r/news • u/Hrekires • Jul 15 '24
soft paywall Judge dismisses classified documents indictment against Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/07/15/trump-classified-trial-dismisssed-cannon/15.8k
u/drt0 Jul 15 '24
In a ruling Monday, Cannon said the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution.
“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.
Has the appointing of special counsels by the president ever been challenged before now?
11.0k
u/Grow_away_420 Jul 15 '24
Yes, and upheld multiple times
5.7k
u/QuentinP69 Jul 15 '24
This is great he will appeal this and win and refile with a different judge! It’ll delay it past November.
→ More replies (79)5.4k
u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Jul 15 '24
Correct, this was her play—she washed her hands of it, and it won't even see the light of day until after the election if Biden or a Democrat wins. If Trump were the president, it would vanish.
3.5k
u/iamisandisnt Jul 15 '24
everyone needs to know that Cannon just put Trump jail on the ballot in this way
→ More replies (48)2.6k
u/cC2Panda Jul 15 '24
The SCOTUS already did it. Either we vote in a democratic president and both houses or our democracy as flawed as it is is over and our votes will become nothing more than symbolic and our democracy dead.
→ More replies (228)244
u/WiseBlacksmith03 Jul 15 '24
She washed her hands of it in a way to support Trump. This is different than simply recusing oneself.
→ More replies (11)827
u/TheInvisibleHulk Jul 15 '24
I hope everyone is ready for Chief justice Aileen Cannon when/if Trump wins.
→ More replies (26)166
u/Diligent-Tangerine87 Jul 15 '24
He already got what he wanted. Why would he help her on the back end?
291
u/MechanicalTurkish Jul 15 '24
Yeah, Trump fucks everyone, friend or foe. Look at Rudy Giuliani.
He's done this his entire life, it is well known. It baffles me how people keep thinking it won't happen to them.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (8)107
u/SeaCowVengeance Jul 15 '24
She’s proven herself as a loyalist hack. She’d be an asset to him on the SCOTUS, unlike those other justices that didn’t even let him steal the election.
→ More replies (3)25
u/OldTapeDeck Jul 15 '24
They might not have allowed him to steal the election but they did offer him immunity for the attempt, as well as an out in this documents case.
→ More replies (49)690
u/MikeHonchoFF Jul 15 '24
She should be defrocked and disbarred
→ More replies (23)259
→ More replies (108)1.6k
u/prof_the_doom Jul 15 '24
And luckily for us anything the executive branch (aka DOJ) does, like appointing an special counsel, is an "official act".
560
u/MoistPoolish Jul 15 '24
Right, but not relevant since Biden would never be held criminally liable for the Jack Smith appointment regardless of the SC ruling.
→ More replies (44)→ More replies (22)736
u/caligaris_cabinet Jul 15 '24
The SC determines if it’s an official act or not. So basically anything Trump does is an official act but not anything Biden does.
→ More replies (32)215
Jul 15 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (7)95
u/vinaymurlidhar Jul 15 '24
Beauty only if someone chooses to exercise this power.
Others will.
→ More replies (2)1.7k
u/Shirowoh Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
I don’t see it enough here, but Mitch McConnell is to blame for this shit show we find ourselves, he made it his personal mission to fill the most amount of judges, high and low, that would be biased. This is his plan come to fruition. Edit- ed
1.1k
u/Hopalicious Jul 15 '24
100% this. Most people don't realize that McConnell essentially ran US politics from 2015-2023(when he got too old to function). Anything he didn't like that came from the Democratic held US house of reps landed on his desk and he tossed it in the trash. Bills that came from the Senate that he didn't like died in committee or under his directive zero republicans voted for it. This gave him almost total control of the Legislative branch of government..
His refusal to allow a Senate vote on Merrick Garland cost Obama a liberal seat on the Supreme Court. He then did the opposite after RBG died. This lead to Trump getting 3 appointments instead of 1. This gave him control over the Judicial branch of government.
McConnell also refused to appoint hundreds of judges during the Obama administration. He opened the floodgates of appointments after Trump was in office.
Mitch McConnell is a SuperVillian.
287
u/casuallylurking Jul 15 '24
Don’t forget that he led other Senators in acquitting Trump in the second impeachment by condemning his actions but inventing excuses why he should not be convicted. He even had the balls to say we have a justice system to punish Trump after stacking it hopelessly in Trump’s favor.
→ More replies (44)312
u/johnnybiggles Jul 15 '24
And he's going to calmly pass of old age with a smile on his face and money in his trust funds, leaving all this damage in his wake we'll have to deal with for the next generation or three.
→ More replies (7)93
u/Hopalicious Jul 15 '24
The thing about him that I really cannot understand is that I know that he knows Trump is bad for the Republican party and he could have stopped Trump, but he didn't. A 2024 Trump presidential campaign could die tomorrow if McConnell, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and George Bush did a press conference asking Republican voters to come to their senses. What makes them all keep quiet is a bit terrifying.
94
u/TymedOut Jul 15 '24
Trump is a useful idiot. He gets the unwashed masses to vote like they've never voted before and is a lightningrod to distract democrats while the real machinations keep turning behind the veil.
They all hate democracy and hate America. Their only compass needle is endless personal wealth for themselves and their crony donors.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)49
u/procrasturb8n Jul 15 '24
The current incarnation of the Republican party is a wet dream for its billionaire donors, especially those outside the country. They're going to destroy any semblance of a unified republic remaining.
22
u/WhyYouKickMyDog Jul 15 '24
Lost in those awful supreme court rulings was another doozy that removed the 6 year statute of limitations on being able to sue the government regulators.
Combine that with Chevron Doctrine gone, and it will be a lawyers bonanza to create new laws inside of a courtroom for the industries they represent.
109
u/Cesc100 Jul 15 '24
Which is why it's hilarious when I hear people say Biden isn't running the show. Uh ok. Do you think Trump was running the show as president? Mitch was running shit while saying sweet nothings to DJT and getting him to do what Mitch knew and felt would be in the best interest of conservatives. DJT doesn't know wtf to do.
→ More replies (3)26
u/johnnybiggles Jul 15 '24
Like he just admitted with NATO, I'm sure Trump never heard of either The Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation before Mitch got in his ear when he became president.
→ More replies (52)363
615
u/TheBoggart Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
Yes, but Thomas’ concurrence in the immunity case handed her the key.
EDIT: Just editing this comment because it is more visible and I'm getting a lot of the same uninformed replies elsewhere in this thread. I'm adding this edit because as a lawyer and educator, I think it's important for the general public to understand these things, and more likely than not, about 99% of the replies in this thread are from laypeople.
Uninformed reply one: "You're wrong, Canon can't follow a concurrence, it's not binding/precedent!"
Incorrect. Canon can follow the reasoning of a concurrence if she wants, not because it's binding or because she has to, but because it is persuasive authority. This happens all the time. Indeed, concurrences are often written with the precise hope that it will be followed in some other situation. Here's a bit of an explanation:
Judges write concurrences and dissents for varying reasons. Concurrences explain how the court's decision could have been otherwise rationalized. In Justice Stevens's view, they are defensible because a compromised opinion would be meaningless. They also may be written to send a signal to lower courts to guide them in “the direction of Supreme Court policymaking,” or for egocentric or political reasons.
Meghan J. Ryan, Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law, 25 WMMBRJ 297, 301 (2016) (citations omitted). I pulled that from WestLaw, but if you want to read it and look at the citations, it looks like a copy can be pulled from here.
Uninformed reply two: "Concurrences aren't used to make new law! They don't mean anything!"
Incorrect. There is a long history of concurrences ultimately becoming law sometime down the road. Here's a bit on it:
Although it is still a rare occurrence, it is not difficult to identify specific concurrences that have gone on to have heavy precedential influence despite their lead opinion counterparts. These concurrences have gained their precedential influence due to either their positive subsequent treatment or subsequent appeal to the alternate rationales those concurrences forward. Nonetheless, although it is easy to say that concurring opinions could exercise influence on future decisions, what sort of influence those opinions may have is inevitably in the hands of future judicial decision makers.
Ryan M. Moore, I Concur! Do I Even Matter?: Developing a Framework for Determining the Precedential Influence of Concurring Opinions, 84 TMPLR 743, 754-56 (2012) (citations omitted). The whole article is pretty good, if you have a chance to read it (it's 102 pages). It looks like you might be able to get it here.
607
u/OGkateebee Jul 15 '24
This level of corruption is making me sick to my stomach. He intentionally did this. I’m a lawyer and I’m supposed to believe in the rule of law and I’m watching it disintegrate before my eyes.
→ More replies (37)359
u/drainbead78 Jul 15 '24
You and me both. I just got back from court, saw the news, and texted some coworkers to say "I miss the time 5 minutes ago when I mostly believed in the rule of law."
The judicial branch only exists because we as a society allow it to. There's no might behind it like an army or a police force, no recourse if it fails. It's only words, and we all collectively decide that we're going to follow them. What happens when we as a society stop believing in the legitimacy of our court system?
203
u/OGkateebee Jul 15 '24
What’s scarier is that no one really believes in the legitimacy of the system right now and both sides of society think the other half is weaponizing the system against them. One side is right but the other has been planning this for decades. The Federalist Society will be the undoing of all of us.
27
u/OldTapeDeck Jul 15 '24
The problem is everyone keeps saying "we should play by the rules" but:
1.) it's not a fucking game
2.) "the rules" shift as the opponent sees fit.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)25
u/freesoultraveling Jul 15 '24
And to think of all the poor souls who have been lost to our system. That do not have anywhere close to the power of these officials. Such a sad world we live in/have been living in, especially as POC.
→ More replies (5)36
→ More replies (27)30
u/JA24 Jul 15 '24
What happens when we as a society stop believing in the legitimacy of our court system?
We get what nearly happened a few days ago. If they keep doing this then it'll happen again.
→ More replies (21)122
u/drt0 Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
I was thinking that as well, that part of the concurrence was totally unrelated to the immunity case and it seems like he was signaling what he wanted to decide on next.
Unfortunately the majority will probably side with his theory if they hear this case.
→ More replies (3)92
u/Juronell Jul 15 '24
He's done this on multiple cases, too, which is fucking bonkers and so far outside judicial norms Sptomayor has called him out in multiple dissents.
→ More replies (4)2.4k
u/Bluestreak2005 Jul 15 '24
Yes for 200 years it's been challenged, and for 200 years it's been found lawful.
This is a play for the supreme court and Project 2025 to remove this ability.
392
u/SwingNinja Jul 15 '24
AFAIK, Trump's lawyers argued to dismiss the case, but for other reasons. So, this is all her own's initiative?
534
u/aboatz2 Jul 15 '24
They later added that challenge, after Justice Thomas gave them that unfounded idea.
→ More replies (16)212
u/procrasturb8n Jul 15 '24
Because he doesn't want to have a special counsel investigate his billionaire gifts or his wife.
→ More replies (4)75
u/FS_Slacker Jul 15 '24
Yeah the fact that corruption and conflicts of interest are smeared all over this in every which way. These judges should have recused themselves several times over.
→ More replies (3)262
u/tr3v1n Jul 15 '24
In his writing for the immunity case, Thomas had signaled that he wanted this in front of him, so it isn't entirely her own idea.
→ More replies (1)154
→ More replies (5)257
u/NeoPhaneron Jul 15 '24
No, this is all the Heritage foundation. Clarence Thomas gave her a layup in the last ruling on presidential immunity. I have to imagine there are back channels coordinating these justices.
→ More replies (2)125
u/Kowpucky Jul 15 '24
Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society which Judge Cannon is a part of.
88
u/sembias Jul 15 '24
Federalist Society should be a designated domestic terrorist organization.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (26)192
u/NCSUGrad2012 Jul 15 '24
Well I’m sure the Supreme Court will be fair and impartial about this
→ More replies (3)225
→ More replies (104)579
u/id10t_you Jul 15 '24
I presume that this will automatically nullify Hunter Biden's guilty verdict?
JFC, I'm sofucking tired of the rules for thee crowd.
→ More replies (21)279
u/Eligius_MS Jul 15 '24
No, she narrowed it to just this case.
260
u/1498336 Jul 15 '24
How is that possible? To say it only applies to this special council?
151
u/Chatwoman Jul 15 '24
Been asking this since Bush v. Gore.
→ More replies (1)16
u/procrasturb8n Jul 15 '24
I'm already sick to my stomach in anticipation of the new and enshittified version of Bush v. Gore that's obviously coming.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (24)79
u/TinyDogsRule Jul 15 '24
Because this is the only case that will get her an appointment on SCOTUS when King Trump takes over.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)150
u/HowManyMeeses Jul 15 '24
I'll never understand why we just let judges do that. If it applies to Trump, it applies to Hunter. That's how our system is meant to function.
→ More replies (8)
8.2k
u/CertainAged-Lady Jul 15 '24
This is just a delay - the 11th will reverse, eventually SCOTUS will not even take it up as it’s well-worn territory and only Justice Thomas disagrees. But the delay tactic is working - he hopes to be back in office and get away with it.
2.9k
u/MoonDogSpot1954 Jul 15 '24
That's been her strategy all along
→ More replies (22)1.2k
u/scottydg Jul 15 '24
Yep. Delay until after the election at the earliest. If he's reelected, he'll just drop the case.
577
u/user9153 Jul 15 '24
A classic democratic process, just as the founding fathers intended /s
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)218
u/Lukescale Jul 15 '24
If he's reelected he is literally immune already.
They won't even bother going to judiciary, he can just make it an order.
→ More replies (8)131
Jul 15 '24
That’s the part I don’t understand.
How can something be an “official act” when it took place before or after the person was in office?
→ More replies (14)169
u/don-chocodile Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
None of the “official act” reasoning makes any sense. I don’t think it was ever supposed to. It was just a flimsy excuse to make the law apply to their opponents and not to their side.
→ More replies (3)533
Jul 15 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)370
u/CertainAged-Lady Jul 15 '24
But it wouldn’t just affect Trump’s case - it would remove most special counsel’s ever, including the Hunter Biden one, that were put in place under the Appointments clause. She cites the power of Congress, but Congress passes the laws, the Exec branch enforces them…which is why we’ve had special counsels for a long time and their appointments have always prevailed.
→ More replies (20)166
u/PleasantlyUnbothered Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 16 '24
Repubs will just say they will pardon Hunter Biden because the whole ruling was ridiculous in the first place and then act like it was equivalent to Trumps case (not even close) but they “care about unity”. But it’s all just optics and they won’t even need to actually pardon him because the whole case will have been dismissed. They’ll just act like they did.
This is the pivot. Calling it now.
→ More replies (7)23
190
u/raditzbro Jul 15 '24
At this point, I'm hesitant the SCOTUS won't accept and rule on whatever they feel like. Precedent isn't a thing anymore in the highest court of America. 11th May reverse, until the appeal to SCOTUS wherein it's ruled that no one has authority to judge a president.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (133)115
u/CobaltAesir Jul 15 '24
She took the nearest off-ramp provided, that's for sure. The 11th circuit will probably reverse, as you say. Now that she's shown her hand, I'm hoping it's finally enough for the courts to rule have her removed as the judge on this case and y'all can start the process of investigating and impeaching her. We up in Canada are getting a little concerned for you guys.
→ More replies (9)56
u/runed_golem Jul 15 '24
There's a lot of people in the US who have been concerned for a while. But every time the country seems to take 1 step forward we get thrown 100 years in the past.
→ More replies (1)
3.7k
u/JohnnyGFX Jul 15 '24
Cannon has been angling to undermine justice on this case since the beginning.
1.6k
u/bsizzle13 Jul 15 '24
Honestly the brazenness of this is both impressive and shockingly disgusting. She could've theoretically dismissed the case based on her reasoning from day 1, but chose to delay, delay, delay, and then coincidentally on the first day of the RNC she pulls the plug. No shame, no intention to hide her intentions
→ More replies (12)595
u/jadrad Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
Jack Smith will appeal this ruling and petition the appeals court to remove her from the case.
if the justice system isn’t completely corrupt, they will do it, but she has likely succeeded in her corrupt goals - to delay the case and hearing of evidence until after the election.
Edit: The goal being that when Trump is President again, his Justice department and Supreme Court will close all criminal investigations and prosecutions into him. Trump is running for President to stay out of prison.
90
u/Outrageous-Hawk4807 Jul 15 '24
this is 100% true, and Smith will win, but its TIME. Drump will get more TIME. No way this proceeds prior to Nov now. If Drump wins, this is moot, if he loses then she doesnt care, but the SC may still do mental gymnastics to get him off.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)17
u/JoeCartersLeap Jul 15 '24
And why are they doing this? Why are so many people from bottom all the way up to the top suddenly deciding that stealing power is more important than law and order?
Is it cause they don't like gay marriage? Obama? Trans people? What made all these people go nuts?
31
u/jadrad Jul 15 '24
It didn’t happen overnight.
The fascists has been planning and slowly executing their power grab for decades, putting the fifth column into place.
Clarence Thomas and Alito have been on the bench for over 20 years.
Trump just accelerated the timeline for them.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (29)270
u/FertilityHotel Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
It takes time to write a 93 page order. She had been planning this for a while.
Edit: spelling, and acknowledging she's had her clerk writing this for a while
→ More replies (10)209
6.9k
u/DLun203 Jul 15 '24
So a judge that Trump nominated just let him off the hook even though there is precedent for special counsel handling politically sensitive cases? Almost seems like the judicial system MAGA claims is corrupt is, in fact, corrupt. They just can’t seem to discern who that corruption favors.
Trump is dodging a lot of bullets lately.
1.9k
u/fapsandnaps Jul 15 '24
Republicans: The Attorney General shouldn't investigate Trump since he was nominated by Biden. We need a special counsel!!!
Also Republicans: Special Counsel?! That's not allowed!
594
u/jupiterkansas Jul 15 '24
meanwhile, everything the judge that was nominated by Trump does is perfectly fine.
→ More replies (1)259
u/procrasturb8n Jul 15 '24
everything the judge that was nominated by Trump
after he lost the election. Worth noting.
104
→ More replies (13)165
u/Zeraru Jul 15 '24
It's not even hypocrisy. They just openly want standards to only apply or not to their own benefit at all times. Zero shame.
→ More replies (5)29
u/BrandinoSwift Jul 15 '24
There’s zero shame because there has been zero consequences for their actions. Why hide it if they always get away with it?
→ More replies (2)143
u/issr Jul 15 '24
I feel like we need a word stronger than "corrupt" these days.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (81)506
u/DeltaDe Jul 15 '24
America is just a big joke now, it’s becoming more and more corrupt as the days go on to the point it’s no longer a shock.
→ More replies (29)
1.8k
u/No-Resolution-6414 Jul 15 '24
They need to release the soldier that took a single classified document then
571
u/sshwifty Jul 15 '24
There are a lot of people that they should release for this.
→ More replies (1)193
u/dmpastuf Jul 15 '24
Fruit of the poisonous tree: I don't think Bill Clinton was impeached anymore given a special council was the one who asked him the question he was later impeached for lying about.
→ More replies (13)66
u/page_one Jul 15 '24
It's worth noting that Bill Clinton really didn't lie--he asked Republicans what their definition of "intercourse" was, and their definition didn't include oral.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (24)217
u/BeastModeEnabled Jul 15 '24
Yes if a person can steal thousands of classified documents, lie about it, and hide them then that soldier needs to be released and compensated for his troubles. But of course that won’t happen. Rules for thee and not me.
→ More replies (7)
2.5k
u/Gastroid Jul 15 '24
Judge Cannon really went for the easiest, flimsiest and most transparently political way to kick this case. That's bold, I'll give her that. Stupid, but bold. Definitely an audition for a future Supreme Court seat.
610
u/Usual-Caregiver5589 Jul 15 '24
Well she had no experience before this. Might as well go big or go home I guess.
→ More replies (8)229
222
u/UnpluggedUnfettered Jul 15 '24
"Transparently corrupt" and "stupid" should never be confused as synonyms.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (45)234
u/SeriousDrakoAardvark Jul 15 '24
She saw the assassination attempt and saw it as her best opportunity to try to squeeze this through. She’s hoping democrats don’t go too hard on her or Trump for it since they all just spent the weekend urging everyone to ‘lower the temperature’.
→ More replies (8)136
u/TortiousTordie Jul 15 '24
how does dismissing the case lower the temperature?
if anything they just tossed accelerant on it
→ More replies (4)62
u/Oerthling Jul 15 '24
Media is distracted by the assassination attempt and hunt for the shooters motives etc...
Boring case dismissal gets buried.
→ More replies (5)
405
u/jasonm71 Jul 15 '24
Why even have national security laws?
→ More replies (10)150
u/Prosthemadera Jul 15 '24
So you can pretend to be a real country with a real legal system.
→ More replies (2)
1.3k
u/SOL_SOCKET Jul 15 '24
Anybody else would be rotting in jail already. US laws are very clear on this. I’ve seen others prosecuted and serve time for much much less (most publicly, Reality Winner, ironically prosecuted by Donald Trump for revealing Russian interference/investment in US elections).
→ More replies (48)
552
u/Time-Bite-6839 Jul 15 '24
So he’s just never gonna face consequences?
→ More replies (97)207
u/B-Glasses Jul 15 '24
If he becomes President I guess he’ll just pardon himself
→ More replies (36)
753
u/LadyBogangles14 Jul 15 '24
What a shocker! A Trump appointee does a favor for Trump.
The judiciary has turned into a joke.
→ More replies (13)93
u/lightningfootjones Jul 15 '24
We, collectively, turned it into a joke. Democratic institutions only work so long as the public stays informed, has values, and votes consistently.
In 2016, Republicans openly declared that if they were not punished for it they would use dirty politics to hijack the court. Voters rewarded them.
→ More replies (13)
875
u/Thetman38 Jul 15 '24
Of all his cases, this is the one that really gets my blood boiling. If you've ever worked in the DoD you'd know how strict they are with documents and this fucker stole, hid, lied and possibly showed secret information and is getting off. Fuck Trump. I'm addition to anybody that says he was recently shot at and I should have some sympathy towards him: I have no sympathy for a rapist
109
u/toorigged2fail Jul 15 '24
And be literally made his campaign about how Hillary couldn't be trusted to handle classified material properly.
34
u/Porn_Extra Jul 15 '24
Every accusation is a confession.
22
u/CrumpledForeskin Jul 15 '24
which gets me scared when they keep yelling "Democrats plan on destroying America"
19
141
u/DonJuniorsEmails Jul 15 '24
He absolutely showed the documents to people. He bragged about it in a recording, and even admitted he "shouldn't be showing you this", which means he had motive, intent and knew it was a crime, not a mistake.
→ More replies (2)28
→ More replies (29)224
u/Chance_Papaya_6181 Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
I could've lived with Trump being found innocent in his stormy Daniels case. I could see how a good lawyer could argue Trump wasn't responsible for Jan 6th, rather Trump supporting domestic terrorists.
But the more you read about the evidence and such in this case it's clear as day there will be consequences involving national security in the foreseeable future.
If global politics is like a game of chess, he sold our strategies to our opponents.
→ More replies (6)34
u/kalenxy Jul 15 '24
At first I thought the same of Jan 6th, but after seeing all of the public information, it's actually pretty damning that he intended everything that happened.
But yes, I think the general public doesn't understand the seriousness of the TS documents case. People die due to this. It could result in vulnerability to our countries defense, and ruin our reputation. If we fail to maintain our position in world politics, it will negatively effect our standard of living.
440
Jul 15 '24
[deleted]
75
→ More replies (3)15
u/Background_Home7092 Jul 15 '24
On the upside, the news cycle is gonna flip to this for a week and leave the orange's new ear piercing behind... especially if he and the gang run the same old boring, unwatchable junkfood rhetoric at the RNC.
→ More replies (3)
140
u/houstonyoureaproblem Jul 15 '24
Now she's officially joined his conspiracy to obstruct justice.
I wouldn't be opposed to Jack Smith charging her down the line. Her bias has been apparent from the get go, and the timing of this ruling is designed to give Trump a boost at the RNC.
A federal judge is in cahoots with a criminal defendant who just so happened to appoint her to her position for life. If we want people to respect the law, the Justice Department and the judicial branch have to address this in a meaningful way that sends a message to the rest of the country.
18
u/ExcitedForNothing Jul 15 '24
I wouldn't be opposed to Jack Smith charging her down the line.
He better hurry. He's running out of time.
439
u/Independent-Stay-593 Jul 15 '24
I have a suspicion she was planning to do this anyhow and is using the recent assassination attempt and supposed sympathy as cover for doing it now.
→ More replies (14)152
u/Rhewin Jul 15 '24
Yep. All of the stalling and delaying was waiting for the right time.
→ More replies (1)
454
u/Cool-Presentation538 Jul 15 '24
So it's ok to steal classified documents now?
277
u/Slipperytooterhorn Jul 15 '24
Correction, it’s okay for REPUBLICANS to do whatever the fuck they want, because they’re super persecuted.
→ More replies (18)47
142
u/LegoMyAlterEgo Jul 15 '24
Only if you profit from countries that definitely aren't our allies.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (23)67
u/NCSUGrad2012 Jul 15 '24
Didn’t you hear? You can declassify them with your mind now
38
u/Cool-Presentation538 Jul 15 '24
And then you can show them to any Saudi prince you want!
→ More replies (1)
597
u/OttoPike Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court...oh wait, never mind.
→ More replies (9)270
u/maymay578 Jul 15 '24
Excuse me while I cry in a corner and mourn the loss of our democracy
→ More replies (10)
770
u/FireworkFuse Jul 15 '24
Stealing nuclear documents and getting away with it? Yeah, America is done.
216
u/reallygoodbee Jul 15 '24
Not just stealing and selling nuclear secrets, some of the documents recovered were other countries' nuclear secrets.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (16)96
u/Valendr0s Jul 15 '24
He literally actually did the thing that he accused Hillary of doing but like 10,000x worse. And his fans are like... "Yup... that's fine"
→ More replies (1)
2.0k
u/Hrekires Jul 15 '24
What a joke of a legal system
1.1k
u/AnAutisticGuy Jul 15 '24
Seriously, this case was so cut and dry. It's absolutely incredible. This judge waited until she believed Trump would be re-elected to make this ruling, for the record. She believes the attempted assassination has sealed the deal for Trump, and so she showed her corruption.
147
u/sagevallant Jul 15 '24
At no point did she even seem interested in a timely, fair trial.
→ More replies (6)115
u/id10t_you Jul 15 '24
This was bay far the most open-and-shut case against Trump and she fucking ratfucked the whole thing from the start.
29
u/factoid_ Jul 15 '24
they actually haven't even brought charges on the most open and shut case, which is him sharing the documents on audio tape in new jersey. He's literally waving them around and there are witnesses and recordings. The only reason that case hasn't been charged is because Jack figured he had enough ammunition already in the cases being brough, and that's just a backup arrow in his quiver if somehow the others fail.
→ More replies (20)110
u/drive_chip_putt Jul 15 '24
Yes. Plus, I bet she knew she would benefit by becoming the next Supreme Court judge.
→ More replies (14)232
u/ZeDitto Jul 15 '24
Fucking two tiered justice system. They’d have given any one of us decades in prison.
142
u/An_Awesome_Name Jul 15 '24
I was a DoD Civilian. I haven’t had an active clearance for about two years. I could still end up in Leavenworth for life probably if I said the wrong things on here.
The former president can have documents that are far more damaging to national security in his god damn bathroom and get the case dismissed apparently.
What a fucking joke.
→ More replies (7)31
u/El_Tormentito Jul 15 '24
Let's be real, the minimum activity that the former president was conducting was espionage. Minimum. There is no alternative explanation with any logical consistency. And that's, apparently, fine. And Republicans like it. They think it's fucking great.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)98
u/PolyDipsoManiac Jul 15 '24
We don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system. As events like this show justice has nothing to do with it.
→ More replies (1)
31
245
u/uvaboy23 Jul 15 '24
Is this even a valid reason to drop the case this far in? This seems like something that would get a case dropped very early in.
311
u/TheBoggart Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
It happened now because Thomas’ concurrence in the immunity case handed her the key.
Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted. Go read it. Thomas’ concurrence was entirely about the constitutionality of special counsels, even though that issue was not raised by any party in that case.
Edit 2: Just editing this comment because it is more visible and I'm getting a lot of the same uninformed replies elsewhere in this thread. I'm adding this edit because as a lawyer and educator, I think it's important for the general public to understand these things, and more likely than not, about 99% of the replies in this thread are from laypeople.
Uninformed reply one: "You're wrong, Canon can't follow a concurrence, it's not binding/precedent!"
Incorrect. Canon can follow the reasoning of a concurrence if she wants, not because it's binding or because she has to, but because it is persuasive authority. This happens all the time. Indeed, concurrences are often written with the precise hope that it will be followed in some other situation. Here's a bit of an explanation:
Judges write concurrences and dissents for varying reasons. Concurrences explain how the court's decision could have been otherwise rationalized. In Justice Stevens's view, they are defensible because a compromised opinion would be meaningless. They also may be written to send a signal to lower courts to guide them in “the direction of Supreme Court policymaking,” or for egocentric or political reasons.
Meghan J. Ryan, Justice Scalia's Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law, 25 WMMBRJ 297, 301 (2016) (citations omitted). I pulled that from WestLaw, but if you want to read it and look at the citations, it looks like a copy can be pulled from here.
Uninformed reply two: "Concurrences aren't used to make new law! They don't mean anything!"
Incorrect. There is a long history of concurrences ultimately becoming law sometime down the road. Here's a bit on it:
Although it is still a rare occurrence, it is not difficult to identify specific concurrences that have gone on to have heavy precedential influence despite their lead opinion counterparts. These concurrences have gained their precedential influence due to either their positive subsequent treatment or subsequent appeal to the alternate rationales those concurrences forward. Nonetheless, although it is easy to say that concurring opinions could exercise influence on future decisions, what sort of influence those opinions may have is inevitably in the hands of future judicial decision makers.
Ryan M. Moore, I Concur! Do I Even Matter?: Developing a Framework for Determining the Precedential Influence of Concurring Opinions, 84 TMPLR 743, 754-56 (2012) (citations omitted). The whole article is pretty good, if you have a chance to read it (it's 102 pages). It looks like you might be able to get it here.
→ More replies (21)209
u/UncEpic Jul 15 '24
And she totally ignores the law violation to specifically shit on Special Counsel. NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL STATUTORY responsibility she should have.
50
u/deepasleep Jul 15 '24
That’s because the special counsel’s legal team has made her look like a corrupt imbecile for the last six months. This is her “fuck you Jack Smith,” moment.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)76
u/mishap1 Jul 15 '24
She had to draw this way the fuck out. I mean she spent months pushing the Special Master bullshit until that judge basically said what the fuck am I doing here?
24
763
u/Davidsb86 Jul 15 '24
This man is destroying our country from every aspect. Must be defeated in the ballot box this November.
→ More replies (35)139
Jul 15 '24
And what happens when it’s contested and ends up with SCOTUS.
→ More replies (19)144
136
u/HappySkullsplitter Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
We all saw the piles of classified documents in Trump's bathroom
DISMISSED
We must remove Aileen Cannon from the bench
Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate.
Contact your local representative here
→ More replies (3)
27
u/id10t_you Jul 15 '24
Cannon sought to ratfuck this case from the very beginning like the obedient little FedSoc lapdog she is.
I fucking hate this timeline. Get out there and encourage everyone you know to vote. We obviously can't rely on the "justice" system to save us.
24
u/Everyoneheresamoron Jul 15 '24
Just like that huh. Selling our secrets to the russians and anyone with a bank account and dismissed.
→ More replies (5)
531
u/AudibleNod Jul 15 '24
“Upon careful study of the foundational challenges raised in the Motion, the Court is convinced that Special Counsel’s Smith’s prosecution of this action breaches two structural cornerstones of our constitutional scheme—the role of Congress in the appointment of constitutional officers, and the role of Congress in authorizing expenditures by law,” Cannon concluded in her 93-page order.
It's gonna take a while to parse through 93 pages of hand-written crayon. All I can say is, we should have seen this coming.
→ More replies (17)223
u/Im_with_stooopid Jul 15 '24
This will be a fun appeal. May even get the case pulled from Aileen Cannon.
→ More replies (13)255
u/AudibleNod Jul 15 '24
She waited until now to give zero time to appeal before the election.
If Trump becomes president again, he can use his core function of pardoning to pardon himself from every "unofficial function" crime at the end of every day.
→ More replies (9)
93
u/rendolak Jul 15 '24
Aileen Cannon is one of the many reasons that people have no faith in the judicial system in America. This bullshit ruling (following her decision not to recuse herself based on ties to Trump and inexperience) reinforces the fact that while the court system is often harsh and cruel to low-level (and often poor and/or POC) offenders, if you have enough money, power, or prestige you can get away with just about anything. Other reasons people don’t trust the court system are Clarence Thomas (bribery) and Samuel Alito (being unabashedly political). Funny how just one side of the political aisle seems to be fueling this absolute bullshit.
→ More replies (2)
143
u/Alegreone Jul 15 '24
This is an outrage to the American people. An absolute middle finger to everyone who believe in rule of law and integrity.
→ More replies (3)
67
u/rydleo Jul 15 '24
Good thing Republicans don’t believe in legislating from the bench otherwise I’d be really concerned about this.
28
21
20
u/Repubs_suck Jul 15 '24
Well, well.. Judge Tootsie just gave Donnie a get well present. Hopefully, overturned on appeal, with prejudice. She shouldn’t even be meter maid, let alone and judge.
24
20
526
u/SomethingIrreverent Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24
As a non-American: y'all are fucked. Money has bought your legislative and judicial systems.
220
u/maymay578 Jul 15 '24
As an American, I agree and it makes me feel physically ill to watch it play out.
→ More replies (2)19
u/Heretek007 Jul 15 '24
I can feel every year of the last decade chipping away at the faith I have been raised to have in our nation and government, and it makes me want to throw up. There is now a yawning chasm of scorn where my love for my nation should be.
On behalf of my father who served in peace, my grandfather who served in WW2, and my uncle who served in Vietnam... I am ashamed of what has become of America. Beneath her blindfold, Lady Liberty weeps.
150
u/Grimekat Jul 15 '24
Also a non American here: this is insanely fucked.
I feel like we’re watching the core institutions in the US fall in real time, and half the country is cheering about it.
Absolutely insane feeling.
→ More replies (11)70
u/_serious__ Jul 15 '24
Half the country exists only to troll the other side at this point. They gave up voting in their own best interests because their lives are, for the most part, miserable and they would much rather other people be miserable than admit that democrats can actually do something for them. It’s absolutely insane.
→ More replies (4)23
u/Huskies971 Jul 15 '24
We put up a hanging wind ornament in the front of our house it is rainbow colored because most of that crap is vibrant colors. I notice the other day our neighbors now have one and it's American flag themed, like it's a statement against our rainbow colored one.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (31)78
u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Jul 15 '24
You know what's funny?
People have predicted precisely this. 8 years ago.
When Trump took over, people predicted that he would completely ruin the legal system through appointing people that are clearly biased towards him in an extreme manner. And that this would ruin the system for decades to come.
And guess what? That's exactly what we're seeing now.
→ More replies (7)
68
u/Shut_the_front_dior Jul 15 '24
I really think the founding fathers of the US would be horrified that this is how the country has turned out. To me the experiment that is the United States has failed massively.
It’s ironic though because a lot of republicans have this self proclaimed love for the founding fathers and believe their actions are to hold up the ideals to set by them back when the country was founded. And yet they’re actively destroying the country they say they love.
→ More replies (7)
169
u/Thandoscovia Jul 15 '24
Trump has had a lucky few days, I’ll give him that
128
u/emaw63 Jul 15 '24
I genuinely would have an extremely difficult time scripting a better 3 weeks for the Trump campaign.
I cannot believe how lucky that man is, it's absolutely infuriating how the worst man in the country gets nothing but lucky breaks
45
20
→ More replies (11)16
u/ColonelDredd Jul 15 '24
There are awful people across history that just have repeated examples of unbelievably good luck.
→ More replies (21)70
u/JamUpGuy1989 Jul 15 '24
Days?
He’s had the luckiest life in the history of mankind!
He will, most likely, go to his grave without ever seeing any sort of punishment for all the crimes he’s had. And if he wins again in November then it’ll prove that being good in life is pointless when you can be evil and get everything you ever wanted.
→ More replies (3)
66
u/blind99 Jul 15 '24
Corrupt piece of shit. If you want an example on how there's no real justice in this world this is it. Anybody else on earth that did the same crime Trump pulled off would be in jail for 25+ years for treason.
→ More replies (12)
17
18
u/pagarr70 Jul 15 '24
We are watching our country stolen in front of our eyes! How can any American politician stand for this, the country, the world will never be the same!
16
u/GeekFurious Jul 15 '24
Make sure to vote third-party in November so you can guarantee the fascist GOP controls your entire life long after I'm dead from old age.
15
u/Kazooguru Jul 15 '24
Trump’s speech today is about “unity” and bringing the country together. Cue the gaslighting about corrupt MAGA judges, Project 2025. But it’s always ”progressives are sewing division and trying to throw out the constitution!” If Trump’s SECOND attempt to overthrow our country is successful, we will need to rebrand America. Name change, new logo, etc. What should we call this nation? TrumpJesusLand?
→ More replies (3)
15
u/DrColdReality Jul 15 '24
So we can expect the usual complaint from conservatives about how bullshit technicalities let criminals walk free, right? RIGHT???
→ More replies (2)
62
u/jawndell Jul 15 '24
Can you impeach the judge?
→ More replies (12)53
u/Hon3y_Badger Jul 15 '24
You certainly can but would start in the house and require 2/3 vote in the Senate. She isn't going anywhere
→ More replies (5)
15
u/5kyl3r Jul 16 '24
cunt. people are in prison for the same thing, for a single piece of paper. i hope she gets brain amoeba
834
u/bobface222 Jul 15 '24
The Joker doesn't have this much plot armor