Monday morning started off slowly. I was beginning to eye my basketball brackets and settling in to write a primer on what we could expect tomorrow when Trump files his opening brief with the Supreme Court in the presidential immunity appeal. Then, things started hitting from all sides. By the end of the day, there were developments in the remaining three criminal cases against Trump, as well as the New York AG’s civil fraud case. So, hold on as we ride the whirlwind and try to cover all of the legal developments from today. I’ve headed each case in bold so you can go straight to the ones that interest you the most.
Thanks, Joyce, for the breakdown of who, what, and where, these cases are and where Donald will be in the next week or so. I liked what Andrew Weissman said on Lawrence’s show tonight about Cannon’s comments. He thought they were meshugga, which in Yiddish, means “crazy”. He’s right. He feels it’s time for the 11th Court to yank her off of the case. I would love to see that happen. Perhaps, she needs to be rerouted to overseeing traffic court.
She hedged her bet a little bit by implying that only the former president is entitled to make the designation as to whether these highly classified secret and top secret docs were designated “personal”! Of course there is zero evidence in the record that he declassified any of these docs before he left the presidency but she covers her bases by magically asserting that the judge and jury can not make that decision! Huh? The defendant rules the trial and decides the admissibility of evidence unilaterally? What trials have ever put only the defendant in charge?
I respectfully submit she has declared herself as legally and procedurally incompetent to continue as the trial judge.The 11th Circuit must decertify her as the assigned judge and remove her from presiding over this case immediately!
Ira, also, this is the moment we have been waiting for: we have been hoping she would do something so verifiably boneheaded that the 11th Circuit court could decertify her. Her Order does just that.
Joyce, you're amazing. I don't know how you keep up on all these things much less be able to parse them for us. Thank you. You are a national treasure.
Perhaps this is when the 11th Circuit will finally step in and stop this insanity.
Cannon has made a fool of herself again and proven she shouldn't be on this case or a judge for that matter.
Did she get her degree from Devry? Or was it an online school advertised on QVC?
Cannon is a hack who has demonstrated to me that she is biased, a trait that should have disqualified her a long time ago.
Who says she has a degree? Does a person have to have a law degree in order to be appointed to the fed bench! Come to think of it, there is an old saying ‘a good district attorney could get a ham sandwich indicted!’ She seems to be a sad joke played on us by McConnell’s avalanche of right wing wackos appointed to the bench! Perhaps Mitch did get a ham sandwich appointed to the bench!
She’s a Duke grad and got her JD at Univ of Michigan. She’s no slouch but she’s definitely not federal judge material. Trump nominated her when she was 39 yrs old. She hardly had any law practice experience in the district courts. She’s an R and one of Trump’s boot-lickers.
I'll agree that she went to well respected universities, among the finest. But I stick by my she's a hack part. She's over her head with this case, not to mention her bias.
Fortunately, the assignment of Jack Smith to the case was perfect on the part of Garland. Too damned bad that it wasn't done much earlier. Smith is best in class to handle two federal cases that protect the interests of the nation against a corrupt former leader. I'm tired however of justice being delayed because it might look "political".
Marlene, you can watch her confirmation hearing on-line. Complete softball questions: what is your name, etc. Then harken back to the grilling others have received (and are receiving now as a Biden appointee is) for confirmations as federal judges.
Mary, I'm pondering what Trump may be holding over her? She is not stupid: she went to Duke for undergrad and U. Mich for her law degree. How can she not understand the the 1977 Supreme Court decision on Nixon and the PRA that was enacted the following year. The things she does make her seem to be absolutely unaware of case law. How can anyone empty out their head so quickly after law school? Your statement makes sense.
why can't she recuse HERSELF? Some are thinking she is playing for a higher Federal position, perhaps SCOTUS, if Trump wins. I vacillate- incompetent or scheming?
We can only hope this is the one that the 11th Circuit will use IF Jack Smith can submit to them to do so. Saying IF because it’s not clear what and or what not he can do at this moment. Ughh
Hi George, Jack Smith has been building the case to take to the 11th. Cannon has ignored Jack Dmith’s case law, so that is part of it. Now she has ignored a federal law and SCOTUS case law. So perhaps this will be enough.
We simply so not know what is up Smith and his team’s sleeve. I think he initially was giving Cannon the benefit of the doubt. She has failed time after time so just maybe the 11th will heavily reprimand her, at least. Look, we haven’t even gotten Clarence Thomas to recuse or retire ore be impeached yet!!
Hi Marlene. I do not believe Jack Smith ever gave Cannon the benefit of the doubt. He knew from the get-go that he had gotten a bad luck draw with her when her name came up but he had weighed taking the case to DC when he filed if (there was a risk of dismissal because of jurisdiction weighed against getting Eileen Cannon in the three judge draw. From that point, he just used his and Alex Whiting and team’s intellectual ceilings and carefulness to present impeccable case law (when she ignores the prior case law, he named notes). He smoked out the SCOTUS when he requested cert. He is building the case to make his request to the 11th. But there was no ‘benefit of the doubt’ to apply to this known Capo conciliar. Jack Smith had been on to her from the get go. He may have a single ‘oh pooh’ moment with first coffee, but from that point forward he has been single minded with zero missteps. And he never will make one. Eileen Cannon is a fool.
And I'm now convinced that the DOJ is allowing Trump to step in his own doo with the documents case. His lawyers are screwed. Trump is screwed. "Personal papers" is not a binding, legal position. AND juries cannot tamper with the law. They can only weigh the facts.
Clarence Thomas will step down when Ginny receives an indictment. In the meantime, he is building his IRA and portfolio - a motor home was nice. He’s working up to his having his own private island off the Gulf Coast as has newly minted millionnaire Mike Johnson just received to add to his own prior slim portfolio that contained a house and some $30 thousand dollars in cash under the mattress.
Hi George, My guess - maybe too much coffee and too little sleep here - is that Jack Smith and team have had an all nighter and will submit the argument we have been waiting for sometime today - even later this am.
I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night- with Brad Moss. Moss doesnt' think Smith IS going straight to 11th circuit! He had better- once this gets to jury Smith has no appeal. I love Joyce's analysis. Moss was totally conjecturing. I can see a huge difference.
ps: if you find any other 'must watches' for me, please send a note if you see me post on substack. I occasionally see something pop up on You Tube, but it is not something I do on a regular basis either. It would be a diversion to have a cable television right now - I'm busy doing a startup and devote as much time to Joyce's work, League of Women Voters, trying to educate anyone who is still speaking to me....thank you so much:))
Thank you Penny for sharing this. I do not have television - so have to wait for the YouTube upload, which I surely will do for this one w. Lawrence (whom I adore) and Brad Moss. And yippee to you for having the discernment. Our Joyce is the best. I don't know what our Jack is going to do: he is not going to make a mistake or a misstep, that is certain. This will add to his case against the corrupt, inept Aileen Cannon.
Hello Ira, I just posted a response as well that Judge Cannon is asking defense and DOJ attorneys to write opinions that if actually given as jury instruction would break the US government law that established the PRA 1978, and would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). When does 'let's pretend' and 'help me out here to break the law' begin and end?
Valere: excellent research thank you! This is the most outrageous action by a trial judge that I have ever seen in 64 years of federal practice! With top secret material no less.
Yes, Rita, Federal judges can be removed by Congress. It is extremely important that we re-elect Joe Biden, and a Blue bicameral Congress. That way Congress can get rid of this lard head pretense of an attorney/judge and the removal won't be contested by a president.
Valere, as you know, a supermajority blue is extremely unlikely, and too much to hope for. What we all need to be doing is whatever we can just to hold onto out tiny blue majority! Anything we can... nickels and dimes, postcards, letters to editors, etc. to prevent Trump and a red Senate from confirming MORE of these quack judges.
Hi Ira, Wow! You have a history!! I think the shoe is going to drop for us. I'm not an attorney, but this substack has been so helpful in learning about what we are facing with Trump and his minions. The bottom line remains to keep enough energy and optimism to vote Blue for Joe and the bicameral congress and up and down and sideways - because we will have work remaining after November 3 to restore our civil rights. Also, there was a time I thought we were going through Legal 101 here and we would all 'know' something at the end of the semester. We are way beyond that by the time Joyce informs us she has needed to read an order three times before she can make sense of it. I know we are supposed to say 'allegedly' in front of words so we don't get sued. But if Eileen Cannon sues me for labeling her 'boneheaded', I can have discovery. That would be the upside. But she is worse than boneheaded. She doesn't have enough sense to recognize that she is asking attorneys to jeopardize their careers.
Dave, I think Aileen has built a case against herself! Outrageous and if ever accepted as precedent, it would destroy important sections of federal law with respect to the handling and possession of secret and top secret documents and information!
Dave, Indeed he has been building a case. Eileen Cannon has ignored his case law that he presented when he requested a hearing that she denied. Eileen Cannon has been blatantly unfair, but Jack Smith has had to have enough evidence to take to the 11th Circuit. This is such a glaring example of being unaware of federal law. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1977 and the PRA was passed by the US Congress in 1978. Now she is asking him to write a brief that breaks that very law (and the acting director of NARA used that law as a cited letter in her May 10, 2022 denial of Trump's request for Executive Privilege. Trump's then-attorney, Evan Corcoran, resigned as Trump counsel and went straight to the DOJ to talk to them and gave them his notes about Trump's hiding documents behavior. But the succeeding attorneys had to have known about the May 10, 2022 NARA letter with the cited case notes. And surely Eileen Cannon has seen it. I agree that with Ira Lechner that Eileen Cannon is legally and procedurally incompetent (I am not an attorney. Ira has practiced law in federal court for 64 years. Joyce Vance had to read the order three times).
As usual, Valere is right-on! This instruction from Cannon is absurd, not just wrong or ineligible! George Conway agrees as does Lawrence Tribe, both of whom I respect. Finally, it is not too late for Valere to go to Yale Law as she would ace every exam!
Ok, that settles it: Yale it will be. I will apply to Yale. What a high compliment, especially from you, Ira. I respect you most for sticking with those of us who are not lawyers; Joyce for teaching us our first Law 101 (with this last semester turning into a nightmare with 101 an F minus quagmire and half the class drinking wine from cardboard boxes because they are easier to lift to buy more at the store - I drink green tea and not alcohol btw, but I can tell when the class is drinking); I am in awe of Lawrence Tribe (who is a fabulous political science scholar); George Conway who is a sage and almost a futurist; Bryan McCowan on this substack whom I'm not sure is a Yalie, and the other attorneys who keep the train on the track. Several years ago, I wanted to go to law school after gaining my policy PhD: I was knee deep in politics, and policy, as well as social justice, and I thought law would be useful. I wanted to elevate my work in civil rights without having to hire an attorney. I took an on-line practice LSAT (without studying) with a high enough score for law school entrance - and while it was only a practice test, I wanted to know how 'hard' it was. I had no clue that I would be able to answer any questions because I knew nothing about 'law' per se. But there were no 'law' questions on the practice LSAT - the entire test was logic. And some analysis. I could do logic but not much else. I remember my score would have been acceptable to Brown - but not Harvard or Yale (but perhaps if I studied I could do better). I think I would like to go Columbia if I cannot get into Yale - to gain a second PhD at Union Theological Seminary while I am at Columbia to use in areas of civil rights (if I am accepted to there). My now-deceased husband said, when I told him I wanted to study law: "No, you have studied enough through your other degrees and your PhD." I respected him and loved him so much because he had sacrificed his time for me as I studied and he wanted us to have a 'life' without my nose in a book. But if I did a law degree, I would want to study constitutional law, perhaps to be a constitutional law researcher or writer but not go to court. I don't like court behavior. I would prefer to have a conversation with the judge and the other side but not the courtroom 'objecting' behavior. I would like to protect our Constitution and our democracy (specifically our Constitutional) so perhaps I could just be a constitutional law attorney-researcher to support the attorneys who go to court? I understand as well that democracy means we have to have a winner and a loser. I thought we had lost our democracy when Gore lost to Bush (Bush v. Gore, 2000). I thought everything was 'gone' for a long time. In truth, we had not lost our democracy, because democracy is when the loser understands they are the loser. Gore said "Ok, I accept that I lost." When Hillary lost, she said: "Ok, I lost." That's how our democracy stands: the 'loser' says: "Ok, I accept this loss.' But Trump did not do this. the Republicans have refused to accept that they have lost: they are the losers of an election, and that's how our democracy works. Trump has no interest in our democracy, and wants to be a dictator - and that failure to accept the loss is what has endangered our Constitution. Dictators do not lose: they set up things so they always win. So the uncivil behavior from Republicans who 'must' win through gerrymandering, stalling nominations and all the trickery is what has most eroded our democracy - and now we have to explain to Trump once again that he has indeed lost. We have some bad guys on the SCOTUS who may give Trump immunity because they are thinking: "Well, if he gets immunity, we can get it as well." I'm a bit concerned the five in their private club and Roberts are thinking this way, ignoring Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown-Jackson. Amy Coney Barret might have some thoughts about immunity, but she wants to stay in the club and think she is special. The five plus Roberts want to stay in power. I don't want to be negative about it - just realistic: so what we most need to do, with only sparse time-outs for respite, is to re-elect Joe Biden with a huge super majority with a Blue bicameral congress so we can erase the bad laws; and, withdraw the bad guys whenever and wherever we can.
Marlene, I watched Lawrence's show, and was glad that Andrew Weissman was on last night. Both were much nicer than I would have been when they were discussing Judge Delay (or Delight, depending on Trump) and her latest nauseating installment of "Let's Please Donald."
I'm glad you clarified the Yiddish word, because that really makes me smile. Are you the one who used that word within the past or day or so?
I agree that the 11th Circuit has to do SOMETHING to kick her out, the sooner the better. Judge Amy would have been less intimidated by Trump than Cannon, and I doubt she'd want to get anywhere NEAR one of Trump's pockets, unless she were caught up on her shots.
I have used that word and others, Dianne, quite a few times but can’t remember when. I am certain there are more of us out there who use it too. It is a great word, I have to say. :)
Hi Dianne! This is off-topic, but (I think) you and I chatted here one time, I think when you said you were stressed? I suggested tea, walking etc. Apologies if it was not you. But I'm sending a link to Andy Borowitz's newly launched substack, which might put a smile on your face (at least for a moment)?:)
See Andy Borowitz substack.
Andy had a column in the New Yorker, but left several months ago - he was actually my main reason for subscribing to the NY and I have missed him. There was no explanation for his leaving - but he probably said something too outrageous, such as Trump, when he was in office, lined the executive dining room with tin foil to keep the intel he was sharing with Rush Limbaugh (who was actually running the show) from being tapped into.
Thank you Marlene for your post above & your Post back on March 13, "Someday. somehow, all of Trump's bricks will keep falling".. You were correct then.
Thank you again Marlene, for citing Lawrence's interview of ANDREW WEISSMAN. lwho mentioned the "2 M's" last night. You are correct again.
Andrew said, the first 'M' stands for 'mashugga', the 2nd 'M" stands for MANDAMUS. 🎯
Back on March 13 in response to the Professor's "Snarkier" message, I ended by posting "Attack Now if possible".
Public Notice to Jack's Team: ATTACK NOW.
The Team has a number of options available under 'FRAP', the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure" Writ of mandamus and/or an Extraordinary Writ. Your call Counsel.
TUESDAY UPDATE: MSNBC has new Legal Analyst, KRISTY GREENBERG, a former SDNY Prosecutor. Kristy's substantive analysis is correct.
Trump is NOT charged with a Violation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Trump is charged with a violations of the ESPIONAGE Act. Jury Instructions must be based on the Espionage Act NOT the APA. ✔︎
This is obvious "invited error" subject to a Writ of Mandamus ✔︎ unless Jack's Team has removal of the Judge herself targeted as Valere suggested in a Comment above.
Awe, Bryan, you give me goosebumps and too much credit. You, me, Joyce, HCR, and, of course, many others have been very patient to see our angst, our efforts to ATTACK come to fruition. I think we all pray that Jack Smith goes to the 11th Circuit and asks for Cannon’s removal. She is an obvious cog in the wheel. My thinking cap keeps pounding my head that perhaps Jack wants to expose Cannon as a rogue judge who is catering to the Leonard Leo crowd. Mandamus would certainly be ideal, counselor!
Kristy Greenberg is a wonderful addition to the legal team. Love Lisa Rubin and Ari Melber!
Ari Melber is very sharp on 1st Amendment Issues Ari 's Turf at SDNY.
Lisa Rubin's reports from inside Courtroom are the best legal analysis on TV. Lisa is a true 'Litigator' & demonstrates capable deductive reasoning an attorney must have to practice Law. Full stop.
While were about naming sources, Hugo Lowell is at the Washington DC Office of The Guardian. Hugo's Author credit identifies his work as "political investigations reporter." True.
Indeed Marlene, Bryan is amazing. I always look for his sage posts here. And Ira's. Attack is brilliant. The case for attack has been built. Full on attack to the 11th Circuit. I do not think Jack Smith cares a single whit about Leonard Leo's influence on Eileen Cannon. He has been waiting for her to make the kind of bonehead maneuver she just did with this order (which our Joyce had to read three times). As Ira has pointed to as well: Cannon's goose is cooked and she should be removed on grounds of procedural and incompetency. This is worse than a circus act.
Thank you Bryan for this clarification on the documents case. I had forgotten that it is NOT a PRA issue (although it is, and of obstruction), but rather violations of the ESPIONAGE ACT. There is no amount of perfume Cannon can put on this to make the seriousness of it go away!
JennSH: She's not qualified to sort the red and blue pencils. She is unqualified because she fails the basic standard of any judge: she has to know established laws. Eileen Cannon does not appear to have the high level of critical thinking needed for this case. And she is openly biased. But she is not qualified for any position on any court case. Period. Even if she were an appointed judge in some community that did not have it's own municipal government: one needs to make decisions based on established laws, and Jack Smith has given her case law on which to make her decisions. She ignored his case law, and now with this bonehead Order, she should be booted. She went to some good schools, including U Mich. Perhaps she received 'low pass' - and then was able to sit for the bar and pass. She did not have rigorous questions from the senate when she was approved as Trump's appointee to the federal judgeship. Every federal judge is probably dropping his/her/their jaw over this Order. It is an insult to them. Kind of like having Clarence Thomas appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS: an insult to judges.
Alison, She will be pulled, rare or not. Judge Luttig has been wrong before (he is sage, and brilliant - but wrong on this one). The 11th will pull her. She is a disgrace.
Sad. After practicing law for 54 years it is sad to see our court system functioning like this in the Judge Cannon case. I hope the Gov. finds away to appeal immediately and hopefully get her replaced.
Hi J michael, I am not an attorney, but is it not enough that she has made an Order requiring the defense and the DOJ to prepare briefs, that if used as actual jury instructions, would break the US government law that established the PRA 1978, and would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)? Although Judge Cannon has said the briefs are 'hypothetical' where is the guarantee that she will not actually use the law-breaking jury instructions?
Alison, Thank you Alison, but not so much. I'm just a reader - I taught myself at just before age 3 - so I'm the one reading the cereal box when there isn't anything else to read. Eileen Cannon knows full well about the NARA letter sent to Trump's attorney on May 10, 2022 - and she knows full well that Trump's then-attorney, Evan Corcoran, withdrew from Trump's case and took his notes that he had compiled about Trump's behavior (hiding and shifty) to the DOJ - because he suspected Trump was not being forthright about the documents he had turned over to the FBI/DOJ. When we started with Joyce's substack we were in awe, and wondering if one day we might get a 'pass' score not even 'high pass' at the end. Now we are in shock and awe (deep shock) after knowing that our Joyce needed to read the most recent Judge Cannon order three times. My sense is that Eileen Cannon knows full well that the result of her pretend exercise will be an additional two week delay. That is her end-game and her aim. She is helping Trump delay. I agree with Bryan McCowan above: Jack Smith should attack her now and make the 11th Circuit boot her. Sage Bryan and Ira.
"My sense is that Eileen Cannon knows full well that the result of her pretend exercise will be an additional two week delay. That is her end-game and her aim. She is helping Trump delay."
I expect it's worse than that - she is setting up a scenario where after there is a jury in place, and the trial proceeds, she can direct that the charges be dismissed, and Trump is acquitted, and her decision is not appealable by Jack Smith, because of double-jeopardy laws.
J Michael, I am sad for you and all competent attorneys and judges today. I feel she will be pulled for the grounds that she does not know case law and for: 'incompetency and procedurely' (as Ira Lechner stated above).
Thank you for helping your readership who are not lawyers and have no legal training. My question might be naive, but how can Judge Cannon remain on the bench given how contradictory and sometimes nonsensical her rulings are? Are there enforceable ethics rules that would remove her from the bench? She isn't helping re-build trust in the Judicial branch, of course SCOTUS has been leading the way in that realm.
I agree with everything you're saying here, especially your last sentence. It was something I never thought about until just now.
My degree was in Administration of Justice. Because of the way things are going, I'm tempted to go back and ask them to give me a more up-to-date diploma that will say "Administration of INjustice" instead. I kid you not, Trump and the justice system are taking a toll on my mental health.
We will re-elect Biden, elect a Blue bicameral congress and then after November 3, we will stay together on this substack to request that congress impeach Eileen Cannon for not following case law. That is procedural. I suspect she is corrupt as well, but we can make the request based on procedure and incompetence (see Ira Lechner's post above. He is a 65 plus year federal attorney - sage).
Valere, maybe Lechner can help with this. That would make me feel so much better.
How long has Joyce had this very, very WONDERFUL (I'm serious) Substack? I never heard of one until I signed up. Now, I'm having a senior moment because I don't recall how I even found out about it! I'm so glad I did!
All one has to do is be drug through court by someone with retributive intent, money, and time. It becomes exceedingly clear just how broken our justice system is. For example, I have been in court or the subject of 'ex parte' hearings twenty-six times in roughly as many months. Representing myself 'pro se' out of economic necessity, I witnessed ethical and political misconduct in addition to flat out laziness. Ten out of eleven low-level local legal practitioners missed the truth, even though it was in plain sight before them.
One judge called a special overnight-ordered hearing and stayed up late reading what was then three hundred pages of discovery. Long story short, it appears he reported a deputy prosecutor who disobeyed his clear orders re hearsay evidence before I did with the state bar association. He got there first, it appears. He will have my enduring respect. Others will not.
At a fundamental level we license too many attorneys under roughly the same standard, which is not particularly high. The British system of distinguishing between barristers and solicitors ensures that those qualified to litigate and judge meet a higher standard.
I take issue with your opinion that “we license too many attorneys under roughly the same standard, which is not particularly high.” Do you say the same about all physicians since some are found guilty of malpractice or all CPAs because some are found guilty of misappropriating client funds. Your story is an anecdote and not evidence.
As for the difference between a Barrister and a Solicitor it is a choice of the path legal professionals take in common law jurisdictions. It is analogous to a general practitioner in the US who is not experienced in jury cases handing off a matter to an experienced litigator for trial. Happens every day. Common law jurisdictions just have a formal educational process for it.
Hi Ruthie, Congress can remove her. I'm not sure if the term in this case would be 'impeach' but removal would be up to Congress. We need to vote Blue to elect a Blue bicameral congress.
Limiting judicial discipline to removal through the impeachment process essentially guarantees corrupt judges, like Cannon, Thomas, etc, can behave corruptly with impunity. There will never be a two thirds Senate majority in todays Congress to convict them.
Hi Eric, ps: we may not see a super majority in 2024 - but a Blue bicameral congress, with Joe re-elected, could help us to change back the laws to restore our civil rights. I believe people will recognize the extreme danger we are in, and keep working, not just through the 2025-2029 cycle but the next two cycles. They won't forget.
Hi Ruthie, Because we currently have a Republican majority senate, we will have to make the push after re-electing Biden (we will do this); and electing a Blue bicameral congress (with a super majority btw - a landslide. There are other impeachments - and indictments needed so put your energy toward the November 3 election. I'm not saying 'not to write' your congress person. Just put all of your energy toward the Blue wave election we need to have to impeach her.
Hi Carol M., I am not an attorney but a federal judge can be removed by Congress. So we need to elect a Blue bicameral congress to remove her. Of course we need to re-elect Biden to ensure any laws the Blue bicameral congress passes to restore our lost rights will be restored (not this case but other cases such as affirmative action, women's health care, etc.).
Carol, She can be removed by Congress. That won't happen with the senate majority Republican. We must re-elect Biden, and a Blue bicameral congress. Then Cannon and other bad players can be removed. All of Joyce's information for us is precious beyond measure as we reach out to folks in our community to explain that the fabric of our democracy will disappear if Trump is elected and if we do not elect a Blue bicameral congress. So take self are and be informed to share this kind of information about the full-on biased uninformed judge in the documents case. It is egregiously wrong that Cannon is still on the case. But it was egregiously wrong that a Republican led senate confirmed her with softball questions such as where she went to school. They knew full well why she was appointed. And so did she.
This might be the first time Trump was ever praised for being concerned about the process of justice and preserving the integrity of a court. What delicious shade the judge delivered with wording it so. Comedy gold.
How soon can Jack Smith bring a writ of mandamus and get the Eleventh Circuit to remove this judicial rogue from overseeing this case in which she is repeatedly demonstrating lack of legal acumen and strong partisan lack of judgment.
Two issues: 1. When is Smith going to bring a writ of mandamus against Loose Cannon? 2. The intermediate appellate court to which Trump has applied in the James bond case is The Appellate Division, First Department. Having practiced in that court for many years, I would refer to it as the App Div or First Department, in casual usage.
Hi William, I looked up 'writ of mandamus' and am wondering if that is tough enough? Could not the 11th Circuit boot her for requesting that the defense and DOJ attorneys write briefs that break government law, i.e., the US government law that established the PRA 1978, and would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). She is asking the attorneys to write 'pretend law-breaking documents' with no guarantee she will not use them in the future; and, she is using our government taxpayers' money frivolously in asking Jack Smith to spend his and his team's time in this nonsense pretend exercise. If it is 'pretend' or 'hypothetical' it is a waste of money, and if she actually uses this idea that is potentially breaking a federal law, it is a misuse of her power: she is asking our very DOJ special counsel to help her break the law. Jack Smith should request that she be removed. She is toxic. She is radioactive. And as you said, she is a loose cannon.
It may indeed be a pivotal moment for Jack Smith and his adversarial to say the least relationship with Judge Cannon, but I think the writ of mandamus is actually the way to go at this moment. The 11th circuit may sua sponte decide to remove or reassign the judge, and I certainly hope they do, but to request her reassignment at this moment is probably a bridge too far for Jack Smith. But why don’t we wait till real experts like Neal Katyal or Andrew Weissmann or our very own Joyce Vance jump in on this.
Thanks Joyce, this letter is like three overtime’s in a football game. I think after this “scavenger hunt” that Cannon (I refuse to call her a term judge that she does not merit) is sending the prosecution and defendant’s on is to find some way to dismiss the case. I think it’s the time for the court of appeals if not to remove Cannon but to clarify the exactitude of the law and what questions and issues the trial should address. There seems to be a willingness on Cannon’s part to forgone any sense of integrity she has assuming she might have had some earlier in her life but that is to be determined.
Christopher, there are US government laws defining what can be done with presidential papers. Trump requested executive privilege, and the request was denied by the acting director of NARA, who cited the Supreme Court decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). US government law established the PRA 1978, and Cannon's Order, if actually used after her request was completed by the defense and DOJ attorneys would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). So, in her 'let's pretend' exercise, she is requesting that our DOJ special counsel, paid with our taxpayer money, break the law if his brief is actually used as a jury instruction, or at the very least, waste his time in this nonsense delay if this is just a waste of time exercise that is footed by us. And her nonsense salary is being paid by us as well. I'm hoping Jack Smith requests her immediate removal - it is the moment we have been waiting for: that Eileen Cannon makes such a bonehead move that Jack Smith can take the cumulative decisions she has made (ignoring his case law a while back when he requested a hearing for example) and this horrid Order, to the 11th Circuit to request her removal.
Indeed Beth. And now Eileen Cannon is wasting money with her very transparent true reason for her nonsense pretend exercise: it creates another two week delay. She could care less that existing federal laws (PRA 1978) and case law (Supreme Court 1977) exist. Her end-game and goal is delay.
I think we need Prozac to survive this, its going to be too long a wait for it to be over!
When tfg is defeated in Nov., he won't stop. It will be same lies, the same insanity. I'm just hoping that some of his backers will finally, finally have had enough.
One hears a lot of comments about Trump's lawyers and how frivolous and even stupid they seem but in the meantime, they seem smart enough to find and use any possible (and I assume legal) trick to successfully delay the whole process so he can stop all these cases if he wins the elections. A future dream scenario for any criminal I guess. Amazingly it all seems financed by political GOP donations......
snakes and lizards possess a certain kind of intelligence that serves their purpose in life. There are very clever criminals in this world and if one focuses on creating chaos, there are plenty of levers you can pull to see what happens. Even rejection of inane requests and proposals takes time and energy. Enough of that and the system breaks down due to the force of friction and the resultant heat generated.
Who really cares if he spends one night in jail? Vengeance is not edible. Get out the vote and this felon will fade. That and only that is the bottom line.
Ian, we all want him to fade in prison. The problem is that there are other “trumps” waiting in the wings. Our job is to make certain they never achieve their goals.
Ian you say, "Who really cares if he spends one night in jail?"
I say those of us who probably consider ourselves as members of the general American population, with no "fame," great wealth, access to wealth or inherited wealth, such as Trump and his minions do in many cases, WOULD love to see him incarcerated! I suggest that anyone of us who had 90+ pending indictments against us would be locked up somewhere!
Can Smith file any kind of appeal before replying to Cannon's hypotheticals? You say to expect their reply to be hard-hitting, but I don't see how. Her order specifically says she doesn't want to see counterarguments to her two proposals.
Houston2024, She is asking Smith to break the law, should her 'pretend' jury instructions actually be used. The Supreme Court established Executive Privilege in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). US government law established the PRA 1978, and Cannon's Order, if actually used after her request was completed by the defense and DOJ attorneys would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). So at the least she is asking our taxpayer paid DOJ special counsel to waste his precious time with her misused power demand, and at the worst, if she actually uses a brief that breaks the PLA (1978) or abrogates the decision of the acting director of NARA on May 10, 2022, she is putting Jack Smith in jeopardy. He should refuse to comply because she is suggesting he break the law and ask the 11th Circuit to boot her. We can then sing the 'Hawaiian wedding song' that begins 'this is the moment, we've waited for.' Also, Cannon is performing another time-wasting event. She is dumb like a fox.
When is Jack Smith going to require “Loose”Cannon (I love it!!) be removed. She is incompetent. She has neither the experience nor the band width to pull her shell and pea game off.
Now, Judge Merchan’s “praise” of Trumps’ concern for the integrity was
Judge* Cannon is introducing her own interpretation of the PRA, and, guess what? It seems to align itself with Defendant tRump's longstanding - AND long-refuted - claim that he alone can determine what is personal and what is subject to NARA possession. So, yet again the ball is back in SC Smith's court, and, sure, he can file a response - even a strong reconsideration motion - and what then? More back-and-forth in Cannon's courtroom, consuming valuable time? No, it's come to Smith going to the 11th CA with a motion to recuse, for the following reasons: A, B, C, D, etc., etc.
Game over, and just put a stop to this OTT incompetence and rank favoritism toward the defense.
It almost seems as if Cannon is very self-conscious about anything she does, which could stem from inexperience and insecurity, or an idolization of Trump. Either way or not at all, she doesn't seem to be a very balanced judge and is wasting everyone's time. I hope she will be replaced with someone who has more experience and authority.
Thanks, Joyce, for the breakdown of who, what, and where, these cases are and where Donald will be in the next week or so. I liked what Andrew Weissman said on Lawrence’s show tonight about Cannon’s comments. He thought they were meshugga, which in Yiddish, means “crazy”. He’s right. He feels it’s time for the 11th Court to yank her off of the case. I would love to see that happen. Perhaps, she needs to be rerouted to overseeing traffic court.
She hedged her bet a little bit by implying that only the former president is entitled to make the designation as to whether these highly classified secret and top secret docs were designated “personal”! Of course there is zero evidence in the record that he declassified any of these docs before he left the presidency but she covers her bases by magically asserting that the judge and jury can not make that decision! Huh? The defendant rules the trial and decides the admissibility of evidence unilaterally? What trials have ever put only the defendant in charge?
I respectfully submit she has declared herself as legally and procedurally incompetent to continue as the trial judge.The 11th Circuit must decertify her as the assigned judge and remove her from presiding over this case immediately!
Ira, also, this is the moment we have been waiting for: we have been hoping she would do something so verifiably boneheaded that the 11th Circuit court could decertify her. Her Order does just that.
Joyce, you're amazing. I don't know how you keep up on all these things much less be able to parse them for us. Thank you. You are a national treasure.
Perhaps this is when the 11th Circuit will finally step in and stop this insanity.
Cannon has made a fool of herself again and proven she shouldn't be on this case or a judge for that matter.
Did she get her degree from Devry? Or was it an online school advertised on QVC?
Cannon is a hack who has demonstrated to me that she is biased, a trait that should have disqualified her a long time ago.
Who says she has a degree? Does a person have to have a law degree in order to be appointed to the fed bench! Come to think of it, there is an old saying ‘a good district attorney could get a ham sandwich indicted!’ She seems to be a sad joke played on us by McConnell’s avalanche of right wing wackos appointed to the bench! Perhaps Mitch did get a ham sandwich appointed to the bench!
Love this Louis!
She’s a Duke grad and got her JD at Univ of Michigan. She’s no slouch but she’s definitely not federal judge material. Trump nominated her when she was 39 yrs old. She hardly had any law practice experience in the district courts. She’s an R and one of Trump’s boot-lickers.
I'll agree that she went to well respected universities, among the finest. But I stick by my she's a hack part. She's over her head with this case, not to mention her bias.
Fortunately, the assignment of Jack Smith to the case was perfect on the part of Garland. Too damned bad that it wasn't done much earlier. Smith is best in class to handle two federal cases that protect the interests of the nation against a corrupt former leader. I'm tired however of justice being delayed because it might look "political".
Marlene, you can watch her confirmation hearing on-line. Complete softball questions: what is your name, etc. Then harken back to the grilling others have received (and are receiving now as a Biden appointee is) for confirmations as federal judges.
Ugh! Do I want to watch it, Valere? There were, I believe, 6 who did not vote for her.
As seen with the Ivy League grads in the senate, a degree from a so called ‘A list’ uni is no guarantee that the person is educated or intelligent!
Might not be a ‘slough’ but surely a Legal ‘sloth’! Apologies to the sloths in this world!
As it's been mentioned before, she probably got her degree from Trump U.
In the 2025 Biden presidency, I vote Joyce to be the new AG!
She's one of my heroes.
Cannon got her law degree from TU. Trump University.
I think Cannon is desperate to be taken off the case before she has to make a ruling Trump doesn't like.
Mary, I'm pondering what Trump may be holding over her? She is not stupid: she went to Duke for undergrad and U. Mich for her law degree. How can she not understand the the 1977 Supreme Court decision on Nixon and the PRA that was enacted the following year. The things she does make her seem to be absolutely unaware of case law. How can anyone empty out their head so quickly after law school? Your statement makes sense.
V
Honestly, I've wondered the same thing...
why can't she recuse HERSELF? Some are thinking she is playing for a higher Federal position, perhaps SCOTUS, if Trump wins. I vacillate- incompetent or scheming?
Hi Penny,
Have you considered both - scheming and incompetent?
Trump will not win. She truly is incompetent - and that is the view of long-term and extremely competent lawyers in this Substack.
Incompetent or scheming....... that IS the question about Cannon.
We can only hope this is the one that the 11th Circuit will use IF Jack Smith can submit to them to do so. Saying IF because it’s not clear what and or what not he can do at this moment. Ughh
Hi George, Jack Smith has been building the case to take to the 11th. Cannon has ignored Jack Dmith’s case law, so that is part of it. Now she has ignored a federal law and SCOTUS case law. So perhaps this will be enough.
We simply so not know what is up Smith and his team’s sleeve. I think he initially was giving Cannon the benefit of the doubt. She has failed time after time so just maybe the 11th will heavily reprimand her, at least. Look, we haven’t even gotten Clarence Thomas to recuse or retire ore be impeached yet!!
Hi Marlene. I do not believe Jack Smith ever gave Cannon the benefit of the doubt. He knew from the get-go that he had gotten a bad luck draw with her when her name came up but he had weighed taking the case to DC when he filed if (there was a risk of dismissal because of jurisdiction weighed against getting Eileen Cannon in the three judge draw. From that point, he just used his and Alex Whiting and team’s intellectual ceilings and carefulness to present impeccable case law (when she ignores the prior case law, he named notes). He smoked out the SCOTUS when he requested cert. He is building the case to make his request to the 11th. But there was no ‘benefit of the doubt’ to apply to this known Capo conciliar. Jack Smith had been on to her from the get go. He may have a single ‘oh pooh’ moment with first coffee, but from that point forward he has been single minded with zero missteps. And he never will make one. Eileen Cannon is a fool.
And I'm now convinced that the DOJ is allowing Trump to step in his own doo with the documents case. His lawyers are screwed. Trump is screwed. "Personal papers" is not a binding, legal position. AND juries cannot tamper with the law. They can only weigh the facts.
Clarence Thomas will step down when Ginny receives an indictment. In the meantime, he is building his IRA and portfolio - a motor home was nice. He’s working up to his having his own private island off the Gulf Coast as has newly minted millionnaire Mike Johnson just received to add to his own prior slim portfolio that contained a house and some $30 thousand dollars in cash under the mattress.
Hi George, My guess - maybe too much coffee and too little sleep here - is that Jack Smith and team have had an all nighter and will submit the argument we have been waiting for sometime today - even later this am.
I hope Smith files today. I need some hope today!
I was watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night- with Brad Moss. Moss doesnt' think Smith IS going straight to 11th circuit! He had better- once this gets to jury Smith has no appeal. I love Joyce's analysis. Moss was totally conjecturing. I can see a huge difference.
ps: if you find any other 'must watches' for me, please send a note if you see me post on substack. I occasionally see something pop up on You Tube, but it is not something I do on a regular basis either. It would be a diversion to have a cable television right now - I'm busy doing a startup and devote as much time to Joyce's work, League of Women Voters, trying to educate anyone who is still speaking to me....thank you so much:))
Thank you Penny for sharing this. I do not have television - so have to wait for the YouTube upload, which I surely will do for this one w. Lawrence (whom I adore) and Brad Moss. And yippee to you for having the discernment. Our Joyce is the best. I don't know what our Jack is going to do: he is not going to make a mistake or a misstep, that is certain. This will add to his case against the corrupt, inept Aileen Cannon.
Hello Ira, I just posted a response as well that Judge Cannon is asking defense and DOJ attorneys to write opinions that if actually given as jury instruction would break the US government law that established the PRA 1978, and would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). When does 'let's pretend' and 'help me out here to break the law' begin and end?
Valere: excellent research thank you! This is the most outrageous action by a trial judge that I have ever seen in 64 years of federal practice! With top secret material no less.
Then is there any way to have her removed?
Yes, Rita, Federal judges can be removed by Congress. It is extremely important that we re-elect Joe Biden, and a Blue bicameral Congress. That way Congress can get rid of this lard head pretense of an attorney/judge and the removal won't be contested by a president.
Ps Rita - we will need a super majority Senate election in blue to do the recall by Congress: 2/3 vote
Valere, as you know, a supermajority blue is extremely unlikely, and too much to hope for. What we all need to be doing is whatever we can just to hold onto out tiny blue majority! Anything we can... nickels and dimes, postcards, letters to editors, etc. to prevent Trump and a red Senate from confirming MORE of these quack judges.
Hi Ira, Wow! You have a history!! I think the shoe is going to drop for us. I'm not an attorney, but this substack has been so helpful in learning about what we are facing with Trump and his minions. The bottom line remains to keep enough energy and optimism to vote Blue for Joe and the bicameral congress and up and down and sideways - because we will have work remaining after November 3 to restore our civil rights. Also, there was a time I thought we were going through Legal 101 here and we would all 'know' something at the end of the semester. We are way beyond that by the time Joyce informs us she has needed to read an order three times before she can make sense of it. I know we are supposed to say 'allegedly' in front of words so we don't get sued. But if Eileen Cannon sues me for labeling her 'boneheaded', I can have discovery. That would be the upside. But she is worse than boneheaded. She doesn't have enough sense to recognize that she is asking attorneys to jeopardize their careers.
Not so secret any more! Smart money says MBS and Putin have copies!
Ira, I think Smith is building a case against Loose Aileen
Dave, I think Aileen has built a case against herself! Outrageous and if ever accepted as precedent, it would destroy important sections of federal law with respect to the handling and possession of secret and top secret documents and information!
Dave, Indeed he has been building a case. Eileen Cannon has ignored his case law that he presented when he requested a hearing that she denied. Eileen Cannon has been blatantly unfair, but Jack Smith has had to have enough evidence to take to the 11th Circuit. This is such a glaring example of being unaware of federal law. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1977 and the PRA was passed by the US Congress in 1978. Now she is asking him to write a brief that breaks that very law (and the acting director of NARA used that law as a cited letter in her May 10, 2022 denial of Trump's request for Executive Privilege. Trump's then-attorney, Evan Corcoran, resigned as Trump counsel and went straight to the DOJ to talk to them and gave them his notes about Trump's hiding documents behavior. But the succeeding attorneys had to have known about the May 10, 2022 NARA letter with the cited case notes. And surely Eileen Cannon has seen it. I agree that with Ira Lechner that Eileen Cannon is legally and procedurally incompetent (I am not an attorney. Ira has practiced law in federal court for 64 years. Joyce Vance had to read the order three times).
As usual, Valere is right-on! This instruction from Cannon is absurd, not just wrong or ineligible! George Conway agrees as does Lawrence Tribe, both of whom I respect. Finally, it is not too late for Valere to go to Yale Law as she would ace every exam!
Ok, that settles it: Yale it will be. I will apply to Yale. What a high compliment, especially from you, Ira. I respect you most for sticking with those of us who are not lawyers; Joyce for teaching us our first Law 101 (with this last semester turning into a nightmare with 101 an F minus quagmire and half the class drinking wine from cardboard boxes because they are easier to lift to buy more at the store - I drink green tea and not alcohol btw, but I can tell when the class is drinking); I am in awe of Lawrence Tribe (who is a fabulous political science scholar); George Conway who is a sage and almost a futurist; Bryan McCowan on this substack whom I'm not sure is a Yalie, and the other attorneys who keep the train on the track. Several years ago, I wanted to go to law school after gaining my policy PhD: I was knee deep in politics, and policy, as well as social justice, and I thought law would be useful. I wanted to elevate my work in civil rights without having to hire an attorney. I took an on-line practice LSAT (without studying) with a high enough score for law school entrance - and while it was only a practice test, I wanted to know how 'hard' it was. I had no clue that I would be able to answer any questions because I knew nothing about 'law' per se. But there were no 'law' questions on the practice LSAT - the entire test was logic. And some analysis. I could do logic but not much else. I remember my score would have been acceptable to Brown - but not Harvard or Yale (but perhaps if I studied I could do better). I think I would like to go Columbia if I cannot get into Yale - to gain a second PhD at Union Theological Seminary while I am at Columbia to use in areas of civil rights (if I am accepted to there). My now-deceased husband said, when I told him I wanted to study law: "No, you have studied enough through your other degrees and your PhD." I respected him and loved him so much because he had sacrificed his time for me as I studied and he wanted us to have a 'life' without my nose in a book. But if I did a law degree, I would want to study constitutional law, perhaps to be a constitutional law researcher or writer but not go to court. I don't like court behavior. I would prefer to have a conversation with the judge and the other side but not the courtroom 'objecting' behavior. I would like to protect our Constitution and our democracy (specifically our Constitutional) so perhaps I could just be a constitutional law attorney-researcher to support the attorneys who go to court? I understand as well that democracy means we have to have a winner and a loser. I thought we had lost our democracy when Gore lost to Bush (Bush v. Gore, 2000). I thought everything was 'gone' for a long time. In truth, we had not lost our democracy, because democracy is when the loser understands they are the loser. Gore said "Ok, I accept that I lost." When Hillary lost, she said: "Ok, I lost." That's how our democracy stands: the 'loser' says: "Ok, I accept this loss.' But Trump did not do this. the Republicans have refused to accept that they have lost: they are the losers of an election, and that's how our democracy works. Trump has no interest in our democracy, and wants to be a dictator - and that failure to accept the loss is what has endangered our Constitution. Dictators do not lose: they set up things so they always win. So the uncivil behavior from Republicans who 'must' win through gerrymandering, stalling nominations and all the trickery is what has most eroded our democracy - and now we have to explain to Trump once again that he has indeed lost. We have some bad guys on the SCOTUS who may give Trump immunity because they are thinking: "Well, if he gets immunity, we can get it as well." I'm a bit concerned the five in their private club and Roberts are thinking this way, ignoring Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown-Jackson. Amy Coney Barret might have some thoughts about immunity, but she wants to stay in the club and think she is special. The five plus Roberts want to stay in power. I don't want to be negative about it - just realistic: so what we most need to do, with only sparse time-outs for respite, is to re-elect Joe Biden with a huge super majority with a Blue bicameral congress so we can erase the bad laws; and, withdraw the bad guys whenever and wherever we can.
No you’re fine for Yale and then you can do civil rights and election cases with Elias!
This case and all future cases. She is unfit to remain on the bench.
Marlene, I watched Lawrence's show, and was glad that Andrew Weissman was on last night. Both were much nicer than I would have been when they were discussing Judge Delay (or Delight, depending on Trump) and her latest nauseating installment of "Let's Please Donald."
I'm glad you clarified the Yiddish word, because that really makes me smile. Are you the one who used that word within the past or day or so?
I agree that the 11th Circuit has to do SOMETHING to kick her out, the sooner the better. Judge Amy would have been less intimidated by Trump than Cannon, and I doubt she'd want to get anywhere NEAR one of Trump's pockets, unless she were caught up on her shots.
There are a whole boatload that describe Trump and the mess we are in. I’ve found the following handy: putz, schmuck, shanda, oy vey, and chutzpah.
Mishagas works too!
I also forgot schmegege…one of my faves.
What is the Yiddish for "tiny hands"?
Hmmmm. Not sure. But bissell putz is another small body part often predicted by small hands😜
Chortling in front of my computer right now...
BIG smile!
Oh Marnie hat's perfect! Thanks!
I have used that word and others, Dianne, quite a few times but can’t remember when. I am certain there are more of us out there who use it too. It is a great word, I have to say. :)
I liked it!
Love my friends speaking Yiddish.👍
Hi Dianne! This is off-topic, but (I think) you and I chatted here one time, I think when you said you were stressed? I suggested tea, walking etc. Apologies if it was not you. But I'm sending a link to Andy Borowitz's newly launched substack, which might put a smile on your face (at least for a moment)?:)
See Andy Borowitz substack.
Andy had a column in the New Yorker, but left several months ago - he was actually my main reason for subscribing to the NY and I have missed him. There was no explanation for his leaving - but he probably said something too outrageous, such as Trump, when he was in office, lined the executive dining room with tin foil to keep the intel he was sharing with Rush Limbaugh (who was actually running the show) from being tapped into.
That’s opens an email message!
Thank you Louis!! I edited and removed it. Many thanks.
Thank you Marlene for your post above & your Post back on March 13, "Someday. somehow, all of Trump's bricks will keep falling".. You were correct then.
Thank you again Marlene, for citing Lawrence's interview of ANDREW WEISSMAN. lwho mentioned the "2 M's" last night. You are correct again.
Andrew said, the first 'M' stands for 'mashugga', the 2nd 'M" stands for MANDAMUS. 🎯
Back on March 13 in response to the Professor's "Snarkier" message, I ended by posting "Attack Now if possible".
Public Notice to Jack's Team: ATTACK NOW.
The Team has a number of options available under 'FRAP', the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure" Writ of mandamus and/or an Extraordinary Writ. Your call Counsel.
TUESDAY UPDATE: MSNBC has new Legal Analyst, KRISTY GREENBERG, a former SDNY Prosecutor. Kristy's substantive analysis is correct.
Trump is NOT charged with a Violation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Trump is charged with a violations of the ESPIONAGE Act. Jury Instructions must be based on the Espionage Act NOT the APA. ✔︎
This is obvious "invited error" subject to a Writ of Mandamus ✔︎ unless Jack's Team has removal of the Judge herself targeted as Valere suggested in a Comment above.
Awe, Bryan, you give me goosebumps and too much credit. You, me, Joyce, HCR, and, of course, many others have been very patient to see our angst, our efforts to ATTACK come to fruition. I think we all pray that Jack Smith goes to the 11th Circuit and asks for Cannon’s removal. She is an obvious cog in the wheel. My thinking cap keeps pounding my head that perhaps Jack wants to expose Cannon as a rogue judge who is catering to the Leonard Leo crowd. Mandamus would certainly be ideal, counselor!
Kristy Greenberg is a wonderful addition to the legal team. Love Lisa Rubin and Ari Melber!
Thank you Marlene.
Ari Melber is very sharp on 1st Amendment Issues Ari 's Turf at SDNY.
Lisa Rubin's reports from inside Courtroom are the best legal analysis on TV. Lisa is a true 'Litigator' & demonstrates capable deductive reasoning an attorney must have to practice Law. Full stop.
Bryan, I follow Kyle Cheney on X and he too, has some really good insights, inside the courtrooms.
Yes, @kylecheney/ X.
While were about naming sources, Hugo Lowell is at the Washington DC Office of The Guardian. Hugo's Author credit identifies his work as "political investigations reporter." True.
Yes, he is very good, I agree!
Indeed Marlene, Bryan is amazing. I always look for his sage posts here. And Ira's. Attack is brilliant. The case for attack has been built. Full on attack to the 11th Circuit. I do not think Jack Smith cares a single whit about Leonard Leo's influence on Eileen Cannon. He has been waiting for her to make the kind of bonehead maneuver she just did with this order (which our Joyce had to read three times). As Ira has pointed to as well: Cannon's goose is cooked and she should be removed on grounds of procedural and incompetency. This is worse than a circus act.
Oh Valere, I sure as hell pray you are so right!
This^^^! Seems the time has come.
Thank you Bryan for this clarification on the documents case. I had forgotten that it is NOT a PRA issue (although it is, and of obstruction), but rather violations of the ESPIONAGE ACT. There is no amount of perfume Cannon can put on this to make the seriousness of it go away!
I said the same thing when I replied to her tweet on X.
Meshugga is the best word to describe the entire situation. Thanks.
She's not qualified for traffic court; she's incompetent as well as biased.
JennSH: She's not qualified to sort the red and blue pencils. She is unqualified because she fails the basic standard of any judge: she has to know established laws. Eileen Cannon does not appear to have the high level of critical thinking needed for this case. And she is openly biased. But she is not qualified for any position on any court case. Period. Even if she were an appointed judge in some community that did not have it's own municipal government: one needs to make decisions based on established laws, and Jack Smith has given her case law on which to make her decisions. She ignored his case law, and now with this bonehead Order, she should be booted. She went to some good schools, including U Mich. Perhaps she received 'low pass' - and then was able to sit for the bar and pass. She did not have rigorous questions from the senate when she was approved as Trump's appointee to the federal judgeship. Every federal judge is probably dropping his/her/their jaw over this Order. It is an insult to them. Kind of like having Clarence Thomas appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS: an insult to judges.
Cannon would probably screw up a two car funeral were she overseeing traffic court.
😂
Could she handle traffic court? Would she know who has the right of way?
😆
I watched MTN Michael Popock with Judge Luttig who doubts she will be removed under any circumstance as it is exceedingly rare to pull a judge ….
Sigh
Alison, She will be pulled, rare or not. Judge Luttig has been wrong before (he is sage, and brilliant - but wrong on this one). The 11th will pull her. She is a disgrace.
Maybe she won’t be pulled, but she will be watched like a hawk by the 11th.
Right on!!
Or “Night Court” like the TV show in the 80’s.
I do not know 'Night Court' but indeed, any pretend television court where she can be paid.
I doubt that she'd be good at that....
Rerouted to the funny farm!
Sad. After practicing law for 54 years it is sad to see our court system functioning like this in the Judge Cannon case. I hope the Gov. finds away to appeal immediately and hopefully get her replaced.
Hi J michael, I am not an attorney, but is it not enough that she has made an Order requiring the defense and the DOJ to prepare briefs, that if used as actual jury instructions, would break the US government law that established the PRA 1978, and would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)? Although Judge Cannon has said the briefs are 'hypothetical' where is the guarantee that she will not actually use the law-breaking jury instructions?
Such impressive facts for you who profess you are not an attorney; I hope I garner as much info. now that I follow legal issues so closely. Kuddos
Alison, Thank you Alison, but not so much. I'm just a reader - I taught myself at just before age 3 - so I'm the one reading the cereal box when there isn't anything else to read. Eileen Cannon knows full well about the NARA letter sent to Trump's attorney on May 10, 2022 - and she knows full well that Trump's then-attorney, Evan Corcoran, withdrew from Trump's case and took his notes that he had compiled about Trump's behavior (hiding and shifty) to the DOJ - because he suspected Trump was not being forthright about the documents he had turned over to the FBI/DOJ. When we started with Joyce's substack we were in awe, and wondering if one day we might get a 'pass' score not even 'high pass' at the end. Now we are in shock and awe (deep shock) after knowing that our Joyce needed to read the most recent Judge Cannon order three times. My sense is that Eileen Cannon knows full well that the result of her pretend exercise will be an additional two week delay. That is her end-game and her aim. She is helping Trump delay. I agree with Bryan McCowan above: Jack Smith should attack her now and make the 11th Circuit boot her. Sage Bryan and Ira.
"My sense is that Eileen Cannon knows full well that the result of her pretend exercise will be an additional two week delay. That is her end-game and her aim. She is helping Trump delay."
I expect it's worse than that - she is setting up a scenario where after there is a jury in place, and the trial proceeds, she can direct that the charges be dismissed, and Trump is acquitted, and her decision is not appealable by Jack Smith, because of double-jeopardy laws.
J Michael, I am sad for you and all competent attorneys and judges today. I feel she will be pulled for the grounds that she does not know case law and for: 'incompetency and procedurely' (as Ira Lechner stated above).
Thank you for helping your readership who are not lawyers and have no legal training. My question might be naive, but how can Judge Cannon remain on the bench given how contradictory and sometimes nonsensical her rulings are? Are there enforceable ethics rules that would remove her from the bench? She isn't helping re-build trust in the Judicial branch, of course SCOTUS has been leading the way in that realm.
Carol,
I agree with everything you're saying here, especially your last sentence. It was something I never thought about until just now.
My degree was in Administration of Justice. Because of the way things are going, I'm tempted to go back and ask them to give me a more up-to-date diploma that will say "Administration of INjustice" instead. I kid you not, Trump and the justice system are taking a toll on my mental health.
All of our mental health.
Hi Dianne,
We will re-elect Biden, elect a Blue bicameral congress and then after November 3, we will stay together on this substack to request that congress impeach Eileen Cannon for not following case law. That is procedural. I suspect she is corrupt as well, but we can make the request based on procedure and incompetence (see Ira Lechner's post above. He is a 65 plus year federal attorney - sage).
Valere, maybe Lechner can help with this. That would make me feel so much better.
How long has Joyce had this very, very WONDERFUL (I'm serious) Substack? I never heard of one until I signed up. Now, I'm having a senior moment because I don't recall how I even found out about it! I'm so glad I did!
All one has to do is be drug through court by someone with retributive intent, money, and time. It becomes exceedingly clear just how broken our justice system is. For example, I have been in court or the subject of 'ex parte' hearings twenty-six times in roughly as many months. Representing myself 'pro se' out of economic necessity, I witnessed ethical and political misconduct in addition to flat out laziness. Ten out of eleven low-level local legal practitioners missed the truth, even though it was in plain sight before them.
One judge called a special overnight-ordered hearing and stayed up late reading what was then three hundred pages of discovery. Long story short, it appears he reported a deputy prosecutor who disobeyed his clear orders re hearsay evidence before I did with the state bar association. He got there first, it appears. He will have my enduring respect. Others will not.
At a fundamental level we license too many attorneys under roughly the same standard, which is not particularly high. The British system of distinguishing between barristers and solicitors ensures that those qualified to litigate and judge meet a higher standard.
I take issue with your opinion that “we license too many attorneys under roughly the same standard, which is not particularly high.” Do you say the same about all physicians since some are found guilty of malpractice or all CPAs because some are found guilty of misappropriating client funds. Your story is an anecdote and not evidence.
As for the difference between a Barrister and a Solicitor it is a choice of the path legal professionals take in common law jurisdictions. It is analogous to a general practitioner in the US who is not experienced in jury cases handing off a matter to an experienced litigator for trial. Happens every day. Common law jurisdictions just have a formal educational process for it.
Yes, my story is anecdotal, but it's true. I could use a qualified litigator in Washington State. Can you refer me?
Yeah, Carol M, and also i was wondering if the American Bar Association would / could / should dis-bar her. Or something like that.
Hi Ruthie, Congress can remove her. I'm not sure if the term in this case would be 'impeach' but removal would be up to Congress. We need to vote Blue to elect a Blue bicameral congress.
Limiting judicial discipline to removal through the impeachment process essentially guarantees corrupt judges, like Cannon, Thomas, etc, can behave corruptly with impunity. There will never be a two thirds Senate majority in todays Congress to convict them.
I know - we need a super majority on November 3.
Hi Eric, ps: we may not see a super majority in 2024 - but a Blue bicameral congress, with Joe re-elected, could help us to change back the laws to restore our civil rights. I believe people will recognize the extreme danger we are in, and keep working, not just through the 2025-2029 cycle but the next two cycles. They won't forget.
Than you Valere for that info. I’ll drop a note to my congressman.
Hi Ruthie, Because we currently have a Republican majority senate, we will have to make the push after re-electing Biden (we will do this); and electing a Blue bicameral congress (with a super majority btw - a landslide. There are other impeachments - and indictments needed so put your energy toward the November 3 election. I'm not saying 'not to write' your congress person. Just put all of your energy toward the Blue wave election we need to have to impeach her.
Hi Carol M., I am not an attorney but a federal judge can be removed by Congress. So we need to elect a Blue bicameral congress to remove her. Of course we need to re-elect Biden to ensure any laws the Blue bicameral congress passes to restore our lost rights will be restored (not this case but other cases such as affirmative action, women's health care, etc.).
Carol, She can be removed by Congress. That won't happen with the senate majority Republican. We must re-elect Biden, and a Blue bicameral congress. Then Cannon and other bad players can be removed. All of Joyce's information for us is precious beyond measure as we reach out to folks in our community to explain that the fabric of our democracy will disappear if Trump is elected and if we do not elect a Blue bicameral congress. So take self are and be informed to share this kind of information about the full-on biased uninformed judge in the documents case. It is egregiously wrong that Cannon is still on the case. But it was egregiously wrong that a Republican led senate confirmed her with softball questions such as where she went to school. They knew full well why she was appointed. And so did she.
Ps Carol: our Blue bicameral Congress election will need to be a super majority to get a 2/3 vote for removal from the senate.
This might be the first time Trump was ever praised for being concerned about the process of justice and preserving the integrity of a court. What delicious shade the judge delivered with wording it so. Comedy gold.
It really was delicious!
Yes, it was, and didn't even need whipped cream or ice cream to go with it.
😁
Thanks. Appreciate the smile face!
How soon can Jack Smith bring a writ of mandamus and get the Eleventh Circuit to remove this judicial rogue from overseeing this case in which she is repeatedly demonstrating lack of legal acumen and strong partisan lack of judgment.
Two issues: 1. When is Smith going to bring a writ of mandamus against Loose Cannon? 2. The intermediate appellate court to which Trump has applied in the James bond case is The Appellate Division, First Department. Having practiced in that court for many years, I would refer to it as the App Div or First Department, in casual usage.
Hi William, I looked up 'writ of mandamus' and am wondering if that is tough enough? Could not the 11th Circuit boot her for requesting that the defense and DOJ attorneys write briefs that break government law, i.e., the US government law that established the PRA 1978, and would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). She is asking the attorneys to write 'pretend law-breaking documents' with no guarantee she will not use them in the future; and, she is using our government taxpayers' money frivolously in asking Jack Smith to spend his and his team's time in this nonsense pretend exercise. If it is 'pretend' or 'hypothetical' it is a waste of money, and if she actually uses this idea that is potentially breaking a federal law, it is a misuse of her power: she is asking our very DOJ special counsel to help her break the law. Jack Smith should request that she be removed. She is toxic. She is radioactive. And as you said, she is a loose cannon.
It may indeed be a pivotal moment for Jack Smith and his adversarial to say the least relationship with Judge Cannon, but I think the writ of mandamus is actually the way to go at this moment. The 11th circuit may sua sponte decide to remove or reassign the judge, and I certainly hope they do, but to request her reassignment at this moment is probably a bridge too far for Jack Smith. But why don’t we wait till real experts like Neal Katyal or Andrew Weissmann or our very own Joyce Vance jump in on this.
💙
I believe he was giving her enough rope to hang herself, metaphorically, that is! Perhaps, his patience has paid off!
I hope so.
Ditto Bob!
Hi E Sonoma,
I’m hoping he presents his argument to the 11th later this morning. Enough is enough!
Thanks Joyce, this letter is like three overtime’s in a football game. I think after this “scavenger hunt” that Cannon (I refuse to call her a term judge that she does not merit) is sending the prosecution and defendant’s on is to find some way to dismiss the case. I think it’s the time for the court of appeals if not to remove Cannon but to clarify the exactitude of the law and what questions and issues the trial should address. There seems to be a willingness on Cannon’s part to forgone any sense of integrity she has assuming she might have had some earlier in her life but that is to be determined.
I doubt she ever had any integrity to begin with. Her loyalty to that creep is as obvious to me as my nose is on my face.
I just, like all of us, keep wondering if the Florida bar exam is administered with crayons and snack time.
And erasures
Christopher, there are US government laws defining what can be done with presidential papers. Trump requested executive privilege, and the request was denied by the acting director of NARA, who cited the Supreme Court decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). US government law established the PRA 1978, and Cannon's Order, if actually used after her request was completed by the defense and DOJ attorneys would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). So, in her 'let's pretend' exercise, she is requesting that our DOJ special counsel, paid with our taxpayer money, break the law if his brief is actually used as a jury instruction, or at the very least, waste his time in this nonsense delay if this is just a waste of time exercise that is footed by us. And her nonsense salary is being paid by us as well. I'm hoping Jack Smith requests her immediate removal - it is the moment we have been waiting for: that Eileen Cannon makes such a bonehead move that Jack Smith can take the cumulative decisions she has made (ignoring his case law a while back when he requested a hearing for example) and this horrid Order, to the 11th Circuit to request her removal.
The waste of tax-payer money in all of tfg's bogus dealings is astronomical. 🤬
Indeed Beth. And now Eileen Cannon is wasting money with her very transparent true reason for her nonsense pretend exercise: it creates another two week delay. She could care less that existing federal laws (PRA 1978) and case law (Supreme Court 1977) exist. Her end-game and goal is delay.
Thanks!
could not agree more
It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that Judge Cannon is merely incompetent.
Agreed. Her bias is as obvious as her abuse of her position.
Hear, hear Ken. I am thinking she is doing her pretend exercise to cause an additional two week delay. She is corrupt.
When this is all over I'd like to invite you all to an afternoon of tea and prozac.
OH Mimi, I will certainly be there! Make mine a 100mg, will you please?
Mimi,
RSVP me, too!
Since I can't take prozac because of other medications I have to take, I'll bring some iced tea and maybe Nacho Doritos with Salsa.
hahahahahaha
I'll bring a gallon of bourbon?
Zoloft? What kind of tea? Mushroom? :)
RSVP to Mimi, thank you and I would be delighted to attend!
RSVP: yes, thank you!
Wine and cookies?
I think we need Prozac to survive this, its going to be too long a wait for it to be over!
When tfg is defeated in Nov., he won't stop. It will be same lies, the same insanity. I'm just hoping that some of his backers will finally, finally have had enough.
And still, we'll celebrate that crushing defeat in November.
One hears a lot of comments about Trump's lawyers and how frivolous and even stupid they seem but in the meantime, they seem smart enough to find and use any possible (and I assume legal) trick to successfully delay the whole process so he can stop all these cases if he wins the elections. A future dream scenario for any criminal I guess. Amazingly it all seems financed by political GOP donations......
Deceit, Hans. They are really good at the art of many illicit, but kinda legal tactics. Frustrating as hell!
MOB Lawyers - his Buddies!
snakes and lizards possess a certain kind of intelligence that serves their purpose in life. There are very clever criminals in this world and if one focuses on creating chaos, there are plenty of levers you can pull to see what happens. Even rejection of inane requests and proposals takes time and energy. Enough of that and the system breaks down due to the force of friction and the resultant heat generated.
Read your bio,
We may ALL need to be in recovery by the time Election Day is here.
I suspect paying this months invoices will drain them.
It's stunning that they're all holding still for this. The hate and fear Republicans must hold in their hearts is breathtaking.
Unfortunately it appears even the craziest requests must be addressed and so take up time.
Indeed Lynn, very clever of Eileen Cannon to drum up a two week delay based on pure nonsense.
Who really cares if he spends one night in jail? Vengeance is not edible. Get out the vote and this felon will fade. That and only that is the bottom line.
Ian, we all want him to fade in prison. The problem is that there are other “trumps” waiting in the wings. Our job is to make certain they never achieve their goals.
Yes, we want to see the Law work!
Damn straight!
Ian you say, "Who really cares if he spends one night in jail?"
I say those of us who probably consider ourselves as members of the general American population, with no "fame," great wealth, access to wealth or inherited wealth, such as Trump and his minions do in many cases, WOULD love to see him incarcerated! I suggest that anyone of us who had 90+ pending indictments against us would be locked up somewhere!
Not only that, but we probably would have very limited access to the Internet OR a microphone. (Sorry, but I couldn't help myself regarding the mike.)
He lost last time, as i hope you recall.
One of the best days in the past decade.
Can Smith file any kind of appeal before replying to Cannon's hypotheticals? You say to expect their reply to be hard-hitting, but I don't see how. Her order specifically says she doesn't want to see counterarguments to her two proposals.
Houston2024, She is asking Smith to break the law, should her 'pretend' jury instructions actually be used. The Supreme Court established Executive Privilege in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). US government law established the PRA 1978, and Cannon's Order, if actually used after her request was completed by the defense and DOJ attorneys would abrogate the May 10, 2022 decision by the acting director of NARA that denied executive privilege to Trump based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977). So at the least she is asking our taxpayer paid DOJ special counsel to waste his precious time with her misused power demand, and at the worst, if she actually uses a brief that breaks the PLA (1978) or abrogates the decision of the acting director of NARA on May 10, 2022, she is putting Jack Smith in jeopardy. He should refuse to comply because she is suggesting he break the law and ask the 11th Circuit to boot her. We can then sing the 'Hawaiian wedding song' that begins 'this is the moment, we've waited for.' Also, Cannon is performing another time-wasting event. She is dumb like a fox.
When is Jack Smith going to require “Loose”Cannon (I love it!!) be removed. She is incompetent. She has neither the experience nor the band width to pull her shell and pea game off.
Now, Judge Merchan’s “praise” of Trumps’ concern for the integrity was
simply delicious.
Thank you Joyce. I hope Smith calls for Cannon to be taken off the case. She went too far putting her fingers on the scale- again.
Judge* Cannon is introducing her own interpretation of the PRA, and, guess what? It seems to align itself with Defendant tRump's longstanding - AND long-refuted - claim that he alone can determine what is personal and what is subject to NARA possession. So, yet again the ball is back in SC Smith's court, and, sure, he can file a response - even a strong reconsideration motion - and what then? More back-and-forth in Cannon's courtroom, consuming valuable time? No, it's come to Smith going to the 11th CA with a motion to recuse, for the following reasons: A, B, C, D, etc., etc.
Game over, and just put a stop to this OTT incompetence and rank favoritism toward the defense.
Hear, hear Lance!
It almost seems as if Cannon is very self-conscious about anything she does, which could stem from inexperience and insecurity, or an idolization of Trump. Either way or not at all, she doesn't seem to be a very balanced judge and is wasting everyone's time. I hope she will be replaced with someone who has more experience and authority.
Trump is likely communicating with her.
He sure is he found her a “handler”
Hi Constance, who is her handler? She seems to be in line with don-Don giving her orders to delay.
I think she's past the idolization stage. She seems to be one of the kingpins in his MAGA cult.
She’s being “advised” what to say and do! She is not judging she’s what she is told to say and do! Honest she’s not!
Hi Constance: who is her puppet-master? Are you able to share?