And until he says something more memorable than answering the first question with a bunch of stuttering, ums, uhs, and then a random "I beat Medicare!", whatever that means, then none of that will matter to most people. That soundbyte was an absolute disaster that he may not recover from.

Serious question, for anyone masochistic enough to still be watching: Has Biden's performance improved enough to negate the moment that will be on every GOP attack ad for the next 5 months, or does he still look like he needs to be walked back into his room and told that no, it's not 1975 any more........

Good god, I had to stop watching after the abortion question.

Trump actually has managed to keep his composure so far. Sure, he's spouting out lie upon lie that CNN is allowing to continue un-fact-checked. But he at least sounds like he knows what he's talking about, and is showing something resembling energy.

Biden looked like a nursing home patient that should've been guided out by his nurse. He sounds even worse. That freeze-up at the end with him stuttering and just blurting out a random "I beat Medicare" or whatever that was is going to fuel the entire Republican campaign for the next 5 months. That is literally the exact moment Biden lost this election, mark my words. The man is performing like he's sundowning.

If he gets better, God bless him. But I cannot see how anyone can have confidence in that man after that performance. He doesn't look like he'll make it another 4 months let alone another 4 years.

Excuse me, your honor. I think we need to have a hearing on what the definition of fact-finding is. Actually, I think we need three separate hearings. One is to define the word fact, then the word finding, and the last to define fact-finding with regards to the scope of this case. Oh, and that reminds me......we need to define the word scope as well. I mean what kind of scope? A periscope? A telescope? And how do we define definition anyway? I think we need a hearing on that as well...........and what does constitute a hearing, anyway? Has that been defined anywhere? See how complex this case is? You're confused, your clerk quit an hour ago, and even your stenographer confessed to Nixon's disappearance and went to jail rather than suffer through this any more. So how do you expect a jury of my peers to undestand this. And what do we mean by "peers" anyway.......

From the article:

“There is a difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing ‘mini-trial,’ on the one hand, and an evidentiary hearing geared to adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues on a given pre-trial motion to suppress,” Cannon wrote.

Yeah, you fucking cunt. You're doing the former while trying to call it the latter and using Trumpian doublespeak and circular logic to justify it.

Trump’s lawyers say they believe the wording used in the search warrant to authorize agents to seize “national defense information” and “Presidential Records” wasn’t specific enough, and Cannon agreed that there were “ambiguities.”

“The Court determines that some of the terms in that document do not carry ‘generally understood meaning[s]’ such that a law enforcement agent, without further clarification, would have known to identify such material as ‘seizable’ property,” the judge wrote on Thursday.

I don't even know where to begin here. Is she literally entertaining the idea that FBI agents are too stupid to know what national defense information and Presidential records are? What the fuck is that?

I can't even.......seriously.....I just can't. This is a level of stupid that I did not think was achievable by sentient human beings that are allowed to go outside without adult supervision.

Please, PLEASE tell me that this is finally an appealable issue. It HAS to be, right? Right? The 11th circuit or whatever appeals court oversees her will be able to bitchslap her again and hopefully remove her from the case, right? Or is all hope truly lost and we're destined to spend the next several months trying to figure out if the FBI knows what national defense information is until she finds the next excuse to delay the case for another eleventy billion years?

Yeah, because when that doesn’t work, and it won’t, there’s no way both she and the violent Trump cult retaliate against him for trying 🙄

And what at this point could they possibly do that they're not doing already?

Yeah, because an already belligerent judge becoming openly hostile helps his case and he isn’t getting enough death threats already 🙄

She has scolded the prosecution publicly every step of the way. She bends over backwards to rule in Trump's favor. She's already said she was going to delay ruling on some motions until after the trial starts, putting the case at high risk of double jeopardy. She has long since passed being "openly hostile" and is neck deep in "intentional sabotage". How much more hostile could she possibly get without calling for his assassination in the town square?

There’s no chance this case is going to trial before the election

And thus no chance it ever happens unless Trump loses again and the inevitable second coup attempt isn’t successful.

Which could at least possibly have been avoided if Smith had filed a motion to recuse when it became obvious the fix was in.

She’s already as hostile as she can be towards the prosecution

Wanna bet? A thousand bucks says she’s still trying (unsuccesfully) to appear impartial and will become much worse in reaction to him stating the obvious facts to the contrary.

So she'll bend over backwards to rule in Trump's favor, ignore the obvious fact-based arguments brought up by the prosecution, give them a tongue lashing at literally every hearing for the most trivial of matters, rule against the prosecution at every turn, then give the jury instructions that would basically guarantee an acquittal.

How is that different than what she's doing now?

And she’s holding hearings regarding having him removed from the case

Does that sound to you like the action of a well-adjusted person who won’t react to valid criticism by abusing the power she has over him and the case?

Which means his options are to (a) take it on the chin and virtually guarantee that Trump walks because the fix was in all along and she dismissed the case first chance she got once double jeopardy attached, or (b) Motion for her recusal and have at least a chance of having it reassigned to an impartial judge.

He literally has nothing to lose

Except for one of the most important and on paper strongest court cases in the history of the country. Just tiny things like that.

Which is 100% guaranteed with Cannon in charge. Smith has no chance of winning already as long as she's on the bench.

Especially since there’s virtually nothing he can do about it.

He can ask for her recusal, and file an appeal when she inevitably refuses. He hasn't even tried that, and at this point, the valid reasons why have all vanished. There's no chance this case is going to trial before the election. She's already as hostile as she can be towards the prosecution. And she's holding hearings regarding having him removed from the case. He literally has nothing to lose, but he's doing exactly nothing to even try to have her removed. If he were trying and failed, then I'd agree with you. But he isn't. What the fuck is he waiting for?

At this point, Jack Smith has nobody to blame but himself.

What does Cannon have to do to finally make him realize that the fix is in and he needs to have her recused?

• She has made multiple egregiously wrong rulings in his favor.
• She is openly hostile to the prosecution team in court.
• Her method of handling motions are to either postpone them indefinitely or to shape the rulings to both benefit trump and avoid creating an appealable issue.
• She is now actively entertaining motions to have Smith removed from the case and/or have the case thrown out on frivolous grounds that have already been litigated to death.
• She has already all but stated her intentions of not ruling on some motions until after trial begins so when she dismisses the case based on those motions, double jeopardy will already be attached and Trump walks free.

How much more hostile can she be, short of hiring a hitman to have him publicly assassinated? He can't even claim to be worried about her being hostile to him at trial in retaliation, because she's already as hostile as she can be now.

It's sad how right-wing extremism seems to be gaining popularity not only in this country, but around the world. I guess the desire to be able to blame "them" for your own shortcomings really is that much of a driving force that people will vote against their own self-interests so long as they can continue to blame "them" for everything. Maybe Trump was right, and the easiest way to rise to power is just to be charismatic and give the rubes a boogeyman to hate. Seems to have worked for him so far.

If anybody hasn't figured it out, she doesn't stand for anything. She rage-tweets on Twitter about anything Democrats could even mildly support just to increase her brand recognition. If and when she ever gets kicked out of Congress, she'll have an even bigger payday waiting for her as a right-wing talking head for the likes of OAN, Newsmax, and whatever conspiracy theory sites rise up to replace Infowars.

Both digits are after the decimal point.

Maybe if major news networks had started this in 2015, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.

Should've hung up a dime. Much smaller.

Am I reading this right or is she seriously entertaining the notion of dismissing the case because Jack Smith spent too much money investigating? And what happens, does the defendant just get to walk away if they go over budget?

"Your honor, the sheriff drove to my home to arrest me for this crime. This cost the American taxpayer approximately $1.07 in gas and $.15 worth of wear and tear on a government vehicle. This was not appropriated in the investigation budget so I demand the case be thrown out!"

Judge: "Agreed! Case dismissed!"

I'm assuming you meant the young girl at about the 17 second mark.

Wherever she ended up, she did not sit behind Bobo:

And when you make an accusation that she was stroking him off when in reality she copped a quick feel over his pants, whether his dick was out absolutely does make a huge difference. Her behavior was wholly inappropriate, especially considering she's an adult and a Congresswoman, but she didn't do anything that thousands of teenagers don't do regularly when on a date in a dark theater. Let's not make it out to be worse than it really was just because the person involved is unpopular.

She was groping him over the clothes, not stroking him off. And there weren't any kids in that audience. Or at least, none that were caught on camera.

She embarrasses herself enough without having to completely make up details.

Nitpick: They groped each other over the clothes. She didn't have her hand down his pants. She makes herself out to be a shitbag of a person without people needing to make up details that didn't happen.

Adam Frisch has a good chance of winning, which means boebert has a shot at flipping two districts from red to blue.

What a glorious outcome this would be. After a short but pointless career, she's essentially run out of politics and goes down in history as the first person to cost their party not just one but two seats on her way out.

I would celebrate with a hearty chuckle.

It seems unlikely that she will take that chance though since she can cause more delay by staying where she it, but who knows, she doesn’t seem to be the sharpest crayon in the box so maybe she will do it.

She has two goals:

1. To entertain all of the ridiculous motions to get the charges dismissed that Trump makes and deny them. This is for the purpose of cover so she can point to those rulings as a defense against accusations of bias, while also delaying the trial until after the election in the hopes that Trump wins and orders the DOJ to drop the charges.

2. If and when the case does go to trial, then she'll entertain and grant a motion to dismiss once a jury is seated so double jeopardy attaches and Trump walks anyway. She's already openly all but said as much, as she is intentionally waiting until the start of the trial to rule on some defense motions.

Plus, then she’d probably be free to go on the right wing talk circuit and make piles of money while still supporting Trump.

The appellate courts removing her from the case won't mean she stops being a judge. Only impeachment and removal can do that, and there's zero chance that 2/3 of the senate is going to vote to remove her from the bench. Her seat is secure. She's basically trying to angle for a seat on the Supreme Court, knowing that two judges are likely going to be replaced during the next term and this is her best shot at getting one of them, while also knowing full well that her job is secure even if all of this blows up in her face. In her mind, she's basically gambling with house money.