Intent. Mary Trump made a statement on “The Last Word” stating that Trump actions are never not “transitional “ purposes meaning she feel his intent for keeping top secret documents was for monetary gain. Frightening!
I am always amazed and grateful that in a 24 hour day you can take any seemingly dark situation and leave me with: 1) the documented facts to maintain my optimism in the American people and our faith in justice and truth 2)at least one or two good laughs when I can see clearly and , most important, 3) increased motivation to see this guy where he belongs -NOT in office! This is one of your best examples. Thanks! You ROCK !
From now on when you refer to Trumps sycophants ( Graham, Jordan, McCarthy, MTG, et al.),
you should refer to them as “psychophants”!
Question: Trumps “ psychophants “ keep complaining that the indictments are unfair because Hilary Clinton wasn’t indicted. Wasn’t it up to Trumps DOJ to indict ?
Over a period of nearly three decades I tried cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States. In my experience I found judges can make or break a case, and I have faced “agenda driven” judges in the past that impacted the outcome of my trials. Although jurors are technically the “finders of fact” and ultimately “guilt or innocence,” judges have a great deal of leeway to determine what a jury gets to hear, and the manner in which evidence is presented. Applying those principles to Eileen Cannon, it is clear she has shown bias favoring Trump to the degree she should not preside over his criminal case, and she has no shame. She assumed “jurisdiction” illegally in the FBI’s criminal documents investigation for the very purpose of interfering with the investigation. It took the Eleventh Circuit to reverse her course of conduct interfering with a criminal investigation in a decision clearly rebuking her conduct and ordering her to stop. Her underlying actions were so inappropriate, she either displayed a profound ignorance or the law doing what she did, or perhaps a clear willingness to ignore the law for the sake of MAGA. Given her prior misconduct in this case, should she not recuse herself, which is so clearly warranted, it will be clear she intends to continue interfering with the fairness of the proceedings, again, for the sake of MAGA. What can she do in the process of unraveling the fairness of the trial? A lot. First, she could unilaterally reverse the “crime-fraud” exception that was determined made by Judge Howell in DC. Suddenly, all evidence related to Trump lying to his lawyers, hiding documents from them, trying to get them to participate in his crimes, and their written notes and recorded statements would disappear from the trial. She could allow witnesses to express statements and opinions that would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. This could lead the jurors down a number of specious rabbit holes of implausible theories or nonexistent facts. She could allow witnesses to claim bogus or inappropriate “privileges” as a basis not to answer questions, excluding important evidence. She could decide to allow some documentary evidence into the case so harmful to the security interests of the United States that the DOJ would be forced with withdraw evidence found in related documents from consideration to admit in the trial. She could during jury selection refuse to excuse agenda driven MAGA-QAnon-Trump biased jurors with ridiculous findings that they are not biased. In jury selection, she could also refuse to allow questions that the DOJ might have during voir dire for the purpose of exposing such bias. The sole purpose of not asking such question would be her desire to load up the jury with MAGAs like it was a town hall on CNN. If she does not rule the evidence insufficient to go to verdict before the case closes, (she can dismiss some or all the charges), she can deliver a set of instructions so confusing to the jury they won’t be able to come to an agreement on anything. It is fair to assume she will do anything of the case is not voluntary reassigned, or taken from her. Under the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution, a case unfairly tried against the DOJ cannot be retried, and Trump would go free of the charges against him. So, there you have it, only a few examples of what Cannon can do to save her hero. There are many more.
While I enjoy Bob’s optimism, I feel we are dealing with a cult of people that have no qualms about ignoring the rule of law or the Constitution. Some of the worst judges in American history were appointed by Trump and confirmed by an unscrupulous and unethical Senate headed by Mitch McConnell. We will be suffering from those lifetime appointments for decades.
Leslie you are correct, but having filed in Florida, Jack Smith’s options are limited. Unless Eileen Cannon recuses herself (to avoid the appearance of impropriety) we can expect impropriety. I really don’t expect her to do that, and absent blatant further misconduct, the odds of forcing her to recuse are not that great.
There are other charges I suspect sitting on Smith’s desk for conduct that clearly occurred in the Capitol. So, i would not be surprised to see a conspiracy to commit sedition charge to be filed there, and maybe involve everybody who requested a pardon plus one Lindsey Graham.
Thanks for your comments. On one level, it is impossible to disagree with your experience and observations. On another level, all lawyers have won tough cases despite bad judges, including you. I am not saying it will be easy or that the aid of the 11th Circuit will not be needed, but I believe Jack Smith's team can win a conviction.
To be clear, I did not suggest that Cannon will not "have a great deal of leeway to determine what a jury gets to hear, and the manner in which evidence is presented." Clearly, she will. The question is whether she can do so to a degree to defeat Jack Smith and the facts. I don't think she can.
And, while I believe the crime fraud exception applies, let's acknowledge that the breadth of the exception is what matters. How much of Corcoran's notes reveal communications designed to "aid or conceal a crime." A few, but not many. Not every statement made by Trump falls into the category of aiding or concealing a crime. Some clearly are, others are not.
I will address the question of a judgment of acquittal since several lawyers. have brought up that possibility in Comments and emails today. The 11th Circuit can review a dismissal (jeopardy hasn't attached) or a post conviction judgment of acquittal (US v. Jenkins). It seems to me that the only dispositive move Cannon can make is a judgment of acquittal before the case goes to the jury. That's theoretically possible, but would be corrupt. Could Cannon make a corrupt ruling? It's possible, but I don't believe she will. I understand that you believe she will make a corrupt ruling. Either way, my point is that we can't rely on the trial to keep Trump out of the presidency. As for his accountability, we still have Georgia, Manhattan, and (hopefully) January 6th.
I think you are correct on all counts, and he is guilty on all counts. He has always been able to lie or buy his way out of his crimes, but people who live like that sometimes fail to realize there is a line that cannot be crossed.
Although I usually find myself nodding in agreement with your analysis, I do not agree with you about Judge Cannon, who was reprimanded for her decisions and overruled by the Eleventh Circuit appellate panel in December 2022. Indeed, the members of the panel called her out for her perceived bias toward the former President. Her behavior shook the public's confidence in both her competence and her impartiality. It makes no sense to have a trial in which the Judge was appointed by the Defendant. This case is far too important, legally and historically, to pretend that the government simply got an "unlucky draw" when Judge Cannon was assigned the case. The first sentence of the statute that deals with federal judge recusal states that a Judge should recuse if his or her impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. section 455, paragraph A. It is extremely reasonable to question Aileen Cannon's impartiality based on her past actions. I do not trust her, and I fear that there is a risk that all the work that went into this investigation and this indictment will be thrown under the bus if she oversees this case. The classified documents case is far too important a case to entrust to a Judge who may once again strive to give special treatment to the person who appointed her to the bench. It's maddening, and way too risky. Judge Cannon should remove herself and if she doesn't, the government should request her removal.
Hi, Anne. You say, "I do not agree with you about Judge Cannon.
What did I say about Judge Cannon with which you disagree? I said she should recuse herself. I did not defend her conduct in the search warrant case; I said her orders in that case were "lawless." I said she was a bad judge and intellectually dishonest. I said she could put her thumb on the scales of justice in devious ways and that she will exercise a significant amount of control over what the jury sees. What part of that do you disagree with?
And are you disputing that the clerk of the court is lying when he says that Cannon was selected randomly, as reported in the NYTimes article I linked to in the newsletter? If you are willing to assume that the clerk of the court is corrupt, I have no logical grounds do dispute your view except to say that it is extraordinary to assume the clerk of the court is part of a conspiracy to protect Donald Trump.
I am on your side, Anne, and I think you completely misread what I said in the newsletter because you are so angry at Cannon. I understand your anger. My point is that Cannon is going to be trial judge whether we like it or not (unless she recuses herself) and we can't sit around hoping that a trial will solve the problem of a second Trump presidency. And it does little good to catalog all the ways Cannon might attempt to thwart Jack Smith in the future. She might; she might not; and the 11th Circuit will have a say in the matter.
The only acceptable solution is that Donald, his family and associates be stripped of their assets and citizenship and kicked out of the country. He is a traitor.
The only acceptable solution is that Donald and his family and associates be pants, stripped of their citizenship and kicked out of the country. He has been nothing but a troublemaker and a bad example nationally and internationally. How can it be possible that he not be condemned as a traitor when it is so blatantly obvious ???
Wow! Just finished reading the indictment, including the penalties. Sobering. More sobering given the extent of the charges, the danger posed to our country, our democracy, and ourselves is the thought that people are still supporting this jerk. This demonstrates at the very least a total lack of self-preservation among altogether too many people.
Leaving aside your excellent arguments regarding Judge Cannon, I have to think that her prior incompetence argues for her mucking this up early on. At the appropriate moment, Jack Smith will request her recusal. And the 11th Circuit will pressure her to recuse. Of course, I'm counting on her having some sense of pride, and a smidgeon of good judgement. She's in over her head, with both the relevant law, and the prosecutor. The talk of her being "smart" has as much credibility as Barr's reputation as a "good lawyer" prior to his performance as Rasputin in the Trump Administration.
It would be a mistake to move for her recusal. Reverse her instead.
Here is a scenario that could make things worse: Smith moves for recusal because of adverse rulings, she refuses. The 11th Circuit orders her to recuse herself. The case goes back on the "wheel" for random assignment to a new judge. The case is randomly assigned to one of the four judges in SD FL appointed by Obama. Trump is convicted. How do you think that conviction would be viewed by Republicans, as opposed to a conviction in a trial presided over by Cannon?
The Justice Department and Jack Smith understand full well this case will be arbitrated in the court of public opinion as well as by a jury of citizens. Inditing citizen Trump in Florida and likely expecting this particular judge to preside, demonstrates high confidence in their case and insight into the relatively small percent of citizen voters who need to be persuaded not so much of citizen Trump's guilt, rather that voting for him is no longer an option.
And on Voting Rights decision: the two politically savvy conservatives Robert’s and Kavanaugh can hear the drumbeat in the distance: “🥁 expand the Court” and want to tamp down a surge in the 1 of 4 reason for diverse constituencies to turn out in ‘24:
Regulate Guns, Reproduction/Rights/Equality for All and... you guessed it: Expand the Court.
Robert, my hashtag for sharing Today's Edition every day is #HubbellInspiresHopeAndAction This edition might be the most perfect example of that. Thank you!
The indictment is indeed damning. If you haven’t already read it, do yourself a favor and do so. It reflects the professionalism and thoroughness of the Prosecutorial team and, for me, is reassurance that Trump has finally met his match.
Your concluding paragraph made me chuckle....not searching for dramamine but a good suggestion. I concur with your thoughts on Fintan O'Toole's description of why-else-would-he-steal/lie/hide-secret documents. Money. They mean money and power down the road to be traded.
They sure weren't for his scrapbook or his library. Now there is a chuckle.
Intent. Mary Trump made a statement on “The Last Word” stating that Trump actions are never not “transitional “ purposes meaning she feel his intent for keeping top secret documents was for monetary gain. Frightening!
I am always amazed and grateful that in a 24 hour day you can take any seemingly dark situation and leave me with: 1) the documented facts to maintain my optimism in the American people and our faith in justice and truth 2)at least one or two good laughs when I can see clearly and , most important, 3) increased motivation to see this guy where he belongs -NOT in office! This is one of your best examples. Thanks! You ROCK !
From now on when you refer to Trumps sycophants ( Graham, Jordan, McCarthy, MTG, et al.),
you should refer to them as “psychophants”!
Question: Trumps “ psychophants “ keep complaining that the indictments are unfair because Hilary Clinton wasn’t indicted. Wasn’t it up to Trumps DOJ to indict ?
Over a period of nearly three decades I tried cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States. In my experience I found judges can make or break a case, and I have faced “agenda driven” judges in the past that impacted the outcome of my trials. Although jurors are technically the “finders of fact” and ultimately “guilt or innocence,” judges have a great deal of leeway to determine what a jury gets to hear, and the manner in which evidence is presented. Applying those principles to Eileen Cannon, it is clear she has shown bias favoring Trump to the degree she should not preside over his criminal case, and she has no shame. She assumed “jurisdiction” illegally in the FBI’s criminal documents investigation for the very purpose of interfering with the investigation. It took the Eleventh Circuit to reverse her course of conduct interfering with a criminal investigation in a decision clearly rebuking her conduct and ordering her to stop. Her underlying actions were so inappropriate, she either displayed a profound ignorance or the law doing what she did, or perhaps a clear willingness to ignore the law for the sake of MAGA. Given her prior misconduct in this case, should she not recuse herself, which is so clearly warranted, it will be clear she intends to continue interfering with the fairness of the proceedings, again, for the sake of MAGA. What can she do in the process of unraveling the fairness of the trial? A lot. First, she could unilaterally reverse the “crime-fraud” exception that was determined made by Judge Howell in DC. Suddenly, all evidence related to Trump lying to his lawyers, hiding documents from them, trying to get them to participate in his crimes, and their written notes and recorded statements would disappear from the trial. She could allow witnesses to express statements and opinions that would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. This could lead the jurors down a number of specious rabbit holes of implausible theories or nonexistent facts. She could allow witnesses to claim bogus or inappropriate “privileges” as a basis not to answer questions, excluding important evidence. She could decide to allow some documentary evidence into the case so harmful to the security interests of the United States that the DOJ would be forced with withdraw evidence found in related documents from consideration to admit in the trial. She could during jury selection refuse to excuse agenda driven MAGA-QAnon-Trump biased jurors with ridiculous findings that they are not biased. In jury selection, she could also refuse to allow questions that the DOJ might have during voir dire for the purpose of exposing such bias. The sole purpose of not asking such question would be her desire to load up the jury with MAGAs like it was a town hall on CNN. If she does not rule the evidence insufficient to go to verdict before the case closes, (she can dismiss some or all the charges), she can deliver a set of instructions so confusing to the jury they won’t be able to come to an agreement on anything. It is fair to assume she will do anything of the case is not voluntary reassigned, or taken from her. Under the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution, a case unfairly tried against the DOJ cannot be retried, and Trump would go free of the charges against him. So, there you have it, only a few examples of what Cannon can do to save her hero. There are many more.
While I enjoy Bob’s optimism, I feel we are dealing with a cult of people that have no qualms about ignoring the rule of law or the Constitution. Some of the worst judges in American history were appointed by Trump and confirmed by an unscrupulous and unethical Senate headed by Mitch McConnell. We will be suffering from those lifetime appointments for decades.
Expect the worst. It’s the nature of the game with republicans. Time to play hardball. Nice guys will finish last in the decision to stay with Canon.
Leslie you are correct, but having filed in Florida, Jack Smith’s options are limited. Unless Eileen Cannon recuses herself (to avoid the appearance of impropriety) we can expect impropriety. I really don’t expect her to do that, and absent blatant further misconduct, the odds of forcing her to recuse are not that great.
There are other charges I suspect sitting on Smith’s desk for conduct that clearly occurred in the Capitol. So, i would not be surprised to see a conspiracy to commit sedition charge to be filed there, and maybe involve everybody who requested a pardon plus one Lindsey Graham.
Thanks for your comments. On one level, it is impossible to disagree with your experience and observations. On another level, all lawyers have won tough cases despite bad judges, including you. I am not saying it will be easy or that the aid of the 11th Circuit will not be needed, but I believe Jack Smith's team can win a conviction.
To be clear, I did not suggest that Cannon will not "have a great deal of leeway to determine what a jury gets to hear, and the manner in which evidence is presented." Clearly, she will. The question is whether she can do so to a degree to defeat Jack Smith and the facts. I don't think she can.
And, while I believe the crime fraud exception applies, let's acknowledge that the breadth of the exception is what matters. How much of Corcoran's notes reveal communications designed to "aid or conceal a crime." A few, but not many. Not every statement made by Trump falls into the category of aiding or concealing a crime. Some clearly are, others are not.
I will address the question of a judgment of acquittal since several lawyers. have brought up that possibility in Comments and emails today. The 11th Circuit can review a dismissal (jeopardy hasn't attached) or a post conviction judgment of acquittal (US v. Jenkins). It seems to me that the only dispositive move Cannon can make is a judgment of acquittal before the case goes to the jury. That's theoretically possible, but would be corrupt. Could Cannon make a corrupt ruling? It's possible, but I don't believe she will. I understand that you believe she will make a corrupt ruling. Either way, my point is that we can't rely on the trial to keep Trump out of the presidency. As for his accountability, we still have Georgia, Manhattan, and (hopefully) January 6th.
I think you are correct on all counts, and he is guilty on all counts. He has always been able to lie or buy his way out of his crimes, but people who live like that sometimes fail to realize there is a line that cannot be crossed.
Although I usually find myself nodding in agreement with your analysis, I do not agree with you about Judge Cannon, who was reprimanded for her decisions and overruled by the Eleventh Circuit appellate panel in December 2022. Indeed, the members of the panel called her out for her perceived bias toward the former President. Her behavior shook the public's confidence in both her competence and her impartiality. It makes no sense to have a trial in which the Judge was appointed by the Defendant. This case is far too important, legally and historically, to pretend that the government simply got an "unlucky draw" when Judge Cannon was assigned the case. The first sentence of the statute that deals with federal judge recusal states that a Judge should recuse if his or her impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. section 455, paragraph A. It is extremely reasonable to question Aileen Cannon's impartiality based on her past actions. I do not trust her, and I fear that there is a risk that all the work that went into this investigation and this indictment will be thrown under the bus if she oversees this case. The classified documents case is far too important a case to entrust to a Judge who may once again strive to give special treatment to the person who appointed her to the bench. It's maddening, and way too risky. Judge Cannon should remove herself and if she doesn't, the government should request her removal.
Hi, Anne. You say, "I do not agree with you about Judge Cannon.
What did I say about Judge Cannon with which you disagree? I said she should recuse herself. I did not defend her conduct in the search warrant case; I said her orders in that case were "lawless." I said she was a bad judge and intellectually dishonest. I said she could put her thumb on the scales of justice in devious ways and that she will exercise a significant amount of control over what the jury sees. What part of that do you disagree with?
And are you disputing that the clerk of the court is lying when he says that Cannon was selected randomly, as reported in the NYTimes article I linked to in the newsletter? If you are willing to assume that the clerk of the court is corrupt, I have no logical grounds do dispute your view except to say that it is extraordinary to assume the clerk of the court is part of a conspiracy to protect Donald Trump.
I am on your side, Anne, and I think you completely misread what I said in the newsletter because you are so angry at Cannon. I understand your anger. My point is that Cannon is going to be trial judge whether we like it or not (unless she recuses herself) and we can't sit around hoping that a trial will solve the problem of a second Trump presidency. And it does little good to catalog all the ways Cannon might attempt to thwart Jack Smith in the future. She might; she might not; and the 11th Circuit will have a say in the matter.
😊
Yep. That's just how I remembered it. "Wouldn't it be loverly?" Thanks 😊
The only acceptable solution is that Donald, his family and associates be stripped of their assets and citizenship and kicked out of the country. He is a traitor.
The only acceptable solution is that Donald and his family and associates be pants, stripped of their citizenship and kicked out of the country. He has been nothing but a troublemaker and a bad example nationally and internationally. How can it be possible that he not be condemned as a traitor when it is so blatantly obvious ???
Wow! Just finished reading the indictment, including the penalties. Sobering. More sobering given the extent of the charges, the danger posed to our country, our democracy, and ourselves is the thought that people are still supporting this jerk. This demonstrates at the very least a total lack of self-preservation among altogether too many people.
Leaving aside your excellent arguments regarding Judge Cannon, I have to think that her prior incompetence argues for her mucking this up early on. At the appropriate moment, Jack Smith will request her recusal. And the 11th Circuit will pressure her to recuse. Of course, I'm counting on her having some sense of pride, and a smidgeon of good judgement. She's in over her head, with both the relevant law, and the prosecutor. The talk of her being "smart" has as much credibility as Barr's reputation as a "good lawyer" prior to his performance as Rasputin in the Trump Administration.
It would be a mistake to move for her recusal. Reverse her instead.
Here is a scenario that could make things worse: Smith moves for recusal because of adverse rulings, she refuses. The 11th Circuit orders her to recuse herself. The case goes back on the "wheel" for random assignment to a new judge. The case is randomly assigned to one of the four judges in SD FL appointed by Obama. Trump is convicted. How do you think that conviction would be viewed by Republicans, as opposed to a conviction in a trial presided over by Cannon?
The Justice Department and Jack Smith understand full well this case will be arbitrated in the court of public opinion as well as by a jury of citizens. Inditing citizen Trump in Florida and likely expecting this particular judge to preside, demonstrates high confidence in their case and insight into the relatively small percent of citizen voters who need to be persuaded not so much of citizen Trump's guilt, rather that voting for him is no longer an option.
And on Voting Rights decision: the two politically savvy conservatives Robert’s and Kavanaugh can hear the drumbeat in the distance: “🥁 expand the Court” and want to tamp down a surge in the 1 of 4 reason for diverse constituencies to turn out in ‘24:
Regulate Guns, Reproduction/Rights/Equality for All and... you guessed it: Expand the Court.
Robert, my hashtag for sharing Today's Edition every day is #HubbellInspiresHopeAndAction This edition might be the most perfect example of that. Thank you!
The indictment is indeed damning. If you haven’t already read it, do yourself a favor and do so. It reflects the professionalism and thoroughness of the Prosecutorial team and, for me, is reassurance that Trump has finally met his match.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf
Your concluding paragraph made me chuckle....not searching for dramamine but a good suggestion. I concur with your thoughts on Fintan O'Toole's description of why-else-would-he-steal/lie/hide-secret documents. Money. They mean money and power down the road to be traded.
They sure weren't for his scrapbook or his library. Now there is a chuckle.