Fogbow

First you have to ask her to recuse herself.

GIL is an expert in this area of the law.

I had forgotten the "speaking indictment" term: it's a nice concept. Ya lurnz stuf heer.

Larry weighs in:

I wish I thought Crazy Eyes gave a crap about what the law requires.

I knew that Jack Smith was head of the public corruption "unit" (may not be the right word) of the DOJ. I had not known he was in charge when 2 Democrats (including John Edwards who was running for president at the time) and 2 Republicans (who were not running for president at the time.

So we have a good argument against the "this is political". Was it also political when Jack Smith presided over an indictment and prosecution of a Democratic candidate for President?

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:02 am Noblepa, read it. You’ll understand it just fine. Mr Smith made absolutely sure of that. Even MTG would, if she bothered to read it.

You underestimate the stupidity of the NW GA hillbilly....

I think it’s entirely possible that Aileen Cannon wishes she never heard of United States v. Trump. She was publicly humiliated last time; her intelligence and professional competence were questioned. And if she thought the scrutiny was bad last time, this time she’ll be getting it from both sides, and it will be brutal.

I think it’s very possible she’ll get out, and she won’t have to be asked twice. If that happens, the Chief Judge of the Southern District will likely issue a brief statement about the unprecedented nature of the charges requiring a more experienced judge. She might assign it to herself, or a judge with senior status.

That’s what I hope happens, anyway.

We might need a new thread entitled republicans making excuses for trump

Funny that I havet seen video pr pics of the speeches anywhere. Almost like they weren't amazing, powerful, yuge, had record breaking crowds, the best evah.

Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:02 pm Funny that I havet seen video pr pics of the speeches anywhere. Almost like they weren't amazing, powerful, yuge, had record breaking crowds, the best evah.

The Daily Mail doesn't disappoint.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... icted.html

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:31 am I think it’s entirely possible that Aileen Cannon wishes she never heard of United States v. Trump.

I think it’s very possible she’ll get out, and she won’t have to be asked twice.

That’s what I hope happens, anyway.

Yeah, I hope so too.

If that happens, the Chief Judge of the Southern District will likely issue a brief statement about the unprecedented nature of the charges requiring a more experienced judge.

We're deeply in the realm of speculation here, but if Cannon does recuse, I would be surprised if the chief judge said anything like that. The official position is (and pretty much needs to be) that all of the judges in a federal district are adequately competent for pretty much any case,* and no litigant gets to complain because of the track record and experience (or lack thereof) of the assigned judge.

Also, it would be a grave mistake for the Chief Judge to call the charges unprecedented, because that buys into MAGA fascism. Politically, maybe. From the standpoint of the judicial system, not at all. For the most part, it's a routine CIPA case. And it's not unusual for federal judges to deal with cases that raise unprecedented constitutional issues, including cases involving the intersection of criminal and civil litigation with the office of the President. See, e.g., Nixon; Clinton.

_________
* Some districts have systems for steering complex patent cases to judges with patent expertise, and there may some similar arrangements for other specialized subjects.

His rallies are very therapeutic and cathartic. It's very healthy for him to live in a world, even for just a few hours, where he is horribly persecuted and maliciously attacked every hour of every day.

That wouldn't be healthy for someone like me, but diff'rent strokes and so forth blah blah blah.

But for him, it's healthy to fantasize that all his troubles are ephemeral, and all his attackers destined to failure, and it will all come out right in the end, when he gets re-elected and brings bloody murderous revenge against all his enemies. Boy oh boy, that's gonna be great.

Or maybe straight up civil war. He'd like that, as long as it was named after him. The Trump Civil War, that's gonna make some excellent Tee Vee, you betcha.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:35 pm

Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:02 pm Funny that I havet seen video pr pics of the speeches anywhere. Almost like they weren't amazing, powerful, yuge, had record breaking crowds, the best evah.

The Daily Mail doesn't disappoint.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... icted.html

Thanks. this is the only pic of the crowd on the page.



Aside from the only black people being in the photo being front and centre (snark) I would say that crowd is Ten people across and maybe Fifteen deep, so One Hundred and Fifty people. So, his huge crowd was probably 300 to 450 people, in what looks to me like an Aircraft Hanger or Warehouse of some kind.

Remember when they laughed at Hillary Clinton for getting ten times that number?

Hope the owner of the hanger got his money in advance.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:31 am I think it’s entirely possible that Aileen Cannon wishes she never heard of United States v. Trump.

I think it’s very possible she’ll get out, and she won’t have to be asked twice.

That’s what I hope happens, anyway.

On further thought, this won't happen. There's a doctrine known as the "duty to sit" that states that federal judges can't recuse because they feel unqualified or uneasy about taking a case, and in effect requires a decision against recusal unless the argument for recusal is overwhelming.

Sorry

Why isn't Trump holding large outdoor rallies?

That's Diamond or Silk or someone on the left, I forgotted which one died.


The guy to her left (our right) is her bodyguard, and he is carrying a HUGE number of guns under that shirt, I count at least a dozen.

Nevermind. Sorry.

Volkonski wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 1:13 pm Why isn't Trump holding large outdoor rallies?

He's terrified about how it will look WHEN no-one turns up. And he's right.

I mean that obviously is the best photo of the crowd he has, which is why the Mail published it. And it's basically nothing for a guy who has some of the highest media profiles in America right now. You could get more for an ABBA cover band.

chancery wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 1:10 pm

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:31 am I think it’s entirely possible that Aileen Cannon wishes she never heard of United States v. Trump.

I think it’s very possible she’ll get out, and she won’t have to be asked twice.

That’s what I hope happens, anyway.

On further thought, this won't happen. There's a doctrine known as the "duty to sit" that states that federal judges can't recuse because they feel unqualified or uneasy about taking a case, and in effect requires a decision against recusal unless the argument for recusal is overwhelming.

Sorry

Are they not allowed to recuse on public perception grounds?

They're allowed to, but how is that crazy enough for the year 2023?

So a Judge can't just say "I need to recuse from this case" without giving a specific reason? No way in hell would I want a trial before a Judge who is forced to hear a case after being denied a recusal.

Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 12:55 pm
Aside from the only black people being in the photo being front and centre (snark) I would say that crowd is Ten people across and maybe Fifteen deep, so One Hundred and Fifty people. So, his huge crowd was probably 300 to 450 people, in what looks to me like an Aircraft Hanger or Warehouse of some kind.

I would say closer to 650 and would not object to 700-800.

It looks like a medium to larger convention space.

Maybe. I thought those brown pillars were Iron Support beams but they might not have been.