Judge Cannon has learned all the wrong lessons from her first, legally untenable pro-Trump ruling of September 2022.
On Friday, District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a new order in the Donald Trump classified documents case adding to the mountain of evidence that she is firmly in the former president’s pocket. Trump appointed Cannon in 2020 and the Senate confirmed her appointment in the days after he lost the 2020 election. It’s deeply offensive to the rule of law for judges to bend the law to benefit those who put them on the bench. Sadly, Cannon does just that.
Cannon’s new ruling rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s entirely standard request that she order Trump to state whether he intends to rely on an “advice of counsel” defense ahead of the trial, currently scheduled for May 20. Advance notice of the defense helps expedite a trial because defendants asserting it need to provide additional discovery to prosecutors—raising the defense means that defendants must disclose all communications with their attorneys, as the defense waives the attorney–client privilege.
Judge Cannon’s brief order asserted that Smith’s motion was “not amenable to proper consideration at this juncture, prior to at least partial resolution of pretrial motions” and further discovery.
Sound innocuous? It’s anything but. Instead, it’s part of a pattern we’ve already seen of Cannon laying the groundwork for delaying Trump’s trial—until it’s too late for a jury to be empaneled and the case tried to verdict before the election.
My physical demeanor will change dramatically towards the powerful, wealthy, and forceful if Trump wins another term. I was very ragged through that entire term. And I will be much worse in dealing with it again.
But I refuse to abandon the US to Trump and his toadies and run off to another country.
Ah yes, the idea that your pea shooter can deal with tanks and drones flown from under a mountain in Colorado. Nah, you'll get blown up, they won't find enough parts to identify you, and the world will turn onward.
Ah yes, the dumbass idea that the U.S. is able to take out insurgents the way it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, parroted robotically by some bootlicker any time anyone even so much as whispers the obvious solution to our problems
LOL this is the top comment in the thread. You managed to project your own insecurities and make it personal, which is the weirdest way to react to a random internet comment.
LOL this is one of the most mediocre comments in the thread. Criticizing someone's response instead of offering anything substantive because you're looking to forum slide. Well, it won't work.
I don't wanna hear it.
The American people absolutely are capable of overthrowing their own government, and they will be morally justified in doing so if Trump wins and actually starts doing the insane genocidal bullshit he's been promising his camp.
All I hear is "I can be mean and it's your problem", which gets you a block. "I don't want to hear it" and "Get over it" is also projection on your end and shows a very narcissistic mind. I'll fortunately never see your reply, so, ya know, have a nice day I guess.
Fortunately the rules allow for celebrating violence and advocating for nonviolent deaths. If you're going to be pedantic about the exact meaning of your rules to stifle opposition, write better rules.
"No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning"
Telling people to practice shooting if Trump is re-elected, or, hell, if ANYONE is elected, is advocating violence.
I absolutely encourage good firearms safety IN GENERAL. You're never too young to learn good trigger discipline. ;)
Advocating it in response to an election or other political event carries unfortunate connotations which isn't allowed.
I'm actually quite pleased at the number of gun groups that have popped up on Lemmy. Liberal Gun Owners for example, I think there's one for LGBTQ shooters as well. Can't recall the name of it.
Since someone is going to be elected pretty much no matter what, "practice shooting if a tone is elected" is logically equivalent to "practice shooting".
Banning proponents of 2A is a bit weird for a politics sub but I like it. Gun nuts are crazy.
Oh, I have no problem with proponents of the 2nd Amendment, it's when you start talking about the 2nd Amendment in connection with other people that there's going to be a problem.
"Trump just became the nominee? Better brush up on the 2nd Amendment..." Surely you see the tone there. It's really no different than what Trump was saying on 1/6, only actually invoking weapons.
I was actually about to upvote for that first paragraph, but downvoted because of the rest.
And hey, I mean, ACAB, I'm not defending cops. Cops are selected for stupidity and aggression, trained to murder, and held above the law. Even the best of them are still part of a system that is oppressive by design.
But what that trainer was saying was true, and an important thing to acknowledge for anybody who is likely to be in life-and-death situations - firefighters, paramedics, even social workers. Go to the Snopes link he included and read the whole thing.
Sex is a normal reaction to danger. It doesn't mean that cops are going out and killing people just to have better sex, that's stupid. They're killing people, yes, for lots of reasons, but that's not one of them. It's almost as dumb as the QAnon quacks talking about adrenochrome.