Jack Smith should’ve pushed for a different judge when he had the chance….. This woman is a Chump plant. He gave her the job…. If that isnt a reason for bias. Jacks big mistake thus far, and I fear it’s gonna cost America, Bigly……
When did he have a chance? He can’t just reject the judge. He needs to collect enough evidence that she’s biased, and that the government can’t expect a fair trial. And there needs to be a procedural way to get it to the 11th Circuit. It has to be done right, and it has to succeed on the first try.
Terrifying and outrageous. This is exactly while this serial grifter has never faced accountability, too many people willing to look the other way, whether or not they are in his pocket.
“And he would have a decent chance of meeting the Supreme Court’s standard for mandamus relief, showing clear error on the part of the trial judge, a lack of an alternative remedy, and irreparable injury if the error is allowed to persist.”
Doesn’t he have that now? Isn’t her even considering including the irrelevant PRA in jury instructions, particularly with this latest decision/refusal of hers to say she won’t, obviously intended to set up a situation where there will be “lack of alternative remedy, and irreparable injury”?
Her “I’m just curious” whining in her decision is an obvious lie. Like someone pointing their gun sights at you and saying “I just want to see if the sights work. Im not planing to actually shoot you. Really, I’m not. Now just stand there while I load the gun.”
“Instructing jurors that they are obliged to take Trump at his word that stolen documents are personal records is functionally an instruction to acquit.”
It’s also an instruction that flagrantly lies about what the law actually says. How can it not be grounds for removing the judge if they are blatantly, deliberately lying to the jury to force an acquittal?
SPECIAL COUNCIL: I believe Trump stole highly classified documents, at the risk of National Security, putting American lives in danger, with the possible potential for starting wars.
Yes, it’s blatant and obvious. So isn’t there some route open to Smith to force her recusal? It’s hard to believe that when the judge is obviously “on the take” there isn’t some way to remove them.
Can obviously biased judges truly do whatever they want to tank a case and no higher court is allowed to right the obvious injustice?
With her as the judge, Trump is never actually in jeopardy. Perhaps there’s an argument to be made there to counter the double jeopardy and actually get Trump re-tried before a competent and honest judge. (Cannon showing by every ruling the she is neither.)
I have to disagree with the final line - whoever is advising her is not dumb...She obviously did not have expert guidance the previous times she was slapped down.
Jack Smith should’ve pushed for a different judge when he had the chance….. This woman is a Chump plant. He gave her the job…. If that isnt a reason for bias. Jacks big mistake thus far, and I fear it’s gonna cost America, Bigly……
When did he have a chance? He can’t just reject the judge. He needs to collect enough evidence that she’s biased, and that the government can’t expect a fair trial. And there needs to be a procedural way to get it to the 11th Circuit. It has to be done right, and it has to succeed on the first try.
There was talk at the very beginning about possibly having her removed because her flubs on Donny Boys previous trial with her. And than there’s Jack Smith the other day threatening her about her senseless instructions over jury questioning…. There’s this as well: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/-nuclear-button-special-counsel-seek-removal-judge-trump-classified-do-rcna146507
Don't count Jack Smith out.
He's been at this a lot longer
than Cannon. The 11th circuit
is still in her future and not
that far down the road.
Terrifying and outrageous. This is exactly while this serial grifter has never faced accountability, too many people willing to look the other way, whether or not they are in his pocket.
“And he would have a decent chance of meeting the Supreme Court’s standard for mandamus relief, showing clear error on the part of the trial judge, a lack of an alternative remedy, and irreparable injury if the error is allowed to persist.”
Doesn’t he have that now? Isn’t her even considering including the irrelevant PRA in jury instructions, particularly with this latest decision/refusal of hers to say she won’t, obviously intended to set up a situation where there will be “lack of alternative remedy, and irreparable injury”?
Her “I’m just curious” whining in her decision is an obvious lie. Like someone pointing their gun sights at you and saying “I just want to see if the sights work. Im not planing to actually shoot you. Really, I’m not. Now just stand there while I load the gun.”
Chilling
“Instructing jurors that they are obliged to take Trump at his word that stolen documents are personal records is functionally an instruction to acquit.”
It’s also an instruction that flagrantly lies about what the law actually says. How can it not be grounds for removing the judge if they are blatantly, deliberately lying to the jury to force an acquittal?
SPECIAL COUNCIL: I believe Trump stole highly classified documents, at the risk of National Security, putting American lives in danger, with the possible potential for starting wars.
TRUMP: MINE MINE MINE!!!
CANNON: Dismissed! Next case.
“This blatant act of partisan hackery…”
Yes, it’s blatant and obvious. So isn’t there some route open to Smith to force her recusal? It’s hard to believe that when the judge is obviously “on the take” there isn’t some way to remove them.
Can obviously biased judges truly do whatever they want to tank a case and no higher court is allowed to right the obvious injustice?
With her as the judge, Trump is never actually in jeopardy. Perhaps there’s an argument to be made there to counter the double jeopardy and actually get Trump re-tried before a competent and honest judge. (Cannon showing by every ruling the she is neither.)
I have to disagree with the final line - whoever is advising her is not dumb...She obviously did not have expert guidance the previous times she was slapped down.
Exactly. Someone or some organization is advising her, it's just a matter of who it is.
Maybe “she ain’t dumb,” and maybe she’s getting good (so-to-speak) advice.