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.

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 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.

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.

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

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."

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 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.

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

Thank you!

Anonymous wrote:How do they show evidence to a jury when it’s all classified?

They will give the docs to the jury to review.

“What is the silent witness rule?
It is a judicially created process that is similar to CIPA substitutions with one key difference: The jury sees the classified evidence, while members of the public in the gallery get less information. By contrast, under CIPA, both the jury and the public see the same thing.

Under the silent witness rule, for example, a witness and the jurors could be handed a document that is still classified, but it would not be made available to the public. During testimony, the witness might refer to “the matter in the document’s third paragraph.” By looking at the document and following along, the jurors would know what the witness was specifically discussing but onlookers would not.”

https://www.nytimes.com/article/trump-classified-documents-evidence.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do they show evidence to a jury when it’s all classified?

That's the problem. The government is saying 'trust us'. Trump has to get lawyers to review.

Trump also cannot be trusted. They can’t redact it before showing it to a jury?

Anonymous wrote:How do they show evidence to a jury when it’s all classified?

That's the problem. The government is saying 'trust us'. Trump has to get lawyers to review.

How do they show evidence to a jury when it’s all classified?

Wow, Cannon seems to have found something from Trump that she won’t swallow.