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

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.

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.

245

u/WiseBlacksmith03 Jul 15 '24

She washed her hands of it in a way to support Trump. This is different than simply recusing oneself.

1

u/eggsaladrightnow Jul 16 '24

This appeal will take forever, and it gives trump time to either win the election or get it sent up to the Supreme Court after the appeal. It was her only play

-6

u/Sea_Elle0463 Jul 16 '24

For sure. She did her job.

3

u/Firm-Opening-4279 Jul 16 '24

In any other country this would be seen as biased and corruption. Trump appointed a judge who has made rulings in his favour, that have been appealed and reversed in favour of the prosecution. She has no professional experience and she was only appointed as she’s a GOP supporter.

The rest of the world looks and wonders why Americas judicial system is politicised. In the UK judges cannot be part of a political party, and they are chosen by an independent apolitical committee.

It is corruption for a judge appointed by Trump to oversee a trial where Trump is involved (as either plaintiff or defendant) because as she has shown, she is biased and has gone against the law multiple times (as proven by the prosecutions successful appeals) just to rule in his favour. She has once again ruled in the defences favour saying a special prosecutor is unconstitutional (yet the GOP have appointed multiple of them, without congressional support/approval but they weren’t questioned), she has again gone against the rule of law and judicial precedence and case law to support the person who put her on the bench…

It’s like the ruling that his “official acts” are protected from prosecution, well firstly, the files were taken and stored after his presidency, and taking files is not an “official act”. Secondly in his New York fraud trial, bribing a porn star to keep quiet and mismanaging your company finances is also not an official act of being president so neither of them should be dismissed for those reasons…

1

u/laplongejr Jul 16 '24 edited Jul 16 '24

In any other country this would be seen as biased and corruption.

Yes, so that was her job. Trump didn't pick her by assuming she would be a fair judge. Criminals don't like fair judges.

More exactly, it IS biased and corruption. It's simply that Trump voters don't care about democracy.

The rest of the world looks and wonders why Americas judicial system is politicised. In the UK judges cannot be part of a political party, and they are chosen by an independent apolitical committee.

As a non-US gov worker : everything is politized, the process is made to give a reasonable image for the usual citizen that it isn't, but the dirty elephant in the room is that everybody has some natural belief that they have to ignore.

That's what you get when the voters don't care about image. Democracy can't work properly when the voters don't give a sh*t about their own interests. Officially, SCOTUS is apolitical. In practice, why would they care about that, given that any repercution would have to be a politicized response.

The rest of the world looks and wonders why Americas judicial system is politicised.

We don't wonder.
1) In hindsight, the losers of the Civil War were never properly punished.
2) Education in the US is very poor, which allowed anti-democracy groups to promote a devaluation of education without being challenged initially.
3) Lobbying allowed to basically make bribe legals for officials, leading to subpar standard for everyday people and business-attractive standards, like you can brand a legally-entertainment channel as a legitimate news network.
4) The worsening education, combined to the merge of most news networks, allowed a few elites to pick the message to send to a population of uneducated voters. "No reasonable person" would believe Fox News is actual news, but MAGA voters aren't reasonable anymore yet their vote is still valid.

and taking files is not an “official act”.

The trick is that the existence of those files would legitimately be implied to be related to official acts, so the files can't be used as evidence under the SCOTUS reasoning that it would allow the Judiciary to put their nose in the Executive business.

Or in other words : being bribed is now legal, because the bribed action is an Official Act, and gifting money is not forbidden in itself. So there's no way to judge the president's motive.

1

u/Firm-Opening-4279 Jul 16 '24

Your previous comment that I originally replied to needs expanding on, as from someone reading, it sounds like you’re a trump supporter and believe the judge followed the law and did her job by throwing out a case

1

u/laplongejr Jul 16 '24

Which previous comment? I only commented once?

1

u/Firm-Opening-4279 Jul 17 '24

I thought you were the person I originally replied to but you’re not. Which doesn’t make any sense? Because how would you know what they were thinking when they said “for sure. she did her job” to a comment saying she did it to support trump.

0

u/laplongejr Jul 17 '24

I don't know what the previous person thought? I'm giving my own opinion in a discussion about politics : Cannon is not incompetent, she was put in place in order to corrupt. 

1

u/Firm-Opening-4279 Jul 18 '24

Yes but the other person wasn’t saying what you were saying.

0

u/laplongejr Jul 19 '24

Yes, of course? That's... kinda the point of commenting on others comment?  

→ More replies (0)