Cannon dismisses documents case

[swamp]

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/

I think this will be coming back on appeal. 

[ken a.k.a OMK]

She's making her move to get on the SC. A trump judge all the way. 

[pulmonarymd]

Well, if it doesn't get overturned, how is Trump going to prosecute Biden. Oh, the mixed emotions!

[Opti]

Jul 15, 2024 10:32:38 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

She's making her move to get on the SC. A trump judge all the way. 

I thought she was bailing under the cover of the shooting at Trump's rally. I think she should be impeached and pushed down to a lower court which might be more in her comfort zone. MO.

[Opti]

Jul 15, 2024 10:30:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/

I think this will be coming back on appeal. 

I so hope so. What do you think the odds are of that happening?

[ken a.k.a OMK]

She was biased from day one and many experts and judges called for her removal. Oh but not until she could do her final trump bidding. 

[happyhoix]

So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions.

[billisonboard]

Jul 15, 2024 11:31:25 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions.

A prosecutor appointed and funded through routine processes.

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2024 11:45:37 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 15, 2024 11:31:25 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions.

A prosecutor appointed and funded through routine processes.

But special prosecutors are the normal process when there is a conflict of interest. 

[ken a.k.a OMK]

Jul 15, 2024 11:45:37 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 15, 2024 11:31:25 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

So who would normally prosecute someone for not securing classified documents? Plenty of people have gone to jail for much smaller infractions.

A prosecutor appointed and funded through routine processes.

And he should be found guilty. Some of the documents could not be declassified. There goes that excuse. He lied about having them then lied about not giving them all back. 

Remember Clinton didn't get into trouble because of his actions with the intern. He was found guilty of lying about it.

[Opti]

Jul 15, 2024 11:30:55 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

She was biased from day one and many experts and judges called for her removal. Oh but not until she could do her final trump bidding. 

Someone also posted an article that she was over her head and possibly to by the book to even be effective in such a high-profile case. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 10:30:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/

I think this will be coming back on appeal. 

of course.  

they might retry the case, as well, right?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 11:00:16 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Well, if it doesn't get overturned, how is Trump going to prosecute Biden. Oh, the mixed emotions!

i thought the same thing, but in a more petty way:

there goes another campaign talking point.

[scgal]

It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 15:27:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed. 

just to be clear, you are for torching the perjury charge against Clinton, the Hunter Biden case, and half a dozen other cases, then?

yes or no?

[ken a.k.a OMK]

You don't get it scgal. Trump's judge delayed it long enough to insure he will be elected and can cancel all pending legal actions against him and pardon everyone including himself. He has proven he is above the law. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 15:36:44 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

You don't get it scgal . Trump's judge delayed it long enough to insure he will be elected and can cancel all pending legal actions against him and pardon everyone including himself. He has proven he is above the law. 

it flies in the face of a half century of case law, but it also aligns nicely with the new Imperial President ruling.  the SCOTUS might uphold it.  it is certainly heading there.

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 15, 2024 15:27:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed. 

You have essentially said you are ok with a president doing anything illegal unless Congress appoints a special prosecutor. So if the presidents party controls one branch, there will never be a special prosecutor assigned. And all the Whitewater nonsense and the lying that Clinton did should not have been allowed because Congress did not appoint him? So much for law and order republicans, you just allowed corruption on a scale we haven’t seen before

[scgal]

Jul 15, 2024 15:35:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2024 15:27:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

It is an excellent ruling. Just because attorney generals appointed special councils in the past does not make it legal. It should have to go thru Congress and the Senate. It can be retried with the correct procedures being followed. 

just to be clear, you are for torching the perjury charge against Clinton, the Hunter Biden case, and half a dozen other cases, then?

yes or no?

absolutely if that is the route they wanted to go. It's like this if a police officer raided your house without a warrant anything that he finds would not be used and actually the whole case against you could be dismissed. This is no different he did not legally have the authority to be special council. Cannon never dismissed anything but said right now this is illegitimate try again. In another conversation about capital punishment I said if they are found guilty then so be it, am like this because I also feel that the standard for burden should be so high on the prosecutor and they must basically be perfect. I have been waiting for this to be thrown out on a technicality being how they wanted to rush this before the election. We all know that is the only reason why they prosecuted him anyway. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 17:04:19 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 15, 2024 15:35:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

just to be clear, you are for torching the perjury charge against Clinton, the Hunter Biden case, and half a dozen other cases, then?

yes or no?

absolutely if that is the route they wanted to go. . 

i don't need an explanation, but thanks.

so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ.  that is where this ruling takes us, imo.

[scgal]

Jul 15, 2024 15:46:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2024 15:36:44 GMT -5 ken a.k.a OMK said:

You don't get it scgal . Trump's judge delayed it long enough to insure he will be elected and can cancel all pending legal actions against him and pardon everyone including himself. He has proven he is above the law. 

it flies in the face of a half century of case law, but it also aligns nicely with the new Imperial President ruling.  the SCOTUS might uphold it.  it is certainly heading there.

No it doesn't it shows a half century of case law not following the rules. The SCOTUS should uphold it and a new prosecutor should be appointed the correct way if they still want to prosecute. Which we know they won't. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 17:07:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 15, 2024 15:46:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it flies in the face of a half century of case law, but it also aligns nicely with the new Imperial President ruling.  the SCOTUS might uphold it.  it is certainly heading there.

No it doesn't it shows a half century of case law not following the rules. The SCOTUS should uphold it and a new prosecutor should be appointed the correct way if they still want to prosecute. Which we know they won't. 

you are just saying the same thing a different way, scgal.

do you like finding disagreement?  because i think we actually agree on the meat of this issue.

for the record, i seem to get this a lot on this board.  either people are not reading my conclusions as i intend them, or i am not writing them as i intend them.  not sure which it is.

[scgal]

Jul 15, 2024 17:07:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2024 17:04:19 GMT -5 scgal said:

absolutely if that is the route they wanted to go. . 

i don't need an explanation, but thanks.

so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ.  that is where this ruling takes us, imo.

The DOJ has already been weaponized by the democrats. All of these cases which really should never seen the light of day was only to keep Trump from running and or winning. It was never about the law. I told you before I am good with the outcome if he is found guilty and I still am. I also know how weak the case was being handled. Everyone kept saying how Cannon was delying the trial no she wasn't she was giving the defendant every the consideration of motions allowed under the lawn. Frankly should should have been giving more consideration since he is a former president. She did a great job the only ones who should be sorry is the Democrats. 

[scgal]

Jul 15, 2024 17:10:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2024 17:07:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

No it doesn't it shows a half century of case law not following the rules. The SCOTUS should uphold it and a new prosecutor should be appointed the correct way if they still want to prosecute. Which we know they won't. 

you are just saying the same thing a different way, scgal .

do you like finding disagreement?  because i think we actually agree on the meat of this issue.

for the record, i seem to get this a lot on this board.  either people are not reading my conclusions as i intend them, or i am not writing them as i intend them.  not sure which it is.

I thought you were saying since there was a half century of doing it this way that it is ok and i'm saying its not. 

[dondubble]

Jul 15, 2024 17:14:32 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 15, 2024 17:07:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't need an explanation, but thanks.

so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ.  that is where this ruling takes us, imo.

The DOJ has already been weaponized by the democrats. All of these cases which really should never seen the light of day was only to keep Trump from running and or winning. It was never about the law. I told you before I am good with the outcome if he is found guilty and I still am. I also know how weak the case was being handled. Everyone kept saying how Cannon was delying the trial no she wasn't she was giving the defendant every the consideration of motions allowed under the lawn. Frankly should should have been giving more consideration since he is a former president. She did a great job the only ones who should be sorry is the Democrats. 

Trump signed the law that made what he did a felony. Not a weak case at all, just a weak Trump appointed judge. And now a completely corrupt SCOTUS that has put the presidency above the law.

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2024 13:36:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2024 10:30:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/

I think this will be coming back on appeal. 

of course.  

they might retry the case, as well, right?

The hasn’t been a trial yet, so it cam still go to trial if dismissal is overturned on appeal.  

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 17:14:32 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 15, 2024 17:07:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i don't need an explanation, but thanks.

so i take it you have no problem with weaponizing the DOJ.  that is where this ruling takes us, imo.

The DOJ has already been weaponized by the democrats.  

fervently disagree, but you didn't answer the inquiry.

do you have a problem with it?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 18:03:38 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 15, 2024 13:36:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

of course.  

they might retry the case, as well, right?

The hasn’t been a trial yet, so it cam still go to trial if dismissal is overturned on appeal.  

this will get appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, imo.
if they fail to overturn it, it is dead, right?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2024 17:17:23 GMT -5 scgal said:

Jul 15, 2024 17:10:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are just saying the same thing a different way, scgal .

do you like finding disagreement?  because i think we actually agree on the meat of this issue.

for the record, i seem to get this a lot on this board.  either people are not reading my conclusions as i intend them, or i am not writing them as i intend them.  not sure which it is.

I thought you were saying since there was a half century of doing it this way that it is ok and i'm saying its not. 

i am not expressing an opinion, just a fact.  in ruling as she did, she is overturning considerable amount of precedent.  i have reason to believe it will stand, as i have already expressed.  so i SUSPECT this will become law, just as anything else the SCOTUS decides becomes law.

so why are you coming at me as if we disagree, when we clearly agree?

facts are facts.  i don't like debating them.

[scgal]

Jul 15, 2024 19:36:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2024 17:17:23 GMT -5 scgal said:

I thought you were saying since there was a half century of doing it this way that it is ok and i'm saying its not. 

i am not expressing an opinion, just a fact.  in ruling as she did, she is overturning considerable amount of precedent.  i have reason to believe it will stand, as i have already expressed.  so i SUSPECT this will become law, just as anything else the SCOTUS decides becomes law.

so why are you coming at me as if we disagree, when we clearly agree?

facts are facts.  i don't like debating them.

you are correct facts are facts. I just see it as not overturning precedent but rather saying the so called precedent was wrong. She is actually following the law. Democrats don't like that.