466 Comments

WOW just WOW !

In a compelling narrative that reads like a legal thriller, Joyce Vance discusses a judicial controversy involving Judge Aileen Cannon and the Special Counsel’s office led by Jack Smith. The heart of the matter is Cannon’s order regarding jury instructions in a case related to Donald Trump and classified documents, which Vance labels as “nuts.” She predicted Smith wouldn’t comply easily, and indeed, he filed a midnight response challenging the judge’s approach.

Vance explains that instead of simply proceeding with jury instructions as ordered by Cannon, Smith demands a ruling on Trump’s motion to dismiss the case based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), arguing that it doesn’t provide Trump a defense for possessing classified information. This legal stance puts the entire government’s case at risk, as Cannon’s interpretation could lead to the dismissal of the case or a jury acquittal, which would be irreversible due to the principle of double jeopardy.

The article outlines the tension between the judiciary’s interpretations of law and the prosecutorial efforts to uphold legal standards. Vance makes the complex legal proceedings accessible, turning the judicial process into a gripping story of legal strategy, the importance of correct legal interpretation, and the high stakes involved in prosecuting a former president.

For anyone interested in the intricacies of legal battles and the delicate balance of power within the U.S. legal system, this article is a must-read, providing not just insights into a specific legal dispute but also into the broader challenges of ensuring justice in highly politicized environments.

Expand full comment

From the WaPo article:

In her three-page order, Cannon defended her order and pushed back against Smith’s challenge to it. She wrote that “to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust.”

She said her original request for the proposed jury instructions “should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case.”

Instead, she said, it was “a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression.”

That appeal for a writ of mandamus is still hanging over the Trophy Bimbo's head.

Expand full comment

Well, brava to Judge Cannon. She has now smoked out Jack Smith’s competing position. We’ll see what the 11th Circuit Court thinks about Cannon’s ‘genuine attempt’ to gain a better understanding. What a bogus response! TY TCinLA for the heads up to the WaPo article.

Expand full comment

Yes. I read the WaPo article this morning. It seems to me that Jack Smith is representing the good of the country, and Judge Cannon is representing the good of Trump. Is that the role of the Judge? Is she his attorney? Wondering how many of Leonard Leo's people are advising Judge Cannon as he heads the Federalist Society, who is spending millions and perhaps billions to get Trump in power and make all of his legal troubles go away. Would be great if some enterprising independent publication watched her interactions with anyone from Federalist society and reported on them. She should be trailed and her actions reported on. She is another snake oil saleswoman.

Expand full comment

Valere:She ruled out PRA inasmuch as he is charged only with Espionage Act and PRA doesn’t apply but indeed there is real wiggle room in her opinion. She knows how to play hide and seek legal game but is it enough to get her bounced by the 11th? I doubt it cause it is very very conservative and she sort of covered her ass! My guess is that Smith is forced to accept this and bet on the fairness of the jury (which is dicey in Florida isn’t?) My guess is that she will continue to slow it down to a crawl and perhaps it won’t get to a jury until after Nov5? What do you think?

Expand full comment

She only ruled it out as a reason for dismissal "pre trial", did not say anything about what she might do during trial. It doesn't apply, he's not charged with violating it, so it has no bearing on the case, whether that helps the prosecution here or not isn't clear yet. She's making a fine mess of the whole thing though, which is her intent, imo.

Expand full comment

She’s definitely making a mess of it intentionally. Pushing the boundaries. And is showing her true colors. Not Federal Judge worthy. In this case I think it is imperative to be judgmental. Grateful for Jack Smith and team.

Expand full comment

Wait, remember Kazmaryck in Texas.

I've heard there are ethics questions bar exams now, post Nixon.

I suppose you can fail that section and still be licensed.

Expand full comment

Ira, based on her past behaviors (and Trump’s) Jack Smith’s wild card will be her ruling on disclosing witness identity. Trump will use his minions to attempt to intimidate jurors and court personnel in New York. When Trump goes berserk with a melt down during the hush money trial, and the minions act out, Jack Smith will go to the 11th circuit with the writ of mandamus - to protect the witnesses. Indeed, he lost the dice roll when he chose Florida over DC for the trial venue. I think there’s going to be some before this case goes to trial and you’re right it may not be in court before November 5. But Trump, being who he is, will have lots of time to act out in his despicable way. Even with Florida jurors to worry about, I think they’re getting a bit tired of Him as well. I think it truly is possible to get a Jury. Who will see the danger Trump has put our country (including them and their families) in by the the theft of those documents. Jury selection is going to be very important, even if Cannon is replaced. But if she’s still on, this case is not going to have a happy ending for us and for the American people. I’m sorry to say it. I’m betting on Trump a fit during the hush, money, trial, calling on his minions to act out, and Jack Smith going to the 11th circuit to get her booted to protect those

witnesses. And that was the whole point of . I honestly believe that Biden will be reelected. I really don’t think Trump will abide by the gag order.m from Judge Merchan. I think as well that Trump wants to go to jail just to stir up the crowd, but I think that will work in Jack Smith’s favor. Trump is erratic and unpredictable and so are his minions and that puts any prosecution witness in a very dangerous position. I don’t know that jack Smith is thinking about that possibility at this moment, but I think it’s quite plausible that there might be some concerning acting out. I think that’s the point where he will revisit this issue of publicizing witness names. It just absolutely made no sense when she made that ruling. But I think Jack Smith will have an opportunity to use that, to get rid of her. Yes, she has taken a page from the Brown versus Board of Education. Playbook: she’s moving with all deliberate speed. Lots of things aren’t going to happen until after November 5. But that certainly doesn’t mean Trump won’t be convicted and go to jail.i also think there are more of us than them I believe so much in the goodness of the people of America, even the ones who have been taken in by the conspiracy messages. Enough of them will poke their head out of the rabbit hole to see what Trump is doing.

I really believe that E. Jean Carroll annihilated him. An 80 year old woman positively ruined him. The image of E. Jean in court, sitting with dignity and grace, facing her rapist will stay in the minds of people, no matter what defense he offers in any criminal trial going forward. That was a vote changer.

There are some fence sitters that will vote for Biden to vote against Trump just because of believing E. Jean Carroll . So whether we get every single trial before November 5, and I don’t believe we will achieve all of them, we are winning. There will be a trial, and he will go to jail. He could go to jail on the hush, money trial. He has behaved like an outlaw, and the judge doesn’t like it and he doesn’t like his daughter being put in danger either. So he’s not going to be holding back on any sentence at all. My final thought is thank God for New York because they’re doing all the heavy lifting. I’m sorry I didn’t see your message until just a few minutes ago. Somethings wrong with my Substack program and I don’t get any of those notices that someone has replied to me so now I’m checking messages one by one and found yours. :) if I’ve deleted anything in the past I’m very sorry. if I’ve missed other messages from you. The point of Judge Merchan’s gag order (penalty for Trump, ignoring it) is longer will have the right to have during names of jury members.

Expand full comment

It is difficult to imagine Cannon's clerks and her own knowledge are the inspiration of her orders, unwritten orders and opinions. Who is mentoring or "schooling" this person? It is all too devious, boardering on melicious, to be ethical. More like working to outdo the ethical responsibilities of a judge. Her requests are more like that of a defense attorney.

Expand full comment

malicious

Expand full comment

Smith should contact the 11th Circuit quickly, on the strength of Cannon’s misapplication of the law and the ridiculousness of the “proposed” jury instructions.

Expand full comment

I expect he already has. He's at least six chess moves ahead of Tiddly Winks.

Expand full comment

They need to remove her from this case, and from the bench entirely.

Expand full comment

I dunno...Cannon's reply sounds like a pile of previously digested oats left by stupid bovine creature.

Expand full comment

More like the kind of catbarf you find the hard way first thing in the morning.

Expand full comment

Oh man....as Mom to three sibling kitties (one of whom has a VERY finicky tum) I know all too well to what you refer and yeah...catbarf (or cat gack, as I call it) is a more precise description. Bullshit is at least useful--it will grow vegetables and flowers. Nothing that comes from Lucy Cannon's mouth or pen is at all useful.

Expand full comment

What's worse is when you are barefoot.

Expand full comment

They barf where they know a naked foot will discover their work.

Expand full comment

Always! Out of the whole house or apartment, they pinpoint the perfect spot with accuracy.

Expand full comment

Always, but getting a sock covered in it is close.

Expand full comment

Been there, done that! Especially when you're running late for work, so now you have to change socks and take a quick foot bath.

Sorry for making those without kitties sick, but it does with the territory. Wouldn't trade my four-legged purr-box for anything.

Expand full comment

LOL

Expand full comment

TL Mills - "pile of previously digested oats left by stupid bovine creature." I think in this case bovine are relatively genius.

Expand full comment

I do agree with you, TCinLA, but you have now given Trophy Bimbos across the land a bad name and they now may have a case of libel against you. ;>)

Expand full comment

Trophy Bimbos don't need to be given bad names: they have EARNED them.

Expand full comment

I laughed out loud. Really!

Expand full comment
Apr 4·edited Apr 9

Alina Habbas said in an interview now posted on YouTube that she would “rather be pretty than smart because I can fake being smart.” (she hasn’t fooled a single one of us with her ‘fake smart,’ and matchbook law degree). Albert in The Birdcage told the dancer with his annoying bubble gum chewing, when the dancer said chewing helped him think: “Sweetie, you’re wasting your gum” so some of us might say to Alina “sweetie, you’re wasting your mascara.”

But I guess everyone’s entitled to their own bad taste.

Expand full comment

Had forgotten, "Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" - LOL

Expand full comment

I know almost all the dialogue by heart. In my view, that movie had everything and should’ve had an Oscar. They made fun of the religious right, politicians, gays (I loved when Albert was taking his toothbrush to the cemetery:)) And practiced walking like John Wayne:)

My now deceased husband and I used to take turns picking movies to watch and I always chose “The Birdcage.” He became so tired of it, he would beg me to choose something else, such as “a few good men” which he could watch incessantly:)

Expand full comment

?humor?

Expand full comment
Apr 5·edited Apr 5

Her “explanation” on her original intent in asking for “proposed” jury instructions at this stage of the proceedings is laughable and ridiculous and make it clear that she has no clue what she’s doing.

Expand full comment

Let’s hope they can just get rid of her!

Expand full comment

Thanks, TC!

Expand full comment

I don't think it is 'Unprecedented', and saying that it is 'unjust' sounds like a defensive response, perhaps because she is caught with her hand on the scale? Hmmm.

Expand full comment

Trophy Bimbo?

Geez that's a bit harsh.

I'd say InOverHerHeadForSaleTwit.

I can't think of another reason.

Expand full comment

But she defended her order to provide jury instructions as if the PRA defense were valid. She appears to have been pushed to the wall by Jack Smith's mandamus threat. I still don't trust her to handle this case fairly.

Expand full comment

I don't trust her either. In fact, I do not rule out the possibility that Brain Drain Cannon is being coached by the Trump team. If she is found to be in collusion with the Defense she should not only be kicked off this case, she should be kicked out of the Court and disbarred. Yeah, sounds like a conspiracy plot from the Q playbook, but these bums will stop at nothing.

Expand full comment

It's hard to imagine that a short-term former traffic court judge came up with this complex legal theory on her own.

Expand full comment
Apr 4·edited Apr 4

There's no doubt in my mind that they ARE rehearsing this over and over. Unless, of course, he's busy breaking gag orders or coming up with yet another scheme to rip off people.

p.s. Bartholomew, I don't trust her as far as I could throw her.

Expand full comment

Other posters on "X" are talking about help from Leo or other right wing groups because she doesn't have the ability to write something that legal.

Expand full comment

If collusion could be proved, it would definitely get her kicked off the case and very likely the bench through impeachment and disbarred. The proof would be very hard to come by though unless someone squealed.

Expand full comment

Yep Q: Rush Limbaugh back from the grave.

IMHO

Expand full comment

Is she being coached by the Federalist Society? Just like the former president, she isn't very intelligent & has puppet brain. Get her out! If the 11th circuit gets involved & removes her, who takes her position & does that delay the trail, again?

Expand full comment

No one should. She appears to be to be a smart dumb gal or a dumb smart gal. Either way she is in over her head, unqualified, biased to the point of corruption. If she was smart, she would know “Everything Trump Touches Dies”. Because she is unqualified, but maybe some smarts, her career is only going up if she hitches it to possible Trump 2nd term. Without him winning her career is a doomed anyway, so she is following the only logical path for a crony.

Expand full comment

Ted, in this framework, “everything Trump touches, belongs to him” and that includes classified documents. And she is supporting that. There is no other way to look at this event than to know that 11th circuit is going to jerk her from this case when Jack Smith files mandamus.

Expand full comment

I hear ya, and I hope they do just that. I think they need to kick off the bench. If she knows what she is doing wrong, she’s doing it to win favor by a future president, which is worse than just not knowing what to do. I think she is trying to play it both ways. Placating TFG, and playing a naive dumb ass/ “oh my, oops, I made a mistake” to the public and court. Either way…she needs to go “buh bye!”

Expand full comment

Valere, hopefully the Special Counsel still had adequate grounds for the writ of mandamus now that Judge Cannon has “sort of” denied Trump’s motion.

Expand full comment

You definitely would know better than Laura, but she wanted to expose witnesses by giving their identifications to Trump and then she wanted to let Wall Nauta see classified evidence; Jack Smith asked for a trial date which she has refused to offer. Wouldn’t all of that give him enough grounds? There was one other issue but I’ve forgotten it now but those are the big ones to me and I think she lied in this most recent response even though she said she was being genuine trying to discover both sides’ opinions.

Expand full comment

I think Cannon is being coached by the Leonard Leo crowd. They are telling her to just take her time and only deliberate when necessary. Well, she’s has taken her time and Jack Smith is so done with the latest “jury instructions” request from her. He has given her an “out”, according to Joyce, and if she refuses to rule promptly, he will appeal to the 11th Circuit. Of course, most of us wanted him to do so months and months ago but Smith obviously wanted to wait to see if this compromised judge made any more mistakes. She did and now he’s firing back with his ammunition. Now, we sit and wait…

Expand full comment

He’s very experienced and probably intended to keep his powder dry for the big stuff, which this is the big stuff now.

Expand full comment

Developing story. More will come out after the breaking news I just posted.

Expand full comment

Cassandra, thank you for that extremely timely update. I also responded to that (I think I did, anyway). Things are happening fast all of a sudden.

Expand full comment

I have so much work to do, but this is a fascinating and fast moving story. I have to go back and reread Joyce’s piece to sort out what we are seeing.

Expand full comment

Austin, it has been clear for some time that Judge Aileen Cannon has no intention of offering the American electorate justice.If she remains on the bench beyond this and “IF” TFG were to return to the WH she’d surely be his first pick for any SCOTUS vacancy. A perfect fit for the extreme right who have treated us to fictional (Did I mean “dystopian?”) court decisions.

Expand full comment

Judge Cannon rejected Trump’s defense under PRA

Expand full comment

No, as I read it, Cannon denied Trump's PRA motion to dismiss, but ONLY as a defense PRE-TRIAL. In other words, she is still reserving that particular question for the jury. And she did not rule on the proposed Jury Instructions from either side, so as I see it, there is no basis for either appeal or for mandamus!

Expand full comment

Hi Katie,

Would you happen to know if Cannon’s initial request for jury instructions from Trump’s lawyers and Jack Smith are grounds for a mandamus - because she is still defending her harebrained instruction.

Expand full comment

No, Valerie, I don't know. But my impression is that her nonsense order to draft the instructions would not provide a sufficient basis for mandamus, whereas there would have been PERHAPS a basis had she followed through and ruled / made a selection of Trump's proposed instructions over Jack Smith's scathing proposals. Remember, the standard for mandamus is very high. Now she says she wasn't ready to rule on the proposed instructions. She basically admitted she was just mucking about looking for some law because she got confused by Trump's gibberish. She can't see the forest for the trees. That's what I think.

Expand full comment

I apologize for misspelling your name, Valere!

Expand full comment

Thanks. News and interpretations are coming in in bits and pieces. I’m lurking from now on.

Expand full comment

The affirmatively rejects PRA as having no place in the case but still saves it as a possible theory? ??

Expand full comment

I’m not sure. I was following Joyce Vance’s train to writ of mandamus and am in the weeds. I’m waiting to see if she has a chance to sort this out for us on MSNBC.

Expand full comment

Although today's ruling by *Judge* Cannon denied tRump's motion to dismiss because PRA, this by no means prevents tRump from introducing the topic during trial, and may still win a sympathetic or favorable nod by Cannon in later jury instruction.

Today's order by Cannon also was a defense of her conduct to date, as in "this is MY court and MY trial..." and SC Smith is invited to try his luck with the 11th CA. A bit of breathing room for her, but what Smith wants is a declarative statement from the judge that ANY reference anytime to the PRA is out of bounds, and would be ruled inadmissible. Won't believe it till I see it in writing.

Expand full comment

I agree 100% with your OpEd.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Lance. I’m lurking. I’d posted to gather interpretations; I’m in the weeds. I’m reading Vance and NYT and WaPo.

Expand full comment

Cassandra, She is defending her original order for harebrained jury instructions based on breaking a US statute

Expand full comment

Lucian Truscott has an interesting take. She’s ’firing a shot across Jack Smith’s bow” and will continue to push for jury instructions. I posted the breaking news, but have been following since the first WaPo couple of paragraphs I posted here. I have no interpretation other than what I am reading as the news continues to come in.

Expand full comment

TY Cassandra, Cannon is in the wrong job. She should be sorting red and blue pencils in the supply room.

V

Expand full comment

This link Canon's decision just breaking from WAPO.

Expand full comment

Oops! The news beat Joyce to end result! Thank G-d. Still a great distillation Joyce

Expand full comment

It would be better if she’d stuck to her guns. Maybe we could have gotten rid of her. NOw, the circus continues.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I wanted to see her get slapped down by the 11th Circuit. Smith is a very patient man.

Expand full comment

He can still file mandamus, and she could still be slapped down. She has prevented nothing. This is a war.

Expand full comment

Smith is patient as I stated, Valere, I assume his timing will be the coup de grace for Cannon

Expand full comment

At page 2 of Cannon's Order starting with Cannon's disinformation about the Special Counsel's positions about the "finalizations of jury instructions" & how jury instructions are modified under well settled Circuit law that requires the defendant's defense theory to have "some basis in the evidence & has legal support".

Mandamus is definitely still on the Table. Jack's call.

Expand full comment

And Bryan, Jack Smith should have been stacking up information on her bonehead rulings: there is the one of letting Walt Nuata classified documents; giving out the names of witnesses with no reductions on their testimonies, and that opens them up to the kinds of threats that are being made to the New York and DC judges and personnel; she has refused to set a trial date. There was something else, but I can’t remember. Something other than her bonehead question about why the DC grand jury was pertinent to the case. Sometimes I think she’s quite smart and is pretending to be stupid, but there are other times that I think she’s probably truly dumb. Anyway, I hope he has enough to do Mandamus. That lie about Jack Smith wanting the instruction to be written is nuts.

Expand full comment

😓

Expand full comment

"Nuts" was the famous response of Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe to the Germans who demanded surrender of the Americans during the Siege of Bastogne (Battle of the Bulge). Bastogne held and was relieved by General George Patton. The Germans were repulsed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bastogne

Expand full comment

Indeed, we are in a war today: Jack Smith, and Alex Whiting are Patton and Bradley with Jack Smith more refined than Patton, at least in public. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and he will now go straight to the 11th circuit with his writ of mandamus

Expand full comment

I hope and pray you are right, Valere. Never have we seen such court room jousting. I have often wondered if Judge Cannon has been getting advice/counsel directly from The Federalist Society (I.e., Leonard Leo) or the SCOTUS justices who are practicing their non”originality” judicial philosophy.

Expand full comment

I'm guessing that both are coaching her.

Expand full comment

Do you think he will? I sure hope so.

Expand full comment

He will when the time is right. One needs to only think about how much pressure is on Trump and it’s major. He has criminal case in New York coming up he’s lost hugely on the fraud and. E. Jean Carroll, who annihilated him. We’re not going to win every single thing. We’re not going to win everything for the election but we are going to elect Biden and Trump is going to jail those things. I will guarantee you. So what I see a lot happening with us is everyone thinks we have to win win win hurry hurry hurry what we have to do is put him in jail and elect Biden. The criminal is not winning and he’s going to jail and it might be after the election but he’s already done. He was done when E. Jean Carroll won - the jury verdict, the award, the whole shooting match and he knew it. He’s lost phase nobody in America believes at all that he didn’t rape her and then he went out and sold Bibles. He’s just an idiot. But it doesn’t matter to me. What Cannon does. She’s lost her soul. We will re-elect Biden, but we also need to elect a blue bicameral Congress. Then we can impeach Aileen Cannon. And no, she shouldn’t be in traffic court. She can go someplace and sort blue pencils from red pencils for some right wing think tank and get a lot of money. I don’t care where she goes, but she does not belong as a judge. just don’t be one of the dismayed people who is upset all the time because we’re not winning every single battle. We’re going to win the war and that’s what’s happening.

Expand full comment

Thank you. I am trying to hold onto hope. I just believe the documents case is so very important and Trump is certainly not being treated equally under the law. He is given every chance , delay and then some.

Expand full comment

Also, PS the next battle we want to win is putting Steve Bannon in jail

Expand full comment
Apr 6·edited Apr 6

Ps #2

Here’s a another scenario: this is something I’ve thought about for a long time ever since Jack Smith brought Alex Whiting over from the Hague. In an entirely separate case, should Trump have sold any of the allegedly stolen documents and in that scenario had that happened in New Jersey for example, or even Scotland, then additional charges of a different level (I’m not sure of the name, is it extra- judicial, is it war crimes? I don’t know. Charges could be added. And those may not have to be in Florida and they don’t have to be under Eileen Cannon I don’t think just because they at one time were in Florida at Mara Lardo, if Trump sold those from New Jersey, I’m thinking the jurisdiction for the crime is what matters if he gave them to someone from his golf course in New Jersey may be the jurisdiction would be there. So at some point maybe that’s a scenario. I think he has more in his possession, and if they found anywhere besides Florida, I think maybe the jurisdiction changes but we’ll wait and see or if any prosecutors weigh in but I don’t think that story is over at all just because Cannon in Florida is slow walking and biasing herself for Trump. The indictments were bad, but I think there’s more to the story. If he did something like that, somebody knows and if the DOJ finds out who might know about it and they threaten that person with 30 or 40 years in prison. They also might give them a deal to testify and get out in a couple years perhaps. And then have even witness protection, but there is something deeper than what we know about. Trump‘s plane made an unscheduled trip down to Mara Lardo before Evan Corcoran met with the DOJ to turn over documents. So, were documents picked up and taken them back up to New Jersey? There’s going to be a trail. Just think he’s got more coming down the pike.

Expand full comment

Gurrrr. So frustrating. OK, boys and girls, now it's time for a little entertainment. Enjoy my song and you are welcome to comment on my YouTube channel por favor. If I eventually get hundreds of thousands of hits, I'll make a few pennies. "Secret Documents" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Og9SDu24V4

Expand full comment

🙏

Expand full comment

He still has a pile or two of those national defense documents. I'm sure of it. And I'm also willing to bet he just sold a bunch to the Kremlin for about $175 mil.

Expand full comment

Yes! Why is nobody talking about that planeload the new witness packed up??

Expand full comment

Ugh.

I'm thinking he's holding on to them still. The $175m is chump change to Russian oligarchs.

Expand full comment

Yep. Trump stashed kompromat on his sycophants, secret defense documents, and (I’d wager…) some cash & gold bars at Bedminster.

Expand full comment

Ugh.

Who knows what he's done.

Expand full comment

Yes William Walsh, I think so too

Expand full comment

Thank you for your time and expertise on this subject. You are much appreciated!

Expand full comment

tRump's lawyers aren't just "wrong".

They are willfully seeking to take advantage of an incompetent judge who happens to be ruling in their favor. #LooseCannon aka #AileenTowardtRump

Expand full comment
Apr 4·edited Apr 4

Robert, she is only pretending to be incompetent. The outcome is tragic, but she knows exactly what she’s doing. She undergraduate was from Duke and went to U. Mich for law. She is on the take.

Expand full comment

Member of the Federalist Society while in law school at University of Michigan. Yes, she knows exactly what she's doing.

Expand full comment

Oh gosh I didn’t know she was a Michigan law school grad. How awful for my beloved U of M.

Expand full comment

Indeed - that was my point months ago. How could she be U Mich and be stupid? Then it dawned on me that she wasn’t stupid: she’s simply stalling.. she knows exactly what she’s doing. Folks have mentioned in the past that it would take some time to replace her, but I think we could still see a trial before the election.

Expand full comment

Really Awful

Expand full comment

Wonder what her reward will be: lots of $$$$$$$$ from the GOP's funds or perhaps a position on the Supreme Court after one of the sitting judges is made an offer he can't refuse to retire???

Expand full comment

What is really a scary thought is that she's behaving the way she is out of pure ideological zeal ... and isn't on the take at all.

Expand full comment

Yes, you're absolutely right: that a judge would be so eager to aid a would-be, narcisstic, psychopathic, Machiavellian Orange Turd in gaining control of our beloved country makes me want to VOMIT. HOW can these people not understand and despise what he aims to create: his own personal fiefdom to milk as he wishes, allied with completely corrupt turds like Bannon??? Can't these people see the future??? Do they really believe it's better for 300 million Americans to enslaved by that utter asshole??? And he will control Cannon, too, of course--she will now NEVER be free of his control, now that she's already protecting him. She was susceptible to corruption once she had power, and now she is corrupted. The more power she gains, the worse her corruption will be as she sees that she can get away with it.

Expand full comment

Then there’s Josh Hawley from Yale and Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantas from Harvard

Expand full comment

All these names circle me around to a question I have been asking for the past decade, “what the hell are they teaching in these Ivy League law schools?” Certainly they have missed on ethics or justice.

Expand full comment

When I was starting at Harvard, I recall the law school or B school had JUST discontinued (or said they discontinued!) a course in Strategic Misrepresentation - 'lying'....

Ah, here's a reference, 1979.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/3/1/the-b-school-vs-the-wall-street/

Expand full comment

Just to get an AA Degree in Administration of Justice, we were required to take a course in ETHICS.

Don't they require that in order to graduate LAW SCHOOL, or is it only for someone like me who went to a small college, who just wanted to get a better job in a field I enjoyed?

Expand full comment

Diane, I'm a doc not a lawyer. Critical of the law for a while (How do you tell a dead lawyer from a dead snake, lying in the middle of the road? The skid marks, leading up to the snake. etc.), until I grew up and learned stuff. Spending 3 years in the largest US Max Prison (Jackson, 82-82, NHSC) generated a number of questions regarding law as it should be vs as it is; so did a career in government.

Did take ethics and other philosophy classes myself, and finally ended up teaching a class in Data Ethics just two years ago a local university. Still wondering if I did it right. :) Hope so, but looking around me, clearly it was insufficient.

But no, it was not required for any of my 3 doctorate or post doc programs.

My view is that Ethics, Philosophy/Logic, and Civics or Governance need to be taught regularly throughout grade school and high school. No other way to survive the accelerating disinformation world we've created that is destroying trust, confusing greed with good, and pitting people with common interests against one another.

Expand full comment

No respect for either of those schools, given the quality of their graduates.

Expand full comment

Valere,

I agree with you 100%. She on the take so blatantly, it's enough to make a person want to gag.

She OWES him and he OWES her. You could almost call theirs a disgustingly symbiotic relationship, if he weren't pulling the strings so much of the time..

.

Expand full comment

I would wager that trump has something ‘on’ Cannon’s husband. He’a been in trump’s orbit via some unsavory people in FL for many years.

Expand full comment

Sounds interesting!

I didn't know she was married. Trump only hangs out with unsavory people, so it wouldn't be surprising that they'd know who's been "naughty" in Florida.

I'm still blown away to hear that Cannon is married. I should feel sorry for her for having a husband who may be hiding something, but since she has such a high profile, whatever he did will eventually come to light. It does explain a lot, though.

Expand full comment

Frightening

Expand full comment
founding

Yeah, this is a total setup.

Expand full comment

Cannon had a quantity of education with a crap poor qualitative result. Corrupt? Of course! So sorry I failed to say that in my original post. Too poorly educated to see her corruption. Dunning-Kruger on steroids.

Expand full comment

Do you think she's stupid? Her " unjust" response to Smith late yesterday tells me she is, as well as arrogant and insecure. Maybe a little afraid too, as who knows what forgiveness she'll get for being so incapable as letting this case slip out of her grasp.

Expand full comment

Great pun! AileenTowardtRump is even better than LooseCannon.

Expand full comment

Thanks, getting old, missed the second one... ;)

Expand full comment
Apr 4·edited Apr 4

Just "happens"??? Some coincidence. I think she is a crafty little MAGA bimbo who is doing her best to get this dismissed so that it cannot be appealed by the government and he cannot be indicted again. Scum--both Cannon and Trump.

Expand full comment

I dislike Judge Cannon's blatant corruption of the law as much as anyone, but I don't think an ancient sexist term is useful, or called for.

Expand full comment
Apr 9·edited Apr 9

🤣 I happen to feel differently--that her actions in this case do and should mark her as enthralled by ancient sexism. She seems quite willing to do whatever she needs to do in service to Trump and all the old wealthy yt patriarchs who are so deeply terrified by women and POC. She has earned that badge.

Expand full comment
Apr 4·edited Apr 4

How I love good puns!! Well done, R O D

Expand full comment

Thanks I guess. Also, skip the apostrophe in my abbreviated name

Expand full comment

OK

Expand full comment

I think she's doing just what they want. Drumpf is entitled to have attorneys throw out every possible defense.

But we'd hope for a more intelligent and ethical judge.

Expand full comment

So very clever. Love it!!

Expand full comment

Joyce, if Trump is convicted of even one felony, how is it possible that he could get a security clearance again?

Expand full comment

If he takes the presidency, I don't think it'll matter that he doesn't get a security clearance. He'll bully his way to the documents.

Expand full comment

He will NOT enter the Oval Office again. NOT.

Expand full comment

Agreed. There is no ‘if’ on this Substack. Thank you, James💙

Expand full comment

Can we please set up his padded room now??

Expand full comment

NOT.

Expand full comment

If he gets eleccted, he will not need a security clearance because all security will be handled by his personal bullies and cronies. There will BE no security, period.

Expand full comment

He didn't receive one before. He was not obligated to as an elected president.

Expand full comment

But Trump managed to get a security clearance for his son-in-law who was unable to get a clearance!

Expand full comment

Thanks. I was just looking further and neither do people who serve in congress!!! I’m gobsmacked 😶

Expand full comment

Hi Rosalie, he didn’t have a security clearance the first to go round. Presidents are not required to have one.

Expand full comment

Yea I’ve since learned that. Neither is congress. Our government is a mess

Expand full comment

He never had one that was earned, except from drumpf voters. Apparently a huge hole in our national security restrictions.

He is natural born and well over 35, after all.

Expand full comment

I still think Cannon is biased. She should never have accepted jurisdiction after her humiliation in the first case by the 11th Circuit. I know that Judge Pryor dismissed the grievances under the judicial disqualification Judicial Conference procedure in December 2022, but that was before she accepted jurisdiction in the second case. At a minimum she should have had to be vior dired on a motion to recuse. Only the appearance of bias. Here's the rules:

28 USC 144: Bias or prejudice of a judge:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

8 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2)Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(c)A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

(d)For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

(1)“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;

(2)the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;

(3)“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i)Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii)An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii)The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

(iv)Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.

(e)No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

(f)Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

Expand full comment
founding

Thank you Daniel. You sure seem to keep some very heavy books at your finger tips.

Expand full comment

He is a retired judge. With an ethical core. He is very generous to say that Cannon is biased. I think she’s simply on the take.

Expand full comment
founding

Hey Valere, I like Daniel and his contributions. My comment was for him. I knew he would get it.

As for Judge, as TC would say, Lucy Cannon, she is hoping to be JUSTICE Ilene Cannon Trump. after Thomas retires.

Expand full comment

I just ordered his book. I think I’m going to enjoy it more than the rest of the unread stack.

Expand full comment
founding

I think a scotus seat has been dangled in front of her.

Expand full comment

Both.

Expand full comment

There should be no dispute in your observation that she is on the take.

Expand full comment

Hey Clarence!!!! Pay attention.

Expand full comment

Daniel, you think you could come out of retirement and take this case over from. Cannon? Pleading here…

Expand full comment

She would have had to reveal she was corrupt. Folks usually try to avoid that.

Expand full comment

It's a common event. The rule says "reasonably be questioned." As a judge, it's to be expected. Bios. financial statements are public record. Affidavits must be filed as soon as facts are known.

In most jurisdictions a hearing is held if the judge objects to the affidavit.

Code of conduct: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities A. B. C. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

Expand full comment

Maybe Clarence Thomas should read this?

Expand full comment

It doesn't apply to SCOTUS.

Expand full comment

Lucky clarence

Expand full comment

His ethics case was referred by Roberts to the Judicial Conference. They have no teeth -- all they can do is refer to DOJ. That's the same DOJ who can prosecute for bribery or perjury.

At least two famous circuit judges resigned rather than face investigation. One is Trump's sister, the late Maryann Barry, and the other is a former 9th Cir chief judge -- Alex Kosinski.

Expand full comment

You make this snarl of legal maneuvering so accessible and understandable. Thank you for your diligent devotion to the truth, your detailed explanations of the abuses of the laws, and your wonderful wry humor. Other than seeing your chicken photos, reading your column is a highlight of my day.

Expand full comment

I am glad Jack Smith is on our side! Thanks Joyce!

Expand full comment

You have gone above and beyond here, Joyce (I hope it's OK that I use your first name!). You have been having to cover a lot the last few days, and when you spent time this morning on another matter, I figured we get an explanation of Smith's filing tomorrow. I have been hungering for a clear explanation, and now I'm satisfied!! Thank you so much. Mueller She Wrote helped, too, but this post clarifies and goes into much more detail. And yet it's clear, I understand it, and I can tell how serious all this is. Finally, my admiration for Jack Smith and his team keeps going up and up. He's had every reason to blow his stack long before this, but while remaining firm, he gave her chance after chance to get it right. Now he's had it, and although he's still keeping everything within the bounds of professional legal discourse, he is letting her know time is up. Still without losing his temper (though I suspect, actually hope (!), he's let lose with a few expletives privately!! She's put herself between this rock and a hard place, and now she has to act.

But again, Joyce, thanks. Two postings in one day! What a treasure you are . . .

Expand full comment

Judge cannon must be removed as judge sooner than later. She is protecting a traitor and seditionist.

Expand full comment

Joyce. I so enjoy your explanation of all the craziness I so appreciate what you do for us.

Expand full comment

WaPo just now: U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected Donald Trump’s bid to have his charges of mishandling classified documents dismissed on the grounds that a federal records law protected him from prosecution. The judge also defended her handling of the issue, which had frustrated prosecutors.

Expand full comment

Moreover, the duplicitous track record of Trump and his legal team make abundantly clear why he should NOT receive any intelligence briefings as this year's GOP presidential candidate.

Expand full comment
Apr 4·edited Apr 4

Indeed - a nightmare. Straight from the briefer to Putin’s ears.

Expand full comment

Once again, thank you Joyce for clarifying this technical legalese for us mere laymen & women!💙

Expand full comment

Wow, just wow. The extent of the judge's obfuscation and inappropriate behavior is mind boggling. I have nothing but respect for Jack Smith for calling for a ruling NOW. He is completely within his rights. I am well and truly sick of the orange's pustules ongoing efforts to manipulate our legal system. He belongs in jail!

Expand full comment

Joyce Vance clarifies most points in the precise and concise explanation of recent legal maneuvers. I’d be lost without her ability to make mud clear.

Expand full comment