So why did she ask for jury instructions then?

MiamiHopper said:

---

So why did she ask for jury instructions then?

---

Read what I linked. She explains why.

She didn't need the jury instructions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss. So why ask for them to be provided in conjunction with ruling on the motion? Seems like a complete waste of time. What am I missing here?

MiamiHopper said:

---

She didn't need the jury instructions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss. So why ask for them to be provided in conjunction with ruling on the motion? Seems like a complete waste of time. What am I missing here?

---

She's the judge.

MiamiHopper said:

---

She didn't need the jury instructions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss. So why ask for them to be provided in conjunction with ruling on the motion? Seems like a complete waste of time. What am I missing here?

---

I'd say you were missing a desire to read what she wrote. lol

She clearly explains it. Paraphrasing, it was a genuine desire to understand the parties legal theories on a case of first impression.

Im Gipper said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

She didn't need the jury instructions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss. So why ask for them to be provided in conjunction with ruling on the motion? Seems like a complete waste of time. What am I missing here?

---

I'd say you were missing a desire to read what she wrote. lol

She clearly explains it. Paraphrasing, it was a genuine desire to understand the parties legal theories on a case of first impression.

---

Exactly. It is not like there is a pattern jury instruction on this subject.

And she couldn't get that from the briefing or during the oral arguments?

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

She didn't need the jury instructions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss. So why ask for them to be provided in conjunction with ruling on the motion? Seems like a complete waste of time. What am I missing here?

---

I'd say you were missing a desire to read what she wrote. lol

She clearly explains it. Paraphrasing, it was a genuine desire to understand the parties legal theories on a case of first impression.

---

Exactly. It is not like there is a pattern jury instruction on this subject.

---

There are pattern jury instructions for the crimes that Trump is charged with.

MiamiHopper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

She didn't need the jury instructions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss. So why ask for them to be provided in conjunction with ruling on the motion? Seems like a complete waste of time. What am I missing here?

---

I'd say you were missing a desire to read what she wrote. lol

She clearly explains it. Paraphrasing, it was a genuine desire to understand the parties legal theories on a case of first impression.

---

Exactly. It is not like there is a pattern jury instruction on this subject.

---

There are pattern jury instructions for the crimes that Trump is charged with.

---

But not as applied to a former president since a former president has never been charged with such

aggiejayrod said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

She didn't need the jury instructions to rule on the Motion to Dismiss. So why ask for them to be provided in conjunction with ruling on the motion? Seems like a complete waste of time. What am I missing here?

---

I'd say you were missing a desire to read what she wrote. lol

She clearly explains it. Paraphrasing, it was a genuine desire to understand the parties legal theories on a case of first impression.

---

Exactly. It is not like there is a pattern jury instruction on this subject.

---

There are pattern jury instructions for the crimes that Trump is charged with.

---

But not as applied to a former president since a former president has never been charged with such

---

.

If a former President murders someone after leaving office are they entitled to their own special jury instructions because no former President has ever been charged with murder before?

Why would there be pattern jury instructions on a non-existent defense to retention of national defense information?

MiamiHopper said:

---

Why would there be pattern jury instructions on a non-existent defense to retention of national defense information?

---

Stop with this sensationalist language. Jack Smith is not the arbiter of what a President can retain.

Hold up, I am confused. You said that Judge Cannon did not need to ask the parties about this issue because they were pattern jury instructions.

Were you making that up? I for one am shocked!!

MiamiHopper said:

---

So why did she ask for jury instructions then?

---

so few people seem to grasp the concept of how much control article III judges have over their dockets. If the judge says, "jump" you say, "how high?" You certainly don't pop off like a petulant child the way the special counsel did in this instance.

The punditry that's bandying on about mandamusing her for [whatever] or recusal/reassignment is the same circle-jerk of leftist mouthpieces that were bandying on about how the D.C. Cir. opinion in the immunity case was such a stunning work of scholarly legal perfection that even thinking about asking for cert should be sanctionable per se. Perhaps consider the reality that they might just be pushing a political narrative, not a realistic judicial outcome.

Im Gipper said:

---

Hold up, I am confused. You said that Judge Cannon did not need to ask the parties about this issue because they were pattern jury instructions.

Were you making that up? I for one am shocked!!

---

Judge Cannon did not need imaginary jury instructions to decide the motion because as she wrote she was bound by the four corners of the Superceding Indictment in making the decision.

" Fully advised in the premises, the Motion is DENIED [ECF No. 327]. Bound by the four corners of the Superseding Indictment, Counts 1 through 32 track the statutory language and essentialelementsofthechargedportionof18U.S.C.793(e)[ECFNo.85p.32]. See18U.S.C. 793(e) (making it illegal to "hav[e] unauthorized possession of . . . any document . . . relating to the national defense . . . and willfully retain[] the same and fail[] to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it"). Those same counts make no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense. As for the remaining counts against Defendant Trump (Counts 3338, 4041), they too track the applicable statutory language and essential elements of the charged crimes [ECFNo.85]; 18 U.S.C. 1001, 1512, 1519. More generally, the Superseding Indictment specifies the nature of the accusations against Defendant Trump in a lengthy speaking indictment with embedded excerpts from investigative interviews, photographs, and other content. For these reasons, accepting the allegations of the Superseding Indictment as true, the Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v)either as to Counts 1 through 32 or as to the remaining counts, all of which state cognizable offenses."

Quote:

---

so few people seem to grasp the concept of how much control article III judges have over their dockets. If the judge says, "jump" you say, "how high?"

---

Not really relevant to his question. The basis of her authority to ask, his completely different different than inquiring as to the reason she did so.

I think it's legitimate question he posed. One that Cannon answered in her order

Her explanation at the end does not wash with me.

MiamiHopper said:

---

Her explanation at the end does not wash with me.

---

So what?

Since when does a Federal Judge have to justified or "make it wash" with anybody especial some hack on an internet forum?

Asking for a friend

There's some things that all this back and forth have ridiculously twisted around by the TDS crowd and it's pretty much inarguable facts and it's important to keep in mind when considering the issues there the two sides and they both have differing views about how Judge Cannon should proceed but are simply put….

FACT No former President has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for "unauthorized" possessing of documents after leaving office where the documents involved were ones he was authorized to possess while still in office.

FACT as Hawg stated, no federal judge has ever before been asked to fashion jury instructions for a former President who had access to and could lawfully possess EVERY document with "national defense information" but was later charged with criminal possession of such documents by retaining them after leaving office.

And it's absolutely ridiculous not to acknowledge the FACT that it's pretty damn obvious Judge Cannon has zero interest in the political calendar that occupies every second of every hour of Jack Smith's day.

I was with you until this:

Quote:

---

And it's absolutely ridiculous not to acknowledge the FACT that it's pretty damn obvious Judge Cannon has zero interest in the political calendar that occupies every second of every hour of Jack Smith's day.

---

It seems like a clear FACT that she is doing everything she can to push this trial until after November. You will have to be blind to think she does not have a clear understanding and awareness of the political calendar here.


Given that the rest of the federal government, and the state governments in Georgia and New York are full bore against him, I'm OK with Trump having one person in government, helping him a little here.

MiamiHopper said:

---

Her explanation at the end does not wash with me.

---

Only because you don't want it to.

Where did Cannon ever say she needed these jury instructions to rule on the motion to dismiss? Is that in the same place as these pattern jury instructions you claim exist for this issue?

Im Gipper said:

---

I was with you until this:

Quote:

---

And it's absolutely ridiculous not to acknowledge the FACT that it's pretty damn obvious Judge Cannon has zero interest in the political calendar that occupies every second of every hour of Jack Smith's day.

---

It seems like a clear FACT that she is doing everything she can to push this trial until after November. You will have to be blind to think she does not have a clear understanding and awareness of the political calendar here.

---

Maybe. I have dealt with judges (one in particular) who just push back when either side is trying to "make" them do something, not because they are taking a side, but because they're showing that they will not be manipulated as a matter of principle.

MiamiHopper said:

---

If a former President murders someone after leaving office are they entitled to their own special jury instructions because no former President has ever been charged with murder before?

---

Has Congress passed a Presidential Murder Act?
Because they have passed a Presidential Records Act ... and it was signed into law, even.

Im Gipper said:

---

It seems like a clear FACT that she is doing everything she can to push this trial until after November. You will have to be blind to think she does not have a clear understanding and awareness of the political calendar here.

---

The audacity of a court working on a timetable that provides the defense -- to include a defendant who isn't going anywhere -- the chance to prepare for the case. Especially when the prosecutor took his sweet time with an indictment coming 10 months after the flashy Mar-a-Lago raid.

It's obvious you subscribe to the MSNBC preferred narrative in which Trump is chained to a defendants' table for eight weeks in the Fall of 2024.

Quote:

---

It's obvious you subscribe to the MSNBC preferred narrative in which Trump is chained to a defendants' table for eight weeks in the Fall of 2024.

---

It's obvious you are full of it. Try reading the thread!

Trying to get Judge Cannon removed and another judge appointed, will only create more delay, in my view.

Im Gipper said:

---

I was with you until this:

Quote:

---

And it's absolutely ridiculous not to acknowledge the FACT that it's pretty damn obvious Judge Cannon has zero interest in the political calendar that occupies every second of every hour of Jack Smith's day.

---

It seems like a clear FACT that she is doing everything she can to push this trial until after November. You will have to be blind to think she does not have a clear understanding and awareness of the political calendar here.


Given that the rest of the federal government, and the state governments in Georgia and New York are full bore against him, I'm OK with Trump having one person in government, helping him a little here.

---

You seriously don't see what you just wrote? Smith wants the trial done before the election, Cannon could give a rats azz what Smith wants, she's going at her own pace and isn't going to be pushed by Smith's desperation to get a conviction on Trump before the election.

Reality Check said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

It seems like a clear FACT that she is doing everything she can to push this trial until after November. You will have to be blind to think she does not have a clear understanding and awareness of the political calendar here.

---

The audacity of a court working on a timetable that provides the defense -- to include a defendant who isn't going anywhere -- the chance to prepare for the case. Especially when the prosecutor took his sweet time with an indictment coming 10 months after the flashy Mar-a-Lago raid.

It's obvious you subscribe to the MSNBC preferred narrative in which Trump is chained to a defendants' table for eight weeks in the Fall of 2024.

---

Cannon's not ruling on fully briefed and fully argued motions isn't providing the defense an "opportunity to prepare." It's just grinding the case to a halt for the sake of grinding it to a halt.

She could rule on things and still set a favorable schedule to the defense. But she's also not set a schedule even though it's been over a month since she each side gave her proposed schedules and she held a hearing on the proposed schedules.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

The case was brought solely to interfere with the election. Justice would be a judge that prevents that from happening. And who seeks sanctions against the sham prosecutor.

---

Exactly!

Plus using CIPA slows the pretrial process down quite a bit.

Quote:

---

All criminal trials have litigation over the use, relevance, and admissibility of information. Most of this litigation occurs shortly before trial, in the form of motions "in limine," or else during the trial itself. One of the primary purposes of CIPA is to frontload this process earlier in the proceedings. Due to the complexities involving classified information, both sides need to understand how such information will be used at trial well in advance, so they have time to adjust their strategies accordingly.

CIPA provides for just that. In doing so, CIPA provides a mechanism for gradually narrowing the universe of classified information at issue, with that universe becoming smaller at each progressive step. This narrowing process helps the court and parties focus on more particularized disputes, while at the same time lessening the likelihood of "graymail" because the scope of information at issue is smaller. The "CIPA funnel" chart below provides a visual representation of that process. Here's a high-level summary of how it works.

---

More HERE

Im Gipper said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

Her explanation at the end does not wash with me.

---

Only because you don't want it to.

Where did Cannon ever say she needed these jury instructions to rule on the motion to dismiss? Is that in the same place as these pattern jury instructions you claim exist for this issue?

---

I mean, it definitely reads like a "I was just kidding guys…" forget about it kinda thing after she got the governments response.

I don't know how Judge Cannon normally handles things, but she's done this several times in this case where she requires briefing on an issue only to say later "Oh, to clear up any confusion I wasn't going to rule on anything I just wanted y'all to write about this thing."

I've had situations, especially at the appellate level, where judges ask for briefing on something discrete but that's because it's something the judge feels they need to hear about to make a ruling.

This purely advisory briefing, especially to have done multiple rounds of it, it's really quite strange.

I've certainly never seen a judge require briefing on an issue only to say it would be "unjust" for me to rule or act on what I asked you to brief.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

MiamiHopper said:

---

Her explanation at the end does not wash with me.

---

Only because you don't want it to.

Where did Cannon ever say she needed these jury instructions to rule on the motion to dismiss? Is that in the same place as these pattern jury instructions you claim exist for this issue?

---

I mean, it definitely reads like a "I was just kidding guys…" forget about it kinda thing after she got the governments response.

I don't know how Judge Cannon normally handles things, but she's done this several times in this case where she requires briefing on an issue only to say later "Oh, to clear up any confusion I wasn't going to rule on anything I just wanted y'all to write about this thing."

I've had situations, especially at the appellate level, where judges ask for briefing on something discrete but that's because it's something the judge feels they need to hear about to make a ruling.

This purely advisory briefing, especially to have done multiple rounds of it, it's really quite strange.

I've certainly never seen a judge require briefing on an issue only to say it would be "unjust" for me to rule or act on what I asked you to brief.

---

Cannon has been put in an unprecedented position, in an unprecedented case, that there is nothing involved in this case other than the fact that it is a federal felony trial, that isn't unprecedented. There is however precedent of many situations where former POTUS have done the very same thing, and not faced charges, and even the current knucklehead in the oval office where he had classified documents where he not only had ZERO protection under the PRA and in fact where he took classified documents from a SCIF environment, as a sitting senator and shared them with a witer that had ZERO security clearance, and said writer tried to destroy the evidence of such an act, and never faced what 45 is facing. So if Cannon decides to handle this case with an elevated level of scrutiny, so be it. Jack Smith's history of going after high profile political figures with shoddy prosecutions, that were only taken up with the intent of causing political damage and not actual impartial application of the law. There is no way Cannon can ignore that precedent as well when considering this load of crap Jack Smith has brought before HER court. As I stated clearly just a few posts before, it's pretty damn obvious Judge Cannon has zero interest in the political calendar that occupies every second of every hour of Jack Smith's day.