Judge Cannon kicks a can

[rambot]

I'm not a legal expert but some online commentators are doing some prognosticating.
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/in...s-ruling-against-opens-up-nightmare-scenario/

So she refuses to consider some of Trumps arguments for appeal before the trial where at this point the govt. could then respond. But she says he raises some valid points (not valid enough to consider at this point).

So just go through the trial and during trial they could raise those appeals again and the case would be dropped without the government being able to respond.


I think I am summarizing the concerns correctly. But before we have a fuller conversation on the bias and defference Cannon has been providing to the Trump team, what are folks thoughts on this move (if I'm even describing it correctly)

 

[Hank77]

I'm not a legal expert but some online commentators are doing some prognosticating.
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/15/in...s-ruling-against-opens-up-nightmare-scenario/

So she refuses to consider some of Trumps arguments for appeal before the trial where at this point the govt. could then respond. But she says he raises some valid points (not valid enough to consider at this point).

So just go through the trial and during trial they could raise those appeals again and the case would be dropped without the government being able to respond.


I think I am summarizing the concerns correctly. But before we have a fuller conversation on the bias and defference Cannon has been providing to the Trump team, what are folks thoughts on this move (if I'm even describing it correctly)

I have to rely on the expertise of others as well. Here's an article that I received from The Bulwark that analyzes Judge Cannon's ruling. For me, this breakdown was very helpful.

It’s Time for Jack Smith to Seek Judge Cannon’s Removal from the Classified Documents Case

Take a closer look at her latest ruling.

plus.thebulwark.com

...
Trump’s argument, in a nutshell, was that the criminal statute under which the case was brought is unconstitutionally vague. The statute in question, the Espionage Act of 1917, has been enforced in criminal proceedings for over a hundred years. Just last week, Jack Douglas Teixeira, a member of the Air National Guard, agreed to plead guilty to retaining and transmitting ...

Wrap your head around this sentence:

For that reason, rather than prematurely decide now whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) [the Espionage Act] in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial glosses, the Court elects to deny the Motion without prejudice, to be raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions.

What are “asserted judicial glosses”? By this, Judge Cannon apparently means the century of judicial precedent—case law—the universally accepted authority for deciding subsequent cases involving similar facts or legal issues, or at least as the starting point of a judicial analysis. Why would Judge Cannon use a pejorative euphemism to describe the judicial process itself? ...
...

 

[ralliann]

I have to rely on the expertise of others as well. Here's an article that I received from The Bulwark that analyzes Judge Cannon's ruling. For me, this breakdown was very helpful.

It’s Time for Jack Smith to Seek Judge Cannon’s Removal from the Classified Documents Case

Take a closer look at her latest ruling.

plus.thebulwark.com

...
Trump’s argument, in a nutshell, was that the criminal statute under which the case was brought is unconstitutionally vague. The statute in question, the Espionage Act of 1917, has been enforced in criminal proceedings for over a hundred years. Just last week, Jack Douglas Teixeira, a member of the Air National Guard, agreed to plead guilty to retaining and transmitting ...

Wrap your head around this sentence:


What are “asserted judicial glosses”? By this, Judge Cannon apparently means the century of judicial precedent—case law—the universally accepted authority for deciding subsequent cases involving similar facts or legal issues, or at least as the starting point of a judicial analysis. Why would Judge Cannon use a pejorative euphemism to describe the judicial process itself? ...
...

It seems to be about a president and the documents.

 

[rambot]

It seems to be about a president and the documents.

No it's not. It's about the application of judicial procedure

 

[wing2000]

I have to rely on the expertise of others as well. Here's an article that I received from The Bulwark that analyzes Judge Cannon's ruling. For me, this breakdown was very helpful.

It’s Time for Jack Smith to Seek Judge Cannon’s Removal from the Classified Documents Case

Take a closer look at her latest ruling.

plus.thebulwark.com

...
Trump’s argument, in a nutshell, was that the criminal statute under which the case was brought is unconstitutionally vague. The statute in question, the Espionage Act of 1917, has been enforced in criminal proceedings for over a hundred years. Just last week, Jack Douglas Teixeira, a member of the Air National Guard, agreed to plead guilty to retaining and transmitting ...

Wrap your head around this sentence:


What are “asserted judicial glosses”? By this, Judge Cannon apparently means the century of judicial precedent—case law—the universally accepted authority for deciding subsequent cases involving similar facts or legal issues, or at least as the starting point of a judicial analysis. Why would Judge Cannon use a pejorative euphemism to describe the judicial process itself? ...
...

It's her job to decide this matter. Not the jury!

 

[ralliann]

No it's not. It's about the application of judicial procedure

It mentioned precedence of cases....Did any of those cases involve a president? That is how I understood vagueness.

 

[Hank77]

It mentioned precedence of cases....Did any of those cases involve a president? That is how I understood vagueness.

I have read this ...

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

and I can't see where there is any vagueness about the President being among the "Whoever" in each section or being exempt from being a conspirator as in section (g).

I think 'Whoever' means exactly that, 'Whoever'.

If you think there is, I'm all ears.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It mentioned precedence of cases....Did any of those cases involve a president? That is how I understood vagueness.

Unless the law hinges on the defendant's identity or position, the fact that none of the cases tried under that law have involved a particular person is irrelevant. The Espionage Act, as pointed out, does not distinguish between persons when it comes to violations, referring to "whoever". Trump's question of precedent might as well be about whether the Act has been applied to persons named Donald - that is to say, completely pointless.

 

[ralliann]

I have read this ...

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

www.law.cornell.edu

and I can't see where there is any vagueness about the President being among the "Whoever" in each section or being exempt from being a conspirator as in section (g).

I think 'Whoever' means exactly that, 'Whoever'.

If you think there is, I'm all ears.

The president, having power to classify and declassify documents could make a difference. Lets just wait and see as the judge said...Which funny, power Biden did not have for most of his documents as a senator, and left in several unsecure locations. Nothing being done about that at all???Hmmm He should not have had them when he was a Senator period.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The president, having power to classify and declassify documents could make a difference. Lets just wait and see as the judge said...

Considering that this case covers actions taken after Trump left office, the president's declassification powers are irrelevant. And Trump did not declassify the materials that he possessed before he left - while he had the power to do so, there is still a process that must be followed in order to exercise that power, and Trump did not follow that process.

Which funny, power Biden did not have for most of his documents as a senator, and left in several unsecure locations. Nothing being done about that at all???Hmmm He should not have had them when he was a Senator period.

Plenty was done about that - he had his home and offices searched and he was investigated for years by a special counsel (a Trump appointee, even). Same goes for Mike Pence. The key difference is that Trump obstructed the search and investigation, while Biden and Pence did not. Ultimately, that is why Trump has been charged and they were not.

 

[Hank77]

The president, having power to classify and declassify documents could make a difference. Lets just wait and see as the judge said...Which funny, power Biden did not have for most of his documents as a senator, and left in several unsecure locations. Nothing being done about that at all???Hmmm He should not have had them when he was a Senator period.

Why do you feel the need to point out another person's failure in order to exonerate Trump? When I was a kid my parents didn't let me off the hook because some other kids also did the same I did and weren't held accountable. "Everyone is doing it" shouldn't have anything to do with Trump's actions and inaction being legal or illegal.

 

[rambot]

The president, having power to classify and declassify documents could make a difference. Lets just wait and see as the judge said...Which funny, power Biden did not have for most of his documents as a senator, and left in several unsecure locations. Nothing being done about that at all???Hmmm He should not have had them when he was a Senator period.

1) You don't know the nature of ANY of the documents that are being discussed.
2) Trump made excuses and tried to deny it for a long time. Then fought it. Why? How did Biden react to his investigations?

 

[ralliann]

1) You don't know the nature of ANY of the documents that are being discussed.
2) Trump made excuses and tried to deny it for a long time. Then fought it. Why? How did Biden react to his investigations?

And we will BOTH find out the facts of that........This is the problem these days with both social media and traditional media. Just wait and find out what all the facts are concerning a president in this particular situation.

 

[rambot]

And we will BOTH find out the facts of that........

Nope. This information (as specific as it could be) was already released WAAAAY back when these events took place.

 

[ralliann]

Nope. This information (as specific as it could be) was already released WAAAAY back when these events took place.

Oh yeah, like Schiff seen all kinds of evidence for Russia, Russia, Russia. He did not see a thing. But hey was voted in by libs to promote lies they like.