• 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 Issues Baffling Order in Trump Document Case

Can you show any proof that this judge has been dishonest?

The government's motion Judge Cannon delayed is timely but serves the best interest of defendant Nauta and the People of the United States. Note who I didn't mention, so it ws time for Judge Cnnon to advocate for Him!

Trump is paying this shyster to keep Nauta from acting in his best interests, which is what an ethical lawyer must do.
Judge Cannon is now a party to Trump's witness tampering. An unbiased judge would want to keep Nauta from this Trump pac
paid lawyer!

THREE OF STAN WOODWARD'S EIGHT CURRENT AND FORMER CLIENTS PREPARE TO TESTIFY AGAINST EACH OTHER


43 Comments
/
August 2, 2023
/
emptywheel
 
Last edited:
You cannot recognize that Trump's payment of Attorney Woodward is witness tampering, an unethical, conflicted attorney not representing his client's best interests, which would be to pursue a plea deal, immediately.

See Cassidy Hutchinson's first attorney, paid by Trump Pac, telling her to forget as much as possible in her pending testimony at the
tme in the J6 inquiry.

Read the transcripts of Cassidy Hutchinson's closed-door ...

View attachment 67461356
PBS
https://www.pbs.org › newshour › politics › read-the-t...
Jan 6, 2023 — "As Hutchinson prepared for her first interview with the committee later that month, she said Passantino advised her to “keep your answers short, ..."

Woodward is a clown.... he has several other clients set up to testify against each other but did not on his own withdraw from the
conflicted representations of clients.
At least she is questioning why that isn't a conflict of interest.
 
She playing her games with the wrong person.... Jack Smith has the experience and expertise and he does not make such games, and he will let her hang herself, and she will find herself removed, not just from this case, but censured and maybe even stripped of her abiilty to ever sit in the seat of a Judge ever again.

I doubt that her blind devotion to Trump is aware of the detriment she is causing and bringing upon herself. She will have no-one to blame but herself.

She likely should never had been places in the seat as Judge over anyone.

The mentality of the people who have this Trump worship are themselves with a deep undertone of not respecting the law. It's likely there may become a review of every case that she has presided over since being on the bench. That type of conduct and trying to bastardize the law, is just something that good dedicated Judges to the Rule of Law despise.

She is like Trump, she thinks she is all powerful, but she does not possess the power to negate a Grand Jury. because that is the voice of "The People". Attorney for the government may share Grand Jury Information with other jurisdiction that have criminal indictments, which the information is relevant within the other jurisdiction.


quote
(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.
--------------------

Discharging the Grand Jury: **A grand jury must serve until the court discharges it, but it may serve more than 18 months only if the court, having determined that an extension is in the public interest, extends the grand jury's service. An extension may be granted for no more than 6 months, except as otherwise provided by statute.

end quote
 
I only had time to properly read the first three pages after that lengthy work I did in the other thread, but from the first three pages here it sure is clear something odd is going on. But I cannot yet figure out which of the 2 ECs this is; Extreme Cleverness or Extreme Carelessness.

Sometimes what can appear even to smart folks as extreme carelessness is camouflage for the other. But it does seem something odd is going on.
 
She playing her games with the wrong person.... Jack Smith has the experience and expertise and he does not make such games, and he will let her hang herself, and she will find herself removed, not just from this case, but censured and maybe even stripped of her abiilty to ever sit in the seat of a Judge ever again.

I doubt that her blind devotion to Trump is aware of the detriment she is causing and bringing upon herself. She will have no-one to blame but herself.

She likely should never had been places in the seat as Judge over anyone.

The mentality of the people who have this Trump worship are themselves with a deep undertone of not respecting the law. It's likely there may become a review of every case that she has presided over since being on the bench. That type of conduct and trying to bastardize the law, is just something that good dedicated Judges to the Rule of Law despise.

She is like Trump, she thinks she is all powerful, but she does not possess the power to negate a Grand Jury. because that is the voice of "The People". Attorney for the government may share Grand Jury Information with other jurisdiction that have criminal indictments, which the information is relevant within the other jurisdiction.


quote
(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.
--------------------

Discharging the Grand Jury: **A grand jury must serve until the court discharges it, but it may serve more than 18 months only if the court, having determined that an extension is in the public interest, extends the grand jury's service. An extension may be granted for no more than 6 months, except as otherwise provided by statute.

end quote
Oh I don't think that they would remove her, but I can see her getting chewed out and she is clearly in way over her head on this case. She does not have the relevant experience to sit on such a huge case...it doesn't matter if it is Trump or anyone else.
 
I only had time to properly read the first three pages after that lengthy work I did in the other thread, but from the first three pages here it sure is clear something odd is going on. But I cannot yet figure out which of the 2 ECs this is; Extreme Cleverness or Extreme Carelessness.

Sometimes what can appear even to smart folks as extreme carelessness is camouflage for the other. But it does seem something odd is going on.
I am depending on some of her other mistakes in cases that didn't relate to Trump...she has made huge mistakes in those cases...that is why I think it is her lack of experience.
 
Trump doesn't need a "Trump loving judge". He just needs an honest judge.
Well he's got a Trump Loving judge here....for now.
 
She playing her games with the wrong person.... Jack Smith has the experience and expertise and he does not make such games, and he will let her hang herself, and she will find herself facing challenges that may result in her being removed, not just from this case, but censured and maybe even stripped of her abiilty to ever sit in the seat of a Judge ever again.

I doubt that her blind devotion to Trump is aware of the detriment she is causing and bringing upon herself. She will have no-one to blame but herself.

She likely should never had been places in the seat as Judge over anyone.

The mentality of the people who have this Trump worship are themselves with a deep undertone of not respecting the law. It's likely there may become a review of every case that she has presided over since being on the bench. That type of conduct and trying to bastardize the law, is just something that good dedicated Judges to the Rule of Law despise.

She is like Trump, she thinks she is all powerful, but she does not possess the power to negate a Grand Jury. because that is the voice of "The People".


quote
(B) A person to whom information is disclosed under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) may use that information only to assist an attorney for the government in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law. An attorney for the government must promptly provide the court that impaneled the grand jury with the names of all persons to whom a disclosure has been made, and must certify that the attorney has advised those persons of their obligation of secrecy under this rule.

(C) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter to another federal grand jury.

(D) An attorney for the government may disclose any grand-jury matter involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence (as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3003), or foreign intelligence information (as defined in Rule 6(e)(3)(D)(iii)) to any federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to assist the official receiving the information in the performance of that official's duties. An attorney for the government may also disclose any grand-jury matter involving, within the United States or elsewhere, a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or its agent, a threat of domestic or international sabotage or terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by its agent, to any appropriate federal, state, state subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.


end quote
So how do you connect what you quoted to the issue here? I don't see it. The rule applies to foreign intelligence.
 
Who do you think is giving Smith orders? A special counsel reports to the AG, but he is given free rein to run his case as he sees fit.
Yeah, I recall Weiss's 'so called free reign' (which wasn't so free, hobbled, in fact) in the Hunter case. Why should this case be any different?

Why would he want to drag it out?
This was clearly expressed in my previous post.

It seem to be teh opposite - Smith wants to get this to trial as soon as possible. Trump surely wants to drag it out. His MO has always involved delay tactics.


If the law calls for it, it is part of his responsibility.
Or, see above.

Can you connect the dots? What is suspicious here that you think you see?
All clearly expressed in my previous post.
 
What's odd, though, is that Cannon says "[The Motion to seal]... the supplement plainly fails to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement."
I wanted to wait and see what an experience legal analyst would say about this latest Order by Cannon. Glenn Kirschner, no fan of Aileen Cannon, actually said she was justified when she said:

"The Special Counsel states in conclusory terms that the supplement should be sealed from public view “to comport with grand jury secrecy,” but the motion for leave and the supplement plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement."​

In other words, Kirschner agreed that a bit more was needed. I expect Smith could have just used the language in his filing for a protective order in the "Election" case:

"If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury transcripts—obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case."​
Unfortunately, Kirschner did not address this other issue regarding a grand jury in DC continuing to investigate (I assume) Trump's Espionage Act violations with respect to classified documents at Bedminster. What's Cannon's problem with this? Here, without any motion by the parties, Cannon on her own ordered briefing on this issue. Is she exceeding her authority again like she did with the Special Master fiasco? Of course, briefing takes time -- to argue, then oppose, then a final reply. I'm waiting to hear what an experienced attorney has to say about this issue.
 
Does anyone actually do what you demand? So silly.

Oh I'm sorry Trix, we're discussing the partisan Republican judge's stupid antics, as part of the third set of federal criminal indictments levied against former President Trump.
The guy that appears to be the Republican front-runner as president, lost his re-election bid to BIDEN of all people, and has some 78 felony charges he's been indicted on, with potentially more to come from other sources.
And who still claims to believe he won the election....

From Conservatives who claim they are all for "law and order", and that Trump would be a "law and order president".

For you to even type the word "absurd" with that reality as the backdrop, is too silly for words.
Meh
Cry Mor
 
Answered already which you avoided so

I am giving you am honest answer. I've seen this game over at hannity on those forums. You don't support X but you always come on to the forum to defend it.

Which somehow that makes you some truth machine. Which you know isn't objectionally honest now is it.

Ooo next tell me how I'm feeling because I always enjoy watching you guys stroke your own egos.
Nonsense
There are many from this forum who do not support Trump just like me who are calling it like it is.
 
I wanted to wait and see what an experience legal analyst would say about this latest Order by Cannon. Glenn Kirschner, no fan of Aileen Cannon, actually said she was justified when she said:

"The Special Counsel states in conclusory terms that the supplement should be sealed from public view “to comport with grand jury secrecy,” but the motion for leave and the supplement plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement."​

In other words, Kirschner agreed that a bit more was needed. I expect Smith could have just used the language in his filing for a protective order in the "Election" case:

"If the defendant were to begin issuing public posts using details—or, for example, grand jury transcripts—obtained in discovery here, it could have a harmful chilling effect on witnesses or adversely affect the fair administration of justice in this case."​
Unfortunately, Kirschner did not address this other issue regarding a grand jury in DC continuing to investigate (I assume) Trump's Espionage Act violations with respect to classified documents at Bedminster. What's Cannon's problem with this? Here, without any motion by the parties, Cannon on her own ordered briefing on this issue. Is she exceeding her authority again like she did with the Special Master fiasco? Of course, briefing takes time -- to argue, then oppose, then a final reply. I'm waiting to hear what an experienced attorney has to say about this issue.
From the reportage on the evening news Smith was presenting materials from the Mara Lago case to the DC grand jury, and this is what the judge wanted a written explanation for, as part of the record, before she makes a ruling on that.

Seems rather out of the ordinary, to have one grand jury presented part of a case in another jurisdiction, and a case that was already moving to trial(?)
 
These Trump supporters sure do expose themselves no matter how much they say they dislike Trump. It's weird.
 
From the reportage on the evening news Smith was presenting materials from the Mara Lago case to the DC grand jury, and this is what the judge wanted a written explanation for, as part of the record, before she makes a ruling on that.

Seems rather out of the ordinary, to have one grand jury presented part of a case in another jurisdiction, and a case that was already moving to trial(?)
This is why they are upset set with Judge Cannon.

Judge overseeing Trump documents case criticizes special counsel​


The judge overseeing former President Trump's classified documents case on Monday rebuked federal prosecutors and struck two of their filings.

Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, also demanded an explanation of "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."
Thought so.
 
Back
Top Bottom