Posted on 03/19/2024 5:20:12 AM PDT by Red Badger
The MAGA-friendly federal judge who keeps siding with Donald Trump in his Mar-a-Lago classified records case has forced prosecutors to make a stark choice: allow jurors to see a huge trove of national secrets or let him go.
U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ultimatum Monday night came as a surprise twist in what could have been a simple order; one merely asking federal prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers for proposed jury instructions at the upcoming trial.
But as she has done repeatedly, Cannon used this otherwise innocuous legal step as yet another way to swing the case wildly in favor of the man who appointed her while he was president.
Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith must now choose whether to allow jurors at the upcoming criminal trial to peruse the many classified records found at the former president’s South Florida mansion or give jurors instructions that would effectively order them to acquit him.
Alternatively, Smith could appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where more experienced judges have already overturned Cannon and reined her in. But doing that will only further delay a trial that’s at least three months behind schedule, entirely by the judge’s own design. (She froze the investigation and tried to slow-roll document review until the appellate court forced her to stop.)
Trump and two lackeys were indicted last year for hoarding classified documents at the South Florida oceanside mansion, which doubles as a social club that’s become a mandatory stop for aspiring Republican politicians. Trump is fighting off 39 felony counts for keeping national defense information without authorization and trying to cover it up.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
What a BS report from Joe Pag...STOP IT! Go propagandize for an Ad agency. You are not a journalist, but a BS artist for the National Socialist Democrat Party..
I used to have them, but then the lackeys got rid of me. They had minions that helped them.
The question I have is this: When the media and other politicized institutions are outright and knowingly lying about a person, why aren’t they being sued for libel and slander? If our current laws protect them, then our laws need to change. The same is true for politicians who can lie through their teeth while speaking in Congress. Think Schiff. Our current laws need to hold these liars accountable and not give them a pass as it currently stands.
The founding fathers fought for freedom. The current version of leadership believes in tyranny and control and enriching themselves.
Washington et all would start another revoloution to throw the current regime / Rinos/Dems out of office and our country that they shed blood to create.
BTTT
A very balanced piece written by the Daily Least.
[Spit]
Nothing like having a lot of biased epithets to assure us that the article is objective. How about “Illegally appointed DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith...”?
I wish she would throw this case out the window, it’s ridiculous.
Author is a moron. His thought process insults my brain.
“MAGA friendly?
Really? How about the presumption of innocence and following the law! Cannon cited the text from the PRA that authorizes the President to have sole discretion between what is personal and what is deemed official records.
She asks the prosecution and the defense to submit how a jury would be instructed in such a case, and sytates that any jury WILL see the documents in question.
Jack desperately needs his other fabricated offenses back before judge Chutkan post-haste! Jack-Jack loses his luster when he’s before a non-hack judge.
I’d settle for a toady or two.
That move though would risk alienating the jury.
I would expect Smith to as much as admit defeat as to the trial timing, by appealing this decision.
This nasty one-sided report that passes for journalism is why The Daily Beast and Google should go out of business.
This article is clearly biased against Trump, but the judge’s ruling is clearly biased in favor of him. What she is proposing the jurors be instructed to do is not what the Presidential Records Act says. The act itself is what determines what is a Presidential record, and what is a personal record, and was created in response to similar questions when Nixon was leaving office, and most certainly does not leave that discretion up to the outgoing President.
This will almost certainly be appealed, and while it will buy Trump some time, the judge is being overruled at a rate that could lead to her being removed from the case completely. Trump’s best argument is that he is selectively having laws enforced against him that aren’t being enforced against others, but the attempts to misrepresent what the law actually says could actually backfire in the end.
Sorry, I should have said Yahoo (Verizon). But Google or Yahoo, it’s all the same.
Wonderfully biased writing.
“You can get Minions at Walmart.........................”
They keep them in the produce department in a big bin, right beside were the onions and potatoes are.
She asks the prosecution and the defense to submit how a jury would be instructed in such a case, and sytates that any jury WILL see the documents in question.
The media won’t report that. This seems reasonable . If I were on a jury I’d like to see what it is they are claiming and also know what the other presidents have in thier possession. E.G. Obama who I’m sure took anything incriminating to him.
Get the ones way in the back, they are fresher...............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.