Cannon seemed to invite Trump to raise the argument again at trial, where Jack Smith canāt appeal, expert says
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected one of former President Donald Trumpās motions to dismiss his classified documents case.
Cannon shot down Trumpās motion arguing that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague when applied to a former president.
Cannon after a daylong hearingĀ issued an orderĀ saying some of Trumpās arguments warrant āserious considerationā but wrote that no judge has ever found the statute unconstitutional. Cannon said that ārather than prematurely decide now,ā she denied the motion so it could be āraised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.ā
ā¦
āThe Judgeās ruling was virtually incomprehensible, even to those of us who speak ālegalā as our native language,ā former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance wrote onĀ Substack, calling part of her ruling ādeliberately dumb.ā
āThe good news here is temporary,ā Vance wrote. āItās what Iād call an ugly win for the government. The Judge dismissed the vagueness argumentābut just for today. She did it āwithout prejudice,ā which means that Trumpās lawyers could raise the argument again later in the case. In fact, the Judge seemed to do just that in her order, essentially inviting the defense to raise the argument again at trial.ā
Member when they were like āo no the DNC is absolutely going to run Hillaryā and everyone was like ālol well she can at least beat trumpā and then four years of utter political insanity and this judge gets the biggest case to come out of that infected turd circus?
I dunno i thought i was going somewhere with that but maybe itās just a still life
Remember when Hilary threw the election away by not even campaigning in what were otherwise secure democratic states that she lost, and how she spent so much time giving secret talks to rich people and corporations behind security and white noise generators, and generally did everything she could to be unlikable? and if she had put in even the slighest modicum of effort, sheād be the president we complained about instead of the Trump horror show despite of all of Russias interference and bullshit?
I mean all of that might be true but I still put a lot of blame on the assholes who voted for trump.
Sometimes we act like only Democrats have agency, and Republicans are just like a force of nature. Like a fire that burns without thought or a bear that mauls because thatās what bears do. But theyāre still people and they could have chosen something else.
Trump supporters are at fault.
āClinton didnāt come to my state and make me feel specialā is not an acceptable justification for supporting the catastrofuck that is trump.
Its not āClinton didnt come to my state and make me feel specialā
its
āClinton didnt go to these states, to engage with her base and share with them her vision, plans, goals, etc, Which allowed just enough to be swayed by those that didā
If this was 1840 Iād be more convinced. We have the internet. Weāve had radio for a hundred years. You shouldnāt need to go to a rally to know what a major politicanās visions, plans, goals, etc, are.
āI felt ignoredā is a stupid emotional response, but I can understand it, kind of. Sometimes Iām petty, too. Feeling so ignored that you vote for trump is inexcusable, though. I donāt think Iād excuse shirking your civic duty here, either.
You are sure hung up on this whole āI was ignoredā thing.
Are you, specifically, upset that cause you felt ignored?
Thatās what I took from the āshe didnāt come to my state and share her vision with me, specificallyā thing. Or the related "I donāt like being called flyover country ", I guess. Maybe I just donāt get the people in question.
I live in a major city and donāt feel politically ignored. A little, what do you call it, victim of a tyranny of a minority, sometimes, what with like North and South Dakota having senators.
To be fair, thatās mostly what her campaign manager was supposed to work out.
Mooooooook
Remember when the party fucked over Bernie for an institutionalized candidate who no-one liked instead?
And if you want to argue that they didnāt have a choice, itās the difference of 300 delegates in the face of internal organizational opinion that you control. You canāt maintain that it wasnāt a choice. The DNC chose Hilary.
How idiotic can you get? If no one liked the nominee she wouldnāt have had the most votes.
By āDNCā you mean the voters?
Exactly. Stop pretending it wasnāt the voterās choice. That is Trump level bullshit. There just wasnāt enough of us voting Bernie.
You sweet summer child
Iām with you bud. This shit is confounding.
Also, you had my upvote at āmemberā.
All I remember is Bernie voters making all this noise online and not turning out at the primaries. I turned out though, did you?
Many, many people turned out for the primaries. Just to find their polling places closed or their name purged off registered voter roles.
People DID show up for 2016. The DNC railroaded Hillary through anyways. If youāre going to remember history, remember WHY it went poorly, ffs.
In such huge numbers right? You have evidence of this as itās not conspiracy right?
I remember this noise being made too and it had no basis back then, but again, please feel free to provide the evidence.
Removed by mod
So name calling in lieu of evidence? If thatās all you got MotoAsh, Iām glad you put it on the table.
I guess the irony of stolen elections claims without evidence is just lost on some churlish segment of the left.
Removed. You can attack Democrats all you want, but donāt attack other users.
Civility.
It wasnāt purged voting lists, it was pre-committed superdelegates for the DNC. They didnāt need to give a shit what happened at the poles.
If you remove the super delegates from the primary, Clinton still handily beat sanders. If you give sanders every super delegate of a state of a primary he won to him, Clinton still handily beat him.
It was never close, she beat him by 12 percentage points.
I remember history. None of that happened. Bernie lost by 8M votes. This was a decade ago, move on and stop spreading Russian propaganda.
The chair of the DNC was forced to resign because the Democrats were caught conspiring against Sanders theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders āShe has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clintonās rival, Bernie Sanders.ā
Sanders supporters sued the DNC and their defense was picking the Democratic nominee was free speech and that they had every right to, āgo into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.ā
Despite article IV section 5 of the DNC charter stating, āThe chairperson is required to exercise impartiality and evenhandedness in the preparation and conduct of the presidential nomination process, specifically between the presidential candidates and campaigns. It is important that all parties involved adhere to these guidelines to ensure a fair and just process for all candidates.ā
Youāll notice and nowhere in your link does it say anything about purging voter rolls and closing polling places.
I didnāt say they did? But they did argue in court that the Primaries are just a show and that theyāre going to nominate whomever they decide. And WikiLeaks revealed that they were conspiring against Sanders.
Thank you that was the link I was going to get too. And yes, HRC still won, but it is not arguable that the DNC didnāt put their thumb on the scale for her which is - very plainly - anti-Democratic.
The only lawsuit the Sanders campaign filed was withdrawn on further clarification over use of DNC voter targeting systems. Again, you are spreading misinformation.
I think you misread, I Said Sanderās supporters filed a lawsuit. Hereās the case
https://casetext.com/case/wilding-v-dnc-servs-corp