Tonight we focus on two very different issues that will substantially impact the prosecutions against Donald Trump in Florida and in Georgia. There is no set timeline on the first issue. It involves whether the district court in the Mar-a-Lago case will hold a
Re Georgia - This is exhausting.
Re Cannon - it presents as she is purposely delaying for her client. To a non lawyer it’s bizarre she’s able to get away with this. Decisions should have been made months ago or at least much, much more timely. Add that Trump has not complained once about Cannon only had rocket fuel to the fire. Where the hell is Jack. Where is the 11 th.
It would seem that Judge Cannon is in way over her head. Or worse she is obstructing to the benefit of Trump. After all I’m sure he refers to her as “ one of my judges”.
Learned when things seem overly complicated then stop making them complicated. So much respect for Fani. This is an enormous task with great personal risk and I have very little understanding of the complexities and how far ahead she’s strategized. I’m sure its to the end and beyond (to steal a Toy Story line). Some days Joyce it’s just hard to see/hear there are so many avenues for these 19 to jerk the system and society around.
As always and hope I say it enough - thank you for your learned comments, guidance, education of the masses and calming lil things (Mr n mrs chicken)
I find it interesting that as long as there appears to be prompt response of judges to motions and appeals in one case, I'm not so frustrated with the pace of progress in another. I think the reason is that I'll be satisfied if any one of the four cases against tfg results in a conviction and the first one to get there is less important than the fact that one or another does. In the fullness of time, they will all eventually come to completion. I care mainly that he can't simply waltz through the entire 2024 election cycle on delay after delay.
"...but the stronger argument that Meadows cannot remove his case is the argument we’ve been discussing for what seems like weeks now, that Meadows isn’t entitled to remove to federal court because he was acting beyond the scope of his official position."
And Judge Steve Jones covered all the bases there thoroughly, reading his lengthly opinion to deny Meadows' remove motion. Not only citing Hatch Act violations, but also Meadows' own testimony admitting he was at times acting for the tRump campaign and not as a federal officer...can't see how the 11 CA can overturn the district court's decision, irrespective of the "former federal official" business, which in this very particular case is a red herring, IMHO.
Once again I am thankful for your updates and the time it takes for you to keep us informed. It is reassuring in these unsettled times to have the truest of guides, an informed light that keeps us steady on this path.
Need 🐓 🐓
Justice isn’t blind either. Justice is a function of power and money. Removing her from the case after the election is too late snd an incredible disservice to society. Either she is going to follow the law and be a competent and impartial judge or she is not. So far there are many, many people, legal minds much more qualified than I saying very much what I have said here. There is too much at stake for this country to put up with a federal judge playing games with one of the most basic cases (as described by the legal experts not me) critical to the survival of the democratic experiment.
Well, that was a doozy! Question for you Joyce.. My impression is that you think DA Willis would argue only the “Doesn’t apply to former officials”, over the stronger argument of “Acting out of his position”.. I would think when considering what she would brief, she would agree with you and go with the stronger argument..However, couldn’t she combine both into her brief to the panel?
Re: Cannon, I’m with you and Lloyd on this, she appears to be deliberately slow walking the garcia hearing..And where is Smith in all of this? Could it be that he’s allowing her to get enough rope?
Loose Cannon was the right name for her, Joyce. She seems like a blocker and inexperienced from what i have read about her on substack. I don’t always get the subtle legal procedural details of what she is doing, but I am glad to learn more from you. Thank you, Joyce. I saw you on Lawrence O’Donnell and now can hear you saying the words in your wonderful writing. You are really a “southern gal”! A great letter today!
Sure Fay. That’s the legal way to describe it. I know that. But that’s not how it’s playing out. Two rebukes from the 11 th and numerous unnecessary delays and inexplicable decisions. And not one complaint from Trump. That’s not who he is if someone, anyone, doesn’t do his bidding. Recall she said last fall that Trump was special. People in a position of power like she has don’t make those comments or decisions and then somehow find moral and ethical wherewithal. Cannon explicitly catered to and identified Trump as deserving of deference he was not entitled to. She did it so forcefully the 11 th even more forcefully rebuked her. She did it again and was rebuked a second time. She’s behaving like she is doing his bidding. Call it what you like. She’s acting like he is her client. Chutkin is not. The difference is black and white.
Thank you once again Joyce, for breaking this out into bite-size pieces in English to understand the legalese.
Also, there remains the "issue" pushed by attorney for two of the indictees, Nauta and De Oliveira, that the testimony of witness Taveras (formerly represented by attorney Woodward) be struck from the record, and that testimony of course was essential to the superseding indictment. *Judge* Cannon has been exceedingly solicitous of attorney Stanley Woodward for the defense, and AFAIK there as yet been nothing from the court on this question. I'd expect a rapid-fire response from SC Smith if Cannon rules out the Taveras testimony on some spurious grounds regarding an out-of-district sitting grand jury, and testimony given therein.
So how many times does Aileen Cannon need to skirt procedure before someone wises up and reassigns the case to an actual judge?
God help us if the courts suggest that the Georgia district attorney bit off more than she can chew, that 19 indictments created a situation where individual defendants could not have adequate representation if tried together and the only way to assure justice would be to try them all individually. It's a fact that any prosecutors office has finite resources and there is at least a theoretical limit on how many balls can be held in the air at once, particularly considering that they have pre-existing and concurrent responsibilities to other prosecutions. I like the argument that multiple trials place undue burden on witnesses, however, and potentially the jury pool as well. The public deserves some degree of expediency with regard to this issue which has implications for the behavior of candidates and elected officials in upcoming elections as well. Justice delayed could well be justice denied for the public.
I read the Defendant's motion to remove Judge Chutkan a few days ago. Well, OK, I read parts of it and skimmed most of it. Its complaint is entirely based on remarks she made about other defendants' pleas in mitigation in sentencing them in other, earlier cases; they had said, "The Devil made me do it," and she said, "True, but it was you who did it." And now the Devil himself (the Father of Lies) complains that she answered those defendants in their own words rather than defended him, and says that shows that she is biased against him. If she had said harsh words about burglary in sentencing a convicted burglar, does that make her biased against future accused (but untried) burglary defendants? The argument is ridiculous.
Moreover, the indictment is dated August 1 and the motion September 11. That's six weeks Judge Chutkan has had the case, and yet the Defendant's lawyers can find no basis, ridiculous or not, to argue that she has shown bias in the case before her, just this spurious claim that sentencing remarks in earlier cases that did not even involve the Defendant imply a bias against him. Whereas, down in Florida, we have seen plenty of reason to argue bias against Judge Cannon, in her conduct of the very case before her now, as well as in an earlier case involving the same defendant.
(Judge Chutkan's remarks in the earlier cases we have only from the Defendant's motion. It will be interesting to read the Special Counsel's response, which will doubtless contain fuller quaotations.)
Finally, I said that I skimmed most of the motion. It reads like a paper written by an undergraduate trying desperately to stretch to make a 10-page minimum -- and failing. Another thing: In its nine pages, the word "Trump" appears twenty-three times (!) and each time preceded by the word "President". It reads like a undergraduate essay written with someone leaning close over the poor kid's shoulder.