Jack Smith may press 'red button' to disqualify judge and get Trump...'My head is spinning because this is sort of an incomprehensible order

WND ^ | March 19, 2024 at 2:02pm TruthTweetShare | Jason Walsh

[Red Badger]

Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg asserted on Tuesday that special counsel Jack Smith may resort to drastic measures to attempt to disqualify the judge in former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

Judge Aileen Cannon is presiding over the case against Trump and on Monday ordered the former president and Smith to submit proposed jury instructions, which means the judge is focusing on a trial much earlier than anticipated, according to The Washington Post. The order benefits Trump and Smith will appeal it as well as potentially try to disqualify Cannon, Aronberg asserted on MSNBC’s “Jose Diaz-Balart Reports.”

“My head is spinning because this is sort of an incomprehensible order by Judge Cannon,” Aronberg said. “First off, she’s asking for jury instructions on a case that will not be heard before the November election, and so what is the rush?”

Judges direct juries on how to evaluate evidence shortly ahead of deliberations which indicates that Cannon is focusing on the end of the trial already, according to the Post. Cannon’s Monday order indicates she is giving credence to Trump’s argument that he has the power to determine that certain classified documents are personal to him and his property.

“And then she set forth two different hypotheticals for the parties to engage in when it comes to jury instructions, but these jury instructions are really favorable to Donald Trump,” he added. “Essentially, you have two choices, Jack: heads, Donald Trump wins, and tails, you lose. So either way, this is just something that Jack Smith is not going to be able to take. He’s going to have to go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals … and try and get this whole thing changed unless Judge Cannon will do it herself.

[Robert DeLong]

To: odawg

Then you must be the kind of idiot that loves to listen to Fox top-of-the-hour news cast on the radio.

No, I probably stopped watching or listening to Fox before you did. I stopped watching when Tony Snow died, because he was the only good reporter there. I don't really listen to radio either. I used to watch OANN until DirecTV yanked them off. Had it not been for my wife, I would have cancelled DirecTV.

They will report, emphasize, quote, at length, on some Trump smear/deception —it was, truly, in fact stated by someone, so it was an honest report — but then merely state, briefly, that Trump, or his people, deny it, in a perfunctory, snickering way.

Yes they do, apparently you believe they are good reporters. Because they go beyond the facts to their opinions.

Thanks for driving home my point, even though that was not your intention at all.

Note: This was my original post # 33 back to you:
33 posted on 3/20/2024, 10:48:28 AM by Robert DeLong

The bolded text is you, and let's remind everyone you were responding to this statement I made to someone else; Good reporters just report the facts & nothing else. Which means you didn't understand my statement, because you gave an example of what Fox reporters say, and accused me of listening to Fox. I agreed that they do in fact go beyond the facts, to present another fact with a snicker (The snicker is the additional, in case you don't comprehend that fact also). However, the person who reported for WMD, did not add anything other than the facts. Since it was written, not spoken or televised they could have mockingly added the word snicker. But they didn't offer either an excuse or a rebuttal, just the facts of what was said. Which is exactly what a good reporter does.

Your most recent post to me:

3/20/2024, 6:32:55 PM · 39 of 40
odawg to Robert DeLong

You stated that I said that you watched Fox when I did not say that.

This is the third or fourth time you have accused me of doing what you did.

Is that you, Hillary?

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies

No, I never said that you said I watch Fox New as you can clearly see above that I said I stopped watching or listening to Fox before you did. Nor did I accuse you of anything. I made a statement about my involvement with Fox News, period. I just made it inclusive that I neither watch nor listen to Fox News, which you wrongly accused me of doing.

Instead of getting defensive, I merely jokingly said apparently you think that is good reporting, that comes from Fox. But subtlety is not within your wheelhouse I guess. I said that because you had proven my point by providing what terrible reporters do, as a rebuttal to my statement to someone other than you what good reporters do.

I guess your reading comprehension is sorely lacking as well.

You are more than welcome to the last word, but I won't respond because this stupid conversation has run the gambit as far as I am concerned.

Have a blessed life.