Trump FL Records Case: Judge Cannon Fires Back At Lying Jack's Smears - should consider a gag order

Huh? It's still trucking along, dude. And the case against him is strong. How is his lawyer's legal predicaments for the same fake, illegal elector scheme going. The fake elector scheme was BLATANTLY illegal and absolutely unconstitutional.

 

Focus WBK, focus! You keep swinging at windmills like Agent Oranges.....it's not a good look.

 

You should stop using that quote because you obviously doesn't know what it means, HN...lol

 

6 charges have been dropped. The phone call is no longer part of the case. That was the most important charges.

The Constitution isn't a criminal statute...lol

 

You keep grasping at, and swinging for, strawmen hoping for a lift or a lifeline WBK, what's up with that level of denial of reality and worse, desperation??!! Rhetorical man, JIC

 

Stop being angry because you're not getting your way...lol

 

Projection is confession for the Trump faithful, one is most welcome if it makes one feel better!

 

Out of how many charges again? Lol. And you get another "I didn't read" award. I never said the Constitution was "a criminal statute. By the way, since I know (like all Trump supporters) didn't actually read anything at all about that judge's ruling, the 6 charges that were dropped were dropped due to clerical errors, and the judge said that the prosecution could bring them again if those errors are fixed. AND he said that the actions mentioned in the charges could STILL be used in the trial under the category of furthering actions under RICO.

 

Your citations are irrelevant. You clearly do not understand what is going on in this case.

He can petition the 11th circuit for a writ of mandamus to have her removed.

1. She's been rebuked twice by the 11th circuit.
2. Her last request to Smith clearly revealed her failure to apply the law.
3. She has made a number of unusual rulings clearly designed to help Trump, the man who appointed her, including slow walking the case so that it's not tried before the election, revealing she is biased.

A number of legal scholars have arrived at this conclusion she has enough malfeasance to warrant removal.

And he probably will do it before the jury is sworn in. In her instruction to Smith, she tipped her hand about jury instructions, big mistake. We now know she plans to dismiss the case after the jury is sworn in based on bogus jury instructions. Smith has grounds for a writ of mandamus.

"Her incompetence is so gross that I think it clearly creates the perception of impartiality– of partiality, and her attempt to put her thumb on the scale. So, I think that should disqualify her," --Ty Cobb, former Trump attorney

"Judge Cannon's decision was favorable to Trump by virtue of all but ignoring the law, refusing to apply it correctly, and rejecting the government's position without explaining why," --Joyce Vance, former federal prosecutor

 

The charges were dropped because the indictment didn't give enough information on how the law was broken. IOW, a lack of evidence.

To recharge, the DA has to take the charges before a grand jury, all over again.

 

Yes. She does. And the judge says she can. And, again, the details involved can still be used in the case in reference to the larger charge.

 

That is her job… “gotten wrong about this case.”. You have….

 

And the original was the DC grand jury… the just dumped it in her lap…... the next will be a Florida grand jury…

 

At least you admit that you think it is her job to be corrupt and to ignore the law. And I have . . . what?

 

The details involved are no longer evidence.

 

How is she "ignoring the law"? And don't say she is just because Smith says she is. He's biased.

 

You are incorrect. As predicted. They can still be used as evidence of ongoing actions under the RICO statute. The judge explicitly stated this.

 

By ordering Smith to tell the jury that the law doesn't say what it says.

Because the law says it. The charges are NOT based on the PRA. PRA is NOT a criminal statute. And the PRA does NOT state that the President can maaaaagically turn an official document into a personal document and that no court can ever hear a case determining whether a document is official or personal. And the PRA does NOT say that documents become personal when they are declassified.

 

That's according to Smith. I said don't do that.

 

That's according to the PRA. I didn't do that. Please provided evidence for the time machine Smith used to write the PRA.

 

No, you're parroting Smith. That proves you have no clue what's going on.

 

I'm sorry that you think the PRA doesn't exist.

 

I'm sorry you think it's a criminal statute.

 

Then why hasn't he?

And yet, no writ.

 

She is the opposite of corrupt.