• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Cannon appears to agree with Trump!

WisconIndependent

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2023
Messages
642
Reaction score
829
Gender
Male
She is suggesting that her orders to the jury would say that the Presidential Records act would allow the president to just name any document as personal. If that is so, then this trial is for what? Of course, this could be just another way she is giving Trump to stall the trial as if she does this, it will certainly be overturned by the 11th Circuit, but that could take weeks if not months. I am sorry, but she should have been removed when she set dates for hearing so far in the future, knowing that she was doing that to help Trump. She has to be the worst of the worst new Judges as she is either so committed to protecting Trump or just plain stupid. Either one should disqualify her or even have her removed from the bench.
 
A bit more on the story

Cannon tells lawyers to weigh if Trump conduct can’t be reviewed by courts

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon instructed lawyers to file proposed jury instructions by April 2 on two topics that are related to defense motions to have the indictment dismissed outright.
[. . .]
Her two-page order, however, also suggests an openness to some of the defense’s claims that the Presidential Records Act allows Trump or other presidents to declare highly classified documents to be their own personal property. National security law experts say that is not what the law says, or how it has been interpreted over decades by the courts, particularly given the other laws that govern national security secrets.

Cannon asked the prosecutors and defense attorneys to consider two different hypothetical situations, writing: “the parties must engage with the following competing scenarios and offer alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law.”

In the first scenario, Cannon said, the jury would be allowed to review a former president’s possession of a record and make a factual finding whether “it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act,” also known as the PRA.

The second scenario Cannon describes is one in which a president “has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision.”

That second hypothetical would appear to be one in which Trump seemingly could not be convicted under almost any set of facts of improperly possessing classified documents. It was not immediately clear how Cannon envisions a trial potentially based on that premise.
 
Surely Trump can't NOW name any document he likes as "personal." He's not the President. And he wasn't when he with-held documents legally demanded by the archivist. Perhaps he could THEN have named certain documents as personal, and asserted the right to keep them, but "I implicitly named them as personal by withholding them" seems like a very weak claim.

It's very bad news for anyone who wants a conviction before the election, but eventually this will fail on appeal. In fact there will be a retrial if Cannon gives the jury such obviously faulty advice.
 
She is suggesting that her orders to the jury would say that the Presidential Records act would allow the president to just name any document as personal. If that is so, then this trial is for what? Of course, this could be just another way she is giving Trump to stall the trial as if she does this, it will certainly be overturned by the 11th Circuit, but that could take weeks if not months. I am sorry, but she should have been removed when she set dates for hearing so far in the future, knowing that she was doing that to help Trump. She has to be the worst of the worst new Judges as she is either so committed to protecting Trump or just plain stupid. Either one should disqualify her or even have her removed from the bench.

The precident is already set by Hillary. Any documents relating to yoga or weddings can be removed…subpoenaed documents can be destroyed…
 
The precident is already set by Hillary. Any documents relating to yoga or weddings can be removed…subpoenaed documents can be destroyed…

Bullshit. The electronic records law applying there was only passed AFTER Hillary was Secretary of State. Like any other law, it's not retrospective.

If she DID break the law, why didn't Trump have her prosecuted? He stated IN A DEBATE, TO HER FACE, that he would, but then he didn't. Hmm, how do you explain that, other than that there was no case to answer?
 
She is suggesting that her orders to the jury would say that the Presidential Records act would allow the president to just name any document as personal. If that is so, then this trial is for what? Of course, this could be just another way she is giving Trump to stall the trial as if she does this, it will certainly be overturned by the 11th Circuit, but that could take weeks if not months. I am sorry, but she should have been removed when she set dates for hearing so far in the future, knowing that she was doing that to help Trump. She has to be the worst of the worst new Judges as she is either so committed to protecting Trump or just plain stupid. Either one should disqualify her or even have her removed from the bench.
No worse than the nut who levelled the amount of the penalty to trump.
 
No worse than the nut who levelled the amount of the penalty to trump.

Penalties in civil court scale with ability to pay. It's actually justice, or else rich people would be punished less than poor ones, for the same offense.

If Trump didn't want a whopping fine, he shouldn't have broken the law. And there's ironic justice that part of the finding against him is that he exaggerated how rich he was.

You or I would be fined too, if we insured a 2014 Ford Focus for $200K by claiming it was a new Tesla Roadster, and the penalty would exceed $200K if you or I were rich. That would be fraud, whether or not we ever claimed the insurance. If it seems unjust to you that a financial penalty can be imposed without a criminal conviction, then you're opposed to the very principle of civil court which allows citizens to bring cases against other citizens, whether or not a prosecutor wants to take their case. You should think carefully about whether you want to live in such a country, before racing to the defense of someone FAR richer than yourself.
 
Last edited:
There was a joke that Judge Schroeder ordered that Rittenhouse was to be referred to throughout the trial as “the hero.”

Judge Cannon’s order makes that satire obsolete.
 
She is suggesting that her orders to the jury would say that the Presidential Records act would allow the president to just name any document as personal.
I haven't been following this. What did she say? Do you have a quote?
 
She is suggesting that her orders to the jury would say that the Presidential Records act would allow the president to just name any document as personal. If that is so, then this trial is for what? Of course, this could be just another way she is giving Trump to stall the trial as if she does this, it will certainly be overturned by the 11th Circuit, but that could take weeks if not months. I am sorry, but she should have been removed when she set dates for hearing so far in the future, knowing that she was doing that to help Trump. She has to be the worst of the worst new Judges as she is either so committed to protecting Trump or just plain stupid. Either one should disqualify her or even have her removed from the bench.
She will be overturned and removed from the case if she determines that
 
She will be overturned and removed from the case if she determines that
I wouldn't count on that. Just doesn't seem like Smith wants to go down that road.
 
I wouldn't count on that. Just doesn't seem like Smith wants to go down that road.
He has to have everything in order to get a court to remove her. He should have claimed a conflict from the beginning but was hoping he wouldn’t have to. It’s time to make the move. She should also be removed this isn’t Colombia and she is acting like it is with her incompetence
 
He has to have everything in order to get a court to remove her. He should have claimed a conflict from the beginning but was hoping he wouldn’t have to. It’s time to make the move. She should also be removed this isn’t Colombia and she is acting like it is with her incompetence
I agree she needs to be removed, I just don't think Smith will till its too late.
 
The precident is already set by Hillary. Any documents relating to yoga or weddings can be removed…subpoenaed documents can be destroyed…

I'm just curious, at what point in Hillary's political career were any documents or records of hers covered by the PRESIDENTIAL records act?
 
Back
Top Bottom