Even as the judgeās latest moves show sheās carefully disguising her advocacy for Trump, he is making it clear that he expects her to save him.
When Judge Aileen CannonĀ handed downĀ her latest ruling in the prosecution of Donald Trump for stealing classified documents, many legal observersĀ immediately understoodĀ the shady gamesmanship lurking behind it. She did, technically, rule against Trump by refusing to dismiss the caseābut actually made it easier for herself to kill the case later, or to steer a jury toward an acquittal.
Trumpās lawyers had argued that the Presidential Records Act, which was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal, allowed him to reclassify national security documents as his personal property. Thatās aĀ grotesque misreadingĀ of the lawās history and intent, and Cannon appeared to agree, declaring that the PRA ādoes not provide a pre-trial basis to dismissā the case. The media reported this as a partial āwinā for special counsel Jack Smithās prosecution team.
But as constitutional scholar Laurence TribeĀ put it, this was a āpretendā ruling against Trump that ended up āreservingā Cannonās ability to decide the case for Trump in a way that cannot be appealed. In short, Cannon seems to recognize that as she moves toward that endgame, itās essential to maintain plausible deniability throughout.
āJudge Cannon is being canny in her Trump-protective approach,ā Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told me.
Cannon isnāt exactly one of the great legal minds of our time. I wonder if we will eventually find out Heritage Foundation or something similar is covertly coaching her through each stage.
Of course. Sheās dumber than a second coat of paint.
huh?
I too am wondering whatās dumb or otherwise wrong or undesirable about a second coat of paint. Seems context dependent but they left the context general/generic
Everyone knows the first coat is the smartest. Just kidding, I have no idea what that means
Jack Smithās refusal to demand her recusal months ago is going to prove to be a fatal mistake in this case.
Iām still in disbelief that there isnāt a rule against a judge overseeing a case that involves the person who nominated them for their current position.
Because the situation has literally never come up before.
No where in the rules does it say dogs canāt play basketball.
deleted by creator
I live in a very red rural area. The folks here reinforce misinformation propaganda and shut down anyone who dares not toe the MAGA line. They do not understand at all that they are living under a democracy. They might be uneducated and misinformed but they vote!
Get out the vote too. Volunteer. Donate. All hands on deck.
deleted by creator
*wonāt. Wonāt do a thing about it.
Surely nominative determinism means that she will be shot out of, or by a cannon.
?
