It looks like Jack Smith will come to epitomize that old expression, “If you’re going to take a shot at the king you can’t miss.” Smith has diligently handled both cases against Donald Trump which are in his charge. If there was any real justice in America, we would be seeing both trials in the classified documents case and the January 6 case take place before the November 5 election. But we were lucky to get the hush money case tried, in point of fact, the way the Trump machine keeps grinding the opposite of the wheels of justice.
Another step forward towards the recusal of Aileen Cannon is taking place. Talk about having a thumb on the scales of justice, Cannon’s got an arm and a leg on it. She’s banking everything, with the rest of the GOP, on Donald Trump magically getting reelected and getting rid of all the cases, as democracy goes into eclipse and kakistocracy takes over as our form of government. Clearly, a recusal of Cannon would be in the best interests of all and maybe Jack Smith can make it happen. He’s not alone.
America has the right to know what happened to the intel. This is insanity that she can paralyze a nation before the election so nobody gets any answers.
— Brown Eyed Susan (@smc429) June 20, 2024
That’s exactly the case. America is paralyzed. It’s well known that if the classified documents case or the January 6 case came to trial before the election that Trump would have no chance of winning. Not with the mountain of evidence of his culpability in both cases. But instead Trump is ignoring the cases, as if they don’t exist. Further, he’s doing everything he can to demean the last criminal trial remaining, the Georgia election interference case, by playing up the soap opera angles. Yes, Fani Willis exercised poor judgement in having an affair with a co-worker, no, that does not magically eradicate all the evidence or moot the case.
— — • 𝗖 𝗛 𝗘 𝗘 𝗞 𝗬 • — (@andreagail_k) June 20, 2024
Isn’t that a horrible thought? Bannon and Miller running the show? You did have a lot of that before, in the first Trump administration. I shudder to think what could happen in the second one. Here are more details of a graceful exit Cannon could, but won’t, take.
Judge Aileen Cannon, the judge overseeing former President Trump’s classified documents case, rejected suggestions from two of her superiors on the bench to pass the high-profile case to a more experienced judge, the New York Times reports.
Why it matters: Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge, has come under intense scrutiny over her handling of the classified documents case, with critics accusing her of intentionally slow-walking it.
Driving the news: The New York Times reports that the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Cecilia M. Altonaga, and another judge, unnamed by the newspaper, urged her to consider passing the Trump trial over to a more experienced judge.
- The judges contacted her via phone call shortly after she took on the case, per the NYT.
Catch up quick: Cannon was appointed to the bench during Trump’s final months as president.
- She worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2013 to 2020. She had presided over four criminal trials as a federal judge before taking on Trump’s case.
State of play: The first judge to call Cannon told her the case would be better handled by a jurist closer to Miami’s busiest courthouse, per the NYT.
- The grand jury that indicted Trump sat in this courthouse, and it had a secure facility approved to hold classified information that might be used in the case.
Make a note of all these bullet points. They may well be what Jack Smith cites in his paperwork to have Judge Cannon removed.
28 USC 455
a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify themself in any proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He/she shall also disqualify him/herself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he/she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he/she served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he/she has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.
That seems cut and dried.
But she’s a republican, someone whose duplicity and dis-honesty are the leading prerequisites for her position.
should doesn’t mean required
Actually, when you see the word “shall” in our laws, it means it is required. Shall is an imperative command indicating that certain actions are mandatory. Also, mandatory is a synonym for required. If is merely advisable to do something the law does not use “shall”.
Shall = Must.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall
“Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.”
The law doesn’t apply to Republicans. Alito and Thomas prove it.
Crime-ing is the new standard for GOP hopefuls. Just saw a piece about the guy who admits to illegally bringing a car into the country. The Colorado clowns had a show of hands of who’s been arrested and all but two had their hands up. If you have a police blotter record, you’re now a desirable GOP candidate. The party of law and order my ass.
Isn’t it a tad strange that Don the Con should moan about Judge Merchan being from Colombia – and stay completely quiet about Judge Cannon?
Guess which South American country she’s from
When it came time to stop the corrupt, murderous nazi regime, the allies didn’t turn to Hitler’s Supreme court…when the LAW is corrupt, you can forget about the wording in any document.