From Cannon’s “ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TRUMP’S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BASED ON PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT”
Separately, to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust [see ECF No. 428]. The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case. Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression. As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law.
She’s decided to get to the stage with a jury, attach jeopardy, and then immediately dismiss the case on BS grounds. Because jeopardy was attached (the case was tried, even if in a perfunctory and illegitimate manner), then you can’t charge the defendant with the same crime again. This way, she can essentially discharge the crimes permanently.
That does mean she needs to actually get to the trial stage of things. It also means she can use the trial scheduling to keep tripping up the other trials for his crimes in other jurisdictions as she moves her trial dates around to block progress by other judges. She’s actively trying to undermine the judiciary, the rule of law, and protect an enemy of the republic.
This can just get appealed, right? I mean obviously the clock is on Trump’s side, but a judge can’t just magically wave away crimes on double Jeopardy like this, can they?
I’m not a specialist, nor lawyer. The discussion I’ve heard so far is that if the judge dismissed the case after the jury is empaneled, but before much (or any) evidence has been presented, then it limits what can be appealed. Appeals can only be done on the case as it was run, not with new evidence, so if she ends it before the prosecution can enter evidence and arguments, then the appeal process might not have much to appeal.
Whether that strategy would actually work to protect the defendant, I don’t know, but it’s currently a scenario being floated by some commentators (who actually are lawyers) watching the case.
She’s daring Smith to appeal. He should oblige her.
He’s brought her malfeasance to the 11th Circuit before, he’ll do it again.
You really don’t get to see the word malfeasance enough, bravo
And I was recently told elsewhere that I should try to “understand people who are objectively smarter than [I am]” and that I have a “lack of empathy and experience.”
At least I have vocabulary in my corner.
Eli5?
He apparently just did on some other decision. This will keep going until the appeals court figures out a way to get it reassigned.
deleted by creator
I’m guessing tossing the whole case out would be just a step too blatant compared to all the other gifts she’s given Trump thus far.
deleted by creator
