And to this day. Now that he has an army, he raises bullying to a new extreme.
How is it that we can kidnap a foreign national and imprison him and try him for breaking our laws? Under what possible vestige of an excuse is President Maduro facing trial in this country?
And don't give me the knee-jerk "he's a bad man" come back. I am so sick of "he's a bad man" as an excuse for our criminal actions. There are a whole lot of bad men in the upper echelons of our government, after all.
They are being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. They were in New York federal court yesterday to argue that President Maduro can use Venezuelan funds for his defense, while the US is arguing he cannot. Because we are evil.
I am not at all sure that he is "not stupid". In fact, listening to him I am pretty sure he IS very low on the IQ scale. He talks in a manner that is quite indicative of low IQ. He repeats things often, sometimes 2 or 3 times within a few sentences. He sometimes talks in VERY short sentences, mostly a noun and a verb and that's it. He is known to hate reading.
If his basic IQ is over 90 (the bottom of the "average" IQ level) I would be very surprised. Seriously.
Jon, the examples you are using are more inline with a cognitive decline. I’m supposing it’s age related. I’m sure his doctors have the determined the actual underlying cause, given the testing that we know he’s received. One of the factors that points to this being cognitive and not intellectual is that his abilities fluctuate. IQ values can be affected by cognitive decline, but that value fluctuates based on the fluctuation in cognitive processes, not intelligence itself. It shows up with language difficulties, processing speed, being able to respond cogently to questions by reporters, etc. He covers it up using verbal attacks. Whether he’s aware of that or not, it is something that’s seen when people experience cognitive delays. They blurt out anything to deflect from their sudden confusion—confusion that’s a result of slow processing. Ask them the same question verbally or in writing and allow them time, space and rest, and they’ll be able to provide an appropriate response. (In Trump’s case, expect a lie, but a more cogent or fluent response.)
With Trump, we have cognitive decline, accelerated by the stress of presidency snd his lies and conniving coming back to bite his ass, along with his severe narcissism. He is left unchecked by SCOTUS and the Republican leadership. He’s unchecked by his cabinet, as well, but that’s because Republican leadership allows it. He believes in his bones that the rules do not apply to him and that he is deserving of anything he wants.
Does that ring true for you? I don’t mean to debate about what the hell is wrong with this man. My point was simply that if it were a matter of intelligence, we’d not be in this mess. And that because he is blind to his own shortcomings, we are in an extremely dangerous situation.
It's beyond cognitive decline because of Dementia. Listen to what Mary has said. He was never a good student. I wouldn't be surprised if there was undiagnosed Dyslexia.
If his mouth is open, he's either lying, or saying the inside part out loud. If he's accusing someone else of something, he's most definitely doing it himself.
(Look at him yelling about stolen elections when there is all of this evidence that he was trying to interfere with them on a broad scale -- he just got started too late in 2016. The exact same weaknesses existed for the 2020 election.)
I don't know why anyone thinks he is doing anything but putting as much money as possible in his own pockets before hoping to jump ship if things go south.
At this rate he'll manage a solid gold casket instead of parachute.
If we rid ourselves of Trump, legal scholars and experts can look into disciplinary action or impeachment of judges who have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Never happen. Sadly, but truthfully, unless someone finds a smoking gun like a payoff or bribe or something. There are plenty of federal judges who have ruled badly in many cases and still sit on the District benches around the country because it is a lifetime appointment, and the requirements to oust a judge require a lot more than what Cannon has done (again barring any disclosure of bribery). Chief judges in the various districts use a variety of means to try to rein them in and it mostly works, but impeachment or other attempt at ouster rarely happens and almost never works. I think a grand total of 8 or 9 judges have ever been impeached, most in the 19th century, and they are rarely convicted and ousted. And thats in a total of thousands of district court judges over the years. The only ones that I know that have been removed have been for really serious bribery charges.
Still requires impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate and given the history of removal of judges by impeachment, I don't see that happening. I was slightly off, I just checked and in 250 years, only 15 judges have been impeached and only 8 have been removed. Over 4000 judges have served on the federal bench since the founding of the US, so the number removed is only 0.2%.
It's not going to happen with the Roberts Supreme Court -- he's been just as blatantly corrupt from the start and refuses to have the Supreme Court even consider the most horrific abuses of judiciary power from lower levels.
If "...the requirements to oust a judge require a lot more than" the level of sheer incompetence and favoritism exhibited by Cannon, then those requirements need serious review.
Its not actually "requirements" (my bad) for removal, its simply that removal requires impeachment by the House and conviction by 2/3 of the Senate. And that is going to be just about as hard to get in Cannon's case as it would in Trump's case. With the Senate split almost 50-50 (and that will only change by a few votes one way or the other in the upcoming election) there is no way a partisan fight over a judge will ever result in conviction.
I agree that we need to change things. Maybe we need a time limit on judges (say 10 year appointments) with an option to re-appoint them and have them confirmed by the Senate again, but no automatic life term. But again, that would require an amendment to the Constitution which is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.
What every it might be now or in the near future should have been done way back when. We seem to be living in a period of lawlessness committed by elected officials and it's scary.
I’d like to know about this too. Surely there is something that can be done about her. She is not there to defend one man. Has she made any legal decisions that can be considered a bad judgment call
Truly what can be done about her? The FloriDuh bar does not have jurisdiction because she is a federal judge. So what entity is a watchdog for federal judges? Whateveritis I hope they put on their big boy pants and do something about her asap. Regardless, Congress can impeach and remove her, so hoping when the Blue Wave happens in November impeachment can start as soon as the new Congress is sworn in!!!!
The only thing that can be done is impeachment. The Florida bar could help with the evidence to impeach her by disbarring her, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to be a judge.
And if one of the older SCOTUS justices retires, he’ll put her on - so that will make at least 2 SCOTUS justices who need to be impeached.
Don't hold your breath as they say. You would suffocate very quickly. Congress is not going to even try to impeach her as they would never get 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and remove her and why bother going through the motions over a single district court judge who most people will forget about as soon as Trump is gone from the scene (which he will be sooner or later).
Impeachment of judges is EXTREMELY rare and only happens in cases of REALLY SERIOUS charges, usually taking bribes. I believe only 8 or 9 judges have ever been impeached and only a handful have been removed, in the entire 250 years of our country's judicial system.
arrbee76, I had not thought of this, but it would be a distinct possibility, since trump owes her so much, for her very EFFICIENT PROTECTION from the very astute
LOL. Never. Going. To. Happen. Mark my words. You can fantasize all you want but there is simply no way there could ever be 2/3 majority of the Senate support a judicial impeachment, at least not in the next 5-10 years given the current and likely future make-up of the Senate (Dems might be lucky to get 55 seats, and would need 67 to insure a conviction). An impeachment conviction would require virtually ABSOLUTE proof of someone taking a bribe or payoff in exchange for their votes on cases, and I can't believe there will ever be such evidence.
As we've seen people literally being handed bags of cash on-camera without repercussions, I don't even think that would fly.
Also, y'know, Trump being "gifted" 747s, gold bars, millions of dollars -- when the president isn't supposed to make more than a set salary. It's so egregious it would be funny, except it's y'know, ruining tens of thousands of lives. Hundreds? I know the number of illegal deportation despite judicial orders to not do so cases is over 4.5k now.
None of that is evidence against CANNON for bribery, which is what we were talking about. It might be evidence against Trump or others, but how would that get Cannon off the bench?
We have to elect a super majority in the house and senate to override Trump vetoes and impeach every member of Trump's administration from him down to the Department of Homeland Security, last on the list of Presidential succession. But first we impeach SCOTUS Chairman John Roberts, who presides over the Senate Trial when Trump is impeached, followed by the entire Presidential Cabinet, simultaneously with the "four horseman of the American legal apocalypse" Scalia, Cavanagh, Thomas, and Alito, "SCAT". Impeachments are a political process not a judicial process, from the House to conviction in the Senate. We don't need Congressman Jamie Raskin and his ilk of lawyers to muddy the waters of a non judicial process and take two years. The total impeachment time should not take any longer then the reading of the charges in the house followed by unanimous acclimation by the Congress and then the same for conviction in the Senate. Then we can get to various local Article one judges in the states beginning with Aileen Canon in Florida.
Karl, you are spending too much time smoking the ganja. There will be no "super majorities" in either the House OR the Senate. Realistically, the House MIGHT manage to be 20-25 seats up after the next election if there is a so-called "blue wave", but that is still only 238-197. Impeachment only requires a majority in the House so that COULD happen. Removal of the President under the 25th amendment takes 2/3 vote of both House and Senate, so that would require a LOT more Congresscritters to be Democrats.
And the Senate requires 67 votes to remove a President for any reason, and the Democrats will be lucky to win back the Senate even by a bare 1 vote majority. We might even get it up to 55, but that is still 12 votes short of a super majority.
Excellent question….. depends on what she knew, I would imagine. And why she chose to follow dicta in a Supreme Ct. dissent as her basis for dismissing Smith’s case.
"Why she chose to follow dicta in a Supreme Ct dissent as her basis for dismissing Smith's case..."
As they often say, "Because she can." And what do you know, it held up. I doubt she will need to explain herself either. Judges have a certain omnipotence in their decisions. A higher court could overturn her, but the current Supreme Court isn't going to.
It is a crime, obviously, to keep “top secret” government documents to aid one’s business interests … but a crime for a sitting judge to knowingly allow the retention of same?
It's a requirement "for a sitting judge to knowingly allow the retention" of top secret government documents if that sitting judge is auditioning to become a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Do you think she'd ever pass the confirmation hearings for a SCOTUS nomination? I needed a good laugh... Thanks for providing it. Auditioning or not, she has not been a judge for very long so hasn't got the necessary experience. She should never have been on these cases concerning Trump.
Patricia, I admire your idealism. However, if she were nominated now if there were a vacancy, she's be confirmed. Experience doesn't matter to Trump or Congressional Republicans. All they want is unquestioning loyalty.
It may have been a crime, but this time around I am virtually certain that he will issue pardons (including a "self pardon") for any and all acts committed up to Jan 20, 2029, the day he would be scheduled to leave office. If that is the case, ANY federal crimes he may have committed will be exonerated by the pardon(s).
Anyone seriously thinking there will be actual penalties/trials/convictions of anyone who is a serious player in the Trump administration is smoking too much dope these days. If Trump does NOT do that, he will prove himself to be even stupider than I already think he is.
There's a pattern here. Trump has his family and flunkies do his dirty work so he's able to escape accountability. The Saudis want US and Israeli troops to fight their war against Iran so they won't be held accountable, especially by other Arab countries. What a deal!
Egos, testosterone, power, and money are ruining the world for the rest of us.
Is this testosterone gone wild? Very competitive nerdy control and ego uncontrolled power? Flexing the World muscle, perhaps! Pathetic and injurious for the citizens of the nations.
Ah yes, that's why 80% of my Indivisible group leadership and activists are female.
Mark, you prompted me to check. Women do have testosterone - essential for bone density, cardiovascular health, cognitive function, and maintaining sexual desire. Some women, especially those working for Trump, take testosterone supplements like tight white t-shirts, Botox, plastic surgery, and hair extensions. Those supplements also apparently help men's testosterone. Who knew???
Statistical normal (+/- 2 s.d.) ranges widely for both sexes, but average for males is roughly 15x that for females; also varies with age, and with various diseases, and genetic states.
The effect of this 15x average difference is NOT a 15x difference in assertiveness/aggression which is often attributed to the hormone, but is a softer effect (not 1:1 with levels!). Assertiveness/aggression behavior has MANY independent inputs, including cultural and familial norms, education, and ethical principles... but somewhere in there is the dance of helping assure reproduction... and other sexual dimorphism and behavior that (until today anyway) has served most sexually dimorphic species well.
It may also be the case that remarkable women leaders - F. Perkins, E. Roosevelt, Elizabeth, Gandhi (perhaps), Parks, Albright, Thatcher, Hillary, Sotomayor, Brown, Merkel, Sirleaf, Kagan, Ardern, Leyen, Frederiksen, ... may on average have been on the above average side of testosterone for females, reflected in a slightly above average level of useful assertiveness. (The opposite is also possible.) IF either trait-behavior association were statistically true, there is likely an off-setting cost, as well, to any such hypothesized average above (or below) average (testosterone) females; this is demonstrated by evolution keeping the norms roughly where they are, and changing very slowly only on evolutionary time scales.
This is how a biologist or statistician might bet (being one also). But we won't know these facts about these great women, given both the stigma & fallacy of too-tightly attaching high level complex human conduct with 'simple' biochemical drivers and genetic traits, which may have statistical but inconsistent, even rare, 'causal' association. (Whatever cause means in your epistemology and ontology.)
All in all, I'd suggest for the sake of coherent votes we maintain this consensus: in the realm of political discussions and getting votes, that we avoid attributing undesirable high level human conduct to a genetic trait (even one that is evolutionarily necessary and beneficial to our species), -particularly one carried by so much of the population!
I've made similar jokes, but am stopping, and reflecting on what's most important.
Why did Trump do this? The short answer is that Donald Trump did this because he could.
Trump has lied and bullied his way through life and he's been enabled by banks and corporate donors willing to overlook his corruption because a Trump presidency could help his donors enrich themselves at the expense of the
nation and national security.
Anyone who has worked for the federal government and held a security clearance understands that having a clearance is a serious matter.
If Trump indeed treated a highly classified document so cavalierly, and for personal gain he, and his enablers should face real consequences.
We're being ironically saved by the clumsy, arrogant fuckupery inherent in a criminal conspiracy so incompetent it keeps tripping over its own shoelaces, letting one cat after another out of the bag.
Yet one more shout-out to Jamie Raskin, and reason #347 to show up this No Kings Saturday with your home-made sign. No Kings, No Psychotic Assholes, No Criminals...
Good word. Will be adding it to “enshitification”. The only thing one can say about this giant fuck up by an apathetic electorate is its helped create some interesting wordsmithing.
spenlo, SPW, and John Gregory, I am very pleased to thank you for helping me expand my Vocabulary. I do believe that John Gregory makes a good point on the double-pp-............... but can live with one "p". Johnsmithnj
If we take the house, I'm willing to bet it will. If we can also take the Senate, and impeachment may even be taken seriously. As things are going, I think we may have a chance.
A chance of getting an impeachment bill to the Senate? Possible, if the Dems win the House.
A chance of any kind of conviction? Pretty damned close to zero. It takes 67 Senators to convict on an impeachment bill and the odds that the Dems would have 67 seats after the next election are somewhere between 0% and .000000001%. My guess is that in the BEST possible result, the Dems would pick up 4 seats and hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate.
With about zero chance of conviction in the Senate, the House will just be wasting everyone's time to bring an impeachment. Just more showboating. They need to get on with the job of fixing the country and an impeachment process that has no chance of success is a total waste of time.
Not satisfied with their aggressive and vexatious litigation against Jack Smith, it seems the administration may decide to have another pop at Letitia James.
Hard to take this seriously when it's been tried before several times and keeps getting tossed out. They can try, but it looks like just more diversion. And diversion is no longer having much effect.
I agree with you on this. No chance of getting any court to take a serious look at this. And its the same reason I don't think an impeachment of Trump is likely because, for the same reason, the chances of a conviction are about less than .0000001% and the effort is just a waste of time with no effect.
I don’t know if it’s exhaustion, subliminal depression, sadness, or what, but I am no longer seeing a way out of this fast-rolling destruction of this country. When Congress, with all the real power in its hands, refuses to do the fairly simple job of impeachment, removal, and incarceration of Trump and his minions, (given the evidence) just what is protesting in the streets going to accomplish? Of course we’re all going to be out there with our signs on Saturday, but what will come of it? I just spent nearly 2 weeks in Europe apologizing for being an American. They are watching and very much aware of what is happening here. And they are terrified.
I think what is really affecting me is the lack of trust. So much corruption and self enrichment at the top levels. Who really cares about this country and ALL of its people, including the marginalized? Even the Dens are so focused on getting votes that their sense of purpose feels lost. The GOP is so good at messaging that is untrue and stokes emotion, misplacing anger and hatred away from those crooked, greedy ones who deserve it.
I'm interested, though not hopeful, about Prof Scott Galloway's "Unsubscribe" movement (if it could be called a movement). If participation could reach critical level it would be a form of protest with economic (stock market) impact. In a country of around 340 million people and a country wealthy by world standards, we are the economy. Each one of us. That's power. And economic non-participation as a form of protest cannot trigger martial law, or National Guard troops or any other authoritarian response. With a blitz of messaging, specific economic targets and finally lockstep participation, change can come w/o Congress or Judges coming to our rescue. I fantasize ( sadly) that future historians will look back at the time America became a dictatorship and note that the citizens were just too comfortable to turn it around.
Linda, I feel your pain. I am old and losing the fight. Every time I turn I hit a wall. Very tired. Nothing gets better. Each day is a mammoth challenge.
I’m so tired of waking up and going to bed angry. Also tired of sending emails, making calls, etc., to people in government who should know better, but are too venal and evil to care. You shouldn’t have to tell someone to simply do the right and decent thing. That’s what to me is so distressing.
Can Trump be prosecuted after he leaves this earth? There simply won't be time to prosecute him for all his crimes during the remaining years of his life, wilñ there?
Keith, I would love to see James Raskin have the opportunity to interview Trump, and demand that Trump REPLY to him. James Raskin is a skilled interviewer.
I agree with you, BUT… he does not deserve a good defense. I know that's not what the law says, but when you've spent your whole life flouting the law, I don't believe he deserves any sort of defense beyond the incompetent defense he's able to get from lawyers who are willing to work for him.
I’m sorry to disagree … but EVERYONE deserves a good defense. I despair that we are too easily becoming Trumpic in dismissing the law, or norms, for satisfying revenge.
Wow, I absolutely agree with you here David. I do think most people here are just whining to hear themselves whine and aren't really serious but sometimes I wonder. Are people THAT misunderstanding of our system?
We have, in some ways, a broken system. But the solution for that is NOT to try to get around it, but to fix it. The pardon power of the President is one of the WORST things in the Constitution and it needs to be amended although that is going to take a long time. Until then, we need to be super-aware that it is a loophole that anyone who is willing to be criminal in the Presidency can use and abuse if they want to. It is imperative that we resist any Presidential candidate who might do that.
Sadly, the one we already have in place is likely to do that.
Oh, absolutely! Trump has gained both politically AND financially from his pardon power. According to the reporting of Liz Oyer, he has not just liberated fraudsters from prison, but has allowed them to retain their ill-gotten gains AND avoid restitution. One goggles At the hypocrisy and kickbacks.
Point taken. The last thing I want is to become trumpic. I'm not sure I'm looking for revenge; what I know I want is for him to get his comeuppance. I guess I would be satisfied with whatever defense he can get.
Amidst the avalanche of Trumpish obscenities, the destruction of civility has been disguised. He *does* deserve to answer for all his imprecations … but he also deserves what he denies others, due process.
Unfortunately, with the power of the pardon, he is likely to avoid having to even stand trial (at least in federal court) for any of the things he has done. If he fails to take advantage of that, he is even stupider than we thought.
"Why did Trump do something so obviously criminal, and not do it particularly well?"
He's not a good criminal, just a prolific one.
Probably because Trump's so stupid and never thinks of the consequences of his actions.
Or just plans to buy, bribe, or threaten anyone who gets in his way. It has worked for him for years.
And to this day. Now that he has an army, he raises bullying to a new extreme.
How is it that we can kidnap a foreign national and imprison him and try him for breaking our laws? Under what possible vestige of an excuse is President Maduro facing trial in this country?
And don't give me the knee-jerk "he's a bad man" come back. I am so sick of "he's a bad man" as an excuse for our criminal actions. There are a whole lot of bad men in the upper echelons of our government, after all.
I don't believe they're in prison. I'm guessing he gave him safe passage.
They are being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. They were in New York federal court yesterday to argue that President Maduro can use Venezuelan funds for his defense, while the US is arguing he cannot. Because we are evil.
Thanks
So far he has not faced any.
The only consequences he's faced = a lot of debt to E. Jean and the city of NYC. Oh...and a lot of debt from bad businesses.
None of which he ever intends to pay.
"consequences"?
Thanks for the correct word - my mind is a little cloudy today.
That’s always worked for him before.
He's not running the show. He's merely the court jester that they trot out to deflect from what they're really doing.
That's been painfully obvious for more than a decade. Notice that he's been working for putin for over 40 years.
The only thing tRump does particularly well is to be spectacularly bad at things. He excels at incompetence.
Because he has no intellect. He is so stupid he probably doesn't know what the word classified means. He just saw the potential money for his dynasty
Perhaps he’s blinded by narcissism. He’s clearly not stupid. Careless and arrogant beyond belief, but not stupid. And greedy.
I am not at all sure that he is "not stupid". In fact, listening to him I am pretty sure he IS very low on the IQ scale. He talks in a manner that is quite indicative of low IQ. He repeats things often, sometimes 2 or 3 times within a few sentences. He sometimes talks in VERY short sentences, mostly a noun and a verb and that's it. He is known to hate reading.
If his basic IQ is over 90 (the bottom of the "average" IQ level) I would be very surprised. Seriously.
Jon, the examples you are using are more inline with a cognitive decline. I’m supposing it’s age related. I’m sure his doctors have the determined the actual underlying cause, given the testing that we know he’s received. One of the factors that points to this being cognitive and not intellectual is that his abilities fluctuate. IQ values can be affected by cognitive decline, but that value fluctuates based on the fluctuation in cognitive processes, not intelligence itself. It shows up with language difficulties, processing speed, being able to respond cogently to questions by reporters, etc. He covers it up using verbal attacks. Whether he’s aware of that or not, it is something that’s seen when people experience cognitive delays. They blurt out anything to deflect from their sudden confusion—confusion that’s a result of slow processing. Ask them the same question verbally or in writing and allow them time, space and rest, and they’ll be able to provide an appropriate response. (In Trump’s case, expect a lie, but a more cogent or fluent response.)
With Trump, we have cognitive decline, accelerated by the stress of presidency snd his lies and conniving coming back to bite his ass, along with his severe narcissism. He is left unchecked by SCOTUS and the Republican leadership. He’s unchecked by his cabinet, as well, but that’s because Republican leadership allows it. He believes in his bones that the rules do not apply to him and that he is deserving of anything he wants.
Does that ring true for you? I don’t mean to debate about what the hell is wrong with this man. My point was simply that if it were a matter of intelligence, we’d not be in this mess. And that because he is blind to his own shortcomings, we are in an extremely dangerous situation.
It's beyond cognitive decline because of Dementia. Listen to what Mary has said. He was never a good student. I wouldn't be surprised if there was undiagnosed Dyslexia.
The level of corruption that he is at the center of is astounding. He is not stupid.
So, when Rex Tillerson called Trump a fucking moron, it wasn't an official diagnosis, just an average layman's impression, shared by millions?
"Not stupid"? Based on what evidence? Because he's provided a lifetime of evidence to support that conclusion.
He's not at all smart. I think he was illiterate. I doubt he's ever read a book.
If his mouth is open, he's either lying, or saying the inside part out loud. If he's accusing someone else of something, he's most definitely doing it himself.
(Look at him yelling about stolen elections when there is all of this evidence that he was trying to interfere with them on a broad scale -- he just got started too late in 2016. The exact same weaknesses existed for the 2020 election.)
I don't know why anyone thinks he is doing anything but putting as much money as possible in his own pockets before hoping to jump ship if things go south.
At this rate he'll manage a solid gold casket instead of parachute.
What can be done about Judge Aileen Cannon ?
If we rid ourselves of Trump, legal scholars and experts can look into disciplinary action or impeachment of judges who have violated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Disbarment from rhe legal profession as well.
I can't wait for Nuremberg: The Sequel.
Bring.It.on
Never happen. Sadly, but truthfully, unless someone finds a smoking gun like a payoff or bribe or something. There are plenty of federal judges who have ruled badly in many cases and still sit on the District benches around the country because it is a lifetime appointment, and the requirements to oust a judge require a lot more than what Cannon has done (again barring any disclosure of bribery). Chief judges in the various districts use a variety of means to try to rein them in and it mostly works, but impeachment or other attempt at ouster rarely happens and almost never works. I think a grand total of 8 or 9 judges have ever been impeached, most in the 19th century, and they are rarely convicted and ousted. And thats in a total of thousands of district court judges over the years. The only ones that I know that have been removed have been for really serious bribery charges.
I think she could be considered for these causes for removal:
Favoritism toward litigants or specific appointees.
Abuse of judicial power
Still requires impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate and given the history of removal of judges by impeachment, I don't see that happening. I was slightly off, I just checked and in 250 years, only 15 judges have been impeached and only 8 have been removed. Over 4000 judges have served on the federal bench since the founding of the US, so the number removed is only 0.2%.
Well, one certainly can hope 😝
In my lifetime (60 years of adulthood) I do not recall one judge that has exhibited such overreach, excluding, unfortunately, members of the SC.
Hopefully with possibly a new administration there will be laws passed to improve this aspect of the legal system.
It's not going to happen with the Roberts Supreme Court -- he's been just as blatantly corrupt from the start and refuses to have the Supreme Court even consider the most horrific abuses of judiciary power from lower levels.
If "...the requirements to oust a judge require a lot more than" the level of sheer incompetence and favoritism exhibited by Cannon, then those requirements need serious review.
Its not actually "requirements" (my bad) for removal, its simply that removal requires impeachment by the House and conviction by 2/3 of the Senate. And that is going to be just about as hard to get in Cannon's case as it would in Trump's case. With the Senate split almost 50-50 (and that will only change by a few votes one way or the other in the upcoming election) there is no way a partisan fight over a judge will ever result in conviction.
I agree that we need to change things. Maybe we need a time limit on judges (say 10 year appointments) with an option to re-appoint them and have them confirmed by the Senate again, but no automatic life term. But again, that would require an amendment to the Constitution which is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Get rid of Cannon.
What every it might be now or in the near future should have been done way back when. We seem to be living in a period of lawlessness committed by elected officials and it's scary.
I’d like to know about this too. Surely there is something that can be done about her. She is not there to defend one man. Has she made any legal decisions that can be considered a bad judgment call
Oh, lots.
Check her phone records
Truly what can be done about her? The FloriDuh bar does not have jurisdiction because she is a federal judge. So what entity is a watchdog for federal judges? Whateveritis I hope they put on their big boy pants and do something about her asap. Regardless, Congress can impeach and remove her, so hoping when the Blue Wave happens in November impeachment can start as soon as the new Congress is sworn in!!!!
The only thing that can be done is impeachment. The Florida bar could help with the evidence to impeach her by disbarring her, but you don’t have to be a lawyer to be a judge.
And if one of the older SCOTUS justices retires, he’ll put her on - so that will make at least 2 SCOTUS justices who need to be impeached.
She would still need to be confirmed
If the current Republicans are still in power she may get beat up in the interview, but she will be confirmed.
For sure. But unless one of the liberals dies unexpectedly, I don't how there will be an appropriate opening.
Alito and Thomas will be compelled (check those bank statements) to retire. Only can only hope trump shuffles off the mortal coil first.
Don't hold your breath as they say. You would suffocate very quickly. Congress is not going to even try to impeach her as they would never get 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and remove her and why bother going through the motions over a single district court judge who most people will forget about as soon as Trump is gone from the scene (which he will be sooner or later).
Impeachment of judges is EXTREMELY rare and only happens in cases of REALLY SERIOUS charges, usually taking bribes. I believe only 8 or 9 judges have ever been impeached and only a handful have been removed, in the entire 250 years of our country's judicial system.
Promote her to the Supreme Court - she'll be in good company there.
God no. That is horrible
She would be a Supreme Court Justice adding to the fight-wing justices
She would be another disaster but this wouldn’t be a surprise.
Russel........let's hope that trump never sees this or gets this idea :).
Johnsmithnj
I smell a SCOTUS appointment when one of the dinosaurs opts to retire.
arrbee76, I had not thought of this, but it would be a distinct possibility, since trump owes her so much, for her very EFFICIENT PROTECTION from the very astute
Jack Smith. Johnsmithnj
Impeachment when Democrats take over Congress
LOL. Never. Going. To. Happen. Mark my words. You can fantasize all you want but there is simply no way there could ever be 2/3 majority of the Senate support a judicial impeachment, at least not in the next 5-10 years given the current and likely future make-up of the Senate (Dems might be lucky to get 55 seats, and would need 67 to insure a conviction). An impeachment conviction would require virtually ABSOLUTE proof of someone taking a bribe or payoff in exchange for their votes on cases, and I can't believe there will ever be such evidence.
As we've seen people literally being handed bags of cash on-camera without repercussions, I don't even think that would fly.
Also, y'know, Trump being "gifted" 747s, gold bars, millions of dollars -- when the president isn't supposed to make more than a set salary. It's so egregious it would be funny, except it's y'know, ruining tens of thousands of lives. Hundreds? I know the number of illegal deportation despite judicial orders to not do so cases is over 4.5k now.
None of that is evidence against CANNON for bribery, which is what we were talking about. It might be evidence against Trump or others, but how would that get Cannon off the bench?
Apparently, NOTHING !!
We have to elect a super majority in the house and senate to override Trump vetoes and impeach every member of Trump's administration from him down to the Department of Homeland Security, last on the list of Presidential succession. But first we impeach SCOTUS Chairman John Roberts, who presides over the Senate Trial when Trump is impeached, followed by the entire Presidential Cabinet, simultaneously with the "four horseman of the American legal apocalypse" Scalia, Cavanagh, Thomas, and Alito, "SCAT". Impeachments are a political process not a judicial process, from the House to conviction in the Senate. We don't need Congressman Jamie Raskin and his ilk of lawyers to muddy the waters of a non judicial process and take two years. The total impeachment time should not take any longer then the reading of the charges in the house followed by unanimous acclimation by the Congress and then the same for conviction in the Senate. Then we can get to various local Article one judges in the states beginning with Aileen Canon in Florida.
Karl, you are spending too much time smoking the ganja. There will be no "super majorities" in either the House OR the Senate. Realistically, the House MIGHT manage to be 20-25 seats up after the next election if there is a so-called "blue wave", but that is still only 238-197. Impeachment only requires a majority in the House so that COULD happen. Removal of the President under the 25th amendment takes 2/3 vote of both House and Senate, so that would require a LOT more Congresscritters to be Democrats.
And the Senate requires 67 votes to remove a President for any reason, and the Democrats will be lucky to win back the Senate even by a bare 1 vote majority. We might even get it up to 55, but that is still 12 votes short of a super majority.
Excellent question….. depends on what she knew, I would imagine. And why she chose to follow dicta in a Supreme Ct. dissent as her basis for dismissing Smith’s case.
"Why she chose to follow dicta in a Supreme Ct dissent as her basis for dismissing Smith's case..."
As they often say, "Because she can." And what do you know, it held up. I doubt she will need to explain herself either. Judges have a certain omnipotence in their decisions. A higher court could overturn her, but the current Supreme Court isn't going to.
Thank you.
It is a crime, obviously, to keep “top secret” government documents to aid one’s business interests … but a crime for a sitting judge to knowingly allow the retention of same?
It's a requirement "for a sitting judge to knowingly allow the retention" of top secret government documents if that sitting judge is auditioning to become a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Ah, I see. Sort of like that new “rule” that DoJ can choose which judicial orders to obey or ignore.
Yes, David! People are talking about these biggest strongest best rules, so many wonderful rules, the best rules the world has ever seen.
Today's best thread so far- thanks for starting it, Laurie.
That's nice of you, Annie. Thank you.
Indeed! Manly men have been known to break down sobbing with gratitude and joy …
Do you mean men like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Bannon, Miller, CEOs, tech bros, et. al?
Not to mention such sober and impartial lickspittles as Miller, Patel, the Barbies.
Yeah, so now, DOJ is influencing war policy, great- NOT!
Do you think she'd ever pass the confirmation hearings for a SCOTUS nomination? I needed a good laugh... Thanks for providing it. Auditioning or not, she has not been a judge for very long so hasn't got the necessary experience. She should never have been on these cases concerning Trump.
Patricia, I admire your idealism. However, if she were nominated now if there were a vacancy, she's be confirmed. Experience doesn't matter to Trump or Congressional Republicans. All they want is unquestioning loyalty.
Itcwas a crime to take anything with him that belonged to the people of the US, including not just secret but any documents.
It’s been a crime ever since the golden escalator.
Remember when that felt like the biggest joke ever?
He laughed - and is still laughing - all the way to the bank. Us? “Laughing to keep from crying.”
It may have been a crime, but this time around I am virtually certain that he will issue pardons (including a "self pardon") for any and all acts committed up to Jan 20, 2029, the day he would be scheduled to leave office. If that is the case, ANY federal crimes he may have committed will be exonerated by the pardon(s).
Anyone seriously thinking there will be actual penalties/trials/convictions of anyone who is a serious player in the Trump administration is smoking too much dope these days. If Trump does NOT do that, he will prove himself to be even stupider than I already think he is.
Hope so
There's a pattern here. Trump has his family and flunkies do his dirty work so he's able to escape accountability. The Saudis want US and Israeli troops to fight their war against Iran so they won't be held accountable, especially by other Arab countries. What a deal!
Egos, testosterone, power, and money are ruining the world for the rest of us.
Interestingly, I saw a report that the Saudis built a pipeline in the desert to help allow them to avoid the Straits of Hormuz … fortuitous planning?
Is this testosterone gone wild? Very competitive nerdy control and ego uncontrolled power? Flexing the World muscle, perhaps! Pathetic and injurious for the citizens of the nations.
e.g., the testosterone-filled Noem, Bondi, Gabbard, Wiles, Leavitt, ruining the world for the rest of us?
Statistically, of the top 1% power mongers, more are indeed male, I will grant. (Though that % is changing.)
But of the people NOT in that top 1% of self-selected trouble for democracy, roughly 50% are male.
A wise democracy advocate knows she needs that 50% of 99% of the population to achieve her purpose.
Ah yes, that's why 80% of my Indivisible group leadership and activists are female.
Mark, you prompted me to check. Women do have testosterone - essential for bone density, cardiovascular health, cognitive function, and maintaining sexual desire. Some women, especially those working for Trump, take testosterone supplements like tight white t-shirts, Botox, plastic surgery, and hair extensions. Those supplements also apparently help men's testosterone. Who knew???
I did... ;)
MD MPH MS
Statistical normal (+/- 2 s.d.) ranges widely for both sexes, but average for males is roughly 15x that for females; also varies with age, and with various diseases, and genetic states.
The effect of this 15x average difference is NOT a 15x difference in assertiveness/aggression which is often attributed to the hormone, but is a softer effect (not 1:1 with levels!). Assertiveness/aggression behavior has MANY independent inputs, including cultural and familial norms, education, and ethical principles... but somewhere in there is the dance of helping assure reproduction... and other sexual dimorphism and behavior that (until today anyway) has served most sexually dimorphic species well.
It may also be the case that remarkable women leaders - F. Perkins, E. Roosevelt, Elizabeth, Gandhi (perhaps), Parks, Albright, Thatcher, Hillary, Sotomayor, Brown, Merkel, Sirleaf, Kagan, Ardern, Leyen, Frederiksen, ... may on average have been on the above average side of testosterone for females, reflected in a slightly above average level of useful assertiveness. (The opposite is also possible.) IF either trait-behavior association were statistically true, there is likely an off-setting cost, as well, to any such hypothesized average above (or below) average (testosterone) females; this is demonstrated by evolution keeping the norms roughly where they are, and changing very slowly only on evolutionary time scales.
This is how a biologist or statistician might bet (being one also). But we won't know these facts about these great women, given both the stigma & fallacy of too-tightly attaching high level complex human conduct with 'simple' biochemical drivers and genetic traits, which may have statistical but inconsistent, even rare, 'causal' association. (Whatever cause means in your epistemology and ontology.)
All in all, I'd suggest for the sake of coherent votes we maintain this consensus: in the realm of political discussions and getting votes, that we avoid attributing undesirable high level human conduct to a genetic trait (even one that is evolutionarily necessary and beneficial to our species), -particularly one carried by so much of the population!
I've made similar jokes, but am stopping, and reflecting on what's most important.
Excess testosterone in the body is converted to estrogen.
Trump admits to taking testosterone for years! So there. Keeps his hair out of place?
Actually higher testosterone is statistically associated with male pattern baldness.
But ‘causation’ is indirect and multifactorial.
Why did Trump do this? The short answer is that Donald Trump did this because he could.
Trump has lied and bullied his way through life and he's been enabled by banks and corporate donors willing to overlook his corruption because a Trump presidency could help his donors enrich themselves at the expense of the
nation and national security.
Anyone who has worked for the federal government and held a security clearance understands that having a clearance is a serious matter.
If Trump indeed treated a highly classified document so cavalierly, and for personal gain he, and his enablers should face real consequences.
Trump was revealing secrets as early as Trump 1.0. Remember Kislyak?
We're being ironically saved by the clumsy, arrogant fuckupery inherent in a criminal conspiracy so incompetent it keeps tripping over its own shoelaces, letting one cat after another out of the bag.
Yet one more shout-out to Jamie Raskin, and reason #347 to show up this No Kings Saturday with your home-made sign. No Kings, No Psychotic Assholes, No Criminals...
Love the term "fuckupery"
Good word. Will be adding it to “enshitification”. The only thing one can say about this giant fuck up by an apathetic electorate is its helped create some interesting wordsmithing.
some fastidious writers would spell it with a double -pp-. Maybe that's the British variant...
spenlo, SPW, and John Gregory, I am very pleased to thank you for helping me expand my Vocabulary. I do believe that John Gregory makes a good point on the double-pp-............... but can live with one "p". Johnsmithnj
Then again, “fuckuptery” might have utility.
It would be interesting to have Suzie Wiles testify before Congress, as apparently she was present when the map in question was shared by Trump.
She’d probably ask for a medical exemption.
Joyce,
Fearless reporting truth to power with courage compassion and evidence. Thank you. We are in this together. No Kings. Peace. Roll Tide.
Christopher and family in SC
Can we at least hope this stuff will get an impeachment inquiry started??
If we take the house, I'm willing to bet it will. If we can also take the Senate, and impeachment may even be taken seriously. As things are going, I think we may have a chance.
A chance of getting an impeachment bill to the Senate? Possible, if the Dems win the House.
A chance of any kind of conviction? Pretty damned close to zero. It takes 67 Senators to convict on an impeachment bill and the odds that the Dems would have 67 seats after the next election are somewhere between 0% and .000000001%. My guess is that in the BEST possible result, the Dems would pick up 4 seats and hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate.
With about zero chance of conviction in the Senate, the House will just be wasting everyone's time to bring an impeachment. Just more showboating. They need to get on with the job of fixing the country and an impeachment process that has no chance of success is a total waste of time.
Not satisfied with their aggressive and vexatious litigation against Jack Smith, it seems the administration may decide to have another pop at Letitia James.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/trump-letitia-james-mortgage-fraud-investigation-referral
Not even a war is stalling Trump's vindictive revenge campaign.
Hard to take this seriously when it's been tried before several times and keeps getting tossed out. They can try, but it looks like just more diversion. And diversion is no longer having much effect.
I agree with you on this. No chance of getting any court to take a serious look at this. And its the same reason I don't think an impeachment of Trump is likely because, for the same reason, the chances of a conviction are about less than .0000001% and the effort is just a waste of time with no effect.
I don’t know if it’s exhaustion, subliminal depression, sadness, or what, but I am no longer seeing a way out of this fast-rolling destruction of this country. When Congress, with all the real power in its hands, refuses to do the fairly simple job of impeachment, removal, and incarceration of Trump and his minions, (given the evidence) just what is protesting in the streets going to accomplish? Of course we’re all going to be out there with our signs on Saturday, but what will come of it? I just spent nearly 2 weeks in Europe apologizing for being an American. They are watching and very much aware of what is happening here. And they are terrified.
Most Europeans are way better informed than the average American.
Jeanne, you have got that right! 🙌 It’s so pathetic.
I think what is really affecting me is the lack of trust. So much corruption and self enrichment at the top levels. Who really cares about this country and ALL of its people, including the marginalized? Even the Dens are so focused on getting votes that their sense of purpose feels lost. The GOP is so good at messaging that is untrue and stokes emotion, misplacing anger and hatred away from those crooked, greedy ones who deserve it.
I'm interested, though not hopeful, about Prof Scott Galloway's "Unsubscribe" movement (if it could be called a movement). If participation could reach critical level it would be a form of protest with economic (stock market) impact. In a country of around 340 million people and a country wealthy by world standards, we are the economy. Each one of us. That's power. And economic non-participation as a form of protest cannot trigger martial law, or National Guard troops or any other authoritarian response. With a blitz of messaging, specific economic targets and finally lockstep participation, change can come w/o Congress or Judges coming to our rescue. I fantasize ( sadly) that future historians will look back at the time America became a dictatorship and note that the citizens were just too comfortable to turn it around.
Linda, I feel your pain. I am old and losing the fight. Every time I turn I hit a wall. Very tired. Nothing gets better. Each day is a mammoth challenge.
I’m so tired of waking up and going to bed angry. Also tired of sending emails, making calls, etc., to people in government who should know better, but are too venal and evil to care. You shouldn’t have to tell someone to simply do the right and decent thing. That’s what to me is so distressing.
Chickens Joyce. More chickens for our sanity!
I'll second the motion!
Can Trump be prosecuted after he leaves this earth? There simply won't be time to prosecute him for all his crimes during the remaining years of his life, wilñ there?
Good point, that seems likely. Especially since he can commit more crimes in his remaining years while earlier ones are being prosecuted.
Weatogue Guy, I thought I had anger towards Trump, but I never considered Prosecution after death :). Johnsmithnj
James Raskin vs. Donald Trump—who would you believe? Donnie, liar liar, pants on fire.
Keith, I would love to see James Raskin have the opportunity to interview Trump, and demand that Trump REPLY to him. James Raskin is a skilled interviewer.
Johnsmithnj.
John Better yet, have lawyer Raskin interview Trump under oath.
The sheer incompetence of the White House may be our greatest chance for a future.
And yet nothing will happen to him. He has to be the luckiest SOB in the world.
And the way he’s going, mental insanity would be a good defense.
I agree with you, BUT… he does not deserve a good defense. I know that's not what the law says, but when you've spent your whole life flouting the law, I don't believe he deserves any sort of defense beyond the incompetent defense he's able to get from lawyers who are willing to work for him.
I’m sorry to disagree … but EVERYONE deserves a good defense. I despair that we are too easily becoming Trumpic in dismissing the law, or norms, for satisfying revenge.
Wow, I absolutely agree with you here David. I do think most people here are just whining to hear themselves whine and aren't really serious but sometimes I wonder. Are people THAT misunderstanding of our system?
We have, in some ways, a broken system. But the solution for that is NOT to try to get around it, but to fix it. The pardon power of the President is one of the WORST things in the Constitution and it needs to be amended although that is going to take a long time. Until then, we need to be super-aware that it is a loophole that anyone who is willing to be criminal in the Presidency can use and abuse if they want to. It is imperative that we resist any Presidential candidate who might do that.
Sadly, the one we already have in place is likely to do that.
Oh, absolutely! Trump has gained both politically AND financially from his pardon power. According to the reporting of Liz Oyer, he has not just liberated fraudsters from prison, but has allowed them to retain their ill-gotten gains AND avoid restitution. One goggles At the hypocrisy and kickbacks.
Point taken. The last thing I want is to become trumpic. I'm not sure I'm looking for revenge; what I know I want is for him to get his comeuppance. I guess I would be satisfied with whatever defense he can get.
Amidst the avalanche of Trumpish obscenities, the destruction of civility has been disguised. He *does* deserve to answer for all his imprecations … but he also deserves what he denies others, due process.
Unfortunately, with the power of the pardon, he is likely to avoid having to even stand trial (at least in federal court) for any of the things he has done. If he fails to take advantage of that, he is even stupider than we thought.
Once again, very good point. Clearly it is too easy to fall under his influence, even when one knows how bad he is and has no desire to be like him.