going and going and going. It's become a lifestyle.

I don't know that Smith can compel Judge Cannon to speed up, per se.

I think Smith could raise that issue alongside another substantive issue. If she were to issue a sufficiently wonky order about something that warrants an appeal/mandamus, in the government's eyes at least, they would probably mention how she's seemingly avoiding issuing any actual rulings on most things.

And hope the 11th Circuit strongly "encourages" her to speed up.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The PRA only applies to documents actually for the person of the President, the person of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President (not the Executice Branch)

Lots of documents, most documents, from executive branch agencies fall under the Federal Records Act. That's not what determines whether something would be a "federal record" or a "presidential record."

I don't think the government is arguing that these documents are not "presidential records" and rather "federal records", but the FRA applies to executive branch agencies if that's what you're trying to get at

---

They're arguing that Section 793 applies whether or not they were personal, Presidential, or agency records. The records preservation laws are not relevant to this prosecution.

So assume these are all personal records.

How does Trump get around the obstruction of justice charges? The allegation is he conspired to hide documents responsive to grand jury and caused the false certification to be made.

But that's the inherent problem with article III judges. They have so much control over their dockets that there simply isn't much you can do by way of exerting external control over timing.

Cannon isn't dumb. She knows leftist pundits across the board are watching what she's doing. I suspect she'll either (1) run out the clock by sitting on a lot of stuff there isn't much the 11th circuit can do by way of cajoling her to act or (2) dismiss the indictment but time the dismissal so that there isn't much an appellate court can do in a politically effective time.

BMX Bandit said:

---

So assume these are all personal records.

How does Trump get around the obstruction of justice charges? The allegation is he conspired to hide documents responsive to grand jury and caused the false certification to be made.

---

I don't know that he can on that argument. And frankly if that's their position, that these were all personal because they "were sent to Mar-a-Lago" and therefore they didn't need to turn them over, they didn't help themselves by returning some documents and keeping others.

And the result of their civil litigation probably makes it impossible for Cannon to dismiss those charges (unless she wants to lose on appeal and get kicked off the case.)

I've seen a lot of pundits on the left insisting that the case will almost assuredly be reassigned for just about any "misstep" (read: result they disagree with) by the judge. The only cases I've seen reassigned by force were some situations where the judge showed blatant open hostility to a litigant (culprit was Lynn Hughes, S.D. Tex. and more than once). Seems a little much at this point but who knows.

I think cannon just sort of rope-a-dopes this until it's impossible to try before the election. After that the political value is gone and no one will really care.

BMX Bandit said:

---

So assume these are all personal records.

How does Trump get around the obstruction of justice charges? The allegation is he conspired to hide documents responsive to grand jury and caused the false certification to be made.

---

Which brings us back to the probable cause affidavit supporting the warrant. What does that say?

They took his passports and bank records too. Were those listed on the warrant?

I assume they were not listed.

What dies that have to do with my question? If Trump did as alleged, the fbi grabbing passports etc is not a defense, is it?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

No way! Two entrenched democrats quit?!

---

Why wouid Cannon hire "extended democrats" as clerks?


(Btw, I'll wait for better sourcing before believing this story is true)

---

there are updates in the story. One quit because she had a baby. The other quit for reasons yet unknown. The author of the article solicited intel and the responses widely panned any suggestion of anything remotely nefarious going on with Judge Cannon.

---

So fake news

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump has spent his entire life embracing lawfare.

---

As a private citizen.

Here you got the State itself being used to conduct a politically motivated prosecution of its chief political rival.

---

Sometimes a wealthy individual will have even more legal resources available to him than the state.

---

LOLwut?

BMX Bandit said:

---

I assume they were not listed.

What dies that have to do with my question? If Trump did as alleged, the fbi grabbing passports etc is not a defense, is it?

---

How is obstructing an invalid search warrant a crime (even if he did that)?

The whole raid was sus at the time. Now we have seen how little credibility Smith has since he was using a DC grand jury for a case based in Florida. That is all kinds of messed up.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I've seen a lot of pundits on the left insisting that the case will almost assuredly be reassigned for just about any "misstep" (read: result they disagree with) by the judge. The only cases I've seen reassigned by force were some situations where the judge showed blatant open hostility to a litigant (culprit was Lynn Hughes, S.D. Tex. and more than once). Seems a little much at this point but who knows.

I think cannon just sort of rope-a-dopes this until it's impossible to try before the election. After that the political value is gone and no one will really care.

---

If the 11th Circuit were to be convinced she's ignoring what they've already told her, they very well could remove her. They've done it before to other judges. Judges looking for end-rounds around a Circuit Court is usually the quickest and most likely way to get removed.

I'm not saying it will happen, by the way. I certainly don't know how this will all go. Can only speak in hypotheticals.

I don't see how it's an invalid search warrant if the allegations are true. If trump hid things from his lawyers responding to subpoena, I don't see how he can claim a search warrant based on probable cause he was doing that is invalid.

11th circuit removing Cannon is about as close to 0% as you can get.

Why do you believe the search warrant was invalid?

That's why I think we see the rope-a-dope until the election comes and goes. Once the election is over, no one will really care.

MiamiHopper said:

---

Why do you believe the search warrant was invalid?

---

Gee, I don't know maybe because Jack Smith has a history of being an agenda driven hack? According to a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. Using a grand jury in DC? Really?

Is there a legally cognizable reason why this search warrant would be invalid?

aggiehawg said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

Why do you believe the search warrant was invalid?

---

Gee, I don't know maybe because Jack Smith has a history of being an agenda driven hack? According to a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. Using a grand jury in DC? Really?

---

They started with a DC grand jury because documents that were in DC appeared to have went missing.

The only legally cognizable question about the DC jury was whether it should have continued to investigate the issue after the Florida grand jury started and indicted Trump. But if people allegedly lied to the grand jury in DC, it would be entirely proper for the DC grand jury to continue to investigate the alleged lies.

It's forum cognizable, which usually suffices.

NEW: This matter was discussed during the March 14 hearing in Florida. Nearly all of the DOJ's classified documents investigation took place in Trump-hating DC--even though the alleged crime happened in FLA.

Materials remained under seal by DC chief judge and were not… pic.twitter.com/EbeLG9rE2F

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 26, 2024