Judge Cannon expands hearing on Trump’s request to declare special counsel’s appointment invalid | CNN Politics
Judge Cannon expands hearing on Trump’s request to declare special counsel’s appointment invalid | CNN Politics
Judge Aileen Cannon is planning on holding a sprawling hearing on Donald Trump’s request to declare Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel invalid, signaling the judge could be more willing than any other trial judge to veto the special prosecutor’s authority.
"The issue, now before Cannon in the Southern District of Florida federal court, is likely to remain in the political debate at least until Cannon holds a hearing on the legal power of the special counsel to prosecute a defendant, on June 21."
You're viewing a single thread.
Two things:
-
Jack Smith has to file a motion to have her removed at this point. I understand that under normal circumstances, you don't want to piss off the judge. But how much more adversarial can she be at this point? She's literally trying to have him removed from the case. At this point, Smith has nothing left to lose. What else could she do to him? Have him deported?
-
This has got to be appealed if/when she rules that he has no authority to prosecute. If she rules that special prosecutors have no authority to bring these cases and that ruling were allowed to stand, wouldn't it invalidate other cases brought by special prosecutors? Or at the very least give those convicted grounds for having their convictions thrown out?
The role of a district court judge is to do two things:
- Apply existing precedent to individual cases to the greatest extent possible.
- Set new precedent only when absolutely necessary because the facts of the case don't align well to existing precedent.
Cannon has basically decided to do the exact opposite of these two rules by pretending that the facts of this case are so incredibly unprecedented that she has to throw out the rulebook and set new precedents on everything.
Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That's it. Everything else about this case is straightforward obstruction of justice and willful retention of national security information.
Literally the only unusual thing about this case is that the defendant, a private citizen who currently gets free government security protection for the rest of his life, used to be a president. That’s it.
That, and he got to appoint his own judge. And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up. And he's got all sorts of national security secrets, but is still walking around free. And he's got virtually unlimited resources, but isn't considered a flight risk.
And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.
Only 3?
I assume Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett are guaranteed to back him. Kavanaugh likely will, and Roberts if he thinks he can get away with it while maintaining his thin veneer of legitimacy.
Roberts has Legitimacy?
“Thin veneer of legitimacy.”
He doesn’t have legitimacy, but he likes to pretend he does. Enough that he sometimes votes against the other conservative justices when it’s going to be 5-4 vs 6-3 anyway.
Edit: As chief justice I think Roberts has a better understanding of the legacy of his court, and it has caused him to be at least somewhat less gung-ho about the blatant partisan nature of the court. But definitely not always.
And he's got 3 members of the Supreme Court to back him up.
Thomas and Alito: "Are we a joke to you?!"
Yes, but it's not very funny.
Trump has, in my humble opinion, something on the judge or the judge's family from his time in the office of the president and access to warrantless wiretapping all US Americans from LEO/CIA/NSA information.
Trump, in my humble opinion, has found and used private information to flex on the judge.
That, or she’s a True Believer.
-