Special counsel Jack Smith urged a U.S. appeals court to reverse the dismissal of the criminal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.
  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    3 months ago

    Personally, I urge the impeachment of Judge Cannon… amongst a sea of corrupt officials they truly are someone who stands head and shoulders above the rest.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        3 months ago

        Yes, I think that Judge Cannon is much more blatantly corrupt than Clarence Thomas and I don’t say that lightly.

      • Scratch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        With Joe stepping down and a surge of support for Kamala, is there a point where the Supreme Court has to accept they’re not winning this time and switch to clean house of people who overplayed their hand?

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          What? No, definitely not. They’re appointed for life and don’t have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do.

          (Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.)

          • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
            0·
            3 months ago

            no Democrat is likely to do that

            Honestly this is what pisses me off.

            When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don’t shoot, they will.

            Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans… But they don’t.

            They take the “high road.”

            The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses.

            • ryrybang@lemmy.world
              0·
              3 months ago

              They don’t even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately.

          • doughless@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 months ago

            If Democrats are ever lucky which to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions.

            Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though

            • frezik@midwest.social
              0·
              3 months ago

              Grossly unlikely. We’re likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it’s outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote.

        • MagicShel@programming.dev
          0·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he’s advising her, I wouldn’t take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else.

          • dudinax@programming.dev
            0·
            3 months ago

            It’s real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 months ago

            Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That’s a good start.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      People need to show up, vote, and flip the house.

      If we can flip the house and keep the senate, she can be impeached. She can’t be impeached now, because the corrupt folks that wanted her are protecting her.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I can’t believe that anyone appointed by Trump is allowed to preside over Trump the defendant. That’s the most blatant conflict of interest I’ve ever heard. It’s cartoonishly corrupt.

      • Delusional@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        I can’t believe they’re allowed to keep their positions when they were given those positions by a literal traitor to the nation. Same with his shitty policies.

        Corrupt detective’s cases are all put on hold and past ones looked over when found corrupt. Why isn’t the fucking presidency any different? It should be more prevalent in this case.

      • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
        0·
        3 months ago

        Lawyers on podcasts I listen to have said it’s normal and OK, but that Cannon is the exception who’s making it look worse than usual. She’s clearly in the tank for Trump. I’d also like to see her impeached.

          • AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml
            0·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, I guess also we’ve never really seen a president-- the guy who makes the appointments-- on trial before, so it’s definitely something I’d like to see reviewed

            I suspect that Trump may yet inspire constitutional amendments in the future, but only after he’s been removed from the chessboard

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    I’m glad they did it, but I’m frankly a bit mystified that they didn’t get the ball rolling on this sooner. The (clearly nonsensical) dismissal happened a while ago.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      It takes time to get all your paperwork and argument sorted, and then more time to get an appeal scheduled.

      We don’t want this falling through because a procedural mistake.