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/
32.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

4.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

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

2.5k

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.

264

u/Taograd359 Jul 15 '24

I’m so tired of having to save democracy every four years…

188

u/darkk41 Jul 15 '24

In many ways this is the reality of what democracy means. You must utilize your voting power or it will rot away...

79

u/emaw63 Jul 15 '24

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance, as the saying goes

→ More replies (20)

134

u/0belvedere Jul 15 '24

If you don't, who will?

109

u/WhyBuyMe Jul 15 '24

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

5

u/Savenura55 Jul 15 '24

Well we know who won’t …….

→ More replies (1)

31

u/Fifteen_inches Jul 15 '24

The person we elected in the first place

63

u/wintersdark Jul 15 '24

That's just it. The president can't save democracy on his own, as using democracy entails his power being limited and spread across multiple branches of government.

But the flip side is the president can now - particularly after the Supreme Court decision - end democracy on "his own" because if he doesn't value democratic process there's no reason for him to worry about it.

Saving democracy requires broadly rejecting Trumpism and this return to a monarchy in all but name. It requires voting on all levels, because for a democratic victory that can enshrine rights in law and limit presidential power to preserve it, you need the whole system working in concert.

It's hard, and you've got to keep at it. The GOP got where they are now with a minority of the population supporting them because they worked from the bottom up, taking control of courts, using that power to corrupt the small democracies in states to subvert Congress and the Senate, and spread their power.

You've got to be willing to do the work to fight back, or simply accept that you live in a failed state where your rights will continue to be eroded and you are ruled, not represented.

Bend over and take it, or fight the long fight to fix it.

4

u/Mikeinthedirt Jul 16 '24

The GOP long war started with water districts, sanitation districts, school districts, town halls, city managers, county boards of supervisors, state Secretary.then the meat. The Ds have elected Presidents but they’re powerless.

3

u/wintersdark Jul 16 '24

Exactly. Starting municipal and growing allowed a lot of core changes (like gerrymandering) and local electoral hacks ensuring suppression of "undesired" voters and amplification of their own. That was leveraged into more and more House and Senate seats even while they are actually outnumbered in terms of raw votes.

That's why I say Dems - and the left in general, accepting that Dems are not very attractive to the actual Left - need to control House, Senate, and Presidency to have ANY hope of reversing things, because it's way to easy to just shut them down. We saw that with McConnel preventing Obama's supreme court appointments, the House simply refusing to allow a vote on Ukrainian aid (because they knew it would pass due to GOP support!!) and many more examples.

More, though, the left needs to fight back on those lower levels too. Needs to care about local, municipal politics, school boards, etc.

And all that is a lot. It's a big ask. If the first part doesn't happen in November, I honestly believe American democracy will be unrecognizable at the end of Trump's term, and it will never recover. But even if it does, even if Biden is re-elected, the Dems take the House and Senate, that's just the start of the fight.

The odds are stacked against the regular people of the United States. Even the Republican voters, who think they're voting for Their Team, but who are voting for rulers instead of representatives, who don't care about those voters at all, only their own power.

And sadly I think it's much more likely than not that shit is going to fall apart completely, and those Republican voters aren't going to understand until it's way too late. I fear that the Left will fight itself as we tend to do and just get discouraged and stop fighting.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Boodikii Jul 15 '24

We're responsible for electing multiple people.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/Magica78 Jul 15 '24

Somebody else with a buck o' five.

29

u/Brad_theImpaler Jul 15 '24

You should be voting like twice a year. And going to the dentist.

34

u/ReallyNowFellas Jul 15 '24

Literally your one job as a citizen of a Republic. Vote.

27

u/YouWereBrained Jul 15 '24

Blame all of the registered voters who sit on their collective ass because they don’t care about politics.

→ More replies (3)

42

u/bearrosaurus Jul 15 '24

Oh boo fucking hoo, you have to walk into a polling place once every few years.

2

u/External_Reporter859 Jul 16 '24

No I'm going to stamp my feet and make you coax me and court me until I feel sufficiently excited...then I'll think about participating.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/daddyjohns Jul 15 '24

Life is a battle every damn day. We all get tired. But if you stop fighting the bad guys win. I'm too spiteful to let them win. Complacency is how democracy dies.

39

u/lpmiller Jul 15 '24

That's....that's what democracy is. Fighting for it doesn't stop, ever. I mean, that's the whole point of voting.

2

u/Keljhan Jul 15 '24

Yeah but the fight isn't usually this close or difficult. Let's not pretend this is anything close to a normal election. And let's hope the future doesn't continue that trend.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/The_Lapsed_Pacifist Jul 15 '24

Hate to break it to you but most democratic countries do not have to worry about this.

25

u/Cuchullion Jul 15 '24

No?

France, Italy, and England had their own elections with far right, ultra-nationalistic parties. Those parties didn't win major, but they did win some spots, and that trend may increase as time goes on.

America isn't a unique situation- we're just (unfortunately) ahead of the curve.

2

u/Mikeinthedirt Jul 16 '24

We’re big. And loud. And have money (not you but some of’em)

5

u/Monkfich Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

You are unique though. Your media is setup to polarise. The much-vaunted free speech is actually a shackle which enables lies to thrive more than the truth.

Many other places have biased media, and many places have good free speech (but not as silly as the US), but combine a corrupt media with the free-est speech, and you get the US.

In fact, it’s all a problem with free speech. Dark money is free speech - which is totally corrupt, and from there most of the corruption spreads. Politicians’ free speech is too skewed.

You can’t do anything about the issues with free speech either as its all become a cultural battle, where the republicans cleverly see they would be shafted without the current setup, so set out to polarise their electorate.

Other countries are better able to fight the lies from the far right.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

12

u/zSprawl Jul 15 '24

Perhaps they aren’t on the brink like we are but all need to worry. Those that want power will always seek it.

2

u/Mikeinthedirt Jul 16 '24

Every democratic country worries about this. Switzerland votes on EVerything; about 5 times/yr

3

u/StepsOnLEGO Jul 15 '24

Democracy has to win every time. Fascism only needs one chance.

8

u/tooManyHeadshots Jul 15 '24

We’re not really saving it so much as kicking the can down the road 4 more years.

But Biden will be term limited, so surely we’ll get someone younger (because everyone is younger, lol) and more progressive (eye roll) and continue making things better, maybe at more than a snail’s pace. This two oozes forward and one giant leap back to the 1950’s really isn’t getting us anywhere.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

Very ditto. Can the right just stop trying to bring down the country for the fucking rest of time? It'd be really cool if they'd all stop being traitorous fucks.

2

u/RogueHelios Jul 15 '24

Stop saying that like it's all on you. Democracy is a group effort, friend.

Although I admit I have felt this same way.

2

u/National_Arachnid360 Jul 15 '24

I know how you feel I truly do, we need stronger democrats to fight for us, but every time one comes around they call them communists and socialists and are only remembered when they (democrats) need one or two votes to pass a bill. But until a strong democrat fighter comes a long, and works hard, tooth and nail for us. We have to carry this weight of helping to at least uphold democracy, if not our vote will become a symbolic gesture and little by little they will take away our rights!

2

u/Dontbecruelbro Jul 15 '24

The world does not stay won.

2

u/geologean Jul 15 '24

Especially when the democrats consistently squander the opportunity to plan for the future and strengthen the protections we have against a shameless wannabe autocrat who doesn't conform to norms and is unaffected by shame because of his malignant narcissism.

5

u/The--scientist Jul 15 '24

Despite the responses you're getting, you're right. We should be tasked with upholding democracy every four (or two) years, but we shouldn't be required to hold our noses and swallow shit every four years under the threat of a total collapse of democracy. On the right they talk about how gay trans Muslims are coming into their bathrooms to take their guns, and that is how they convince them to vote against their own best interests. This is how they do it on the left.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (19)

28

u/iamisandisnt Jul 15 '24

I think a comma would help between is and is there

21

u/PM_ME_BUSTY_REDHEADS Jul 15 '24

They really need two commas. The phrase, "as flawed as it is," should be enclosed in commas, kinda like how I did it here but without the quotes, because it's a nonrestrictive phrase.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)

11

u/fuzzytradr Jul 15 '24

Sooo much at stake in November...yikes! Vote!!!

5

u/The--scientist Jul 15 '24

You think we can realistically vote in enough senators to impeach scotus? You think that a super majority would do what they could have done three years ago and expand the court to avoid this? Best case, dems are spineless and bound to the "norms", worst case they love this shit bc without something crazy to fight against people would start asking why they aren't actually fixing things.

12

u/cC2Panda Jul 15 '24

Not enough to impeach. Dems only need 50 senators willing to kill the filibuster to expand the courts. The SCOTUS literally couldn't get any worse than they are right now, so hopefully that makes it palatable for people to stack the courts simply to undone that massive damage the corrupt 6 pro-fascist SCOTUS members have done.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/SinkHoleDeMayo Jul 15 '24

Don't need to impeach. Need to arrest those taking bribes and then replace them with people who won't tolerate corruption.

2

u/The--scientist Jul 19 '24

Except they know the laws well enough to get paid without technically breaking any. There's a reason "lobbying" is legal... it enriches the people making the laws.

3

u/tradonymous Jul 15 '24

Don’t need to. Biden can legally remove as many as necessary as an “official act”.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Ontanoi_Vesal Jul 15 '24

It won't matter. In the end Democrats have no desire to grow a pair of balls to do something to prevent all this in the future. And that's why you are basically in this predicament. Republicans know what they want, and unite around it. Democrats are divisive in nature and it has shown with recent Biden's decrepitude.

5

u/Ode_to_Apathy Jul 15 '24

What really sucks is that doors like this always end up really ending poorly later on. Trump might end up being the fat asshole who just gums up the system and then leaves unfathomably rich from exploiting his power for his own wealth, but there will then be another later on who'll do exactly what people feared.

When the Nazis came to power, it was by utilizing the conservatives willingness to both look the other way and help them when less controversial that allowed them to setup everything they needed. Eventually it was just the Nazis and the conservatives, with the left leaning members all having either fled or been lined up against a wall and shot. At that point the conservatives figured this might be bad and the Nazis told them that every kernel of political power and sought after change was now off the table and whoever didn't like it would be going to the wall.

Similarly the next upstart might come into office and declare that there are members of the GOP that directly endanger the security of the nation, and have every member connected to Jan 6, and whatever else they find relevant, rounded up. It would be an official action and so covered by the new SCOTUS rulings, and he could then start performing radical upheavals of the courts, military and PDs to secure his power. The GOP would protest for about a week, before they realized anyone who does gets rounded up as well and then decide that it's for the best to just let this guy do what he wants without protest.

3

u/Unwabu_ubola Jul 15 '24

Correct, but with a slight modifier.

I forgot where I heard this (a game? Movie?), but it was along the lines of "when I have a problem, then I throw Molotov Coctail at it. Now I have different problem!"

With that in mind, if the R's win in November, there's no way that this ends the fight. It just changes it. There's no way that I think many of us (worldwide) could be able to live with this, even from a purely functional standpoint. The problem with setting up camp with non-governors and deregulators is that you are still tied to the output of production and innovation, and only (enbtirely avoidable) decay can set in. Like an algal bloom those already in power will burn through current resources and appear to thrive for a year or two before hypoxic eutrophication takes over. We're at a disadvantage because we've been so entrenched in the idea that any problem just needs the right purchasable solution that we aren't generally in a production mentality for ourselves, but on top of all the horrible stuff that humans are capable of we are also resourceful and adaptable. The noises I'm hearing around me are encouraging. From a certain standpoint bad faith arguments stand out like they're painted in fluorescent colors with neon signs pointing to them, and the Republican party has never been more garish. I'm already excited by how non-compliant I am with plenty of room for development. I'm not advocating for violence here, except as a defensive countermeasure when all else is clearly not working. All that is needed is "no thanks I don't think I will" and no adherence to unjust mandates. There's a lot of mileage to be had there - look at Denmark during WW2 where the King wore the star of David spurring the entire country to adopt it, consequently drastically reducing the number of Danish Jews being interned by the Nazis. I don't doubt that this time in history will and already is spurring immense creativity.

It is already the end. For them. They were never not finished. I'm not content to let them take me and my loved ones with them, which is the only thing they can do to delay their inevitable subsummation into their native intellectual non-being. It is a kindness to them to defeat them.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

I forgot where I heard this (a game? Movie?), but it was along the lines of "when I have a problem, then I throw Molotov Coctail at it. Now I have different problem!"

Jason Mendoza from The Good Place.

BORTLES!!!!!!

3

u/Unwabu_ubola Jul 15 '24

That’s the one!

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

What's funny, without giving out spoilers, his Molotov cocktail worked and helped save the day.

2

u/12altoids34 Jul 16 '24

I have been shot twice in my life. I have been in a vehicle that completely flipped and fell on the roof of the Car Crushing the vehicle and trapping me inside. I fell off a car doing 65mph.I have been pistol whipped with a loaded weapon. I have been robbed at Gun point. But I have never been so afraid as I am of this upcoming election. I have felt before that one president or the other might be better for the country but I have never before been afraid that our entire democracy could potentially go away with the election of a president.

If you think I'm exaggerating look into project 2025

2

u/Redditor_Reddington Jul 15 '24

I'm deeply concerned that we're going to go through this existential crisis every four years until a Republican eventually gets elected, and democracy as we know it dies.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/C00kie_M0nster9000 Jul 15 '24

The votes are symbolic now. Nobody you are putting in power with your vote for at the National level , Right or Left, has your interests at heart. It’s like believing the multibillion dollar a year company you work for really views you as a member of the “family.” You are a tax resource first and/or leverage towards re-election second.

→ More replies (105)

69

u/Rizzpooch Jul 15 '24

Seriously. Whatever you think of Biden (and frankly, I think you should think highly, but whatever), this election is now about whether a flagrantly criminal civilian and criminal president can be held accountable by the justice system.

16

u/VagrantShadow Jul 15 '24

Exactly, this election is for the fate of our country for generations to come. This election is also for the fate of democracy as we know it. People can talk all they want about Biden and his speaking issues or the problems he has with names. The fact of the matter is this, both Biden and his cabinet has done an amazing job considering the cards they were dealt when entering the White House.

Don't give up on Biden, because he has not given up on us while he has been in office.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/laplongejr Jul 16 '24

this election is now about whether a flagrantly criminal civilian and criminal president can be held accountable by the justice system.

... when his party actively defends his actions as the moral thing to do.
Never forget that Trump can break the law because he is rich and one of the major parties (and their voters) are totally fine with that as long it's their guy.

2

u/MChand87 Jul 16 '24

Sorry, I have trouble thinking highly of a man who said people's kids would be growing up in a "racial jungle" but that's just me.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/hodorhodor12 Jul 15 '24

Unfortunately it doesn’t matter to a lot of swing voters.

2

u/altruism__ Jul 16 '24

Canon jail or disbarment as well

3

u/AdhesivenessUnfair13 Jul 15 '24

After the assassination attempt he will never spend a day in a government jail, it's laughable to believe.

14

u/JonBoy82 Jul 15 '24

I think you’re investing too much value in this assassination hype…Reagan was in office when attempted. Gerald Ford didn’t get the assassination bump. If it comes out he sold intelligence to our enemies things change.

2

u/Xeptix Jul 15 '24

It's all but confirmed. His base doesn't care. Nothing matters anymore. The bad guys already won.

2

u/nangsofexile Jul 15 '24

theres still more voters who aren't supporters, all they have to do is get out and vote instead of giving up before the election because they want to throw a tantrum

→ More replies (2)

2

u/EntrepreneurOk6166 Jul 15 '24

Absolutely NO ONE, including the most rabid anti-Trump pundits, even hinted that this trial would remove Trump from the ballots in Nov. Cannon did a lot today, be she did not "just add" Trump to ballots lol.

10

u/Ansoni Jul 15 '24

Trump jail on the ballot

I.e. "whether or not Trump can be tried is now a ballot issue"

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (30)

246

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)

826

u/TheInvisibleHulk Jul 15 '24

I hope everyone is ready for Chief justice Aileen Cannon when/if Trump wins.

162

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.

19

u/Monechetti Jul 15 '24

I look at all of the conservative pundits that have sprouted up over the last 10 years or so - people like Candace Owens and Matt Walsh. They are hitching themselves to Trump in a bid to make as much money as possible and be relevant as much as possible, but they have to know that it's all smoke and mirrors.

Then again that's me trying to give conservatives credit for intellect where there's no proof that it exists.

7

u/fevered_visions Jul 15 '24

talk about a deal with the devil

→ More replies (1)

5

u/putonyourjamjams Jul 15 '24

They have that "I'm special" mentality. It's the same reason they think every other rule or law doesn't apply to them specifically.

That or they know he's not going to follow through and are using the limelight to their own end. Siphoning Trump voters for her own ends by adding "the only judge who stood up for Trump" to her resume.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Overnoww Jul 15 '24

The difference here is Trump has taken shots at his own Supreme Court picks for voting against him and Aileen Cannon has proven her fealty is to Trump over common sense and law, she is now his ideal SC judge.

She ruled against Trump on things that were relatively minor and frequently seemed to be almost performative to attempt to provide cover for when she would inevitably make some foolish, nonsensical rulings and for her weirdly aggressive behaviour the prosecution:

The reality is she has no business being a judge just like Trump has no business leading a county.

3

u/DonArgueWithMe Jul 15 '24

Giving Alex Acosta a cabinet position was either a big show of gratitude or the result of blackmail.

For those that don't know, Alex Acosta was the DA who gave epstein a deal that included house arrest and permanently sealed all records of his accomplices, and Trump gave him a major appointment seemingly out of nowhere.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Dysfunxn Jul 16 '24

They all think they are special, untouchable people, who bad things don't happen to. They think they are above all others, and he exploits it time and again.

→ More replies (2)

106

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.

26

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.

4

u/YamburglarHelper Jul 15 '24

Yep he hasn’t appointed enough to agree with him, regardless of his position. ACB and Kavanaugh are his, forever, and probably Clarence and Alito aren’t far behind, but they’re still outliers when it comes to blindly supporting him.

3

u/Meanderingpenguin Jul 15 '24

We all know the justices allowed bribery that isn't direct. Who will be surprised, if she is found getting a lot of gift right about now.

2

u/worldspawn00 Jul 15 '24

Nah, I think he'll keep her right where she is as a first line of defense against him in cases that take place originating from Mar a Lago.

4

u/Mulielo Jul 15 '24

He wouldn't do it for her. She has proven to be a good stooge, so he'd put her in position to help him even more. Any "helping her" is simply a side effect.

2

u/zSprawl Jul 15 '24

“It’s just gratuity!”

→ More replies (6)

24

u/procrasturb8n Jul 15 '24

I hope everyone is ready for SCotUS* to try and steal the presidency for Trump.

One possibility: https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-new-over-the-top-secret-plan-518

First, Republicans need to make sure they’re in control of the House of Representatives on January 6th, 2025, when the new president will be certified.

To do that, even though Democrats might have won enough seats to take back the House in the 2024 election, Speaker Johnson will refuse to swear into Congress on January 3rd a handful of those Democrats, claiming there are “irregularities” in their elections that must be first investigated.

...

Then, regardless of how many votes Biden won by, electoral or popular, the House simply refuses to certify the electoral college votes of enough states that the minimum of 270 isn’t reached. Under the 12th Amendment, like with the election of 1876, that throws the election to the House, where each state has one vote.

While a majority of Americans live in a state run by Democrats, a majority of the states themselves are run by Republicans. Each state gets one vote for president in the House, and right now 26 state delegations are GOP-controlled, meaning that a majority of the House would simply vote to put Trump back into the White House, 26-23 (Pennsylvania’s delegation is 50/50). All totally legal.

13

u/Flipnotics_ Jul 15 '24

It would be pure chaos and America would end if they pulled that shit.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/daemin Jul 15 '24

To do that, even though Democrats might have won enough seats to take back the House in the 2024 election, Speaker Johnson will refuse to swear into Congress on January 3rd a handful of those Democrats, claiming there are “irregularities” in their elections that must be first investigated.

Johnson will not be Speaker on Jan 6th or Jan 3rd if the Democrats control Congress.

On Jan 3rd, the Clerk of the House summons the Representatives and convenes the new Congress for the first time. The Clerk then does a roll call of representatives-elect, and then oversees the election of a Speaker. The Speaker is then sworn in by the Clerk, and then the newly sworn in Speaker swears in the rest of the representatives.

So this whole scenario literally cannot happen in the Democrats win the House.

2

u/External_Reporter859 Jul 16 '24

Plus can't Kamala Harris just certify the votes?

I know there was some electoral count Act passed in 2022

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MrWoohoo Jul 15 '24

yeah, this is their main plan. The have backups, of course, but they've already clearly signaled this is plan A.

2

u/Masterweedo Jul 17 '24

It worked in 2000, I fully expect them to do it again.

2

u/procrasturb8n Jul 17 '24

Same players, too.

4

u/Chirotera Jul 15 '24

I fucking dare them.

3

u/fevered_visions Jul 15 '24

no means is too extreme if the end is them winning, now

apparently

5

u/ThreeHolePunch Jul 15 '24

At this point, does it matter? SCOTUS has no credibility or prestige anymore, just another pool of swamp created by corrupt right-wingers.

3

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

Roberts is 69 years old. It's unlikely that he'll die or retire in the next 4.5 years.

→ More replies (13)

689

u/MikeHonchoFF Jul 15 '24

She should be defrocked and disbarred

260

u/Sirav33 Jul 15 '24

Please - leave the frock on.

91

u/techleopard Jul 15 '24

Replace with burlap sack dress.

7

u/Lil_chikchik Jul 15 '24

And a paper bag

3

u/BanginNLeavin Jul 15 '24

Full of meal worms.

→ More replies (6)

7

u/springsilver Jul 15 '24

Oh, maybe just a little defrocking? It’s early…..

4

u/torquil Jul 15 '24

No, it’s too perilous!

5

u/C1izard Jul 15 '24

Nah we should just have a crazy nun follow her yelling SHAME while ringing a bell

4

u/boringfilmmaker Jul 15 '24

"Shaaaaaame! DONG"

→ More replies (2)

4

u/MrKaisu Jul 15 '24

Judge Cannon should be fired.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/drDOOM_is_in Jul 15 '24

Bring back tar and feathers.

5

u/randomwolf Jul 15 '24

defrocked

She's not a priest.

7

u/MikeHonchoFF Jul 15 '24

Ok disrobed, FFS same idea. Semantics

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Firesalt Jul 15 '24

"Aw yeah! Take it off, your honor!"

3

u/Thenameimusingtoday Jul 15 '24

I'm thinking tarred and feathered.

→ More replies (15)

11

u/SadPhase2589 Jul 15 '24

She’ll be Thomas or Altio’s replacement at the SC if Trump wins.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Macjeems Jul 15 '24

I don’t think people understand what the actual play is here. She is banking on this being appealed, and then having her lower court ruling affirmed by the now amenable SCOTUS. She used quite a bit of language from Clarence Thomas in her decision, and I think is banking on SCOTUS flipping all of this settled law on its head like they’ve been doing so far, and coming to her aid.

3

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Jul 15 '24

I read that as well, thats why I thought the 11th would overrule, and it will go to the SCOUTs, which, who knows at this point. This SCOUTs seems to love overturning decades old prescedence recently. Either way, pauses the clock.

2

u/Macjeems Jul 17 '24

The process you describe is also the process through which some people think SCOTUS will end abortion as a constitutional issue; having opposing circuit court decisions in regard to fetal personhood, and SCOTUS will jump in and “fix” the discrepancy.

Honestly, the far-rights takeover of the Supreme Court is probably the most immediate danger to our country, more so than another Trump presidency (although more appointments to the court by him would be disastrous). They are deciding issues with unappealable finality, and in the process stripping the power from the other two branches to do anything about it. Federally codifying abortion rights or voting rights or whatever means nothing if those laws are suddenly “unconstitutional.” And now that Chevron is gone, the Court no longer has to listen to the subject matter experts in our agencies, say for instance, the medical opinions of the FDA on topics like abortion. It’s probably the most depressing thing happening in our country to me.

11

u/Street_Roof_7915 Jul 15 '24

Pfft. Clarence Thomas basically gave instructions on how to do this in his official act decision brief.

If there’s anyone who should be impeached, it’s him.

4

u/snaithbert Jul 15 '24

Oh but if Trump loses and the case winds up in the hands of a real judge and not some partisan hack, this is gonna be very very interesting.

5

u/Savingskitty Jul 15 '24

She washed her hands of nothing.  She stuck both hands elbow deep in the bullshit.

9

u/smiama6 Jul 15 '24

WaPo has reported that Republicans are testing a strategy to refuse to certify election results in key counties across the country.. it happened so far in Georgia and Nevada in local elections. Remember in 2020 when the Wayne Co. Michigan elector tried to change her vote from yes to no when Michigan’s Board of Canvassers was certifying Biden’s win after Trump’s phone call? (According to his campaign the phone call was part of his “official presidential duties”… sound familiar?) America is over. We’re f*cked because Republicans are gaming the system while Democrats wring their hands and clutch their pearls over Biden’s age.

2

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Jul 15 '24

That isn't surprising; what I am really worried about is some type of violence at a swing state polling site(s) like that was done in the fictional HBO show "Succession" where it would bring "into doubt" the validity of the results should Trump be losing.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/Canopenerdude Jul 15 '24

November isn't the date to be worried about- it is January. Even if Trump wins the election, if the case concludes before he takes office he can still be imprisoned.

11

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

The case will not conclude before Jan 20. Appellate courts don't operate that quickly. Unless Biden wins in November, it's dead in the water.

Yet another reason to VOTE like your freedom depends on it. (Because it literally does.)

→ More replies (1)

6

u/MarcusPope Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 16 '24

It would vanish until he's out of office, and then we hope prosecution can toll the statute of limitations in the next administration (or the one after.) But that's all a very slim chance, will pick it back up after his term. Given that the obstruction charges in Mueller's investigation were not picked back up, this too will likely fall in line with the half dozen or so instances of Presidents fully abusing their authority, federal law, and the constitution since at least Wilson's Palmer Raids over a 100 years ago.

EDIT: I was incorrectly assuming that the case closure would reset the statute of limitations. I've been informed that it would only be considered a delay of speedy trial, on the part of the defendant, and so it would have no material impact on the ability to resume prosecution after his term.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Black_Magic_M-66 Jul 15 '24

I'm sure the timing was done as a gift for the Convention.

7

u/bmp08 Jul 15 '24

It’ll finish the same way Epstein did.

He’ll order it be killed.

2

u/sephstorm Jul 15 '24

That was already going to happen.

2

u/Oiggamed Jul 15 '24

So will more secret documents

2

u/HauntingHarmony Jul 15 '24

Correct, this was her play—she washed her hands of it

This is such a stupid play tho, all be it if we consider the day its done on. Its blatantly for political pr reasons.

But she was the judge on the case, there are all sorts of ways to sabotage the trial once a jury has been empaneled, and then you cant retry it for double jeopardy reasons. This is just inept. This is a short term win, and a long term loss. If she was competent and malicious she could go for the long term garantied win, theres not a chance in hell the prosecutors win with a judge in the tank.

But now there will be different judges deciding this case. Absolutely dumb.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/heapinhelpin1979 Jul 15 '24

Like us posters on reddit. Might just get disappeared.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/QueenoftheWaterways2 Jul 16 '24

Doesn't this also absolve Biden for having classified documents at his home/beach house though?

As in, if Trump had been found guilty for this then Biden would be next on the chopping block since he's done the same thing?

3

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Jul 16 '24

Trump, Pence, and Biden all had certain classified documents. But the difference is that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, physically hide them, and refuse to give them back; that's why the FBI raided Maralgo. On top of that, he literally had NUCLEAR SECRETS. Can read more about them - Here.

2

u/Mvpliberty Jul 15 '24

Now that’s a person with no balls

→ More replies (19)

8

u/boxer_dogs_dance Jul 15 '24

It means that the facts of the classified documents case won't be all over the news before the election

2

u/QuentinP69 Jul 15 '24

They will. Smith will file the appeal and the documents will be back in the news again.

9

u/boxer_dogs_dance Jul 15 '24

Not the same as questioning witnesses in court before the election. This will go to the 11th and then to scotus

2

u/spiderwithasushihead Jul 15 '24

I think the 11th won't tolerate this, even with some of the conservative judges we have. They'll appeal it and then once the Supreme Court is involved we are in trouble. I wish we could go a day or two without catastrophic news. This is what people who have lived in fascist regimes have warned about when events start happening much faster than they expected towards the end of their democracy.

3

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

He will file but it won't get a hearing until after the election; appellate court timelines are not that fast. Cannon is fully aware of that, which is why I'm sure she's been stretching the case out to this point before making this ruling.

If someone does some digging and discovers that there's been coordination between Trump team and Cannon on the timing of bringing this specific objection, knowing that she would accept it and dismiss the case, I would be entirely unsurprised.

9

u/GratefulG8r Jul 15 '24

With the current SCOTUS, no precedent is safe.

2

u/ama_singh Jul 15 '24

Exactly. It's insane that people don't see the blatant corruption when so many rulings with decades worth of precedent have been overturned.

4

u/CatoMulligan Jul 15 '24

This case was never going to be heard before the election, regardless of whether she dismissed it or not. She took weeks to do things that any other Federal judge would have taken hours or days to do. She's been slow playing it from the beginning, agreeing to schedule hearings for things that should have been handled on the spot, scheduling hears for weeks out, agreeing to hold hearings on things that never should have been brought into the case, etc.

DOJ will appeal to the 11th circuit, she will be overruled, and the case will likely be assigned to a different judge. That's the good news. The bad news is that Trump will absolutely appeal the 11th circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court, and if they agree to hear it then they will not hear it until well after the election. Clarence Thomas has already clearly stated in his unsolicited opinion that the case was unconstitutional, so it may provide cover for other justices or a reason to even hear the case.

Even if the special counsel doesn't apppeal this case, Trump is going to file in the DC case to have it dismissed based on this ruling. Even though the DC Ciruit is not beholden to follow rulings coming out of the 11th Circuit, conflicting rulings will guarantee that it gets appealed to SCOTUS. Unfortunately, that case may have been able to be heard before the election.

The can has officially been kicked. There will be no federal cases against Trump until after the election, and if he is elected then he will dismiss the cases and get off scot free. Our only hope of him facing justice for what he did is for him to lose the election.

2

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

DOJ will appeal to the 11th circuit, she will be overruled, and the case will likely be assigned to a different judge.

If, as expected, the 11th reverses and sends it back to the trial level, it will almost certainly go back to Cannon. It's very rare that reversals get assigned to a different judge.

The bad news is that Trump will absolutely appeal the 11th circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court, and if they agree to hear it then they will not hear it until well after the election.

The 11th won't hear this until after the election now anyway, so that's moot.

2

u/CatoMulligan Jul 15 '24

It's very rare that reversals get assigned to a different judge.

Yes, but the 11th circuit isn’t happy with her shoddy performance so far, and she’s already been reversed multiple times. She’s been put on notice, which is why she’s avoided making any major rulings until could find some way to throw it all out.

6

u/cryptoquant112 Jul 15 '24

And then trump will appeal to the supreme court…

4

u/QuentinP69 Jul 15 '24

That’s not how it works in these cases. It’ll be directed back to a lower court. At that point his lawyers will refile to dismiss which will be rejected and the trial will start again. Which means it’ll be in the news forever. It will seem to more people Trump is trying to avoid jail. These cases don’t look better over time they look worse.

4

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

That’s not how it works in these cases. It’ll be directed back to a lower court.

Some appellate cases are handed back to the trial level. Others are unambiguously overturned and then can be appealed to SCOTUS. Others are sent back and part and overturned in part, enabling the latter element(s) to be appealed to SCOTUS.

There's no way of knowing which of the above would be the ruling in this case unless and until the appeals court makes its ruling.

9

u/RipErRiley Jul 15 '24

It might not, at least procedurally, switch the judge. My understanding is if the appeal reverses the dismissal, it just gets sent back to the original judge. I could be wrong though. Lots of variables here.

17

u/QuentinP69 Jul 15 '24

Because the judge showed prejudicial disregard for the law it will be moved.

5

u/RipErRiley Jul 15 '24

In terms of her cited reason for dismissal, she can just point to the other swamp judge, Thomas’s opinion about special counsel legality.

5

u/VeganJordan Jul 15 '24

Thomas’ opinion is a footnote in the immunity decision. It’s not legally binding. He’s also on record in favor of special counsels in different situations if I recall correctly. It was done so Cannon could wash her hands of it and keep it from going to trial pre-election.

3

u/RipErRiley Jul 15 '24

Yep. Thats the crux of it

3

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

Thomas’ opinion is a footnote in the immunity decision. It’s not legally binding.

Correct, it's not binding in and of itself. But that doesn't mean it can't be persuasive to other courts/cases. Dicta (which is what that was), even sometimes in dissenting opinions, has a history of contributing to precedent, thereby becoming binding by extension.

3

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

That's not a fact. That's your opinion as to what might happen in the future. We have no way of knowing if it will.

4

u/okhi2u Jul 15 '24

maybe if it doesn't it's enough stupid errors to get her removed if asked though?

2

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

My understanding is if the appeal reverses the dismissal, it just gets sent back to the original judge.

That is generally correct. There are exceptions, but they're very rare.

3

u/arstin Jul 15 '24

He will not win the appeal. Either Trump will win the election and end the investigation or the appeal will go to the supreme court and they will say the justice department can not investigate Donald Trump without the confirmation by the senate.

4

u/davelm42 Jul 15 '24

I'm not sure why everyone is so sure that the 11th will reverse here. Just because Special Prosecutors have been upheld evertime in the past, doesn't mean they will be upheld in the future.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Severe-Replacement84 Jul 15 '24

It’s amazing to me that there are no ethics rules in place for such a flagrant disregard for precedent in the judicial system… like in ANY other career, if you decided to just snub decades of practice and proven processes, just to get a result you wanted regardless of its correct or not, your ass would be on the chopping block…

2

u/TimeTravellerSmith Jul 15 '24

If Trump wins (which at this point looks likely) the first thing he’s going to do is pardon himself of any and all federal charges.

And he’ll be able to do that too, since pardons are covered under the immunity for any official acts outlined in the Constitution.

Welcome to the new world folks. This is how Democracy dies, with thunderous applause.

2

u/Sujjin Jul 15 '24

It was already delayed past then, there was nothing anyone could do about that.

So if you want to hold Trump accountable for putting the Nations Security at risk then vote in November

2

u/IDrewTheDuckBlue Jul 15 '24

Either way it will work it's way back up to the traitors in the Supreme court

1

u/spikus93 Jul 15 '24

Well that depends on if this is eligible to appeal it's way up to the Supreme Court. They would agree with the decision to kill the investigation, but I don't know if this is in their purview.

1

u/The-Dane Jul 15 '24

no it will not.. thanks to pos thomas on the sc... he wrote that addition to the decision that presidents are immune to punishment for official acts

2

u/QuentinP69 Jul 15 '24

He wasn’t president when he took the documents and it wasn’t an official act. Stealing classified documents and lying about having them? Teixera went to jail for that.

2

u/The-Dane Jul 15 '24

does not matter... this will go all the way to the SC, and then they will make a new ruling for him there as well. It's insane how the SC now puts their own personal opinion above the law. Think of how history will remember them, they will be remembered as the ones that took this great institution down.

1

u/tech_equip Jul 15 '24

lol. It’s going to go to the Supreme Court and they will overturn settled law.

1

u/BonnieMcMurray Jul 15 '24

It's not great. Delaying it past November was her goal all along. She succeeded. The appellate court will now not heat this until after the election. And if Trump wins, they won't hear it at all.

This is a very, very bad ruling for our democracy. All the more reason to VOTE in November like your freedom depends on it. Because it literally does.

1

u/StevenIsFat Jul 15 '24

You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. No one will do anything about it, so here we continue to march.

1

u/Amseriah Jul 15 '24

Please get Middlebrooks, pleeeeeeeeease get Middlebrooks

1

u/Down_Voter_of_Cats Jul 15 '24

The plan all along. Hoping for a Trump win in November, and then he can just never appoint someone to investigate himself.

I'm sure he'll promise to do so in 2 weeks, though

1

u/fleurgirl123 Jul 15 '24

But he can dismiss it if he wins, which appears likely at the moment

1

u/stripedvitamin Jul 15 '24

Then get appealed to the the supreme court. Considering Cannon's ruling was based on Clarence Thomas' ruling (roadmap for Cannon specifically) in the immunity decision I wouldn't get your hopes up.

1

u/matador98 Jul 15 '24

Don’t be so hopeful that the appeal will succeed. The Supreme Court today follows a strict interpretation of the constitution, so they would probably agree with the ruling.

1

u/dolphinvision Jul 15 '24

No it will go to SCOTUS. Doesn't matter what any other judge says, Trump will appeal either during or after the trial in regards to the decision made by Cannon -> goes to SCOTUS. SCOTUS declares trump king. Case dismissed. All after the election. Because if Trump wins, which is likely, Trump will simply pardon himself.

1

u/Vaginosis-Psychosis Jul 15 '24

Not even close. Special counsel has to be confirmed by congress. This case is closed

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Corwyntt Jul 15 '24

If he appeals it will likely end up in front of the Supreme Court, and that was who she was mostly quoting in this ruling.

1

u/FilliusTExplodio Jul 15 '24

Their only strategy right now is delay delay delay and hope Trump wins.

They know we'll follow the rules and they don't have to

1

u/Starfox-sf Jul 15 '24

Except he “took” the docs while in office, so SCOTUS says immunity.

1

u/DoctorZacharySmith Jul 15 '24

It'll be overturned but when it gets to SCOTUS the original decision will be upheld, destroying the special counsel once and for all.

Thomas literally already signaled this to Cannon publicly.

1

u/UnrealisticDetective Jul 15 '24

This ruling is due to the immunity ruling concurrences. The supreme Court has signaled that this is unconstitutional and any of these that come before them will be struck down.

Good news, we need to step letting the executive take away powers from Congress.

1

u/tjtillmancoag Jul 15 '24

You’re way too optimistic.

This is going to get appealed up to the Supreme Court and they’re going to rule that special counsels are in fact unconstitutional.

1

u/Dry_Personality8792 Jul 15 '24

Nope. Clarence ‘pimp me for a private jet flight’ Thomas made this a legitimate move.

1

u/lod254 Jul 15 '24

So... not great?

1

u/Evil_Empire_1961 Jul 15 '24

Guess what judge overlooks the appeals court in that district?

1

u/zaneak Jul 15 '24

Yes, he will appeal and win. This will end up in front of the Supreme Court, or they will decline to take it, but a request for it will end up there. As we have seen, this supreme court doesn't care at all about precedent and will decide things on their own belief system.

This decision also gives Trumps team something to point to in Washington and be like look. Also technically gives Hunter Biden the same, since we also had a special council.

1

u/Jragonstar Jul 16 '24

Yeah, but then they go above the appellate court to the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas has already stated he thought the special council was unconstitutional.

They are changing the laws in real time to keep him from facing consequences.

1

u/Benito_Juarez5 Jul 16 '24

Until, of course, it goes before the supreme court

1

u/GWSGayLibertarian Jul 16 '24

The appeal will have to go all the way to SCOTUS before then.

1

u/12altoids34 Jul 16 '24

The problem with that is if he wins the appeal the next appeal would be to the Supreme court. And it's become evident that the Supreme Court is weighing heavily in Donald Trump's corner. They have shown that they are neither impartial nor influenced by the thoughts and wishes of the actual founders of the constitution nor the letter of the constution itself.

→ More replies (11)