Yeah, that's fealty to their Dear Creeper. I expect that narrative to expand. But, as we said, for that thread I guess.
It's his best and maybe only defense in this classified document case. This is especially true since the prosecutor has an extremely strong case, and he sees it as his best chance of delaying it, considering the Judge's rulings in past cases in his favor and in this current case so far.
Shocking that cannon ruled again for trump. Wonder if she was wearing her red cap when ruling? Seems odd that the only judge that hasn’t been threatened or swatted …
My guess is a long with whatever other promises made and paid. cannon is angling for a supreme court position which will protect herself for the future...
I have no way of telling if her rulings are reasonable or not. But, if she is politicking for a SC post, that's a long shot. Trump would have to win office, and a vacancy open up on the Supreme Court, Trump has to decide she is the most useful person for Justice, and the Republicans have to control the Senate at that time. Too many things have to go right.
SC angle is silly. As for reasonable or not, many of her past rulings are very weird. Inexperience? Bias? Both. Whatever the case, those who have reviewed her cases, well... https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/everything-wrong-judge-cannons-ruling To put the matter simply, Judge Cannon’s opinion is wrong in almost every way it is possible for it to be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon Legal experts, including University of California law professor Orin Kerr, University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck, and George Mason University professor Mark J. Rozell, voiced surprise with Cannon's ruling or found it problematic.[47][48][49] Law360 eventually named this case as one of ten "major legal ethics cases" of 2022, with Cannon having "appeared particularly concerned with Trump's personal interests", and in an "ill-suited" move, she allowed the usage of executive privilege "to shield materials between different parts of the executive branch", leading to "howls from various corners of the legal establishment".[50] The National Law Journal wrote that the Eleventh Circuit's decision "reads as a rebuke of" Cannon, with New York University law professor Peter M. Shane commenting: "If an appellate court tells a lower court that we can only accept your judgment by betraying one of the nation’s founding principles, that's a pretty strong rebuke."[72] Duke University School of Law professor Samuel W. Buell opined on the case affecting Cannon's judicial legacy, stating that it "might end up being the most high-profile case she has in her career, so it's not going away", but the Eleventh Circuit's "opinion has her having been very wrong". In late June 2023, Cannon ruled against the Department of Justice, denying its request to keep the identities of eighty four potential witnesses under seal.[91] In August 2023, regarding an issue where co-defendant Walt Nauta's lawyer Stanley Woodward may have conflicts-of-interest due to also representing potential witnesses in the case, Cannon ruled in favour of Trump, rejecting the notion that sealed filings were required "to comport with grand jury secrecy", and striking two sealed filings by prosecutors from the court record; instead, Cannon instructed Woodward and prosecutors to discuss "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding" to continue actions in this federal case.[92][93] Several legal experts, including Laurence Tribe, as well as former federal prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Joyce Vance, indicated that the propriety of the grand jury proceedings were obvious, and that Cannon's questioning of their propriety was alarming.[94]
When you ha e dementia its hard to remember the order of events. This is sad. He's mentally unfit for office. The republicans are doing him a disservice by letting him run.
One judge went as far as to advise jury members to not talk about the trial to avoid attention and risk of danger. The other judge (who coincidentally, is the only judge to not get any threats) is releasing the identities of witnesses and placing them at risk...
I would think she would want to show no partisanship but dam, she is bending over backwards for trump.
