Octopus Overlords

YellowKing wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:56 pm

malchior wrote:While another judge might have been just as bad we absolutely know Cannon is willing to act lawlessly.

I was literally yelling at my computer yesterday because I had the ABC News livestream up and the commentator was dismissing the concerns over Cannon because "there are no Trump judges or Obama judges, just judges" that would be neutral and uphold the law.

I was like ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? This isn't a judge we know nothing about that just happened to be appointed by Trump. This is a judge with a history of making rulings in Trump's favor that fly in the face of reason.

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 2:04 pm

YellowKing wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:56 pm

malchior wrote:While another judge might have been just as bad we absolutely know Cannon is willing to act lawlessly.

I was literally yelling at my computer yesterday because I had the ABC News livestream up and the commentator was dismissing the concerns over Cannon because "there are no Trump judges or Obama judges, just judges" that would be neutral and uphold the law.

I was like ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? This isn't a judge we know nothing about that just happened to be appointed by Trump. This is a judge with a history of making rulings in Trump's favor that fly in the face of reason.

Radical centrists make my blood boil. The one thing I can't stand about modernity is that the height of seriousness could be measured in their ability to ignore reality.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:13 pmIs this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

Jaymann wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:58 am

stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.

And Cannon would go down in history as the person who single handedly destroyed democracy and the rule of law with one bang of the gavel.

Can you imagine her explaining this to her grandchildren: "Yes, but they sent me a really nice red hat."

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:47 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:13 pmIs this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:21 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:47 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:13 pmIs this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

In this timeline, the chance was 100% from the start.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:43 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 4:21 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:47 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:13 pmIs this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

In this timeline, the chance was 100% from the start.

I mean, I do wonder a bit about the behind the scenes process on this.

Scraper wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 8:44 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 2:31 am

Fox News showing it is not biased.

Please tell me that's not real. Right?

“Wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested,” the chyron read. It did not refer to Mr. Biden by name, but the implication was clear.

The alert appeared at the end of the 8 p.m. broadcast of “Fox News Tonight,” a show that recently replaced one that had been hosted by Tucker Carlson, a popular prime-time host who was dismissed by the network in April. The footage of Mr. Biden showed him speaking on the South Lawn of the White House on Tuesday at a holiday event.

The term “wannabe dictator” was unusually strong even for a network that generally had a friendly relationship with the Trump White House and has been heavily critical of the Biden administration.

...

A spokeswoman for Fox News said, “The chyron was taken down immediately and was addressed.” She added that Mr. Kilmeade's comment was an unintentional mistake.

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:47 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:13 pmIs this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

This is the flip side - an unknowable risk in itself. Some other observers note he has the potential of filing a case here in NJ as well for disseminating classified materials. Perhaps it is a card he holds. Or a card he has to play early or not at all. Same thing with potential 1/6 charges.

The risk with Cannon is if she goes hard lawless from the get go then any move to charge in Newark (or Trenton) is going to look like they are tied together. It's a maddening mix all with time pressure around the election. It is really is not an ideal situation so it's hard to pass judgement on *where*. The proper question might be *when* he should have acted. Perhaps months ago to have more time to maneuver around these issues. It seems he traded completeness for time. We'll have to see how this turns out and then we can play the coulda/woulda/shoulda.

waitingtoconnect wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:36 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:47 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:13 pmIs this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

This is the flip side - an unknowable risk in itself. Some other observers note he has the potential of filing a case here in NJ as well for disseminating classified materials. Perhaps it is a card he holds. Or a card he has to play early or not at all. Same thing with potential 1/6 charges.

The risk with Cannon is if she goes hard lawless from the get go then any move to charge in Newark (or Trenton) is going to look like they are tied together. It's a maddening mix all with time pressure around the election. It is really is not an ideal situation so it's hard to pass judgement on *where*. The proper question might be *when* he should have acted. Perhaps months ago to have more time to maneuver around these issues. It seems he traded completeness for time. We'll have to see how this turns out and then we can play the coulda/woulda/shoulda.

She could find a way to dismiss with prejudice without going to a jury trial. That can’t be appealed no matter how crazy it is.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:33 am

waitingtoconnect wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:36 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:47 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:13 pmIs this a major fuck up by DOJ? The risk that this could / would windup with Cannon seems like a knowable risk. I'd think if I'm DOJ I would rather be fighting about venue in D.C. than having to deal with Cannon overseeing the trial.

This seems unknowable to me. Everything I read says there was a 10-15% chance of drawing her.

I will say that the venue issue (and the delay that could entail) is not a trivial risk either, so this isn't necessarily a slam dunk call, but having Cannon involved seems like a worst case scenario.

This is the flip side - an unknowable risk in itself. Some other observers note he has the potential of filing a case here in NJ as well for disseminating classified materials. Perhaps it is a card he holds. Or a card he has to play early or not at all. Same thing with potential 1/6 charges.

The risk with Cannon is if she goes hard lawless from the get go then any move to charge in Newark (or Trenton) is going to look like they are tied together. It's a maddening mix all with time pressure around the election. It is really is not an ideal situation so it's hard to pass judgement on *where*. The proper question might be *when* he should have acted. Perhaps months ago to have more time to maneuver around these issues. It seems he traded completeness for time. We'll have to see how this turns out and then we can play the coulda/woulda/shoulda.

She could find a way to dismiss with prejudice without going to a jury trial. That can’t be appealed no matter how crazy it is.

No, that can 100% be appealed. "With prejudice" just means that the plaintiff does not have a chance to file a new complaint on the same subject.

Here comes Judge Aileen Cannon with her first order (administrative matter) in USA v Trump case.

Order: “On or before June 16.. all attorneys of record and forthcoming attorneys.. shall contact the Litigation Security Group of (DOJ) if they have not done so already, to expedite the necessary clearance process for all team members anticipated to participate in this matter”

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:03 pm I'm guessing next Tuesday we'll learn it wasn't long enough to go through the process and then eventually we'll see what happens when TFG can't find a lawyer that can get a security clearance at all.

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:52 pm The judge is talking about expediting the security process. Because *NO* lawyers that might be part of Drumpf's defense team have it. Surely there is a public defender out there who would pass the security clearance hurdles.

First, I thought Drumpf didn't have any lawyers, so I'm not sure who is being expedited. Second, if no one is defending, then assign a public defender and send them through the process.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:07 pm

GreenGoo wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 3:52 pm The judge is talking about expediting the security process. Because *NO* lawyers that might be part of Drumpf's defense team have it. Surely there is a public defender out there who would pass the security clearance hurdles.

First, I thought Drumpf didn't have any lawyers, so I'm not sure who is being expedited. Second, if no one is defending, then assign a public defender and send them through the process.

Trump appeared at court with his lawyer Christopher Kise. We don't know his clearance status or whether he is staying on the team. I get some of this anxiety but some of the reaction to what appears to be a normal order is a little over the top. I'm not calling out you here btw but more the folks completely losing it over what again appears to be an entirely sensible and normal request. It's far too early to assume she is explicitly helping him here. In this case, that would require her to know information about the team that would pretty much require full on coordinating with Trump's team.

NEW: Trump defense team notifies Judge Aileen Cannon it has followed her order:

"Counsel has contacted the Litigation Security Group of the (Justice Dept) for the purpose of obtaining the necessary security clearance for team members anticipated to participate in this matter.."

Unagi wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:58 pm I wonder how many lawyers are denied the clearance after review.
I feel like it’s a pencil whip.

malchior wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:22 pm

Unagi wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:58 pm I wonder how many lawyers are denied the clearance after review.
I feel like it’s a pencil whip.

Security clearance investigations are rarely (probably never) a pencil whip. It depends on the level of access required but they are typically extremely invasive.

Lagom Lite wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 4:28 am Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

Lagom Lite wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 4:28 am Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

stessier wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 6:53 am

Lagom Lite wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 4:28 am Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

There is no federal law that says she must recuse.

Holman wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 4:37 pm

stessier wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 6:53 am

Lagom Lite wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2023 4:28 am Wait... there's no way for higher-ups to remove Judge Cannon from the case? All people can do is sort of beg her to recuse herself, which she can refuse to do even though she must by Federal law? That's embarrassing, America. She was appointed by the defendant ffs.

There is no federal law that says she must recuse.

With a footnote to the effect that, as far as the basic norms of governance are concerned, the 21st century is the era of things unimaginable in the 20th.

Hours after he was sworn in as attorney general, Merrick Garland and his deputies gathered in a wood-paneled conference room in the Justice Department for a private briefing on the investigation he had promised to make his highest priority: bringing to justice those responsible for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the two months since the siege, federal agents had conducted 709 searches, charged 278 rioters and identified 885 likely suspects, said Michael R. Sherwin, then-acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, ticking through a slide presentation. Garland and some of his deputies nodded approvingly at the stats, and the new attorney general called the progress “remarkable,” according to people in the room.

Sherwin’s office, with the help of the FBI, was responsible for prosecuting all crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 attack. He had made headlines the day after by refusing to rule out the possibility that President Donald Trump himself could be culpable. “We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building,” Sherwin said in response to a reporter’s question about Trump. “If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they’re going to be charged.”

But according to a copy of the briefing document, absent from Sherwin’s 11-page presentation to Garland on March 11, 2021, was any reference to Trump or his advisers — those who did not go to the Capitol riot but orchestrated events that led to it.

...

A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found.

...

Still, there were consequences to moving at a slower pace. For many months after the attack, prosecutors did not interview White House aides or other key witnesses, according to authorities and attorneys for some of those who have since been contacted by the special counsel. In that time, communications were put at risk of being lost or deleted and memories left to fade.

Peter Zeidenberg, who helped lead a special counsel probe of the George W. Bush White House, said Garland and Monaco had to tread carefully because investigating a president’s attempts to overturn an election is a novel case, and they did not want to appear partisan. “But you can take it to the extreme … you work so hard not to be a partisan that you’re failing to do your job.”

Well that’s that. Trump just confessed to Fox News that he stole and shared classified materials.