She couldn't care less. She's aiming for a Supreme Court pick if Trump gets re-elected. She'd be a perfect replacement for Clarence Thomas.
If a reckoning came her way, would it be a supreme Court thing right away? I do worry she'll skate if it is ... but I half worry J. Alito or J. Thomas feel they could simply whack a progressive counterpart and then have no court in which to defend themselves ... and thus skate as well to open up space for her.
Nightmare fuel and nothing more, of course.
Considering that right now fascists are gaining power everywhere in the "western world", it doesn't seem likely. Well, not until decades and probably a bloody war or two later, at any rate.
Fascist regimes don't last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward. They breed the sort of mistrust and lack of questioning that don't make them effective societies.
Tell that to Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Zimbabwe, China and North Korea, which have been authoritarian for decades now. I'm sorry, what does "lasting long" mean?
You are aware that there are more types of authoritarian governments than just "fascism," right?
"No, not like that..!!!!"
Well, you're just moving the goal post.
Fascist regimes don’t last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward.
Where in that sentence is implied that the countries I mentioned should be excluded?
Fascist regimes
^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.
Ok. Which of the countries I mentioned is not fascist and why?
The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.
I think you're seeing my question as confrontional, thinking that I will continue rebutting for the sake of rebutting.
I took a step back. Take one step back too. I'm willing to be corrected. I'm willing to question my reasoning.
But I can't just say "oh sorry" without seeing the whole picture.
Now, could you please answer the question? It was a genuine one. Don't be like the other one who said "ooh hoo u not worth it" when I was already open for a genuine exchange.
Real smart of you to change what we're talking about in the reply. That's a classic move to make yourself seem like you made a point.
Well, enlighten me instead of being gratuitously and unhelpfully sarcastic.
Nah, you're not worth it.
Edgy.
Would Franco's Spain and Pinoche's Argentina somewhat contradict that assertion? They both lasted a good long time before there was a slow transition away from their regimes from what I remember.
And she'll be a footnote, after she's spent her life ensconced in power and being showered with gifts for serving the cause. She'll have a much nicer life than people who had integrity and cared about their fellow man, but we'll be comforted that someday she'll get her judgement.
I doubt she'll get any judgement in life, and being agnostic I doubt she'll get any after it.
Unfortunately, much too often the reward of evil is wealth and power.
I hope contemporary will be harsh towards her.
Why wait? She'll live a long life. There's plenty of time to hold her accountable for aiding and abetting Trump.
She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump's defense and had determined they couldn't have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.
Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump's ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.
This is the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. Get out and organize
Not much I can do on my end, considering I don't live in the US. I'll keep watching the dumpster fire from above.
Holy shit, how are things in heaven, and how do I get there?
Oh wait, you mean space? Same questions!
j/k just hoping the populist conservatism doesn't catch hold in Canada.
We have angry Milhouse stirring shit up North, so yeah populist conservatism is on the rise.
she's doing exactly what she was appointed to do.
I still find it mind-boggling that she's even participating in the case, much less judging (adjudicating?) it.
if the court rules are that both sides are supposed to talk to determine what is reasonable to discuss and not discuss, and the prosecutor just totally ignored that because "who cares" and Trump is clearly out of line, then the prosecutor still ignored the court rules. good for that judge for asserting that prosecutors can't just do whatever they want. i thought her words were actually funny and clever. she's pointing out that the rules specify it's really supposed to be a meaningful attempt, not just faking it or ignoring it or trivially trying to say they tried. A gag order is a big limit to free speech, I wish they were never even allowed, but she's at least being sensible with this and rejecting it on a limited basis based on procedural reasons
That may fly if Trump already didn't have a history of skirting or outright defying gag orders already. This lady needs to be removed immediately on nat sec grounds. This is fucking absurd.
Even if you don't like Trump, procedural fairness is important. You aren't supposed to just ignore procedure when it comes to a defendant being criminally prosecuted. There has been a trend of more and more procedural fairness being ignored because prosecutors know they can get away with it and it will be meaningless on appeal. The judge had to rule this way and if she hadn't she would have been a horrible judge. What is sad is that it actually had to be appealed to get to the level of normal procedural fairness. Even very awful people are supposed to get fair procedure in the US. The time procedure and fairness matter most is when someone is being deprived of liberty, that's when you want the rules to be fair, not broken. What would have been a better ruling? If she said "Eh, it's fine, the prosecutors can do whatever and it won't matter on appeal anyway because of the harmless error rule." Gag orders should also be illegal. The First Amendment was not supposed to be some weak idea that occasionally let's people speak their views. It's supposed to protect people like Trump who many people think have detestable speech.
Also, I hate Trump's views on Trans people and his treatment towards those who are different or he perceives as different. I have never voted for Trump. Give this judge a break, that was a good ruling.
So a judge appointed by Trump doesn't want to tell Trump to shut up? Who would have ever guessed.
Yes appointed by Trump but confirmed by 11 Democrats and 45 Republicans. And we could say those not in the roll call tacitly voted to confirm so that's another 13 Democrats who confirmed her. Trump can get fucked, but just like Biden, the president was/is not solely responsible for what happens in the world.
I guess this is the good preview of what the case would devolve to.
From the article:
"In a brief order, Cannon slammed prosecutors for not following the court’s rules by failing to meaningfully confer with Trump’s defense lawyers about a potential gag order before making the request."
Maybe it's just me but this sounds an awful lot like she's denying the motion because the prosecutors......didn't ask the Trump team for permission to file the motion? Am I reading that right? The prosecution needs permission from the defense to file a motion for a gag order?
Lawyers, please tell me that Cannon is once again just being extraordinarily stupid. This can't be normal, right? To me, this is like a domestic abuse victim having to ask the abuser for the right get a restraining order.
As I understand it, they don't need to ask permission, but they need to make an actual attempt at a diplomatic resolution before making the formal request. If that doesn't go to their liking, then they would speak to the judge.
It should have been a formality, because in all likelihood, the defense would have politely told the prosecutors to get fucked, but they really shouldn't have skipped that step.
Your honor, I have a hundred examples of Trump violating gag orders from/checks notes/ the past 2 weeks. Asking them would be an insult in the first place.
Maybe it's a good way to test the waters to add to their concrete examples of bias.
It's not like they expect the gag order to be followed or enforced anyway. Judge Merchan has enough issues with that, and we already know Cannon will have less than no interest.
This is what "justice" is for the rich. The rest of us would be serving time in double digits by now. They just get the judges in their pockets to pull strings.
just
This is what leads me to worry you're oversimplifying something. Is it cool if we avoid the generalizations here? We can all confidently say Mr Trump isn't a very upstanding cretin, but don't let him take your rep down.
It really depends on what these rules are
Cannon said "that prosecutors’ request was 'wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy' ”
IMAX levels of projection there.
Anyone else tired of that smug headshot every news article uses of her? If this woman a recluse? How are there no other photos of her?
That’s probably the official photo published by the government.
So, uh...we going to plan protests yet, or...
When does all this become too much for the left? Cause I gotta say: We are being VERY lenient so far. We basically look at the Republicans and go "Okay, act like babies. We'll just rise above it." and gotta say: It isn't working.
I'm pretty hard against Trump and the Republican Party. I support Progressive policies and laws regardless of where they come from. What really irks me is how damned unresponsive people on the Left are. I feel like all we do is talk about what-if's and what-could-be's. Hell, part of me was surprised Gaza caused any protest at all with how damned passive everyone over here so often is in comparison to the raving lunatics over on the Right. It's appalling and frustrating.
The moment leftists actually protest, right wingers and centrists (Biden) will happily send in the military to give em the Black Panthers treatment
Meanwhile right wingers are allowed to do whatever they want, up to and including Jan 6th
Meanwhile Georgia is in the process of passing a law to label outside organizations as foreign agents and they had immediate protests. We're having our justice and political system blatantly turned toward service of a minority political faction lead by a fascist criminal and we think it would be inappropriate to demand they act differently.
Bought bitch balks behind bench. Film at 11
what a goddamn joke, she has literally NO qualifications to be a judge let alone a judge for one of the most important cases in the history of the fuckin country.
Absolutely pathetic, everybody in the goddamn law profession should be ashamed. Nothing but clowns
She's exceptionally competent in one area of law: fucking it up.
Next time Trump and repubes whine about unfair and rigged courts - show them this exhibit A.
Judiciary is politically motivated and republicans are solely to blame for it.
They'll say she's fair. There's not a hypocrisy gotcha that's going to get them to change their course.
Democrats that confirmed Canon.
Tom Carper of Delaware
Chris Coons of Delaware
Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada
Dianne Feinstein of California
Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire
Doug Jones of Alabama
Tim Kaine of Virginia
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Chris Murphy of Connecticut
Jacky Rosen of Nevada
Mark Warner of Virginia
Dianne Feinstein
no surprise here, the geriatric was probably half awake thinking she was home watching tv
Did they vote yes or were they just on the committee?
Because of course she did.
she is reaping the every living fuck out of this.
Wonder what she is going to inevitably sow...
Isn’t that backwards?
it follows the wording of the original phrase. Which does mean it's backwards, but i think it's funnier that way.
Nope. She's reaping what he sowed. What comes next is being sown now.
Rotten to the core.
So we can add another name to the rich and/or powerful who get to abuse our justice system for their own personal ends with nary a consequence in sight.
I gotta tell you, this is becoming the thing I'm most ashamed of about the current state of our country, and that's saying something, because I've got a pretty long list.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s request for a gag order against Donald Trump in the classified documents case, saying that prosecutors’ request was “wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.
The original article contains 44 words, the summary contains 44 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Cannon lacks substance and professionalism of any kind.
When is the prosecution allowed to appeal(?) for a different judge due to obvious bias for the defense?
Wow, she's a real loose cannon^1^.
^1^ I mean how could you not?
Other shoe will drop immediately. Fuck you, Cannon.
Shocked, just shocked.
This furthers the argument that all judges should be elected
No, no, no, a thousand times no to this idea.
Do you really want judges making rulings based on what is the reddest of red meat for their base so they can get re-elected? Because that would be a great way for rural states to quickly become live-action versions of the Handmaid's Tale in record time. Cannon herself would likely be re-elected based on how she's handled the Trump case so far; if anything, having to worry about re-election would probably make her more brazenly corrupt, not less because it would be Trump's base that would be putting her back on the bench.
Dude ...look around...we are already at what you're describing when it comes to Republican leaning judges.
This woman is shameless
I hope history will be harsh towards her.
She couldn't care less. She's aiming for a Supreme Court pick if Trump gets re-elected. She'd be a perfect replacement for Clarence Thomas.
If a reckoning came her way, would it be a supreme Court thing right away? I do worry she'll skate if it is ... but I half worry J. Alito or J. Thomas feel they could simply whack a progressive counterpart and then have no court in which to defend themselves ... and thus skate as well to open up space for her.
Nightmare fuel and nothing more, of course.
Considering that right now fascists are gaining power everywhere in the "western world", it doesn't seem likely. Well, not until decades and probably a bloody war or two later, at any rate.
Fascist regimes don't last long because they all eventually turn their violence inward. They breed the sort of mistrust and lack of questioning that don't make them effective societies.
Tell that to Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Zimbabwe, China and North Korea, which have been authoritarian for decades now. I'm sorry, what does "lasting long" mean?
You are aware that there are more types of authoritarian governments than just "fascism," right?
"No, not like that..!!!!"
Well, you're just moving the goal post.
Where in that sentence is implied that the countries I mentioned should be excluded?
^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.
Ok. Which of the countries I mentioned is not fascist and why?
The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.
I think you're seeing my question as confrontional, thinking that I will continue rebutting for the sake of rebutting.
I took a step back. Take one step back too. I'm willing to be corrected. I'm willing to question my reasoning.
But I can't just say "oh sorry" without seeing the whole picture.
Now, could you please answer the question? It was a genuine one. Don't be like the other one who said "ooh hoo u not worth it" when I was already open for a genuine exchange.
Real smart of you to change what we're talking about in the reply. That's a classic move to make yourself seem like you made a point.
Well, enlighten me instead of being gratuitously and unhelpfully sarcastic.
Nah, you're not worth it.
Edgy.
Would Franco's Spain and Pinoche's Argentina somewhat contradict that assertion? They both lasted a good long time before there was a slow transition away from their regimes from what I remember.
And she'll be a footnote, after she's spent her life ensconced in power and being showered with gifts for serving the cause. She'll have a much nicer life than people who had integrity and cared about their fellow man, but we'll be comforted that someday she'll get her judgement.
I doubt she'll get any judgement in life, and being agnostic I doubt she'll get any after it.
Unfortunately, much too often the reward of evil is wealth and power.
I hope contemporary will be harsh towards her.
Why wait? She'll live a long life. There's plenty of time to hold her accountable for aiding and abetting Trump.
She probably would not have denied it had the prosecutors had a 3-7 minute conversation with Trump's defense and had determined they couldn't have come to an agreement. Prosecutorial arrogance allowed them to just ignore procedure and they figured they could get away with it.
Also, if the prosecutors have such good evidence, maybe instead of worrying so much about what Trump is speechifying on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, they could just prosecute him? Are they really afraid that a jury is so stupid that they are going to be persuaded by Trump ranting tweets or Xes or whatever they are called now on that enshitified platform? Either they have weak evidence or this is just a power play to try to control Trump's ability to say what he wants (and ignore the court rules) and they thought they could get away with it.
This is the equivalent of thoughts and prayers. Get out and organize
Not much I can do on my end, considering I don't live in the US. I'll keep watching the dumpster fire from above.
Holy shit, how are things in heaven, and how do I get there?
Oh wait, you mean space? Same questions!
j/k just hoping the populist conservatism doesn't catch hold in Canada.
We have angry Milhouse stirring shit up North, so yeah populist conservatism is on the rise.
she's doing exactly what she was appointed to do.
I still find it mind-boggling that she's even participating in the case, much less judging (adjudicating?) it.
if the court rules are that both sides are supposed to talk to determine what is reasonable to discuss and not discuss, and the prosecutor just totally ignored that because "who cares" and Trump is clearly out of line, then the prosecutor still ignored the court rules. good for that judge for asserting that prosecutors can't just do whatever they want. i thought her words were actually funny and clever. she's pointing out that the rules specify it's really supposed to be a meaningful attempt, not just faking it or ignoring it or trivially trying to say they tried. A gag order is a big limit to free speech, I wish they were never even allowed, but she's at least being sensible with this and rejecting it on a limited basis based on procedural reasons
That may fly if Trump already didn't have a history of skirting or outright defying gag orders already. This lady needs to be removed immediately on nat sec grounds. This is fucking absurd.
Even if you don't like Trump, procedural fairness is important. You aren't supposed to just ignore procedure when it comes to a defendant being criminally prosecuted. There has been a trend of more and more procedural fairness being ignored because prosecutors know they can get away with it and it will be meaningless on appeal. The judge had to rule this way and if she hadn't she would have been a horrible judge. What is sad is that it actually had to be appealed to get to the level of normal procedural fairness. Even very awful people are supposed to get fair procedure in the US. The time procedure and fairness matter most is when someone is being deprived of liberty, that's when you want the rules to be fair, not broken. What would have been a better ruling? If she said "Eh, it's fine, the prosecutors can do whatever and it won't matter on appeal anyway because of the harmless error rule." Gag orders should also be illegal. The First Amendment was not supposed to be some weak idea that occasionally let's people speak their views. It's supposed to protect people like Trump who many people think have detestable speech.
Also, I hate Trump's views on Trans people and his treatment towards those who are different or he perceives as different. I have never voted for Trump. Give this judge a break, that was a good ruling.
So a judge appointed by Trump doesn't want to tell Trump to shut up? Who would have ever guessed.
Yes appointed by Trump but confirmed by 11 Democrats and 45 Republicans. And we could say those not in the roll call tacitly voted to confirm so that's another 13 Democrats who confirmed her. Trump can get fucked, but just like Biden, the president was/is not solely responsible for what happens in the world.
I guess this is the good preview of what the case would devolve to.
From the article:
"In a brief order, Cannon slammed prosecutors for not following the court’s rules by failing to meaningfully confer with Trump’s defense lawyers about a potential gag order before making the request."
Maybe it's just me but this sounds an awful lot like she's denying the motion because the prosecutors......didn't ask the Trump team for permission to file the motion? Am I reading that right? The prosecution needs permission from the defense to file a motion for a gag order?
Lawyers, please tell me that Cannon is once again just being extraordinarily stupid. This can't be normal, right? To me, this is like a domestic abuse victim having to ask the abuser for the right get a restraining order.
As I understand it, they don't need to ask permission, but they need to make an actual attempt at a diplomatic resolution before making the formal request. If that doesn't go to their liking, then they would speak to the judge.
It should have been a formality, because in all likelihood, the defense would have politely told the prosecutors to get fucked, but they really shouldn't have skipped that step.
Your honor, I have a hundred examples of Trump violating gag orders from/checks notes/ the past 2 weeks. Asking them would be an insult in the first place.
Maybe it's a good way to test the waters to add to their concrete examples of bias.
It's not like they expect the gag order to be followed or enforced anyway. Judge Merchan has enough issues with that, and we already know Cannon will have less than no interest.
This is what "justice" is for the rich. The rest of us would be serving time in double digits by now. They just get the judges in their pockets to pull strings.
This is what leads me to worry you're oversimplifying something. Is it cool if we avoid the generalizations here? We can all confidently say Mr Trump isn't a very upstanding cretin, but don't let him take your rep down.
It really depends on what these rules are
Cannon said "that prosecutors’ request was 'wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy' ”
IMAX levels of projection there.
Anyone else tired of that smug headshot every news article uses of her? If this woman a recluse? How are there no other photos of her?
That’s probably the official photo published by the government.
So, uh...we going to plan protests yet, or...
When does all this become too much for the left? Cause I gotta say: We are being VERY lenient so far. We basically look at the Republicans and go "Okay, act like babies. We'll just rise above it." and gotta say: It isn't working.
I'm pretty hard against Trump and the Republican Party. I support Progressive policies and laws regardless of where they come from. What really irks me is how damned unresponsive people on the Left are. I feel like all we do is talk about what-if's and what-could-be's. Hell, part of me was surprised Gaza caused any protest at all with how damned passive everyone over here so often is in comparison to the raving lunatics over on the Right. It's appalling and frustrating.
The moment leftists actually protest, right wingers and centrists (Biden) will happily send in the military to give em the Black Panthers treatment
Meanwhile right wingers are allowed to do whatever they want, up to and including Jan 6th
Meanwhile Georgia is in the process of passing a law to label outside organizations as foreign agents and they had immediate protests. We're having our justice and political system blatantly turned toward service of a minority political faction lead by a fascist criminal and we think it would be inappropriate to demand they act differently.
Bought bitch balks behind bench. Film at 11
what a goddamn joke, she has literally NO qualifications to be a judge let alone a judge for one of the most important cases in the history of the fuckin country.
Absolutely pathetic, everybody in the goddamn law profession should be ashamed. Nothing but clowns
She's exceptionally competent in one area of law: fucking it up.
Next time Trump and repubes whine about unfair and rigged courts - show them this exhibit A.
Judiciary is politically motivated and republicans are solely to blame for it.
They'll say she's fair. There's not a hypocrisy gotcha that's going to get them to change their course.
Democrats that confirmed Canon.
Tom Carper of Delaware
Chris Coons of Delaware
Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada
Dianne Feinstein of California
Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire
Doug Jones of Alabama
Tim Kaine of Virginia
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Chris Murphy of Connecticut
Jacky Rosen of Nevada
Mark Warner of Virginia
no surprise here, the geriatric was probably half awake thinking she was home watching tv
Did they vote yes or were they just on the committee?
Because of course she did.
she is reaping the every living fuck out of this.
Wonder what she is going to inevitably sow...
Isn’t that backwards?
it follows the wording of the original phrase. Which does mean it's backwards, but i think it's funnier that way.
Nope. She's reaping what he sowed. What comes next is being sown now.
Rotten to the core.
So we can add another name to the rich and/or powerful who get to abuse our justice system for their own personal ends with nary a consequence in sight.
I gotta tell you, this is becoming the thing I'm most ashamed of about the current state of our country, and that's saying something, because I've got a pretty long list.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Federal Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s request for a gag order against Donald Trump in the classified documents case, saying that prosecutors’ request was “wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.
The original article contains 44 words, the summary contains 44 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Cannon lacks substance and professionalism of any kind.
When is the prosecution allowed to appeal(?) for a different judge due to obvious bias for the defense?
Wow, she's a real loose cannon^1^.
^1^ I mean how could you not?
Other shoe will drop immediately. Fuck you, Cannon.
Shocked, just shocked.
This furthers the argument that all judges should be elected
No, no, no, a thousand times no to this idea.
Do you really want judges making rulings based on what is the reddest of red meat for their base so they can get re-elected? Because that would be a great way for rural states to quickly become live-action versions of the Handmaid's Tale in record time. Cannon herself would likely be re-elected based on how she's handled the Trump case so far; if anything, having to worry about re-election would probably make her more brazenly corrupt, not less because it would be Trump's base that would be putting her back on the bench.
Dude ...look around...we are already at what you're describing when it comes to Republican leaning judges.
Trump was elected.
No, it is a good argument for the congressional review process to actually pay attention to who is being nominated.