Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

New FOIA documents reveal raw hostility inside FBI after Trump search
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-15/trump-documents-raid-at-mar-a-lago-sparked-protest-from-fbi-employees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

New FOIA documents reveal raw hostility inside FBI after Trump search
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-15/trump-documents-raid-at-mar-a-lago-sparked-protest-from-fbi-employees

Find the rest of this fifth column network in the FBI and release them from their jobs. They’re clearly unintelligent and put their party loyalty over their loyalty to their country.

[Anonymous]

Is there any reason folks haven't brought up Judge Cannon's recent order?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/classified-documents-case-judge-presidential-records-act/index.html

It's an interesting order that seems to put prosecutors in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, they need to provide sufficient facts to allow the jury (finder of fact) to determine whether records were personal or presidential, or alternatively, concede that a President has the authority to determine this question.

Some journalists have claimed that the former would require prosecutors show highly-classified material to jurors, but absent providing additional information to jurors about the nature of the materials, jurors would have to accept (as fact) the prosecution's position that all of the records were personal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason folks haven't brought up Judge Cannon's recent order?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/classified-documents-case-judge-presidential-records-act/index.html

It's an interesting order that seems to put prosecutors in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, they need to provide sufficient facts to allow the jury (finder of fact) to determine whether records were personal or presidential, or alternatively, concede that a President has the authority to determine this question.

Some journalists have claimed that the former would require prosecutors show highly-classified material to jurors, but absent providing additional information to jurors about the nature of the materials, jurors would have to accept (as fact) the prosecution's position that all of the records were personal.

Correction - "....all of the records were NOT personal."

[Anonymous]

For a clerk to resign is rare. To have two is unprecedented.

[Anonymous]

That recent ruling is very dangerous. She said she will decide during the trial, after the jury has been seated. That is batshit crazy. If she rules for Trump, then double jeopardy will have attached.

I would like to know if Cannon can be removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason folks haven't brought up Judge Cannon's recent order?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/classified-documents-case-judge-presidential-records-act/index.html

It's an interesting order that seems to put prosecutors in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, they need to provide sufficient facts to allow the jury (finder of fact) to determine whether records were personal or presidential, or alternatively, concede that a President has the authority to determine this question.

Some journalists have claimed that the former would require prosecutors show highly-classified material to jurors, but absent providing additional information to jurors about the nature of the materials, jurors would have to accept (as fact) the prosecution's position that all of the records were personal.

The presidential record act is not applicable in this case. The judge is trying to get a a jury seated, instructing the jurors on the wrong law which will force the jury to apply the wrong law to the case. This will lead to an acquittal. Once the jury is seated double jeopardy applies. Trump will go free because of the judge.

[Anonymous]

At least two of Cannon’s law clerks have quit on her.
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/judge-aileen-cannon-law-clerks-quit-on-her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason folks haven't brought up Judge Cannon's recent order?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/classified-documents-case-judge-presidential-records-act/index.html

It's an interesting order that seems to put prosecutors in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, they need to provide sufficient facts to allow the jury (finder of fact) to determine whether records were personal or presidential, or alternatively, concede that a President has the authority to determine this question.

Some journalists have claimed that the former would require prosecutors show highly-classified material to jurors, but absent providing additional information to jurors about the nature of the materials, jurors would have to accept (as fact) the prosecution's position that all of the records were personal.

The presidential record act is not applicable in this case. The judge is trying to get a a jury seated, instructing the jurors on the wrong law which will force the jury to apply the wrong law to the case. This will lead to an acquittal. Once the jury is seated double jeopardy applies. Trump will go free because of the judge.

There must be a way for the government to appeal if the judge gives wrong jury instructions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason folks haven't brought up Judge Cannon's recent order?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/classified-documents-case-judge-presidential-records-act/index.html

It's an interesting order that seems to put prosecutors in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, they need to provide sufficient facts to allow the jury (finder of fact) to determine whether records were personal or presidential, or alternatively, concede that a President has the authority to determine this question.

Some journalists have claimed that the former would require prosecutors show highly-classified material to jurors, but absent providing additional information to jurors about the nature of the materials, jurors would have to accept (as fact) the prosecution's position that all of the records were personal.

The presidential record act is not applicable in this case. The judge is trying to get a a jury seated, instructing the jurors on the wrong law which will force the jury to apply the wrong law to the case. This will lead to an acquittal. Once the jury is seated double jeopardy applies. Trump will go free because of the judge.

There must be a way for the government to appeal if the judge gives wrong jury instructions.

It can’t be appealed after a jury has been seated. Leaving the decision open has made it unappealable at this point.

This is why I’d like to know about the steps needed to remove a judge from a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason folks haven't brought up Judge Cannon's recent order?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/18/politics/classified-documents-case-judge-presidential-records-act/index.html

It's an interesting order that seems to put prosecutors in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, they need to provide sufficient facts to allow the jury (finder of fact) to determine whether records were personal or presidential, or alternatively, concede that a President has the authority to determine this question.

Some journalists have claimed that the former would require prosecutors show highly-classified material to jurors, but absent providing additional information to jurors about the nature of the materials, jurors would have to accept (as fact) the prosecution's position that all of the records were personal.

The presidential record act is not applicable in this case. The judge is trying to get a a jury seated, instructing the jurors on the wrong law which will force the jury to apply the wrong law to the case. This will lead to an acquittal. Once the jury is seated double jeopardy applies. Trump will go free because of the judge.

We are witnessing in real time is the rule of law being applied to subvert the law. Our system was not built for the Trumps and enablers like Cannon.

Muller, Jack Smith, SCOTUS won’t save this country. We, everyday citizens will. Donate & volunteer today for any Dem race in swing state. Voting isn’t enough. And don’t come at me with sitting out/3 party crap. Be a grownup and accept the reality we’re in, not the fantasy you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a clerk to resign is rare. To have two is unprecedented.

Follow up:

[Anonymous]

The only surprise with the clerk quitting is that there’s a point when even a conservative has to call it quits for their sense of self. What’s the invisible line for those people? It’s not like it was a surprise that Cannon was incompetent and corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't this judge have any friends who can persuade her that she needs to be conduct herself professionally?

Because applying the wrong law is a lose-lose for her. Trump has many other trials in which he has, and can, be found guilty. It's not like this one is the only one. Trump, whether or not he's President again, will die soon, and everyone else has a very poor opinion of this Judge, even the conservatives in her own party.

Someone should tell her she's creating serious career and reputational harm for herself.