135
Of course! She should never have been allowed to oversee this case. Not sure what Smith was thinking by not challenging her assignment.
Contrary to popular belief, it's very difficult to challenge the assignment of a judge.
The threshold for bias in a judge is also almost impossibly high to meet.
Here's a full video breaking it down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S8R2Nri5pU
I watched the vid and it sounds to me like the judiciary has handed itself a lot of power over time to the point where holding them accountable is neigh impossible.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
And how many poor people are there in their ranks? Ensuring a certain class of people are not held accountable is the point.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=
https://piped.video/watch?v=_S8R2Nri5pU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
That would have delayed as well. I presume he's banking on upcoming further indictments elsewhere.
She should have never been in that position in the first place and anyone appointed by trump should be reviewed/removed from their position.
But apparently a judge appointed by a literal traitor is a-okay.
Delay the inevitable, fascism demands it.
I expect Smith to take this to the court above her, and I hope they give her a smackdown, just like they did before.
I wonder if Cannon is panicking on the inside from imposter syndrome every day of her life in her appointment, or if she has like, a calm sense of self-assurance that this is right, she was appropriately promoted to this role, this is God's reward and blessing for a loyal servant?
her credibility is going to be shot if she gets bitch slapped again by the higher court.
She won't care. Not in the slightest.
She can only be removed through the same impeachment Donald Trump just skated through, twice. There's no chance that her job status will be affected in any way. And if Trump, or possibly any other Republican, gets into office, this trial is basically an audition for Clarence Thomas's seat on the SC. She'll have the unwavering support of a good chunk of the people in her area and probably a good 25-30% nationwide. If she does decide to step down at some point, the right-wing hate machine will have a bidding war for her as a consultant.
Sad but true fact: There's a very good chance that throwing the trial for Trump would set her up for life.
There's also a ~~very good~~ chance that Trump is not going to have much influence if he keeps racking up indictments, some of which he can't pardon even if he wins the election, which is also not a foregone conclusion. Why risk her career on a move that wouldn't actually matter in the end?
I agree but that's so far down the line and "the damage will have been done," by then so to speak.
The two big issues of this article are 1. Start time of the trial, which Cannon has agreed that mid-December (5 months from now!) is too early; and 2. That Trump can't get a fair trial while he's campaigning (Cannot didn't agree to this).
Let's say the trial doesn't start until after March when Trump is the obvious front runner for the RNC after Super Tuesday. His next ploy will be "I can't campaign enthusiastically while this trial is going on, so delay it," and Cannon may/may not allow it. Then heaven forbid Trump is elected president again, he will claim his position is now completely beyond reproach (there's another submission in this magazine to a video explaining that this is his stated goal) and so now he's exempt from being held accountable through this trial at all.
Even if this court case was wrapped up before November 2024, he's going to challenge any outcome that doesn't exonerate him. And yes, a higher court would comment about how this shouldn't have ever received the first delay and should have started in December 2023, but what all machinations have transpired in the background while that appeals trial is happening and being decided?
yes yes and yes.
I'm only here to add: if he gets elected again he will absolutely 100% pardon himself. I figure if another Republican gets elected there is still a high probability of a pardon if only "so the country can heal" (or some such bullshit).
(Obviously only for federal cases)
Trump would also 100% pardon himself for a state conviction and just dare the country to hold him accountable. If he gets that far, it would probably work.
(Cool user name. I remember Karl Popper from my philosophy courses)
There's a certain catch 22 with presidential pardons though: the pardoned accepts their guilty verdict, they are just absolved of the legal punishment phase.
I don't think Trump could get over that first hurdle, though he is best characterized as playing both sides on anything that benefits him, so I'm sure he'll try.
he would just lie and say that accepting a pardon from himself isn't admitting guilt, he had to do it for .
I’ll go with the Dunning–Kruger … this is gods reward version that she tells herself. There’s no way she’s self aware of how rotten she is. I think they knew this when they appointed her.
Looks like it is time to get those New Jersey indictments going.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
135 points (97.9% liked)
politics
18869 readers
3957 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS