‘Very, very troubling’: Judges, lawyers flummoxed by Judge Cannon

[hawkedoff]

Judge Cannon is not worthy of the bench. Take politics out of it. She has not been doing her job.

And when the fbi altered evidence was that doing their job? Wouldn't manipulation of evidence and the prosecution deliberately hiding the manipulation enough for a judge to hit pause? Wouldn't most judges faced with this simply dismiss wirh prejudice?

The FBI isn’t going to raid a former POTUS on a whim. Notice nobody after the court filings has attacked the substance of the raid or the reason. They pick apart some things for optics, but not why it happened.

Except they did now didn't they? There is that small problem

Tell me though was it on a whim that they printed cover pages with classified markings to clip to the front of documents prior to taking and then leaking photos of the alleged crime scene? That sounds like someone thought it through a bit

 

[Jimmy McGill]

What will it take to get her removed?

It will require a Writ of Mandamnus.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

And when the fbi altered evidence was that doing their job? Wouldn't manipulation of evidence and the prosecution deliberately hiding the manipulation enough for a judge to hit pause? Wouldn't most judges faced with this simply dismiss wirh prejudice?

Except they did now didn't they? There is that small problem

Tell me though was it on a whim that they printed cover pages with classified markings to clip to the front of documents prior to taking and then leaking photos of the alleged crime scene? That sounds like someone thought it through a bit

Listen shit head. You have no proof of what you are accusing. However, the FBI either f'd up or Trump continued in his lazy lawless days when his attorneys magically found more secret documents in his nightstand months after the search warrant was executed.

Trump defenders are way worse than OJ defenders. The evidence is there. It is not hard to see. You don't see Dem's defending Senator Menendez. That is the difference between knowing right or wrong. Poor Donnny, he had bad parents.....he didn't learn that rule.

 

[tumorboy]

And when the fbi altered evidence was that doing their job? Wouldn't manipulation of evidence and the prosecution deliberately hiding the manipulation enough for a judge to hit pause? Wouldn't most judges faced with this simply dismiss wirh prejudice?

Except they did now didn't they? There is that small problem

Tell me though was it on a whim that they printed cover pages with classified markings to clip to the front of documents prior to taking and then leaking photos of the alleged crime scene? That sounds like someone thought it through a bit

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

It will require a Writ of Mandamnus.

Oh, that’s what I thought….














What the hell is that?

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Oh, that’s what I thought….














What the hell is that?

essentially an order by a higher court to an inferior court that commands it to perform their duties. Essentially it compels the lower court to do their job or have sanctions against them.

It is a way to correct an abuse of discretion

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

essentially an order by a higher court to an inferior court that commands it to perform their duties. Essentially it compels the lower court to do their job or have sanctions against them.

Thanks. Can you guess the odds of that happening?

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Thanks. Can you guess the odds of that happening?

Extremely rare. Calling out Judges can be a career killer if lost for attorneys. Not that it is wrong to request it. But if you lose, you know/think that it is going to be an uphill battle on any case in the future in front of that court. Smith doesn't need to worry about that. He is established.

Judges are like all of us. They have good days/ bad days, egos, etc.

I'm still standing by my comment that she is not doing her job.

Move.....the....case...along...

 

[sober_teacher]

Extremely rare. Calling out Judges can be a career killer if lost for attorneys. Not that it is wrong to request it. But if you lose, you know/think that it is going to be an uphill battle on any case in the future in front of that court. Smith doesn't need to worry about that. He is established.

Judges are like all of us. They have good days/ bad days, egos, etc.

I'm still standing by my comment that she is not doing her job.

Move.....the....case...along...

If nothing else, she seems to be quite clearly dragging this case out as long as possible.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

If nothing else, she seems to be quite clearly dragging this case out as long as possible.

Which is not her job. Court system needs to get cases through quickly as possible.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I guess I should note, that there are a ton of legal scholars way more intelligent than me that agree with my position. She is not good at her job.

 

[your_master5]

No, Trump is not allowed to take all the records when he left office.

Yes, he was

 

[your_master5]

You say a president can legally take all records when leaving office?

Yep. Familiarize yourself with the PRA, PTA, and FPA statutes.

 

[eb05]

Which is not her job. Court system needs to get cases through quickly as possible.

she keeps saying there are too many unsolved issues standing in the way. she is the one who is creating them and then not resolving them so it’s crazy.

every time she opens her mouth it reminds me of this clip

 

[CoachH]

Yep. Familiarize yourself with the PRA, PTA, and FPA statutes.

The PRA requires the president turn over all records to the National Archives at the end of their term.

You are wrong.

 

[your_master5]

The PRA requires the president turn over all records to the National Archives at the end of their term.

You are wrong.

I am not, you didn't read the statutes which is why you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[CoachH]

I am not, you didn't read the statutes which is why you have no idea what you're talking about

OK, post a link proving that a president is able to take any and all records at the end of his term, because what I've read from the PRA states the opposite.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

she keeps saying there are too many unsolved issues standing in the way. she is the one who is creating them and then not resolving them so it’s crazy.

every time she opens her mouth it reminds me of this clip

t

LOL. She really knows that she is in over her head. Heck, most people in life have been in that position at one time. Nothing wrong with that per se, but she should recuse herself. There are ways to do that without waiving the white flag.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

It is a difficult job. I wouldn't want it. There is no shame in admitting she can't do it.

My opinion of her would actually go up if she stated so.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, he was legally able to take all the records.

FALSE
Presidential Records Act is quite clear on this point.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

I am not, you didn't read the statutes which is why you have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe you should call the court and tell them you have read the statutes and your research shows Trump has an absolute right to these papers …

 

[tarheelbybirth]

He was probably jerking off to them?

Certainly more likely than him reading them.

 

[your_master5]

FALSE
Presidential Records Act is quite clear on this point.

False, PRA, PTA, and FPA shows he can.

 

[your_master5]

Maybe you should call the court and tell them you have read the statutes and your research shows Trump has an absolute right to these papers …

Did you answer any of my questions yet? Didn't think so, "Mr. Lawyer".

 

[Hans81]

He's competent.

Lol and a Biden contributor. 😜

 

[your_master5]

OK, post a link proving that a president is able to take any and all records at the end of his term, because what I've read from the PRA states the opposite.

Why would I post a link? I gave you three statutes to look at but you can't seem to read them? How about we start here and see if you can bring it together somehow (I doubt it).

From the FPA:

"Amounts provided for “Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents” may be used to pay fees of an independent contractor who is not a member of the staff of the office of a former President for the review of Presidential records of a former President in connection with the transfer of such records to the National Archives and Records Administration or a Presidential Library without regard to the limitation on staff compensation set forth herein."

You want to explain to me how exactly the FPOTUS or his staff can review these records if they don't have possession of them? Let's see if you can figure out how this connects to the PRA and PTA as well.

 

[RollingBallofButcherKnives]

You would think the Orange Criminal would want to hurry this along so he can clear his good name before the election instead of delaying it and leaving it in a shadow of doubt…🤔

 

[your_master5]

You would think the Orange Criminal would want to hurry this along so he can clear his good name before the election instead of delaying it and leaving it in a shadow of doubt…🤔

Why would he? His poll numbers go up every time libtard lawfare rears its ugly head. You've single handedly made him a martyr. Nice job.

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[Joes Place]

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

View embedded media

View embedded media

Wow is all I can say.

 

[your_master5]

View embedded media

View embedded media

Wow is all I can say.

View embedded media

View embedded media

Oh the gall..... You libtards are so stupid.

 

[ericram]

View embedded media

View embedded media

She gets a free membership to MAL.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Oh the gall..... You libtards are so stupid.

View embedded media

Oh, an attorney for more than 55 January 6 defendants thinks it’s a good ruling? Shocked I tell you.

But classy use of libtards.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

There is no justifiable reason to let intervening parties in this matter.

Cannon is seriously either 1.) corrupt as all get out, 2.) incompetent, or 3.) both

 

[CoachH]

Why would I post a link? I gave you three statutes to look at but you can't seem to read them? How about we start here and see if you can bring it together somehow (I doubt it).

From the FPA:

"Amounts provided for “Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents” may be used to pay fees of an independent contractor who is not a member of the staff of the office of a former President for the review of Presidential records of a former President in connection with the transfer of such records to the National Archives and Records Administration or a Presidential Library without regard to the limitation on staff compensation set forth herein."

You want to explain to me how exactly the FPOTUS or his staff can review these records if they don't have possession of them? Let's see if you can figure out how this connects to the PRA and PTA as well.

Are you missing the part where it talks about transferring to the NAR?

You are wrong, and it looks like exceeding dumb here.

 

[your_master5]

Are you missing the part where it talks about transferring to the NAR?

You are wrong, and it looks like exceeding dumb here.

JFC are you this stupid? The question was whether Trump was allowed to take them. The answer is right in your damn face in the law. I never claimed they were Trump's f*cking documents. He's charged for willful retention. You can't have willful retention if you had a statutory purpose to have them (i.e. review).

Clearly, you're the dumb one here.

 

[your_master5]

Oh, an attorney for more than 55 January 6 defendants thinks it’s a good ruling? Shocked I tell you.

But classy use of libtards.

Oh, and the people you idiots quoted are somehow better? More libtard logic. The guy made a point there hasn't been any case law surrounding this issue and somehow it's beyond your jaded minds that arguments from both sides could be presented and heard? That's just so terrible isn't it. You people are ridiculous.

 

[BelemNole]

JFC are you this stupid? The question was whether Trump was allowed to take them. The answer is right in your damn face in the law. I never claimed they were Trump's f*cking documents. He's charged for willful retention. You can't have willful retention if you had a statutory purpose to have them (i.e. review).

Clearly, you're the dumb one here.

YEAH!!! JUst beCause you liBTard former judges and atTorneys thiNk youR sooo smaRT dosnt mKe it trUE!!!!!

 

[CoachH]

JFC are you this stupid? The question was whether Trump was allowed to take them. The answer is right in your damn face in the law. I never claimed they were Trump's f*cking documents. He's charged for willful retention. You can't have willful retention if you had a statutory purpose to have them (i.e. review).

Clearly, you're the dumb one here.

Let me get down to your level of intelligence: he may temporarily have them in his possession, but he can't keep (take) them. Which is what many people have been arguing against you about here.

I know you won't admit to being wrong, as in other arguments we have had, so I'll let you go on being the idiot but on ignore now.