So, it sounds like today's hearing in the Florida case turned into a sh*tshow with Nauta's lawyer, Stanley Woodward, claiming that the DoJ threatened to influence a judgeship nomination if the lawyer did not pressure Nauta to flip on Trump. The DoJ, of course, denied it and the lawyers started yelling, "Did too!" "Nuh-uh! Did not!" at each other until Cannon finally stepped in and told them to knock it off. The meeting was not recorded and Woodward had no witnesses or evidence to support his claim other than he had been recommended for a judgeship and wasn't a judge now. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/22/politics/trump-documents-case-judge-cannon-hearing/index.html
I am having trouble with the incompetent argument(not that she isn’t…but as an explanation of the totality of her behavior). Duke undergrad* and Michigan law. She ain’t dumb. Shes privy to all the discovery…sealed and unsealed…redacted and un redacted. She knows how much worse it is than what is already public. She’s either naive or corrupt. The fact that she’s seen all that and still “leans” Trump is pretty telling IMHO. My take is she’s corrupt…and doing everything she can do delay….and do it in a manner that isn’t so overt that she gets kicked off the case. See your CIPA comment. While the process technicalities may be complex….the basic concept isn’t.
I have no idea where to put this but I know it doesn't belong in the tweet thread. Soooooo.... does Alito have an ex-wife, sister, daughter or another female in the family he can throw under the bus? I assume the NYT did their due diligence and verified the photo and locale. I wonder what BS excuse he is going to invent about his neighbor to justify putting this up. Another Provocative Flag Was Flown at Another Alito Home - The justice’s beach house displayed an “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a symbol carried on Jan. 6 and associated with a push for a more Christian-minded government. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/us/justice-alito-flag-appeal-to-heaven.html I am pretty sure I have seen this flag sometime in the last few years. The reason I know this was because the first thing I thought was "Hmmm Maine transplant?" but the wording threw me off. I knew it wasn't an old Maine state flag, but I didn't know what it was
I don’t know where to put this either….but speaking of flags…one of the biggest things that pisses me off over the last decade is the co-opting of patriotism by the fascist (I realize that’s a bit naive). I remember back in the day donating for the BAF. I also remember quire fondly when the rattler flag first appeared at US games. The fact that both have rapidly become symbols for the growing American fascist movement really enrages me. I really want to take patriotism back from these assholes.
Oh for…so, so predictable. Next you’ll tell me she dated Stephen Mller while she was there, just like Dinesh and Coulter or Ingraham at Dartmouth.
I'm loving watching the MAGA crowd have a conniption fit because some d-bag on Twitter is making a federal case (no pun intended) out of the fact that the FBI was "authorized to use deadly force" when they went to MAL. That's like finding out your prescription for sleeping pills says "make make you drowsy" and deciding it's a plot to brainwash you into sleeping. I thought all these law and order types were all for cops having qualified immunity and being able to smoke people at will because, you know, freedom. What a bunch of pathetic morons.
Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, has one flying outside his office. We have discussed it in a few places here. edit - discussion probably better in the Trump failure thread, or the SCOTUS thread.
It has been pointed out on a few different podcasts that lawyers have a specific focus, but when one becomes a judge, they have to rule on everything in front of them. So, in Cannon's case, she might have been a decent, or even good lawyer, but being a judge is a different story. And relatively early in her career, she got a really heavy and difficult (and specialized) case. On top of that, because two of her clerks quit, and another withdrew their employment, she might also be a bad manager. Thus, some of the stuff she is asking, could be, apart from the bias and ignorance, be her trying to find a work-around to have a lack clerks to be able to do the necessary research. But, again, the CIPA stuff is well beyond her. From all accounts, it seems that she is naive, corrupt, incompetent, and a poor manager. But, I agree that she is being savvy enough to do not enough to get kicked off (Mandamused) the case.
I'm not. They are focusing on the violence. You have long approved of casual violence, so I'm not surprised you are enjoying this. But that they are focused on the violence aspect is something they might use to justify a violent response.
I’m not either. But it’s fascinating to watch how quickly the other side abandons the shouldn’t have resisted argument.
I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that I have "long approved of casual violence" -- I'd first like you to define what you mean by casual violence. Do you mean I'm okay with people punching random people on the sidewalk? Maybe it was the multiple times I have opined that if Trump goes full Hitler, the gloves are off? Because that is not "casual violence." It's full-on hard core violence to defend this country from a dictator.
As I recall, you have posted Mussolini's execution multiple times. And you have called for violence when none has been warranted.
Didn't everyone learn during BLM that the fascists don't mind police violence, so long as it's against those uppity minorities and race traitor whites?
I think I also posted the Ceausescu's getting their just desserts. Nothing casual about that. And I have never "called" for violence, though I have certainly posted about when I think it might be justified to overthrow a dictator. Maybe in your mind, even in those circumstances, violence is not justified. I respect your opinion. I like to think that faced with living under a regime run by someone like Mussolini, Ceausescu, or Hitler I'd be on the side of those trying to do something about it. YMMV.
Naivety is only an explanation if you assume her actions and decisions are made in good faith. I assume the opposite.
Good call: she got this job as a form of patronage to reward her for her dedication as a GOP party hack. THAT is her career, and not the law. The law is a means to an end for her.
I was using your word. I prefer ignorant. Not figurative, but literal, as it applies to her job. Once again, I point to the CIPA hearings. Now, if you want to make her one dimensional, go ahead. But I will continue to argue that, beyond her corruption, she is also, at the least, ignorant of some of the law. But I will also argue that some of this - at least relative to the overall speed of decisions - is due to her poor management of her staff. Mind, I think she would have delayed, or worse, the trial anyway to be post election at the least, if ever. Overall, I'm still in agreement with Parloff that she'll dismiss once the jury has been seated, and that will not be grounds for appeal.
TPM found dozens of instances where trump’s attorneys asked questions designed to elicit praise for Trump. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/big-huge-golf-how-trumps-lawyers-used-the-trial-to-flatter-him
i think it was George Conway who pointed out she is both corrupt and incompetent if her goal is simply to tank the case there are way more subtle and effective ways to do it which george explained. she is what happens when crony goons get over promoted.
Now this I can accept….though I’d still say this….it’s possible she doesn’t want to tank the prosecution. She merely wants to drag it out until past the election…as when he is “elected”…this trial won’t matter.
Her desire for plausible deniability for being a Trump hack who is throwing the trial to protect him is not really plausible.